Summations Only

So, now you admit that there was an earlier phase of mountain building?

Just from reading your account, I can already tell that this is another deception of the public by YEC that I don't have time for.First of all, rapid deposition does not create sorted, tabular extensive deposits. If that were so, then the debris from Mount Saint Helens would look like the Coconino sandstone.And no, he cannot state the the depositional area of the Coconino is larger than any 'sedimentation going on today'. The abyssal plains of the world are evidence against that statement.And no, the angle of cross bedding for sand dunes is less than approximately 34 degrees, because that is the angle of repose for fine desert sands; and there is a lot of variation in both water-lain and eolian cross bedding anyway. Not only that, but they often tend to be curviplanar so it depends on where you measure them.And of course we get different methods using different radiometric techniques. We've been trying to tell you this for years now. Each method has a different decay rate depending on the parent material. We are always measuring slightly different things. However, a billion years is not going to turn into 6ky under any circumstance.You are being deceived.

Flume results are not extensive. Nor do they express the range of compositions and particle sized of actual rock formations. Where are the limestones?The lower and upper layers are unsorted as I would expect. The middle layers look more like ash flow(s). Not exactly a major rock formation.And perhaps I misspoke. While some types of deposition are rapid, the kind of sediment loads implied by your flood cannot create widespread, sorted, tabular deposits. The velocities and turbulence necessary to keep them in suspension while traveling across the continent would not permit it.The MSH deposits are not widespread. They are not sorted into pure layers on a continental scale. First of all you said 'anywhere in the world'. AFAICT, the abyssal plains are part of the world and they are receiving sediments.Why do you think they are called 'plains'? By the way, you due understand the concept of vertical exaggeration don't you?And we haven't even started on Walther's Law and marine transgressions, so actually, deposition of the type you call 'strata' IS going on. Then you don't understand what I wrote. 34 degrees is the maximum slope of the eolian sand. It can be less and easily overlap with the water saturated sands.As I mentioned, sand dunes in particular can show a range of cross-bedding dips. Depending on where you measure them, they can be significantly less than 34 degrees.And yes, the measurements were taken by creationist teams. Yes. For instance, radiocarbon does not date events occurring in deep time such as the formation of the earth. Different methods date different events. In fact, IIRC, Ar-Ar methods are capable of measuring different events in one rock. This could be true but not necessarily. Different minerals have different closing temperatures and therefor may provide slightly different dates. What we actually measure is when the closing temperature for for a given mineral or set of minerals was reached.There are plenty of other reasons too, such as contamination by older rock components. And this is why I always say, that we should not allow YECs to do radiometric dates without adult supervision. Not really. You have ignored certain forms of evidence such as radiometric dates which display a pattern of occurrence. You have also ignored geological processes and their cross-cutting kinematics - relative ages. You have largely depended on the the rocks of the Colorado Plateau which do not record a lot of the evidence of mountain building and magmatism that we see elsewhere in the world.

But actually, it is. Just very slowly.But of course the is a difference between pelagic sediments and continental sediments as the former will probably not be preserved in their original geometry since they are moving toward a subduction event in the geological future.The point is that sedimentation is taking place on the same scale as your 'strata'.And, as I mentioned earlier, we haven't even touched on Walther's Law which explains how thick and extensive strata form in the continental areas.

Yes, I was a bit rushed at the time. Sure, I don't think I stated an actual difference, in fact at one point, I said 'slightly different ags'. Well, that's the range of uncertainty that YEC needs. And if you misapply method (like carbon-dating), you could come up with that kind of difference. But YECs are not so constrained.I was entertaining not just the alledged difference in dating, but the misapplication and poor methodology by YECs. Sorry for the confusion.

Unless they changed textbooks after I left, I can assure you that these details are taught at the undergraduate level, often by the students at the graduate level. It is inconceivable that Austin or others could not have learned the mainstream explanation for the the deposition of strata. It is conceivable, however, that Austin had already decided to reject the mainstream before he entered university level education and decided to deceive the willing creationist minds.

There are many kinds of evidence, including false evidence. According to whom? I have never heard of this requirement for evidence. Probably some are true believers. It seems that some people are easily deluded. What physical facts? Saying that there are physical facts is not evidence. This is not a fact. Where do you get your information? This sounds like an opinion, which is NOT evidence. Being laughable to you does not comprise evidence. We have been over this many times, Faith. Rapid processes do not indicate a young earth.

And it's still 'blithering nonsense'.

And I suppose that they have an example of this happening?So, let me get this straight. You have a layer of sediment laid down by the flood and then the flood goes away while creatures come out and live on the previous layer. Why did they do that? Then the flood comes back with another layer.So, how many times did the flood return with another layer of sediment?And this surge of sediment laden water does not disrupt the previous, still wet, layer of sediments? To you. How do you know this? Have you ever seen creatures just 'milling around' on sand dunes? I see creatures running away from me in the desert all the time and I look nothing like a wave of sediment laden water. And they seldom 'mill around'. There are lots of reasons why they might run, but I seriously don't see a way to tell what they are running from or toward. To you.To me, it's pretty stupid.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here: First of all it is not a 'mere claim', it is personal, observational experience.Second, I wouldn't take anything Austin says too seriously. He is a known prevaricator.Third, I'm not sure what you mean by 'this supposed lie'. I know pretty much what is taught in Geology 101 and it isn't what your YEC masters tell you. I have also presonally seen the evidence.

You insinuate that I have no support. Lying is lying. I don't care what side you look at it from. That would be kind of strange, particularly since we crossed paths at one institution. Since I am the source, I'll take that as meaning that you question my integrity. Nevins' (er, Austin) has been documented as faking his history several times. Here is one first-person recount:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt1.html That is not first-hand evidence. Did you sit in a classroom? Did you visit the rock outcrops?Reading about geology is not the same as training, particularly considering the mindset that you started out with. To you. I think I'll go with the people who have spent careers studying these things.

Remember, your 'waves' were supposed to destroy all life on the planet and yet after each of the 6 waves, there were creatures shown living at the time.How does that work?

So this wave runs all the way across the continent, then all the way back to the sea and doesn't erode the footprint away. I'm not so sure that you have ever been to a seashore. Sure, that happens all the time at the beach. The sand solidifies over night.Sure... And the water moves so very gently that it doesn't disturb the sand underneath, even though it carries a huge load of sediment and has to travel across the continent. Or it could just be silly.

What bones? What creatures? Why not?

Yes and all of them from the late Cretaceous: So, why no 'jumble' of all dinosaurs?And what do we know about the Lance Formation?: Yes, stream deposits... So, it's just personal incredulity on your part, yes?Do you know what streams do to dinosaur remains?They move the the bones and disarticulate them, and then deposit them in sand bars. That's why we see such accumulations of dinosaur fossils in the same kind of formations all over the world.