Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
So how can an eternal unchanging God feel regret for what he brought about? Or change direction?

​

It is a wee bit inconsistent, surely? Maybe it's just figurative language?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
[b]If I may:

​

mark24, Mount Everest did not exist as such in world before the Flood in the Flood scenario. Therefor covering it with water was not a problem. How did Mt. Everest form in the Flood scenario? Land masses colliding at about 45 mph, perhaps.[/QUOTE]

​

Land masses moving at 45 mph?? Are you insane? The Earth would be destroyed from the heat produced from the friction alone.

​

When two tectonic plates touch each other a tiny bit, entire cities can be, and often are, destroyed.

​

The idea of entire contiments flying around at 45 mph, as you suggest they did, is completely ridiculous.

​

You are firmly entrenched in trying to cram reality into your tiny little version of how events "had" to have happened. You are starting to look silly.

​

You are pulling this stuff out of somewhere but it sure isn't any kind of geology or physics text.

​

quote:

---

Or do you think that the slow process we observe today could cause the sharp peaks we now observe in high mountain ranges?

---

​

Why are they "too sharp" for you?

​

We can measure the motion of the Indian subcontinent, for example. We see the evidence of its slow migration. Do you have any evidence that physical law was suspended 4,500 years ago or whenever the flood was supposed to have happened?

​

[QUOTE]Where did the water go? Back into the oceans where the basins had dropped, filling in the area vacated by the out-pouring of the fountains of the deep.
[/b]

---

Is there any physical evidence that these "fountains of the deep" ever existed??

Let me just clear up a couple of things. Im not saying it didn't but I think it is very unlikely that any land mass moved at a speed of 45 mph, Though I don't think that it would exactly produce enough friction to destroy the whole world, thouh I do know that would create an emense tidal wave that would wipe out everything, but even if that did happen you have Noah and his boat to worry about, I don't know of any Ideas that could fix that problem. But I do know that we dont' have to have anything moving at even 1 mph. I think uplift would have been drastically high after and during the flood. It could have verywell taken 1000 years for uplift to slow down to its present rate. Mabye a couple hundred years. When tectonic plates move a couple inches and even centimeters it can be drastic, but this happens in a couple of seconds or minutes, which is very fast.
I don't think the sharp peaks are much of a factor though it does present a problem for millions of years of uplift, there certainly wouldn't be any sharp peaks at all like Everest has considering erositon rates.
I just showed you how it is entirely possible that it could happen within a couple of hundred years for uplift. Physical laws do not need to be suspended to any degree, though that is a different story for a beginning of the universe ex nihilo dismissing God into the equation.
Physical evidence that there were fountains of the deep existed? Seeing there are 'mountain ranges' all along the atlantic ocean and smaller ones all around the world, I can see that its pretty plain to me.

Just a note - I've killed a tree and printed out the content of:
http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonics.htm
and also most of the subsequent posts for this topic. There is enough scientific validity to that post to merit a careful response, which I will be working on.It will take me a while, but I haven't given up on this topic.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-21-2001]

Ok, I can't wait to hear your response, I've seen in places on the internet (don't take this so much as to think im laying anything on the line for this) where many secular scientists see this as a very nice paper and admire it's validity to a degree as ratio to their uniformitarian belief. Its papers like this that are starting to make new theories come up that it was a global flood but that its irrelevant to the 'old earth' theories. I can just imagine what the secular theories on origins and evolution in 10 years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Pterosaurs were reptiles, not mammals, their bodies were most likely much heavier than other birds, and the only reason it could of flown is very likely that it was because the atmosphere was more pressurized. The animal probley would not even be able to fly in our atmosphere today, it could glide for vast distances of possibly no more than a couple miles. pterosaurs weighing much more than mammillian birds would only be able to fly in the air for their first flight, they would not of been able to purch on driftwood and piles of vegetation and the few that could would have fought for it but would not of been able to stay for as long as the mammillian birds. The mechanisms in a flood for amphibians, reptiles, and mammals would be according to intelligence, habitate, body structure and density. Body structure would play a part because even denser animals would be able to float such as mammals, because of hair and lighter body weights as a ratio to tissue densities.

