I can't possibly read all of your posts, because I'm already old and I don't have that much time left. But you seem to love complaining about carbon dating, and its alleged problems. Are you ignoring the fact that other dating systems show results consistent with what carbon dating reveals, or would you prefer we not bring up stuff like?
Do you have equally in compelling argument,emits against uranium-lead dating, or potassium-argon dating? You know, like another sixty-plus posts worth, or would you just prefer we extrapolate your hatred of facts to mean you disbelieve 100% of the stuff that threatens your fragile little religious world.
And I hope that you appreciate that I didn't bring up Samarium-neodymium dating, rubidium-strontium dating, fission track dating, chlorine-36 dating, and especially luminescence dating, because that one is so darned hard to spell. You're welcome.
Oh, and the sandstone thing. Gee, why do you think there isn't any of that same sandstone in South Dakota, Ohio or Mississippi? Or Alaska or California, or Maine, let alone Brazil or England or Japan. Why would it be localized? Why is there no sandstone whatsoever around where I live in Montana? A big flood would be, you know, big. Geologists have an explanation, but you find it inconvenient so you prefer making up stuff. That is your prerogative. Just don't expect to be impressive too.