Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?

For the same reason that it took longer to build the Notre Dame than it did a back yard shed. You don't get hundreds of feet of coral growth in a single year. What evidence do you have for rapid mountain building?

You are talking about a solid piece of rock hundreds of thousands of miles in area and hundreds of feet thick. Sorry, doesn't work that way. A whole, unbroken rock the size of a giant sea doesn't get moved by a flood. Such a process wouldn't sort fossils so that they correlate to specific isotope ratios found in igneous rocks below and above them. This is what disproves your flood story. We should see a random association between isotope ratios and fossils if your scenario is true, but we don't. Instead, we see the correlation predicted by the Old Earth and No Flood scenario. What evidence accounts for this?

To back up what RAZD said, it isn't a theory that rock layers are sorted by their isotope content. It is an observable fact.How does a flood magically sort rocks so that the igneous rocks towards the bottom of the stack of rocks have a higher Ar concentration than the rocks at the top? How is a flood able to sort trilobites and igneous rocks so that trilobites are always found below rocks with a specific K/Ar ratio?We are not using radiometric dating here. We are simply measuring the isotope content in rocks which is an observable fact. How does a flood do this?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

It is known that the isotope content of igneous rocks is not enough to cause water to sort them by tiny tiny differences, and yet that is what we see. Therefore, those layers were not created by a single event that sorted those layers by tiny differences in Argon content.

If we were to show you layers that were not flat or straight would this disprove a recent global flood?

There have been more than 40 days and nights of rain since then, and nowhere near the amount of erosion that you are trying to claim.