The point being there is no evidence for a flood layer in the Grand Canyon. Since when was a marine environment the same as a flood-? The deposits in those sedimentary layers show that they were formed in a calm environment. I can elucidate if you want.
There are invertebrate tracks in the Coconino sandstone and prints of reptiles and amphibians in the Hermit Shale, showing faunal succession. You are also sidestepping the issue of the CS being an aeolian deposit, though the convenient fact that you will not tell us where you believe the flood layer to be means that you can always shift the goalposts and say the CS is above or below that layer. Or more interesting still, as you have done, you can say there's no evidence at all for a flood layer, yet perversely still claim there was a catastrophic flood. I'm assuming you think it carved the Grand Canyon but you shout "strawman" whenever this is said, so I think you've having a little joke with us to be honest, by not telling us what you do think and then making silly remarks when we guess. Nice way to illustrate how "creation science" works.
Why not address just one of my questions above. Explain how cosmogenic or uranium dating for the erosion of the Grand Canyon is wrong. If the earth is young then it must be wrong. This is a problem for your position and it isn't going to go away. How about it? No comments about "I'm not wasting my time with this," "I've already explained," "can't you scroll up," "everyone knows evodates are nonsense" etc. Answer the question please.