---

most likely lighter than birds is pure speculation, that flying reptiles have less-dense bones than terresstrial ones could be inferred by comparing bone densities of non-flying birds & flying ones. There are pterasaur species smaller than some birds & therefore I could reasonably infer that they were lighter, & of equal density, & that there should be pterasaurs today. There’s is nothing to say pterasaurs could glide any less well than modern albatross’. Given the high air pressure, even better. My point is, you don’t know either way & therefore shouldn’t speculate solutions that fit your argument just because they do. As I show, I also can speculate the opposite. Nothing is proven.That the air was more pressurised I require evidence for. What caused the extra density, & by how much was it denser?Reptiles, amphibians & mammals of similar size DO occupy the same habitats. Intelligence is irrelevant, none of them can rationalise an escape method, & all of them would retreat from advancing hot water.Also, this doesn’t explain why there ARE fossil amphibians, of the same size & body plan as carboniferous amphibian examples, in the same younger deposits as mammals & reptiles. If they’re so dense why aren’t they ALL deposited earlier?
I need evidence to show all amphibians are denser than reptiles, & both are more dense than all mammals. Otherwise its just supposition.Taking the section of the geologic record that contains mammals, there are many examples that contain similar species like antelope, large felines, canines, primates, entirely consistent in size, habitat, & potential drag factors but exist as fossils in rocks exclusive of each other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Fish would be the 'great survivors' because of course they dont' breath air so in 99.9% of the case drowning would not be much of a factor. But Fish are already in the seas when the flood started, and countless billions would have died from quick environment changes in the water located too close to erupting underwater basins during the flood. Whales would be unlikely burried to a degree where it would get the chance to fossilize before decay and scavengers.

---

But there are fossil fish bigger than some cetaceans, not to mention existing ones. Were not just talking whales here, ALL marine mammals, as well as the reptile nothosaurs, plesiosaurs & icthyosaurs.
So why would a whale not be buried as fast as a fish? You expect us to believe that the sum total of sedimentary rock was laid down in 190 days. An entire blue whale, let alone a dolphin, could be buried in a single day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Decay would happen worse with whales in many areas because it is so huge that it would likely not get completely burried for fossilization. And being such a large animal would have been distinguishable by predators and they would continually pick at it and would not be able to be burried because the predators aren't done eating the animal. Whales also would not be as subject to environmental changes like temperature or water salinity, they breath air.

---

A fish or a whale could be buried in a single day, so there would be no decay.
Whales are a bit touchy about being bathed in scalding water. Salinity is irrelevant, same goes for marine reptiles, alive & extinct.
Given the rate of sedimentation & the muddyness of water, how will any predator/ scavenger do anything other than avoid being buried? Let alone find food.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Explain what you mean by 'why were single celled organisms, the lightest, least dense, mostly easily suspendable organisms the first to be burried'?

---

There are single celled fossils in pre Cambrian rocks. These are very small & light, & DO suspend more easily in water than a dead fish. So, if countless billions of fish were killed in the fast changing conditions, why do other multicellular swimming organisms exist below them ? (Pikaia, Odontogriphus, Opabinia, Amiskwia, to name but four.) &, Why were most the easily suspended organisms of all deposited before all of them, without exception?
The oldest undoubted fossils, primitive algae, exist in rocks 2.9 bn years old. (There are questionable example going back to 3.5bn years) What ever way you cook it, pre cambrian single celled life takes up at least 4/5ths of the fossil record. Whether you accept current dating or not. So why were these little fellas buried 5 times earlier than the fish, which you say were the first to be affected?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

I did a quick little experiment in some water, I picked about 10 or so different types of angiosperms 'flowering plants' and put them in the water, then I cut them up and smashed them up and they stayed suspended and some still floating in the water. Now this is the only way I found that they even did anything less than float and rush to the surface. Also a simple thing I found is that all of the flowering plants you notice when you dip them in water, it looks almost like a foil because air attaches itself to the leaf or the petal of the flower. And even in rough conditions the air stayed attached to the leaves and some of the stems and the petals especially. This though not a very precise experiment does speak volumes.

---

I understand your experiment was only designed to show flowering plants float. May I suggest a better experiment. Less practical to do at home, I know, but bear with me. Take examples from various groups of flowering plants, put them in a tank for 190 days, see if they still float. Keep a daily record of what floats & sinks. I put it to you that within days there would be sinking plants, & as such, flowering plants should be represented VERY early on in the fossil record. Try it with a wave tank for comparison. If 1 plant sinks in 19 days, then there should be 10% of flowering plants in the oldest 10% of rocks.
That flowering plants float is not in issue, what is in issue is than gymnosperms (cone bearing), ferns etc. do as well. Gymnosperms exist earlier in the fossil record than angiosperms. Both float to the same degree. Both are hugely variable in the species they contain, from small plants to great trees. Examples of both can be found at all latitudes. So why are the gymnosperms buried after angiosperms, without exception?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

I should have included it but not only is the breathing threw nostriles the only characteristic but it was to the animals that creap on the earth. So these factors count insects, and 'mammalian' sea creatures out.
Insects survived not drowning because they have very little density, and bodyweight, so they would easilly be able to float on driftwood andlumps of vegitation.

