Summations Only

Can you point us to ONE Creationist attempt to SERIOUSLY address the consilience of C14 dating with tree rings and lake varves? Offhand statements like saying C14 has too many assumptions, and tree rings and varves may not be annual, do not come near coming to grips with the problem. Woodmorappe admitted tree ring counting was accurate to at least 8,000, but did not address the C14 consilience.

Re-reading your post I see it is ambiguous. I would agree that Creationist arguments are indeed not hard to answer!

If the ice caps formed after the Flood, how long after?
Study of the marks left by glaciers and the distribution of fossils in South Africa, South America, and Australia made no sense to Du Toit who was studying them till he heard of Weggener's plate tectonic idea. He realised that they showed that the glaciers existed before the continents parted.
So Flood "geology" has to have the continents separating at the end of the Flood to carve the GC etc., but staying together for years while the glaciers form and leave their record. And you still have to fit in the vulcanism and seamounts, with all those quakes as the continents move. Oh, and lay down those neat layers in Suigetsu.
So much to do, so little time!

#Rule 1. The Bible is always right.
#Rule 2. All evidence agrees with the Bible.
#Rule 3. Where the evidence disagrees with the Bible, see Rule 1.

...anything a creationist says will be so garbled and twisted...

It was clearly labelled as a quote mine, which is taking something out of context. In this case it seemed rather apt.