With regard to Katrina evidence, you are distinguishing between sediment layers and strata, because your theory suffers from the fallacy of assuming the conclusion.
Oh brother. I hope you're not one of those folks to takes inspiration from "logic and reason" based apologists like Jason Lisle who would find the assertion that
The tuna salad sandwich I had for lunch today was delicious logically fallacious for one reason or another.
That said. No. Your response is simply incorrect. The differentiation between sediment layers and strata are key to understanding geology. Multiple layers of sediment in a particular location due to a known process is expected. Creationists cannot extrapolate that out to try and explain the myriad and diverse strata found in the geological record however. The fact that a localized volcano or hurricane produces sedimentary mud layers doesn't explain why, in the geological record, we find marine limestones layered with aeolian standstones with terrestrial paleosols, etc.
And it sure has heck doesn't explain why we find trace fossils like insect burrows, track prints, root systems, stromatolites, etc. in strata that supposedly was lain down during the Flood. Where are the examples of trace fossils and/or aeolian deposits and/or paleosols in your Katrina scenario?
There is no satisfactory scientifically derived empirical evidence that soft tissue and plant products can fossilize in natural as opposed to laboratory settings.
Gish Gallop. What does this have to do with the sediments lain down by Katrina flooding vs. the strata we find in the geological record?
But wait, there's more! I'll gladly answer your questions about "soft tissue" and "plant products" after you define what you mean by those terms. Non-bone fossils are found all the time, but usually as endocasts. The same applies to plant "products" though we have coal which is all "plant products" and we find fossilized pollen quite frequently. Again, just tell us what you mean by those terms and we can have an honest discussion.
On decay "non-constants" look for the research by Jenkins, Fischbach and Sturrock.
I did. The most prominent promoters were Creationist websites. After some digging I found a site that noted they were crunching numbers from observations decades earlier, that no one had replicated their results and that the isotopes in question were not ones used for dating.
C14 is the only process that one can even come close to empirical proof and it is shakey at best -- newly formed rock from volcanic activity dated to thousands of years?
Since volcanic rock has no organic carbon in it, why would one use C-14 dating in order to try and determine what date it was? Sounds to me like Creationist shenannigans.
Just to be transparent, yes I am a Young Earth Creationist, and have been for 25 years since my undergrad years at UVa. You do not have any valid criticisms of most of those young earth or creationist sources except that you reject their outlook and conclusions.
I'd say you certainly are being transparent. Noting in one sentence you're a YEC and in the next projecting YEC bias onto scientific discoveries that you disagree with as being philosophically based. It's been seen here to much that it's almost a cliche. The "you do not have any valid criticisms" bit is the icing on the ironic cake because everyone responding you so you far has presented valid criticisms and you have ignored them or done a Gish Gallop.
Occaisionally faulty material gets posted, but when pointed out it gets pulled down. Here is a challenge: Answers Research Journal and Creations Research Society Quarterly are peer reviewed journals. Find one fact that is false, one conclusion arrived at based upon a logical fallacy or posit one valid real criticism of their peer review process.
Spare us your huffing bravado. How about you present one or two articles you find particularly compelling and let us address them? Of course you might want to select carefully since bogus lies like IRC's Brian Thomas MS's abortion of a post title claiming that analyses of human and chimp Y specific chromosomes show that humans are more closely related to chickens than chimps
Are Humans as Close to Chickens as They Are to Chimps?
or the recent claims that Russell Humphreys' claims about Mercury having a magnetic field showing Mercury and thereby the Universe to be only 6,000 years old when his calculations, when compared with the data from Mercury Messenger show Mercury and thereby the Universe to be only ~860 years old.
Mercury III « Eye on the ICR