---

How do all these insects survive on logs for 190 days without food? How do insects & other terrestrial arthropods survive, given they live on desert floors & lack access to vegetation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

The 'waterproofing' of the leaves and petals of flowering plants is a point because it would be a large factor in avoiding getting burrial untill they would be saturated with water or crushed up (highly unlikely anything would be 'crushed up or grinded).

---

Gymnosperms have waxy leaves too. So do ferns, cycads etc. All are found at different times in the geologic record.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

The climate would be wetter and drier if you go by a uniformitarian perspective of the Geologic column, but it would be wetter if it was all deposited in a flood.

---

Circular argument. Evidence supporting the flood was that, it was wetter then than now because of the flood .Taking size, drag, habitat etc. into consideration as a way to explain taxonomic deposition of fossils fails miserably. For every example of, this was denser, it flew, or it was large, or it was small can be countered by a plethora of examples from different classes/phyla of animals & plants that refute this reasoning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

What is your reference of a comet raising all atmospheric temperatures to over 6800C? This would be no problem for other planets because it has no life to spare, and for earth, our magnetic field would direct the disturbances to the poles.
A massive comet accounts for Martian canyons because comets are made of Ice and rock. When this comet would have been flying past Mars it would of been breaking apart and there would be massive amounts of ice on Mars and Mars gets extreamly hot in sunlight and all the ice would melt and become a massive raging flood.

---

(Soroka & Nelson,1983, p136, & Science & Earth History, Arthur N. Strahler 1999, p 197) The magnetic field of the earth will not divert anything bigger than dust particles, as evidenced that meteorites can be seen at any latitude.The temperature rise is attributed to the conversion of kinetic energy to thermal. The tunguska incident was caused by a cometary ice fragment the size of a football field (defined mathematically). It laid waste an area of hundreds of sq. kilometres. You require an object many trillions the size of the tunguska object.Also, we were witness to cometary fragments impacting Jupiters surface in the form of Shoemaker-Levy 9. It caused explosions actually larger than the earth. S-L 9 was also trillions of times smaller than the mass you require.
Also comets are made not only of water, but methane, ammonia etc. If the heat doesn’t kill ya, then the ammonia will, or the explosion caused by all that methane going up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Where did the water go? Well its right were it is right now, back into the oceans. Where there is uplift as there was for a flood there would be sinkage in weighed down areas such as in the oceans. If you smoothed out the land of the earth the waters could cover the earth 2 miles high.

---

So it comes down to this, all other theories have too much heat, & don’t adequately explain where the water came from, or where it goes. The only adequate alternative is to use existing water.No adequate mechanism for the rise of the ocean basins, & their subsequent drop exists.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[QUOTE]Pterosaurs were reptiles, not mammals, their bodies were most likely much heavier than other birds,[QUOTE] You are wrong about pterosaurs being much heavier than birds. Their bones were hollow just like birds.Ostriches are enormous, dense, flightless birds. Why don't we find them at lower levels than we find pterosaurs?

quote:

---

and the only reason it could of flown is very likely that it was because the atmosphere was more pressurized.

---

Please cite your evidence that the atmosphere a few thousand years ago was "more pressurized".Also, what does this have to do with where in the geologic timeline we would expect to find a small, hollow-boned, flying reptile as opposed to an ostrich?

quote:

---

The animal probley would not even be able to fly in our atmosphere today, it could glide for vast distances of possibly no more than a couple miles. pterosaurs weighing much more than mammillian birds would only be able to fly in the air for their first flight, they would not of been able to purch on driftwood and piles of vegetation and the few that could would have fought for it but would not of been able to stay for as long as the mammillian birds.

