The question is, how can forests of trees, dinosaurs, fish and other organisms remain protruding from one layer of strata while waiting the enormously long periods of time for the other layers to eventually cover them and then to later fossilize?
Let me just stop you here. Firstly, you mention "trees, dinosaurs, fish, and other organisms" but your examples given are only of trees. That strikes me as significant.
What also strikes me as significant is that trees
grow into the ground, so the idea of a tree and its roots incurring itself through several deposited layers of soil, or a trunk finding itself buried under sedimentation doesn't strike me as unusual. Why should it, when we can look around and see it happening now?
And thirdly you appear to be continuing to make the same error in confusing age with process. When I say that my father's pocketwatch is 50 years old, that doesn't mean that it took 50 years to produce. Geological layers can be deposited relatively quickly. That does not in itself prove that every geologic layer is extremely young, or that every geologic layer that is millions of years old must therefore represent a million years of being laid down.
Are you going to suggest that in those areas where fossils cut through several layers of strata, that they were buried quickly, but in areas with the exact same rock and strata and no polystrate fossils are observed, each layer represents millions of years?
No. The layers are both deposited quickly
and represent millions of years. Those ideas don't contradict - just because something is old, does not mean that it was created by a slow process. Fast processes occurred millions of years in the past just as they do today.
It was suggested that the creationists doing the testing were dimwitted and did not account for contaminants and other factors or possibly that they just overlooked them.
I think what was suggested, and which any actual, practicing bench scientist can understand, is that "zero" is actually an incredibly difficult thing to measure, and that nearly all instrumentation has some kind of general background reading below which you simply discriminate. Bumgartner, on the other hand, is certainly a dimwit. And his reply is largely non-responsive to Bertsche's
extensive demolition.