Seashells on tops of mountains.

I like this term of yours "Flood sense". I think I'll use it.So, Buz, your hypothesis is that all the worlds big mountain ranges (particularly those with shells in and on them) were formed during the Flood.Therefore, they should all the same age.Thus, they should all have the same types of fossils on/in them.And, those comprised of the same materials should show the exact same amount of erosion.Right? I mean, that all makes sense. I don't know if it makes "Flood sense"

Buz, let's assume that your source is 100% correct and that there is MASSIVE flourine contamination screwing up all the dates.How does the flourine know to disolve only the dinosaur fossils in one bed and only the megafaunal in another?Flood theory states that the vast majority of these fossils were created in one cataclismic event, wiping out all the animals alive at the time (save those on the ark).So why don't we see any mixing at all of the bones? Never dinos (big or small) with pleisto mammals (big or small).And, why is your quote from a link which has "piltdown" in the name?

Okay, Buz, let's look at this.Both sides agree that plate tec caused uplift causing the mountains. Both sides disagree about dating methods.Jar says it happened loooong ago. You say it happened as the result of the Flood.I happen to agree with Jar, so I'm going to ask you for clarification about the timeline of events.My understanding is this:
1) World exists, all the animals and people walking around - almost no fossils are left behind.
2) Flood happens, everything is killed and 99% of the fossils we see today are created.
3) Uplift happens resulting in seashells on top of mountains.For your theory to work, there needs to be enough time for the fossils to be created by the initial flood prior to the uplift occuring. Right?If the uplift occured instantly, there would be no sediment or pressure on the seashells to form the fossils on top of the mountains. They would have been the first things out of the water.So, since there was time for fossils to be laid down prior to the uplift occuring, why don't we see any mixing of fossils? Anywhere? Ever?Why aren't there fossils of the animals killed in the flood mixed in with the seashells?I don't mean an even distribution mind you. Obviously it's going to be haphazard. But, even haphazardly, we'd expect to find 1 mammal mixed in with the seashells, right?How does your theory for uplift also account for the sorting?

Buz, I have to disagree with you here.There are two competing ideas here.Jar's idea states "this rock is X old because the rate of decay (based on observable rate of decay) says it is that old."His theory makes one assumption - that the rate of decay is stable (as has been observed)You idea states: "This rock is Y old because the rate of decay is not stable."That calls for evidence of an unstable rate of decay.
Your answer to this is: "In the past things may have been different than they are today."That in and of itself calls for evidence, this time to prove that things in the past were different.
To that you have no answer, it's just a theory.Your theory is no more valid than this theory:
The rock that Jar has is MUCH OLDER than Jar thinks because the rate of decay was different in the past.If you feel that you've come to a logical conclusion, you have to admit that this last theory is equally logical and equally valid.Therefore, it's just as possible that the world is 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years old as 6,000.

This is not how evidence works.Evidence dictates what evidence dictates.If you have "boundaries" before collecting evidence, then you are only going to collect evidence WITHIN those boundaries and ignore evidence outside of them.I'll give you an example:
"Columbus was the first European to the New World".There is plenty of evidence which supports that claim.However, the fact that there are iron tools, viking settlements and viking documents which predate that claim by several hundred years tells us that Columbus is not _in fact_ the first European.But, if the History Textbook sets the boundaries, then we don't accept the evidence from Nova Scotia because it "doesn't fit".Evidence is evidence of reality. Trying to force it into a non-reality based narrative is just naive.

Replace the word "Bible" with any other book."Harry Potter is evidence to those who know it's true"The Iliad is evidence to those who know it's true.Saying that it's evidence to those who believe it is evidence is circular. It's not supportive of the claim that it is actually evidence. No, creationism denies reality.I find it extremely disingenuous of you to be criticizing science while using a computer.I don't criticize your fairy tales using prayer.

When water sorts objects, it does so by size and shape.You can test this yourself.If "the Flood" were really happening, we'd expect to find the same thing in the fossil record. We'd see all the large animals together - T-rex, elephants, giraffes, wooly mammoths, giant sloths, all in big heaps.And we'd expect to see chickens, dogs, rabbits, microraptors, etc all in other heaps.That never happens.What we find are elephants and jackels and mice together in fossil beds.That only makes since of those animals were living in a different time and place from the T-rex.Further, we never find the elephants and the mice in the same level as the T-rex and the microraptors.Also we never find them in a lower level.If the Flood were the explanation, then it would have to be that ALL dinosaurs were bad swimmers and drown, while ALL mammals were good swimmers. And THEN, we'd have to say that sabertooth tigers were worse swimmers than giraffes, etc.Of course, this doesn't make sense when we consider the fact that there are layers of marine fossils.Also, when we consider the fact that marine fossils from the dinosaur era or earlier are never found in the same level as marine fossils containing whales or seals, etc.So, now we have to say what? That aquatic dinosaurs were worse swimmers than camels?No, the physical evidence does not support a "great flood" which is fine because it's a MYTH.It was never meant to be taken seriously. It's a bedtime story.

What does that even mean?Are you saying that the world before the "Great Flood" did not contain mammals?Now you are contradicting the Bible.If the world before the flood did contain modern mammals, then we should find AT LEAST ONE modern mammal bone in with the millions of dinosaur bones.If the world before the flood did not contain modern mammals, then there really is no point for your argument since it negates the claims of the Bible anyway