---

ROTFLMAO!! OK, birds aren't mammals. They are birds.I don't know where you are getting your information about pterosaurs, but a lot of it isn't correct. Don't you think it would be a good idea to actually learn about pterosaurs from people who study them before you start making detailed statements about them?Here's a short excerpt from "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs" (D. Norman & P. Wellnhofer), the second half of which is entirely on Pterosaurs and is written by Wellhofer, a leading world authority on pterosaurs. Note how this excerpt contradicts your assertions about pterosaur flight, AND your assertions about pterosaur weight, AND also shows that gliders are found *later* than flappers:"[Early Rhamphorhynchoidea] were capable of continuous flapping flight. Later, advanced long tailed pterosaurs, like Rhamphorhynchus of the Jurassic, had long, narrow wings, and thus good soaring ability, combined with low weight, calculated at 1.07 lb (484g) for a Rhamphorhynchus with a wing span of 2.9ft (89cm). A herring gull of similar span weighs more than double."

quote:

---

The mechanisms in a flood for amphibians, reptiles, and mammals would be according to intelligence, habitate, body structure and density. Body structure would play a part because even denser animals would be able to float such as mammals, because of hair and lighter body weights as a ratio to tissue densities.

---

So, are you saying that all of the heavily-muscled, heavily-boned flightless ostrichs, weighing hundreds of pounds, would ALWAYS float, and the small, hollow-boned pterosaur which was a good flyer would ALWAYS sink? That is truly a fantastic scenario. It defies logic, you know.

quote:

---

I did a quick little experiment in some water, I picked about 10 or so different types of angiosperms 'flowering plants' and put them in the water, then I cut them up and smashed them up and they stayed suspended and some still floating in the water. Now this is the only way I found that they even did anything less than float and rush to the surface. Also a simple thing I found is that all of the flowering plants you notice when you dip them in water, it looks almost like a foil because air attaches itself to the leaf or the petal of the flower. And even in rough conditions the air stayed attached to the leaves and some of the stems and the petals especially. This though not a very precise experiment does speak volumes.

---

One, this isn't a valid experiment because you didn't include any gymnosperms, such as ferns, so you have no comparison.Tell me which ten plants you used. Did you include flowering trees? Did you include grass?Are you saying that ALL grass and ALL flowering trees were uprooted and floated to the surface?Why wouldn't all ferns float? Ferns tend to have shallower roots that most grasses, and certainly most trees, and thus would be more likely to float.

quote:

---

Insects survived not drowning because they have very little density, and bodyweight, so they would easilly be able to float on driftwood andlumps of vegitation.

---

Your problem here is that insects are found in the deepest layers for land animals.

Hey, Schrafinator, were you looking over my shoulder? ------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-22-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
If I may:

​

mark24, Mount Everest did not exist as such in world before the Flood in the Flood scenario. Therefor covering it with water was not a problem. How did Mt. Everest form in the Flood scenario? Land masses colliding at about 45 mph, perhaps. Or do you think that the slow process we observe today could cause the sharp peaks we now observe in high mountain ranges?

​

Where did the water go? Back into the oceans where the basins had dropped, filling in the area vacated by the out-pouring of the fountains of the deep.

​

---

http://www.sci.port.ac.uk/geology/staff/dpetley/trep1c.htmlUnfortunately the table in the link above doesn't translate into the dialogue box very well.This shows uplift rate can exceed erosion in a part of the world with the highest erosion/rainfall. A quick check on other published data confirmed the order of uplifts & erosional rates in mountainous areas.
Please could you give me a reference of the data that you get your conclusion from. I need Location, date, & if possible, method.
Without seeing this data I can only speculate as to why the erosion is so high compared to uplift in your source.
Possibly, data was taken from ranges where indeed erosion outweighed uplift, in older ranges where uplift has slowed, ceased, or even begun subsiding.Generality/locality is also an issue. The best example I can think of for this is where 20m of Mount Cook (N. Zealand) fell off the summit in spectacular fashion. Now, you could say that there was 20m erosion that year on Mt. Cook, but that would ignore the general uplift across the entire range.Regarding sharp peaks on mountains, given there is no flowing liquid water & the main erosion on bare rock mountain faces is hot/cold/frost action weathering resulting in flaking, cracking & falling away, why would you expect anything less than sharp edges?------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-22-2001]

