quote: I've proved the Flood many times over by showing that the strata can't be explained by the Time Table
No, you have not.
quote: that they are too straight and flat to fit that scenario
You haven't even made a good attempt at that, ignoring counter-examples, ignoring the fact that sea beds are expected to be mostly flat and really no evidence other than a handful of photographs which are bound to miss a lot of evidence.
quote: that time periods can't be marked by rocks
Which seems to be a silly strawman, although you can't explain it well enough to even be sure of that.
quote: that the strata were all laid down before any serious erosion took place, such as for instance the Grand Canyon itself, and before any tectonic disturbances.
Which we know to be false.
quote: Layers supposedly millions of years apart bent together as one block.
And were subsequently eroded, and unbent laters deposited on top...
quote: The other problems don't matter a lot when the main facts support the Flood and discredit the Time Scale.
A more rational evaluation would be that your arguments are to weak to matter much in the face of the fact that you have not even a hint of a valid explanation of the order of the fossil record. And that is before we get into considering all the other evidence better explained by the scientific view.
I've proved the Flood many times over by showing that the strata can't be explained by the Time Table, ...
I don't even know what you mean by this.
The 'time table' (assuming you mean the geological time scale) does not 'explain' the strata in any sense that I know. It provides a temporal framework of relative ages of the rocks, but it cannot tell us anything about a rock.
... that they are too straight and flat to fit that scenario, that time periods can't be marked by rocks, ....
And this is exactly what we expect from sediments.
If you core modern lake sediments or just look at the bottom of any body of water, you see flat expanses upon which sediment is being deposited.
No flood is necessary for 'straight and flat' (your meaning) sedimentary contacts.
... that the strata were all laid down before any serious erosion took place, ...
We see angular unconformities all over the planet. By analogy, we live on an a modern unconformity. And theoretically, the supposed pre-flood people lived on an unconformity which, amazingly, shows no evidence of human habitation.
... such as for instance the Grand Canyon itself, and before any tectonic disturbances. Layers supposedly millions of years apart bent together as one block.
Again, demonstrably no.
We see both erosion and deformation within the stratigraphic column of most places on earth. You may deny it, but you have to ignore a lot of solid evidence against you.
Supposedly hundreds of millions of years of undisturbed strata as are seen in the walls of the Grand Canyon a mile deep. The Time Scale can't possibly explain all that.
And why not? Why has no one noticed this but you after centuries of geological research?
Why could a region not be undisturbed tectonically for millions of years?
Your say so?
And you consider that to be evidence?
But in less than a year the Flood could have laid the strata, and while the layers were still malleable the tectonic pressures could have bent them as a unit. Couldn't happen if there were millions of years between layers.
Why not? We know for a fact that under certain conditions rocks are ductile. Those conditions exist within the crust.
And lots more than that.
More than what? you haven't given us anything but personal incredulity.
The other problems don't matter a lot when the main facts support the Flood and discredit the Time Scale.
Faith, this is silliness on your part. Denial is not evidence and known processes are not miracles.
And here I thought we were having a perfectly pleasant exchange.
Until you chose to deliberately lie to my face, denying a claim that we have all seen you make repeatedly.
Having had to deal with creationist dishonesty for over three decades, I have zero tolerance for lies.
I forget things -- only too quickly these days -- I read things in the wrong context, I think you mean something else than what I said, I'm distracted because of other discussions going on, I don't think the issue you raise as important as you do, any of that, but I'm not lying. There is no need to accuse anyone of lying, there are always other possible explanations. Even now I'm not sure what this is about so I must have some otrher idea about what I said than you do. Perhaps you should make an effort to quote me when you want to accuse me of lying.
But when it is a story from a known unreliable, often contradictory, often inaccurate and often known to be false source like the Bible it is not evidence for anything more than the fact that the story does say what it says.
A great example is the Biblical flood myths where there are at least two mutually exclusive and contradictory fables as you have been shown repeatedly.
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
You can't read the Bible and deny it without lying to yourself because it's supernatural. You don't read it, it reads you.