Do We Have Empirical Demonstration/Confirmation of Abiogenesis? NO

Let's forget about volcanoes because they produce igneous, not sedimentary rock. But even in the case of a major geological, earth-wide extinction event such as the Chicxulub asteroid impact we don't see the same huge amounts of material/rock being deposited and certainly not on the planet-wide scale of sedimentary rocks.

I did suggest we set aside any fossils that might be found in strata of this kind, so can we avoid referring to 'new species' or 'evolutionary explosions' for now?

On the subject of the sedimentary rock layers themselves, they can form very deep deposits and the Grand Canyon is a good example, so I'll ask again - how do you explain this? Strata are most usually horizontal and uniform without any of the distortions and mixing that a catastrophic event would produce.

How is that supposed to have resulted from any ancient flood, in a short period of time? Apart from anything else, the volume of rock we're talking about is absolutely immense.

  When Krakatoa blew in the 1800's Lisbon had just made a long marble pier into the sea. The resulting tsunami crashed into the pier and pieces as big as 16 passenger vans were found over 3/8ths of a mile away.

   I'd expect total upheaval and everything to be everywhere, but with some generalities.

I thought the Biblical 'flood' was the result of persistent rain for 40 days and nights, so are you suggesting now that it should be thought of more as a worldwide Tsunami?

Is this The Flood according to Steven Spielberg?  😉

(But as I asked T_M, where is the immense amount of material that forms the sedimentary rocks supposed to have come from? It has to be measured in many millions of cubic kilometres!)

@stephen_33 is correct. Sediment source is a huge problem. Where did all this sediment--the equivalent of miles thick around the globe--come from? There has to be a source for all that material. That is a huge unsolved problem for flood geology (a problem I first learned of from flood geologists themselves who told me it remains a huge unsolved problem)

It was more than just 🌧 rain.

First, I'm glad we can find a point of agreement. We both seem to agree that yes, we would expect all the reefs to be at the very bottom of the fossil record. We also agree that they are not. So that's actually two points of agreement.

So in order to account for this discrepancy of observational evidence that doesn't fit a global flood, flood geologists have to claim along the lines of your suggestion that some reefs were ripped up and transported, and then somehow ended up stacked on top.

Now what you say is entirely accurate and we do have evidence not only from recent catastrophes like Krakatoa, but we also find occasional evidence in the fossil record of reefs that have for example broken off and slid down in underwater landslides to end up somewhere else. But the problem is these are only short distance transports (like you say, only 3/8ths of a mile away).

But the problem with that (in addition to the short distance) is that these six reef communities stacked on top of each other are not localized occurrences, but global. Each of the six reef communities are communities that we find globally around the world, which means that in order to account for it by a global flood the first reef community gets buried while the other five have to remain suspended in the water. Then the second one drops out while the other four remain suspended and so on (globally, everywhere around the world). And then even if that somehow happened we would expect the biggest, largest heaviest reefs to be on the bottom and the smaller lighter ones to be suspended (that would make more sense). But in fact, it's the largest, heaviest, most complex types of reefs that appear at the top of the record. It just doesn't make sense. Believe me, I wish it did. It would make things much more simple and straightforward.

   If you would read the Bible instead of simply mocking the Bible you would see that the windows of heaven were opened and the fountains of the deep were broken up. It didn't simply "rain for forty days.

   If you think about it , if all the water in all the oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, ponds and puddles all evaporated all at once and rained down on the earth for forty days it would do no more than refill the oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, ponds and puddles. There was more.

   I really don't see a problem. The material for the dirt is the material the world was created with.

I have never read anything about all the water evaporating all at once, and don't think it was necessary either, the water from underneath the earth sprang up, so the earth was in a state of upheaval along with the rain, it was a mess and the end result left one.

There's not enough sediment on the whole surface of the earth at any one time--land surface and ocean bottom combined---to create miles thick sequences of sedimentary strata everywhere around the world, nor is there enough time to erode that amount in a single year even at catastrophic flood rates of erosion 

But evaporation is a problem because throughout the geologic record we find evidence of subaerial exposure like mud cracks and ripples and raindrops, and then we have massive evaporite deposits of gypsum and other minerals that form by evaporation and red beds of oxidized iron exposed to air in the Permian right in the middle of the fossil record when Noah's Flood is supposed to be happening....very inconvenient 

   No, I'm not saying that happened. Just meant it as an example of why the flood was much more than just rain.

   Why must it be eroded?

It has to either be eroded or come from existing sediment that is already eroded pre-Flood or a combination of both

Would you mind expanding on that? In what way was it more than rain?

What does scripture actually state on the subject?

O/k, found that ...

¹¹ In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

¹² And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

..but it doesn't sound much like the Tsunami that T_M was talking about. And has anyone ever explained what 'the fountains of the great deep' are supposed to be?

It's certainly doesn't convince me as an explanation of what we see in the fossil record.

And there's a reason for that. It's not a description of the fossil record but Ancient Near East & Biblical Cosmology. The "fountains of the deep" relate to the tehom (great deep), while the rain comes from the waters above the solid dome raqia (in which the sun, moon, and stars were embedded) and which was believed to have literal "windows" that would open to let the waters above fall through 

   Then don't be convinced. The passage very clearly says the windows of Heaven were opened and the fountains of the deep were broken up and it rained for forty days. I think the fountains of the deep breaking up indicates a traumatic event but I can't be dogmatic about it. It also said that the waters afterwards receded, not evaporated. Also a cataclysmic event.

One of the problems is that the Bible depicts Noah's Flood as a single rise and fall of flood waters. Not repeated rises and falls. So YECs need to pick one rise-fall megasequence in the geologic record to be Noah's Flood.  See here for pictures, video and more explanation.

Not sure how you can be so definitive about that a whole planet was covered in water over the mountain tops and most of the water drained back into, what that looked like I cannot imagine.