I could haggle over this for a long time, but here goes a post. The non-bold text is from:
http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonics.htm
My comments are in bold text.COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOODJOHN R. BAUMGARDNER, Ph.D.
1965 Camino Redondo
Los Alamos, NM 87544Presented at the Third International Conference on Creationism
Pittsburgh, PA, July 18-23, 1994
Copyright 1994 by Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.
Pittsburgh, PA USA - All Rights ReservedKEYWORDSGenesis Flood, geological catastrophism, runaway subduction, mantle dynamics, plate tectonicsABSTRACTAny comprehensive model for earth history consistent with the data from the Scriptures must account for the massive tectonic changes associated with the Genesis Flood. These tectonic changes include significant vertical motions of the continental surfaces to allow for the deposition of up to many thousands of meters of fossil-bearing sediments, lateral displacements of the continental blocks themselves by thousands of kilometers, formation of all of the present day ocean floor basement rocks by igneous processes, and isostatic adjustments after the catastrophe that produced today's Himalayas, Alps, Rockies, and Andes. This paper uses 3-D numerical modeling in spherical geometry of the earth's mantle and lithosphere to demonstrate that rapid plate tectonics driven by runaway subduction of the pre-Flood ocean floor is able to account for this unique pattern of large-scale tectonic change and to do so within the Biblical time frame.INTRODUCTIONMany diverse mechanisms have been put forward to explain the dramatic and rapid geological changes connected with the Genesis Flood [6,7,13,14]. This event is here conceived to have generated the portion of the geological record beginning with the initial abrupt fossil appearance of multicellular organisms and including all of the so-called Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras and the lower part of the Cenozoic. In other words, the Flood is understood, in terms of normal usage of the words in the Genesis account, to be a global catastrophe that destroyed all the non-aquatic air-breathing life on the earth except for that preserved in the ark. Since the Scriptures indicate no large-scale destruction of life between the time of creation and the Flood, it logically follows that the initial abrupt appearance of multicellular fossils in the rock record must represent the onset of this cataclysm. (In essence, this model is attempting to compress what is usually considered to be 500 million years of earth's history into the time of the great flood) The huge amount of energy required to accomplish such a vast amount of geological work so quickly together with the amazing order evident in the stratigraphic record (I would term it more as "the ordered but vastly complex stratigraphic record; a great mosaic of evidence of sequences of various processes, operating in the context of a large variety of environments. Sedimentation and erosion, tectonic folding and faulting, intrusive and extrusive (volcanic) igneous activity, all these having happened in various sequences at various locations) and the smooth pattern sea floor spreading and continental drift documented in today's ocean floor obviously impose severe limitations on candidate mechanisms.What constraints might one use to discriminate among possible mechanisms for the Flood? One is the pattern of downwarping and uplift of the earth's surface that produced the observed patterns of sedimentation. Broadly speaking, it is possible to divide the continental regions of today's earth into three general categories according to the type and amount of sedimentary cover. (Broadly speaking? - Is that like saying "In a simplified view?) Cratonic shield areas such as the Canadian Shield, the African Shield, and the Scandinavian Shield, represent regions mostly barren of Phanerozoic (Note: the Phanerozoic is the collective of the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic), or fossil-bearing, sediment. (OK) Surface rocks are instead pre-Phanerozoic crystalline rocks, (There's also a lot of volcanics and sediments) frequently displaying strong metamorphism and often deeply eroded. (Deep erosion of solid rock? Do you think that might take a long time?) Cratonic platform areas, a second category, represent broad regions of continental surface with generally (generally?) extensive and uniform (But not always I presume) Phanerozoic sedimentary deposits commonly a few kilometers in thickness. The third category includes Phanerozoic tectonic belts which frequently contain huge thicknesses of sediments--often up to tens of kilometers--usually with strong compressive deformations, evidence of large vertical displacements, and vast amounts of volcanism and metamorphism. These zones are mostly located along the margins of cratonic shield or platform regions and usually contain high mountains. ("Broadly speaking", I accept this)These three categories, in the context of the Flood, respectively represent broadly uplifted and eroded areas, broadly downwarped areas that accumulated moderate thicknesses of sediment (Apparently from the erosion of the pre-Phanerozoic cratonic shields.), and localized belts where downwarping and deformation were extreme and where huge thicknesses of sediment accumulated (This sediment being proposed as having been scraped off of the top of the oceanic crust). The evidence indicates that when the forces responsible for the extreme downwarping in these tectonic belts abated, high mountains appeared as the deep, narrow, sediment-filled trenches rebounded isostatically. (Is this isostatic rebound really theoretically expected? Also I note that the sediments miraculously now solid rock, to be uplifted into mountains!) The sedimentary patterns therefore suggest that transient processes, almost certainly operating in the earth's mantle, caused dynamical subsidence and uplift within craton interiors and intense localized downwarping at craton edges. In the context of the Flood, these observational data speak of large and rapid vertical motions of the earth's surface. Such vertical motions represent distinctive patterns of internal stress and mechanical work that must be accounted for by any successful mechanism. (Yes, more or less this has happened, just not recently, and probably not over a very restricted time period)A second major geological