Summations Only

In radiocarbon dating, one does not measure the daughter isotope (¹⁴N) --- as you could have found out with half a minute's research into the method. Your false assumption that the method involves ¹⁴N makes arrant nonsense of your reply to Coyote's post. I suggest that in future you should research more and assume less.

You are wrong, as you could find out by spending half a minute looking at literally any resource that tells you how radiocarbon dating works.

Well, there are plenty of leading YECs, and of course the rank and file, who still cling to flood geology. Could you name some prominent YECs who agree with your views, or direct us to their websites? Thank you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well if you don't pay any attention to what your fellow-YECs believe then perhaps you shouldn't make posts about what they believe. I would agree; and I would add that this better explanation is to be found in geology textbooks, along with much useful and pertinent information such as that the Earth is not in fact young.I cannot say whether your own take on YEC is more or less silly than the more usual brands of Young Earth Creationism, since your presentation of it has been extremely sketchy. Perhaps you could start a thread about it.

I'm surprised that fission track is so popular. Is there a paper? Thanks.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No. How many times would this have happened in the flood?

The nautiloids drowned in the flood?How are you identifying how these things died?As for how they were buried, while some organisms were indeed buried in dune slumps or mudslides, many things evidently were not, as one can tell by observing the effects of scavengers or erosion on their remains. Then why are there multiple transgressive and regressive sequences in the geological record?

Of course it would. Are you nuts? An organism can die of non-magic-flood causes at any age. It's clear that most fossils are not of suddenly buried organisms because if they were they would be intact.Re transgressions and regressions, start here. Tides don't rise and fall that high.You should guess less often.

I think Pressie took "worldwide strata" to mean strata that were worldwide, not that there are strata all over the world. Just as one would take "global corporations" to imply corporations having branches in many continents, rather than a number of different corporations which didn't, but which collectively existed in many continents.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But there's no evidence for that. Well, of those that are not intact, what would lead us to think that they were suddenly buried at all? Sure, but the extra rises in sea-level that are tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. Do you propose that this changed during the Flood?

But the sediments in the geological record are not all of a single kind for a single time either.If the flood model accounts for the "fact" that they are, then the flood model is wrong.

That's not actually being "sorted" though, is it? The sediments weren't arranged, they just lay where they fell. But that is a huge omission of anything pretending to be a theory, Faith. Huge, monstrous, glaring. It would be captious to ask you to account for every rock, but if you can't begin to account for the fossil record, that's a whole class of things that you can't account for and real geology can account for.

The reason it makes no sense is that you made it up. Things that you make up usually make no sense.

If you can find even one chart of the geologic column that proves that each geological period exhibits only one sort of sediment worldwide, I shall eat my hat, my pants and a small Early Perpendicular cathedral.

But that's an attempt at explaining how this happened once But if you look at, say, the Grand Canyon, you get sea fossils, land fossils, sea fossils, land fossils ...