Some (though very little) oil in the earth probably formed abiogenically, and some oil can form quickly. Your vast, and incorrect, assumption is that therefore all oil formed quickly, and in the way described in your video. Some types of oil do take millions of years to form because of the geological processes at work.

Without the oil and coal, there is still a large biomass of carbonate rocks in the earth's crust. For example, the Livingstone Limestone in the Canadian Rockies contains at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates.

Glenn Morton cites data published by Hunt indicating that the carbon in the coal alone is 50 times that in the entire present biosphere. And the carbon in all oil deposits is 660 times that in the entire present biosphere. That in oil shales and other sedimentary rocks is 40,000 times that in the present biosphere.

It would be impossible for all that biomass to have accumulated in just a few thousand years, as YECs claim. It would also spell disaster for the earth's ability to regulate its climate, as this amount of available carbon in the biosphere dwarfs the amounts that are causing concern for climate change today.



This was your response to what I said in my previous post:


What I am referring to is a specific process of sedimentation that produces evaporite rock. This kind of rock forms when mineralised water dries up. The obvious question here is, why are there layers and layers of evaporites, some separated by other rock formations, when there was supposed to be a global flood happening?



Your vague reference to dating, above, seems to suggest that you are unaware that Genetic bottlenecks are not dated in the same way that rocks are. Scientists study genetic changes over generations and they also study the genetic variability within existing populations. You will see in the above link that there is no evidence of bottlenecks in species worldwide at the time of the supposed global flood.

Interestingly, studies on the human Y-chromosome also show that a global flood could not have happened as the Old Testament claims. If it were true, than all males would have received their Y-chromosome from Noah. The Y-chromosome only exists in males and is passed from father to son, so all of Noah's sons would have received his Y-chromosome. This means that all differences in the Y-chromosomes in modern human males would be mutational differences accumulated over the past 4,000 years or so. This should amount to very little variation. However, genetic studies show that in order to account for the genetic differences in human Y-chromosomes, you need a timespan of approximately 60,000 years. Similarly, studies on mitochondrial DNA (which travels down the female lineage) show that it has too much variation to support the idea of Eve living 6,000 years ago. There is ample evidence in human mitochondrial DNA for a bottleneck event in the early history of homo sapiens but in order to explain the subsequent genetic variation in human mitochondrial DNA requires 140,000 years of accumulated mutations.

In response to my question about angular unconformities, you simply linked me to the “Drama in the Rocks” video again. This video has nothing to do with angular unconformities; it (incorrectly) illustrates horizontal deposition in a coastal environment. What's more, we've discussed this video before. The video's claim that geologists are ignorant of the sedimentation processes it describes, or that they want to conceal their existence, would appear to be contradicted by the video I posted of the geology professor lecturing her class, with diagrams, about it. It's a Geology 101 topic, though the processes don't occur in quite the way that your video represents them. As I recall, your only response to my posts was to put more links to your video in different threads across the forum.



No we haven't. So you can show that you are not making things up, maybe you can provide a reference.



I will refrain from impulsively saying the words that come to mind after having been asked to watch this certain video by this certain person yet again. What I will say is that it is two and a half hours long, so if you feel it makes a relevant point you can put it in your own words.



There are a few places in the world where localised catastrophic flooding is clearly reflected in the fossil record, because the fossils are mixed up. However, this does not happen across the world or even consistently in the same geological layers. So you can show that you are not making things up, maybe you can provide a reference.



Same question as above. Anyone can make claims. Their validity is shown through evidence.



This site gives an abstract from a study where the scientists correlated data from these three dating methods and created a mathematical formula which, with input from these dating methods, will yield a probability curve for the age of a sedimentary layer (bold my emphasis):



Here are some more links to studies where these three dating methods, and occasionally others (such as cosmogenic dating) were used:

Paleomagnetic stratigraphy and radiometric dating of the pliocene volcanic rocks of Aegina, Greece

Correlation and paleomagnetism of glacial and loess-paleosol sequences on the West Siberian Plain

Stratigraphic implications of paleomagnetic data from Honduras

For those who are actually interested in the different methods scientists use to date rocks (which include many more than have been discussed here), you can find an accessible list here.



It has to be said, I am pretty underwhelmed so far.