constraint concerns the large lateral displacements of the cratonic blocks (Recognizing the "continental drift" of plate tectonic theory) that also occurred during the Flood. From a stress distribution standpoint this requirement of translating continental blocks by thousands of kilometers in a short period of time severely constrains candidate mechanisms because it involves the solid-state deformation of rock in the mantle below. That craton interiors display so little Phanerozoic deformation (Is there really so little?)despite the fact the cratons traversed such vast distances so rapidly means that stress levels within the cratons never approached the fracture or yield limits and that the forces responsible for moving these huge bodies of rock were diffuse and relatively uniform over the area of the block. (Or maybe it was a slow process) Mechanisms that move the plates by applying forces at their edges cannot produce this general absence of deformation in the craton interiors. The only conceivable mechanisms able to move plates so far and so rapidly (This presumes they were moved rapidly; Again, maybe it was a slow process) with hardly any internal deformation are those that involve large scale flow in the earth's mantle and that apply relatively mild and uniform tractions on the base of the plates. (Large convection cells in the oceanic mantle is scientifically accepted; Under the continental crust - I personally don't know. There is a failed oceanic rift in the North American mid-continent, that happened in the late pre-Cambrian (pre-Phanerozoic). This failed rift includes the Lake Superior basin.) This constraint as well as the previous one both point to catastrophic overturning of the mantle (Yes indeed, if you're going to compress 500 million years down that much) driven by gravitational potential energy in large volumes of cold rock at the earth's surface and/or in the upper mantle and assisted by a runaway instability resulting from a temperature and stress dependent deformation law for silicate rock. The thrust of this paper is to report advances in numerical modeling of such a mechanism for the Flood. Results from this effort have been presented in papers at the two previous ICC meetings in 1986 and 1990 [4,5]. In the 1990 paper it was shown how subducting ocean floor along the Pangean margins leads to a pulling apart of the supercontinent in a manner generally consistent with the pattern of seafloor spreading recorded in the rocks of today's ocean floor [16]. This paper describes a number of improvements in the model. One is the use of a much more detailed reference state for the earth that includes compressibility and phase changes. Another is the addition of depth variation in the mantle's viscosity structure that provides for a low viscosity upper mantle and a higher viscosity lower mantle. Another is a much improved plate treatment that includes the oceans. The plates are now tracked using a highly accurate particle-in-cell method. Dynamic surface topography and sea level are now also computed as part of a time dependent calculation. This yields maps of the continental flooding that occurs in response to the mantle's internal dynamics. In addition there are several numerical improvements that allow larger time steps and provide increased accuracy. (The numeric theory is beyond me; I'll concede it's validity. Heads must have really been spinning when the author presented this math at a creationist conference. This is the stuff of high level structural geology and geophysics)MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION (Omitted, see original paper if you wish)THE REFERENCE STATE (Omitted, see original paper if you wish)PHASE CHANGES (Omitted, see original paper if you wish)NUMERICAL APPROACH (Omitted, see original paper if you wish)TREATMENT OF THE RUNAWAY INSTABILITY (Omitted, see original paper if you wish)INITIAL CONDITIONS (Omitted, see original paper if you wish)RESULTSStarting with these initial conditions, the numerical model is advanced in time by solving the momentum, mass, and energy conservation equations at every mesh point on each time step. Tractions on the base of the surface plates produced by flow in the mantle below causes the plates to move and their geometry to change. Fig. 4 contains a sequence of snapshots at times of 10, 30, 50, and 70 days showing the locations of the continental blocks and the velocities and temperatures at a depth of 100 km. A notable feature in the velocity fields of Fig. 4 is the motion of the nonsubducting continental blocks toward the adjacent zones of downwelling flow. This motion is primarily a consequence of the drag exerted on a nonsubducting block by the material below it as this material moves toward the downwelling zone. Such a general pattern of flow is evident in the cross-sectional slices of Fig 5. The translation of the nonsubducting blocks in this manner leads to a backward, or oceanward, migration of the zones of the downwelling. This oceanward translation of the continental blocks as well as the subduction zones therefore acts to pull the supercontinent apart. This behavior is a basic fluid mechanical result and not the consequence of any special initial conditions or unusual geometrical specifications other than the asymmetrical downwelling at the edges of nonsubducting portions of the surface. That the continental blocks move apart without colliding and overrunning one another, on the other hand, depends in a sensitive way on the initial distribution of thermal perturbations, the shapes of the blocks, and timing of their breakup. A moderate amount of trial and error was involved in finding the special set of conditions that leads to the results shown in Fig. 4 and 5. OK, maybe it could happens in theory (hypothesis?), but did it ever really happen at that fast of a rate? Did it happen at the time proposed for the "great flood? Documentation of the evidence is called for. I don't think the evidence exists)An important output from the calculations is the height of the surface relative to sea level. Fig. 6 shows global topography relative to sea level at a time of 30 days. Several features are noteworthy. One is the broad belt of depression and flooding of the continental surface adjacent to subduction zones, as evident, for example, along the western margins of North and South America. This depression of the surface is mostly due to the stresses produced by the cold slab