The antediluvian world was obviously teeming with life beyond our ability to imagine, and the supposed fossil record is some kind of illusion, not really even as consistent as you believe, but the evidence favors the Flood in any case so obviously it's wrong.
"It's really amazing how anything anybody says can, and will, be obliterated by the endless destroying machine of EvC. Truth isn't the concern really, just demolishing the opposition, that's all, . . ."--Faith
Like I said before, you perfectly describe your own posts.
It's a matter of honest seeing, as I said But that isn't going to happen is it?
The question is, can you honestly see?
In igneous rocks found above dinosaur fossils we find that the 40K/40Ar ratio is no more than 27.47 and the 238U/207Pb ratio in zircons is no more than 15.22. How does your model explain this? How does your flood sort rocks and fossils so that we always get this relationship between the isotope ratios in rocks and the fossils we find below them?
Until you answer this question, you can't claim that you are looking at things honestly. You have to explain the correlation we see between ratios of isotopes in rocks and the species of fossils we see associated with them.
Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
Nothing, they're just sediments being deposited here and there, not part of anything.
They just disappear? Seriously?
It seems pretty obvious that they are deposited right on top of the existing geologic column and become part of that geologic column. If you can't even admit this obvious and simple fact, then you have no leg to stand on.