quote:

---

How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:

the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

---

quote:

---

Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x1009 km3 of water for the flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all that ice (which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222% [...do the math](that's zero decimal two hundred twenty two thousandths) percent of the water needed for the flood.

Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 YBP (years before present), as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 YBP flood event.

Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations (some 21,000 years preceding the supposed flood), the mass of the ice has actually depressed the crust of the Earth. That crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly rising (called glacial rebound); and this rebound can be measured, in places (like northern Wisconsin), in centimetres/year. Sea level was also lowered some 10's of meters due to the very finite amount of water in the Earth's hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets (geologists call this glacioeustacy).

Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated terranes, i.e., the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated during the Pleistocene. This lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged interferometery and satellite geodesy [so there], as well as by geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills, moraines, rouche moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged fluvial drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage. Needless to say, these geomorphological expressions are not found everywhere on Earth (for instance, like the Sahara). Therefore, although extensive, the glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY recognisable and measurable effects on the lands.

Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, supposedly much more recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale; has exactly zero measurable effects and zero evidence for it's occurrence.

Golly, Wally. I wonder why that may be...?

Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. Since two forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an additional problem with the atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the point at which gasses of the atmosphere can escape the Earth's gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of the atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood waters; and it boils off into space.

Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In fact, ice cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores) which can be geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and relative gas ratios; and these records extend well back into the Pleistocene, far more than the supposed 4,000 YBP flood event. Strange that this major loss of atmosphere, atmospheric fractionation (lighter gasses (oxygen, nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc.) would have boiled off first in the flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained with heavier gasses (argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.)), and massive extinctions from such global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these cores.

---

quote:

---

There is evidence to suport a great flood though in ereas thousands of feet above sea level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricky

quote:

---

There is evidence to suport a great flood though in ereas thousands of feet above sea level.

---

Could you name some of this evidence?

---

quote:

---

Seashells on Mt. Everest, duh! (And don't even say the rocks just moved up there. I've never seen a rock move and neither have you.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timgraysr:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Timgraysr:

Mine is simply a quesiion to those that might know, I do not, the following. From my understanding of Genesis scriptures: There was water above and below us before the flood. The ground was a layer over water and the planet was encircled by water. We lived in what could be best describes as a steam room taking in vapor from all the minerals around us. If this were true, would it affect the results of carbon dating and the other methods of dating that we use that do not account for this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, since there is no evidence to support the supposition that "The ground was a layer over water and the planet was encircled by water", and in fact the available evidence argues against it, then there is no need for carbon dating to account for it.


Thank you for your opinion. I was hoping for an intelligent reply though. I did think the Huxly's were funny for the short time they were on though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by H. Humbert

.... (And don't even say the rocks just moved up there. I've never seen a rock move and neither have you.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beskeptigal

quote:

---

Originally posted by H. Humbert

.... (And don't even say the rocks just moved up there. I've never seen a rock move and neither have you.)

---

Haven't seen 'em move but I did actually visit the Death Valley lakebed these rocks were on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

I haven't heard anything, nor even thought about those stones for years. Has anyone come up with an explaination for them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

I haven't heard anything, nor even thought about those stones for years. Has anyone come up with an explaination for them?

---

A little rain, followed by a lot of wind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by verlch

We don't have as much to prove as the evolutionists do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by verlch

Yeah, and you AIG people take an oath where you promise to throw out any evidence/facts that go against the literal YEC view of the bible before you go and START research! See how that works? And Weiland has the nerve to complain about how close-minded "evolutinists" are?


We don't have as much to prove as the evolutionists do. You started out with 1 million years for evolution to have occured to get to the human order, now you have 5 billion. So the more evidence you find the more years you add.

---

In brief, Mary Schweitzer and Jack Horner, in spite of their protests, have provided creationists with a rich diet for over a decade without ever bothering to publicly refute the gross misrepresentations of their work.

If [creationists] are able to ignore geology, chemistry and physics, why do they even bother to lie about biology?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

This Panda's Thumb piece is a wonderful and detailed article about the fallout from the "soft tissue" discovery. And it pretty-much takes everyone involved to task:

In brief, Mary Schweitzer and Jack Horner, in spite of their protests, have provided creationists with a rich diet for over a decade without ever bothering to publicly refute the gross misrepresentations of their work.

But my favorite line has got to be:

If [creationists] are able to ignore geology, chemistry and physics, why do they even bother to lie about biology?

That's a very good question, and one I doubt will get answered anytime soon.

---