You know, posting in a red font doesn't make your stuff any more credible... Especially since a Freeper (Dimensio) ALREADY GAVE YOU LINKS SHOWING WHY YOUR MATERIAL CONSISTED OF LIES BY CREATIONISTS, and then for some baffling reason you decided all you needed to do was ignore the evidence that your post consisted of lies, and then REPOST THE LIES in your newer post.

WHAT IS YOUR EXCUSE?

Please respond. I'd *really* like to know why such "don't confuse me with the facts, I'm going to just repeat the same false material again (and again and again)" behavior is so common among creationists. So please explain that to me, because I just don't get it. How do you "justify" such bizarre, dishonest behavior? Why do you not care that you are bearing false witness? Have you no shame at all?

And now, to address the one "point" (actually, falsehood) you made (then repeated) which has not already been debunked by other Freepers:

The geologic Column came many years BEFORE radiometric dating was conceived.

Correct -- and then radiometric dating confirmed what had already been understood about the geologic column based on other earlier lines of evidence.

Dates were initially established based on NOTHING.

ROFL!!! Look, just because *you're* not familiar with any of the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's typical creationist "thinking", though -- "my lack of knowledge means it doesn't exist".

Radiometric dating aside, the geologic column is based upon the notion that it took alot of time to form the layers.

...and that "notion" was based on many independently confirming lines of evidence.

Oddly enough, layer formation has not been observed at all over the years,

ROFL!

You've said a lot of really ignorant things before, Race, but this one may well take the cake.

So "layer formation has not been observed at all over the years", eh? Then what the hell is, say, this?

Oh, lookee -- that's the Mississippi River delta, depositing layers of sediment as we speak, and LOTS of it.

There's also a really big layer of volcanic ash for hundreds of square miles around Mount St. Helen's that was "observed" being laid down -- it was in all the newspapers, so how are you completely unaware of it?

Then there are the thousands of studies of annual layer ("varve") depositions in lake, sea, and ocean beds which you also seem entirely unaware of. For example:

In Lammi, the classic site of Lovojärvi was visited where much of the early work in the 1970 's was undertaken. In situ freezing of the sediment was demonstrated and new varves accumulated during the past two decades were recognized. Diatoms are important components of the varves in Lovojärvi as is the case in many kettle hole lakes in esker environments.
-- From http://gaia.gi.ee/~veski/Varve%2099%20in%20PAGES.html

Oh look -- here are new layers added to the floor of Bråviken Bay in the last couple of years:

For pete's sake, do a Google on "sedimentation" for zillions of examples. Or for "erosion" for that matter -- hasn't it occurred to you that the great volumes of dirt/sand/etc. which are eroded from many regions of the Earth have to end up *somewhere* else and build up new layers there? Like these huge masses of sand being relocated by windstorms:

except when you put dirt into a jar with water and shake it up. Strange thing about that test though, is that it only takes a matter of minutes for layers to form. Science can explain this phonomena too. It has to do with the particles themselves, as they sort out by density etc (they even teach this to 4th graders).

Um, yeah, so?

Oh, wait -- don't tell me -- you're going to repeat the creationist nonsense about the mythical "hydrologic sorting" which they claim "explains" how all the various geological layers are the result of stuff settling out during/after Noah's Flood, right?

Typical creationist twaddle, which sounds good "to 4th graders" maybe (and those who are as simplistic as 4th graders), but which comes crashing down the moment you actually go out into the real world (remember *that* place?) and *look*. As it turns out, the geologic column is NOTHING LIKE the kind of layering you'd get if you "put dirt into a jar with water and shake it up" on a global scale.

For just one example, here are the settling times for variously-sized particles of rock:

In "hydrologic sorting", you'd get the biggest chunks settling to the bottom first, then the slightly smaller chunks, etc. etc. until finally you got the very finest particles settling into a fine clay on the very top layer. Well guess what, Race? That's not at all you see in the geologic column. Nice try, though. Worse yet, the settling times for particles small enough to form layers of clay are *extremely* slow. At 0.81x10^-4 cm/s, the fine particles which make up even a *coarse* clay take roughly 3.7x10⁸ seconds to settle out of just a thousand feet of water (and only if the water is *still* - far long if the water is moving in any way). That's over TEN YEARS. So how exactly does this "hydrologic sorting" explain how layers of shale (lithified clays) were (allegedly) formed BETWEEN layers of other kinds of sediments with larger particle sizes during the only one year the Flood supposedly took place?

Oh wait, but it gets worse: In various places in the geologic column, there are layers of clay both ABOVE and BELOW layers of windblown sand. Please -- explain how *that* happens when you "put dirt into a jar with water and shake it up" on a global scale.

And, of course, in order to "explain" the order of fossils in the geologic column, creationists quite simply have to LIE to make that one "work out". (One tiny example: if it's all about layers made by "settling out" after "shaken and stirred" by the Flood, how on Earth did the modern pollen grains end up only in the *top* of the geologic column, and ancient pollen grains end up only in the *bottom*, despite their very similar sizes? Etc. etc. etc. etc.

If you want to actually *learn* about the geologic column, instead of spreading more of the truckloads of lies the creationist sources tell about it, this: The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood . You might be interested to know that the author used to be a young-earth creationist with a college degree from a creationist university, until he got a job as a geologist and actually got a chance to LOOK at the geologic column in the real world, and learned just how much the reality clashed with what the creationist had "taught" him.

Are you intellectually honest enough to do the same? Or do you just want to keep believing and repeating the same old falsehoods, unsullied by any knowledge of the reality?