This thread is about the geologic column so that is what I will focus on here.



I've lost count of how many times you've said this, without ever having provided any evidence whatsoever. Does repeating it twenty times make it true? It is actually well known that radiometric dating is a tested and reliable method of geochronology, and I have given numerous examples in this thread of how areas have been dated several times with different methods that correlate. All you have done is ignore this and repeat your mantra over and over. Readers here take note: creationists cannot show with any evidence that radiometric dating doesn't work. While it is easy to provide evidence that it does work.



I have no idea which video you are talking about, or what this comment is about sediments forming faster away from trees. (huh?) Please clarify.



Instead of obligingly watching endless creationist videos which sadly take advantage of their audience's lack of basic scientific knowledge, I am going to cut to the quick here. I'm going to hazard a guess that none of your videos deal with types of rock and sediment that form slowly. They simply expect you to assume that if they show you some types of sediment that form quickly, you will happily think that this proves that all sediment forms quickly, which is just silly.

If you believe you have information that refutes what I have posted about the flood, then please post it in the flood thread, thanks.

I also think that if we are going to carry on discussing the geologic column, you need to show that one of the absolute dating methods for rocks does not work. If you cannot, then you need to stop making false claims about things you do not understand.