I need to move on for the sake of time so let me make just a few comments in closing.
First, there continues to be assumptions accepted uncritically. @jpm says it takes a long time to make sand from granite. Did you notice his assumption? Probably not because we are just used to accepting statements without actually thinking about it. It takes no time to make sand if you are the Creator. And, based on the Bible, there is no reason to think all sand was made by some secondary means. You only say that if you are uncritical about the evidence and the explanations. Or consider @Bill_II assertion about the difference between windborne and waterborne sand. It too is based on assumptions about time, even in the time spent in wind or water. At the end, it’s a worldview issue. It’s not an evidence issue.
@Bill_II says he made no mention of trying to come up with an interpretation of the past. Except his whole explanation of sand and water vs. wind borne is exactly that. This indicates that there is not sufficient thought being given to what is actually being done in these discussions. When you look at a present grain of sand and say that it was windborne (or waterborne), you are interpretation the past about how that sand got to its present state (in appearance and location). That these very simple issues are being missed or glossed over is a significant statement about the way the discussion as a whole is being carried out.
@Bill_II also takes the answer to two different questions and pretends they are contradictory. He takes a “no” to one question and a “yes” to another question and acts like I have contradicted myself. I have to ask, if we are so bad at reading a direct and contemporary conversation, how in the world are to read the past? The answer, once again, is that you can’t conclusively determine the past by present measurements of sand, but yes you can trust what you see. The point is that you can’t necessarily trust your conclusions about what you didn’t see.
In sum I have once again enjoyed the interaction here as in the past. But it does indicate to me just how uncritical in general people are about the conversations and the foundations of them.