The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

hi chuckhopping in here kind of late, and i didnt read the entire thread.
so i might be repeating something.As far as the Agate fossil beds, i have been there several times, and have read some of the original research papers on it.I you would be interested i can give a short but fairly detailed account of how the fossil bed formed.Basically, it was a drying water hole, much like what you might see in a film from Africa on the nature channel. There is such clear and obvious proof that the deposit did not result from a flood!Things like the fact that animals died and bones accumulated for at least two years, and that many of the bones show the telltale signs of being scavenged and trampled. So there was neither rapid burial nor did all the animals die at remotely the same time. There are other things, but those anyone can look at and see for himself. And it just is not consistent with a flood.Whether or not there was a "flood" may be another matter, but one would have to look elsewhere for evidence of it. That place isnt it.

I'm not sure of the claimed date of this fossil bed.
Yet there is no reason to see it other then it is.A very special case of a collection of life preserved and turned to stone by a special SINGLE event.
The trampling can just be because the creatures were drowning and panicing. The scavenging might just be minor impulses of some of the creatures to seek food in the disaster or are just biting each other in fear or in the way.
It could all be from a quick event dealing with rising water.
If its below the k-t line.
.............................................................................
Sorry i dont have the quote feature figured out.The age is about 20 millions years, not a "claimed" age.When you speak of seeing it as other than it is, you are doing just that.It was not a "single event" can be demonstrated by the fact that
there are many bones that lay about on the surface for over a year before burial. There was no sudden burial, as shown by the uniformity of the deposit, all of it above and below being very fine grain material as would be carried by a slow shallow river, typical of the flat arid plains of the time.The bones are not "turned to stone". I have one here in my hand.
The original calcium phosphate (bone) is still present. Some minerals including silica and manganese are now also present, and they are mildly radioactive.A careful examination of the fossil bed... which believe me, has been done, and there are specimens in museums in many places including Germany...shows many details simply not consistent with your scenario. One being the varied age and condition of the skeletons after death. Another being there was no unique burial event.The site is a river channel. Waterholes in river channels dry up.
Animals congregate in a drought. Fossils are being formed all over the world, every day, as we sit here. Did you think that EVERY fossil is from one event, a flood for which there is no data anywhere?"It could all be from a quick event dealing with rising water.
If its below the k-t line."And how would quick rising water bury them? They would float away.
it could NOT be from a 'quick event" nor from rising water.All due respect but you dont know the age, dont know that it came 40 millions years after the "k-t" (boundary, not line) and dont know anything about the conditions of the site, but you still know that the
specialists who have put in many many hours of the most painstaking work understand it less than you do at a glance? That really is not reasonable.