of lithosphere sinking into the mantle below these regions. Narrow trenches several kilometers in depth lie inside these zones. A second feature is the elevation of the topography above the oceanic spreading ridges. This effect is so strong that some portions of the ridge are above sea level. (OK, this helps in boiling water into the atmosphere) Since the volume occupied by the ridges displaces sea water, a result is to raise the global sea level and to flood significant portions of the continent interiors. (A mainstream accepted hypothesis) A third effect is the elevation of continent areas flanking zones of continental rifting. This is a consequence of the intrusion of a significant volume of hot buoyant rock from deeper in the mantle beneath these zones. This produces a belt of mountains several kilometers high on either side of the rift zone between North America and Africa, for example. It is worth emphasizing that the topography dynamically changes with time and that Fig. 6 is but a snapshot. It illustrates, however, that what is occurring in the mantle below has a strong and complex effect on the height relative to sea level of a given point at the earth's surface. Although this calculation is crude and merely illustrative, it shows that this mechanism produces the general type of vertical surface motions required to create key aspects of the global stratigraphic record. It produces broad scale continental flooding; it creates belts of thick sediments at the edges of cratons; it uplifts portions of the continents where broad scale erosion and scouring would be expected to occur.CONCLUSIONSThis calculation illustrates that with relatively modest initial perturbations, gravitational potential energy stored in the earth's upper thermal boundary layer drives an overturning of the mantle that pulls the Pangean supercontinent apart, moves the continental blocks by thousands of kilometers, elevates much of the newly formed seafloor above sea level, floods essential all of the continental surface, and produces dramatic downwarpings of the continent margins that lie adjacent to zones of subduction.The key to the short time scale is the phenomenon of power-law creep that, for parameter values measured experimentally and for strain rates observed in the calculation, yields more than eight orders of magnitude reduction in effective viscosity relative to a condition of zero strain rate. Indeed maximum strain rates implied by the calculated velocities are on the order of 10-4 s-1 --precisely in the range for which laboratory measurements have been made [10,11]. As discussed in more detail in the companion paper, the combination of the effect of the endothermic phase transition at 660 km depth to act as a barrier to vertical flow [12,15,19,20] with the tendency of thermal runaway of regions of cold material from the upper thermal boundary layer, makes a sudden catastrophic avalanche event a genuine possibility. Thermal runaway behavior is a direct consequence of the positive feedback associated with viscous heating and temperature dependent rheology [1,9] and amplified by an extreme sensitivity to strain rate. A notable outcome of the recent high resolution mapping of the surface of Venus by the Magellan spacecraft is the conclusion that there was a tectonic catastrophe on Venus that completely resurfaced the planet in a brief span of time [18]. This event in terms of radiometric time (Using isotopic dating methods?! They had access to rocks of Venus?), accounting for the uncertainties in the cratering rate estimates, coincides almost precisely with the Flood event on earth. A mechanism internal to Venus was almost certainly the cause of that catastrophe. It is reasonable to suspect that simultaneous catastrophes on both the earth and Venus likely were due to the same phenomenon of runaway avalanche in their silicate mantles. (God decided to purge Venus of life, at the same time?)This mechanism of runaway subduction then appears to satisfy most of the critical requirements imposed by the observational data to successfully account for the Biblical Flood. It leads to a generally correct pattern of large scale tectonic change; it produces flooding of the continents; it causes broad uplifts and downwarpings of craton interiors with intense downwarpings at portions of craton margins to yield the types of sediment distributions observed. It also transports huge volumes of marine sediments to craton edges as ocean floor, in conveyor belt fashion, plunges into the mantle and most of the sediment is scraped off and left behind. (Conceivable, but the evidence isn't there) It plausibly leads to intense global rain as hot magma erupted in zones of plate divergence, in direct contact with ocean water, creates bubbles of high pressure steam that emerge from the ocean, rise rapidly through the atmosphere, radiate their heat to space, and precipitate their water as rain. (Again, conceivable, but note that this is not introducing any new water into the biosphere; It's just cycling water out of the ocean, to be re-precipitated and ultimately returned to the ocean. If the mid-ocean ridge was deep in the ocean, I would expect that the heat would dissipate into the ocean water; If it was close or at the water surface, perhaps the water would boil, to become vapor in the atmosphere) That no air-breathing life could survive such a catastrophe and that most marine life also perished is readily believable. (My impression is, that relative to the effects of the truly massive seismic and volcanic events also happening, the water might be a relatively small problem. Indeed, a vast amount of volcanism is a prime candidate for the poorly understood massive extinctions at the end of the Paleozoic) Finally, numerical modeling appears to be the most practical means for reconstructing a comprehensive picture of such an event and for creating a conceptual framework into which the geological observational data can be correctly integrated and understood. (Sure, you have a mathematical model, but did it really happen?) This calculation, it is hoped, is a modest step in that direction.REFERENCES (Omitted, see original paper if you wish)FIGURES (Omitted, see original paper for link, if you wish)This paper assumes that the "great flood" happened, and then tries to fit the evidence into that model. The more conventional approach would be to look at the evidence, and then try to deduce what caused the evidence.

