No problem if you want to designate by some kind of name a system of rocks that occurs at a certain position in the Geological column, that seems very useful. It's the Time Scale idea that's nonexistent, the rocks are quite real and interestingly always found in the same position in the column.
OK, this came up before and I tried to work with it then. Now I've made the mistake of trying again.
Think of there being two time scales: a relative one and an absolute one. Computer-wise, I'm an old DOS'er who worked extensively with directories under MS-DOS long before Windows 95. I have worked so much with relative directory addresses versus absolutely directory address that it's like riding a bicycle; I can do it without having to think about it. But that analogy doesn't quite fit.
First, we have the relative time scale courtesy of the Law of Superposition. Basically it says that the lower layers were laid down before the higher layers. And it appears that you do agree with that idea. And the end of what you wrote appears to say that you agree with the actual organization of the Column, that when it says that certain rocks are at a certain point in relative time, you accept that.
What you don't accept are the absolute dates assigned to points within the Column.
Basically, those absolute dates are established through the radiometric dating of tie points (the term used by a book I have, but which I haven't found elsewhere). Basically, you cannot date sedimentary rock radiometrically. All you can date radiometrically is igneous rock, because when molten rock solidifies, it effectively "resets" its isotope clock. After that, all sedimentary rock is is recycled igneous and other kinds of rock. Yes, we "evilutionists" do actually think through these problems, as I vividly remember thinking through this "sedimentary rock" problem. So I read up on it and learned about the "tie points."
You went through this evolution before (sorry, I just slipped into US Navy terminology -- you can take the Chief out of the Navy, ... -- , wherein an "evolution" is some kind of organized group activity in which the group performs a task or receives training, so we can truly say that without evolution(s), the US Navy could not possibly function). We have igneous intrusions. We have igneous layers that deposited between sedimentary layers and others, lava flows, which deposited on the surface. And we know how to tell one from the other. Now, we cannot date a sedimentary layer radiometrically, but we can date an igneous intrusion or a surface lava flow. It is that radiodating that provides us with our tie points. If you have an igneous intrusion, then you know that those sedimentary layers were already there before the date of that intrusion, so you know that they are older. If you have a lava flow on a surface, then you know that the layers beneath it are older and that the layers above it are younger. From all the tie-point dates collected around the world, we are able to bracket in the ages of each layer of sedimentary rock. We know that this particular relative age of rock is bracketed in absolute time between this long ago and this long ago. Then to interpolate within that bracket of ages, we can look to how long the processes that formed those rocks would take.
But of course, you reject all that absolute dating. No problem; I would hope that somebody had learned something from that.
But the problem of the order of the fossils that edge presents does not depend on absolute dates. Rather, it depends entirely on relative dates, for which you have displayed agreement.
Or are you going to yet again start to try to redefine the known universe? Like the time you proved that "macroevolution" is nothing more than "microevolution" allowed to continue for long enough.
For whatever reason the Flood sorted things that way.
I don't think that you appreciate the sheer magnitude of what you are proposing as a "no problem."
Did you ever watch the movie, "Twister"? The late Bill Paxton ("We're all screwed!") and Helen Hunt as competing tornado chasers in Oklahoma with a personal past, etc, etc, etc. While watching a twister in front of them: "Cow." "Another cow." "No, I think that was the same cow." They had a classification system for tornadoes, whether fictional or otherwise doesn't matter. I'm sure I've gotten the nomenclature wrong, since I last saw that movie maybe two decades ago. The scale, like the Richter Scale for earthquakes, ran from Factor 1 to Factor 5, with Factor 5 being called, "The Finger of God," complete and utter destruction of everything in its path.
OK, Faith. Your Flood is a Factor 11-plus (because a setting of 11 is always higher than 10 -- movie: This is Spinal Tap). It was so powerful that it completely resculpted the surface of the earth. Yet at the same time it picked up entire ecosystems, entire communities, over and over again, many times over, and deposited them all completely intact, one above the other, so as to make it look like evolution had happened.
Let's go back to Twister. You have a Factor 11 tornado tearing through the landscape. Destructive forces far beyond anybody's comprehension. So that Factor 11 tornado picks up entire towns from all over the place and then sets them down undisturbed in their entirety some else. Over and over again. And never ever puts anything in any town the slightest bit out of place.
That is what you are claiming for your Flood, Faith. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
First and foremost, why do creationists insist on "scientific" explanations for all the supernatural miracles they have to invoke? A miracle is a miracle, after all, outside of the normal operation of the natural world. At this point, we have a very good understanding of how the natural world works. We have a very good understanding of the normal operation of the natural world.
So some miracles happen outside of that normal operation of the natural world. And creationists, including Faith, want to try to claim that those miracles are somehow completely natural. For example, she demands that sedimentation in an extremely short period of time is able to perform an unbelievable degree of sorting which is completely outside of actual physics. From Captain America: Civil War (available on NetFlix) Spiderman to Captain America about his shield: "That thing doesn't obey the laws of physics at all!" Faith, your Fluddye sorting does not obey the laws of physics at all!
Faith, everything you have ever argued for has required miracles that suspend all the laws of physics. You have repeatedly and falsely claimed that every one of your claims was in accordance with natural laws. That is an blatant and obvious lie!
And yet everything you have written has been seen and known to be complete and utter nonsense, the ramblings of a person utterly ignorant of even the most basic processes involved.
We know quite well how flood waters work. We know quite well how those flood waters will sort things out. We know quite well that that there is only one possible explanation that can explain the order in which fossils are sorted in the geological column, not to mention the order in which radiometric isotopes are also sorted.
We can explain all that quite simply. You have absolutely no explanation.
All that you can ever demonstrate is that you have no explanation and that your gods are pure bullshit. Why do you insist on disproving your gods in such a manner?
You can't debunk the Bible, it isn't going to happen.
[voice=Spencer Tracy in "Inherit the Wind"]So then, Faith, are you the Prophet from Nebraska? [/voice] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYfuTlTiixA, from about 30 seconds or so) Is anybody actually trying to debunk the Bible? Or just merely your naïve misinterpretations of the Bible? That is a far more important question than you could ever imagine.
Once you've got water full of sediments rising over the land you've got the ingredients for the sorting into layers that we see.
Uh, no, we know full well how such sorting actually happens in the real world.