Summations Only

If these strata do not require a worldwide flood, then they aren't evidence for a worldwide flood, contrary to your claims. Where is your evidence for this claim?

The posted pictures hardly cover 100 yards of view. How did you deduce from those photos that there all the sedimentary rocks on Mars are the same? How did you deduce that there are no thick sedimentary layers on Mars from those pictures? Look at this picture: That looks pretty darn thick to me.

We already know that there are basalt and ash layers, so that falsifies your claims right away.Second, those hills are hundreds of feet high. How is that not thick? We have sediments being formed over vast areas right now, right here on Earth. For example, there are vast limestone deposits being formed in the Caribbean right now. No global flood. How do you explain that?

Shouldn't they date much younger than they actually are? Daughter isotopes build up over time. If they dissipate, then this would result in an underestimate of age. As mentioned above, we have direct observations of past decay rates in cosmological events. The decay rates are governed by the fundamental nuclear forces (weak and strong). Changes in these fundamental forces would have far ranging consequences, including fusion rates in stars, power output from stars, changes in the ratio of ring radii within uranium radiohalos, changes in the ratio of products in naturally occurring nuclear reactors (e.g. Oklo), differences in dates using different types of decay and different isotope pairs, and a whole host of other easily observable and testable consequences.As it is, we can find thousands and thousands of observations supporting constant decay rates in the past. For example, we can consistently get the same date for the same geologic feature using K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating, even though all three use different types of decay mechanisms. Such a thing wouldn't be possible if decay rates were different in the past because they would alter rates different for different types of decay and isotopes.

Or to put it another way, the types of assumptions used in radiometric dating are on par with the assumptions we use to weigh salt on a balance, measure the speed of wind with an anemometer, or measure the absorbance of a solution using a spectrophotometer. All measurements in science use assumptions, even the ones that creationists use.

I am far from an expert, but from what I can tell you need to look for when marine deposits would form. For North America and regions like Texas, that would be the Cretaceous and also in the Paleogene. During these time periods there was an inland sea running north and south that split North America. This is when you would see deposition of photosynthesizers and other marine microorganisms that serve as a source for oil. Western Interior Seaway - WikipediaOf course, these deposits would take time to bury, and then cook. However, what intrigues me as a non-expert is the geologic history that produces the organic material to start with.I would also suspect that the Persian Gulf was once covered in an inland sea.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Looking back at the picture of the Cretaceous inland sea, it also maps to the other oil rich regions in North America. The sea covered the Alberta oil sands, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Where are they finding oil? Exactly in those places.

Many have argued that the Antropocene should start with the Stone Age, which would include the extinction of megafauna at the beginning of the current interglacial cycle.But you are right, scientists are fond of the Latin/Greek traditions within biology and geology.