Summations Only

It is incorrect to claim that creation believers are in a corner because you think they believe that all layers were flood deposited.

Maybe they were deposited faster than they think? That doesn't have to mean a flood. My thought is that each geologic layer represents something closer to a few centuries, than millions of years.

The fast depositing is related because it fits the timeframe actually. The flood did not deposit all the layers that is a silly strawman.

The same evidence we have for any depositing. What evidence (besides fantasy radioactive decay based dating) is there for slow deposit?? The door swings both ways.

No it isn't. Get over it. As for the so called dates you obtained, they would have zero meaning if the daughter material was already here when decay started right? So...was it here? How do you know? Answer well or your dates are religion.

Where's the beef? You think what exactly? You think the daughter material could not have been there because it is now produced by decay? Or..? Stay away from whatever taught you stuff.

Yes it can, because one cannot use that to describe creationists. How could layers be deposited faster than today? Well, maybe a lot of things were just not the way they are now. What if there were fountains of the deep bringing up water every day in some area? That would mean a lot of ebb and flow in nearby areas, no? What if plants grew a lot faster? That would mean that a lot more layers could be produced, no? Etc etc.The real question is why should we assume it was slow?

Actually the ratios are measured and the daughter parent ratio is used. You kidding? In the future I suggest you don't come off sounding like a know it all when you aren't.

I consider so called flood geology to be absurd and pathetically weak. For someone to toss it out in this day and age as something that represents creation believers is silly. Maybe 20 years ago...When I mentioned fast deposition I was not thinking about the flood at all. I was thinking about how layers may have been deposited in the 1600 years pre flood..which I consider rapid.As for the fountains of the deep, they would have existed since the garden of Eden I assume. Water came up as a mist to water the earth it says. Now if we had some areas where there was a fount of the deep, and water came up each day, we may have had pools, lakes, ponds, seas even...ebbing and flowing and affecting deposition.

There never was millions of years and we might as well say there was no post of yours either. One cannot wave away the flood by making bellicose statements of faith.

Since it is apparently OK to take a little pause and insult believers here, I guess I should join in and insult old age believers and God neutered science?

Tell us in your own words in a paragraph or so then. Show your stuff. Not sure why you think it is some secret, but hey break a leg.

ok

You failed to comprehend. Act accordingly.

Of course there was not millions of years. It is not a statement of faith but rather a conclusion that can only be avoided by willful ignorance.Show us a little of this evidence you claim there was no flood!!!!? Hilarious.The layers probably have the fossils in them NOT because the creatures that died and fossilized represent life on earth, but that they were the only ones in that day that could fossilize. I have no reason to assume that Adam would have fossilized or could have. We cannot judge the past by the present. I think science is wrong in having assumed they could do that.Edited by starlite, : No reason given.