Then your claims are incomprehensible and incoherent. My understanding is that fossils indicate flood deposits. Is that not the case? If so, fossils above and below an unconformity mean that the unconformity formed during the flood. If not, young life makes no sense of the record. Yet you say this:
So an unconformity with fossils above and below it must be formed during the Flood. Yet you also deny that this is true. Incoherent!
No, because your responses are mutually contradictory.
I see youâre ignoring the evidence you demanded of angular unconformities with fossils in them. The one in Death Valley dates to 258 MYA.
Kinda kills you young life claim deader than dead.
There was no âargumentâ to lose. You defined the situation such that evidence against it could never obtain.
Youâve made it impossible for yourself to discover evidence that falsifies your position, because you have defined the case such that evidence for pre-flood life can not possibly exist. Thatâs what is entailed when you say âIf you find fossils in what you think is a pre-Flood layer, then you are incorrect about the âpre-Floodâ label. It is that simple.â
If that is going to be your response every time a layer with fossils in it is found, then how could evidence for a pre-flood layer with fossils be discovered? How could you come to change your mind about that when you define it to be impossible?
Suppose we just said the opposite: âIf you find fossils in what you think is a post-flood layer, then you are incorrect about the âpost-floodâ label. It is that simpleâ.
I knew I could not count on it. Please tell me where I made the rule that unconformities could not possibly form during the Flood?
We understand your conclusion, just not how you reach it. We know what you believe, but the reasons why are absurd.
No it doesnât. You are trying to date it using foreign igneous rock. We go in circles in this discussion. Now we are full back at the beginning.
Then explain the physical mechanisms of how these angular unconformities which standard geology knows take million of years to form could be produced in a one-year one time Flood.
Which thereâs nothing wrong with.
So there we have it. You are right and I am wrong. Good argument! Who knows, maybe it will work. Tongue-in-cheek.
How does old igneous rock manage to weave itself throughout the fossiliferous (in your view, young) parts of the geologic column?
So you say and all the rest of science. So you have all the support, funding, volume to drown out opposing ideas.
Letâs end with this. You do not have the final word on the date of fossiliferous strata. You should know that there is an entirely different paradigm which explains the date just as well - and actually better - than your paradigm.
So we end here?
So why canât you present this âdifferent paradigmâ and show that it really does explain all the same data just as well?
You know the answer to that, and so do I. But letâs do one better than that. Pull up an example then we can both see how the igneous rock âgot thereâ.
Well, yes. But you donât have to tell me that, I already know.
Good argument!
I didnât make an argument in the post you responded to. I stated that you donât have to tell us what you believe, and by implication that you should probably spend more time trying to explain why because at the moment your position seems to be based on absurdities.
Such as the idea that a pre-flood layer with fossils in it cannot possibly exist. An absurd position.
We also have all the physical evidence your scenario canât explain. You always forget that part. 
Itâs not your rule, and I never said it was. So you now agree that an unconformity with fossils both above and below it must, in your model, have formed during the Flood. How would that work? Remember that the lower sediments must be deposited, then lithified, then tilted, then eroded, and the more sediments must be deposited on that erosional surface, all within the period of active Flood action, 40 days. (The remainder of the Flood year is a slow subsidence of the waters.) By what mechanism is that credible?
No, we donât end here. I mean you can end whenever you wanât but I have no particular desire to see it end here. Iâd like to see this discussion progress further if you could take a break from feeling what appears to be indignation that youâve found people who donât agree with you. How dare we.
You overstate your case, as usual.
You make a one line assertion without backing it up, as usual.
Why? You have all the friends and support and power. Why are we continuing? Are you worried I might be right?