I do apologize for my lateness in getting this in, for I've completely forgotten. After reading through your links I found few things that I could answer well with my current knowledge, and the arguments were quite well stated. However, there are a few things that bother me still about accepting your position.
One, I found the articles on the Creationists forfeiting their previous beliefs rather unpersuasive on the whole, for the mere fact that Creationists did forfeit their beliefs does not do anything beyond making one prone give the view a fair hearing.
Two, the polystrate tree rebuttals were mostly composed of saying that Evolutionists in our current age do not believe in uniformitarianism, and such trees can be created by the earth quickly moving over a tree (by volcanic rock moved by the eruption, sand dunes moving, or other explanations). But one thing bothers me: if such a quick movement of the land happened and the tree was fossilized in that, it still does not account for the different layers the tree goes through. For if the layers are divided because they are marks of millions of years before, why would a fossilized tree be polystrate if it fossilized in the same layer of earth that covered it? It seems to me that if a tree became fossilized, regardless of how, it would remain in one layer, the one in which it fossilized. But we don't see that; the trees go through layers that represent millions of years, and I cannot possibly see how that is possible by your view of the ages of the layers in the earth.
Also I'd like to say that I was never trying to prove that the Flood happened by appealing to polystrate trees, just that they show that the layers cannot represent ages millions of years long.
Soracilla
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain