None of the internal erosion or unconformities are anywhere near the scale of things hundreds of millions of years should be expected to produce.
This is a tacit admission that you know your statement was false. Regardless of what you think about the required time to produce such erosion, you know that it exists, and ANY such erosion would be difficult for the flood hypothesis to explain.
The only argument possible is what's been given, the supposed internal erosion and unconformities, which are pathetically inadequate answers.
They are perfectly adequate if you can't explain them. Your defense is that it couldn't have taken millions of years...yet, you offer no explanation for them being there AT ALL. How did ANY internal erosion take place if the entire stack was laid down in the flood?
You're missing the forest for the trees. Even if what you say is true (it's not) that there hasn't been massive sub-aerial erosion in lower layers, your flood cannot explain ANY sub-aerial erosion, even "minuscule."
I was similarly confused by Coyote's assertion of the creationist tilt of that site, as I undoubtedly saw the same page/s you did, which were reasonable, if amateurish. So I went back to the site, and saw the page he was talking about, and it is very clearly typical creationist propaganda.
Also, the Radiocarbon article you posted is behind a paywall, since it is fairly new-- 2013. I'd eventually like to read the whole article. But being so new, it certainly wasn't the source of the claim, since the video is a couple years older.
Though I am not qualified to vouch for the content of the article, I think it would be interesting to note in your blog that the author, Glen Morton, is a former YEC. Here is an article he wrote about his conversion: