I can tell you haven't even bothered to read what I have been posting here or in the flood thread Russ. You don't respond to any of it and instead either simply repeat the same things over and over, or put videos up, with no indication of whether you understand what they are talking about. I've said this before of course. Why can I respond to all this creationist stuff when you will not address any of the points I've posted that show it to be wrong? Rhetorical question. Moving on.

The layers around polystrate trees form relatively rapidly. Does that mean all rock forms rapidly? No. Instead of refuting the numerous examples I've given of rocks that form by slow processes, you simply post another video with this silly claim in it.

Your first video, with Hovind, isn't about the geologic column at all. If the examples I've given of his poor understanding of basic scientific principles isn't enough to deter you, then I refer you again to detailed refutations of more of his erroneous claims at Buddika's 300 Creationist Lies Index. Here is the sort of standard this video reaches: whales and tomatoes will never grow on corn stalks, therefore evolution is false. Do you honestly, honestly believe this stuff over science from the real world?

The second video tries slightly harder. It starts with more unsupported assertions that radiometric dating is incorrect. YECs must believe this in order for their entire belief system to work but so far no one has done anything more here than claim that radiometric dates are lies. How do you lie about radioactive decay rates? They're part of the physics of the universe.

Then we have the old claim that Russ repeats, the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils. I have already shown this to be wrong here several times over yet I would bet anything that we will see Russ making this claim again and again.

Since this creationist has set up the straw man of rocks being dated by index fossils (I don't suppose he knows what diagenetic xenotime dating is, it's all lies to him), he tries to attack the validity of index fossils. He cites three which he claims were used in the past but have been discovered to be living, such as the coelacanth. I am unable to check the validity of his claims, but there's a problem with this whole idea. None of these fossils he has mentioned are by any stretch of the imagination common or widespread. I know that the coelacanth is found in one specific part of the world, in deep waters, and the reason why it was unknown there for so long is because it is quite a rare find. As fossilisation itself is a process that rarely occurs, then the chances of a rare species being fossilised are slim. Therefore we don't find coelacanth fossils in recent strata. Millions of years ago when this was a much more commonly occurring fish, then we do. Scientists aren't lying about the fossil record because this is what we see in it: that the coelacanth disappears. But because we know that some coelacanths do exist today, it would no longer be used as an index fossil.

There are two assumptions here: a) on my part, that the person in the video has accurate information, which I feel rather skeptical of; and b) on his part, that if you rubbish an index fossil you disprove that the entire geologic column exists. That's pretty funny. Again, radiometric dating anyone? If early geologists had been so very wrong about the relationships they noticed between rock layers, then radiometric dating could have falsified their hypotheses. Instead it supported them and continues to do so. There are over 40 types of radiometric dating in use today.

He and Hovind also claim that the geologic column cannot be found anywhere in the world in the "correct order," which I have shown to be wrong in this thread. Hovind for some reason also seems to think that the complete geologic column should be "100 miles thick." (Maybe he's talking about his own head.) He is repeating Woodmorappe's paper which started this thread, and I have also shown here that this is false. Neither of them gives a single example of the column not being in the correct order, anywhere. What these videos do show me is that Russ will repeat what they claim and make no attempt to explain or elucidate, IMO because he is unable to, though he is welcome to prove me wrong at any time.

Hovind sets up Charles Lyell as a Bible-hater who made everything up in order to rubbish Christianity, which is a pretty silly strawman. What he saw was that many kinds of rocks take much longer than 6,000 years to form and he wanted scientists to be free from the constraint of believing that the earth must be this young. Good science is not based on any presuppositions; the evidence leads and you follow. Hovind's claims of Lyell "making up" the geologic column are also silly, because a lot of work was done before his time. The Surtees video gets the history more accurately and has earned a place in my record book of creationist videos because it contains genuine information with no misrepresentations of science in the first 10 minutes or so.

Hovind then claims that putting dirt in a cup, shaking it and watching it settle is akin to studying all the sedimentary rocks in the world. If you believe this utter nonsense then I honestly pity you because you will never be able to see past the most basic misrepresentations of science dished up by these people.

Again, overall, lots of unsupported assertions, straw men, and inaccuracies. No real evidence. You've obviously been taking lessons from them Russ. How about learning some real science at some point.