​

An increase in the rate of mid-ocean ridge spreading does have mainstream scientific acceptance (personal communication with geology professor, on line references have been tough to come by). Whether there was also "runaway" subduction, is something I don't personally know. Also, the cause-effect relationship between mid-ocean ridge spreading and plate subduction is uncertain to me.

​

Comments on sedimentary processes: Essentially, the size of the sediment particles are a reflection of the energy of the depositional environment. In a high energy environment, the coarse fragments are deposited, while the finer fragments are carries away, until they are deposited in a lower energy environment. Limestones are essentially indicative of a lack of coarser clastic material being deposited - the coarse clastics have settled out before arriving at that location. The geologic records shows multiple transgressions and regressions of the seas up onto the continents. Were there a series of "mini-great floods", that comprised the total "great flood"? This "great flood" scenario is essentially part of that of that God created a young earth, but such that it appears to be much older. As miracles go, this is certainly one of God's "greatest hits" and/or greatest deceptions.

​

What would I expect the current earth to look like, had this flood and other events happened (what is it, 4500 years ago)? First of all, I wouldn't expect the sedimentary rock deposits to exist as they do. I would expect to still see prominent evidence of great erosion and great deposition. Perhaps gullies everywhere, and great deltas where the sediment was dumped into the elevated seas.

​

In summary, the professional term for a paper of this nature is "Arm Waving".

​

Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-23-2001]

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-23-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Hey, Schrafinator, were you looking over my shoulder?

---

Nah, just that "great minds" stuff again.Actually, it's less "great minds" and more "do our homework before making claims".

"most likely lighter than birds is pure speculation, that flying reptiles have less-dense bones than terresstrial ones could be inferred by comparing bone densities of non-flying birds & flying ones. There are pterasaur species smaller than some birds & therefore I could reasonably infer that they were lighter, & of equal density, & that there should be pterasaurs today. There’s is nothing to say pterasaurs could glide any less well than modern albatross’. Given the high air pressure, even better. My point is, you don’t know either way & therefore shouldn’t speculate solutions that fit your argument just because they do. As I show, I also can speculate the opposite. Nothing is proven. "--Can fossils give us an accurate way of calculating the density, or weight to a permineralized bone besides that it is hollow? Of course a smaller pterasaur would weigh less than a large one. My question would be how do we know how dense the bones were or something of that nature. Another factor would be a ratio between body size, density, arrodynamics (if thats how you spell it), strength and wingspan. A modern albatross uses feathers, very much considerably effecting its flight. Few of my previous speculations were probably wrongly asserted. Though this does not contredict at all the idea that pterasaurs were less fortunate from some mechenism that brought them to their death earlier on than birds."That the air was more pressurised I require evidence for. What caused the extra density, & by how much was it denser?"--When scientists drill into amber they find little airpockets, upon examination of the amber you can see that the air density would have been approx, 50% higher, thus with every breath of air you would get twice the oxygen. What caused the extra density is under discussion, to my knowledge, of the source, many people use the vapor canopy theory, to be the cause, I have yet to ask the question really, I havent gotten to it I guess, It would be wize for me not to cling on to anything for dear life of the preasurization, it possibly could have been from a more powerful magnetic field, but that thought just popped into my mind this second. I believe that the vapor canopy can well explain it, though, we do not need the vapor canopy to the degree of one of the direct sources of Flood water."Reptiles, amphibians & mammals of similar size DO occupy the same habitats. Intelligence is irrelevant, none of them can rationalise an escape method, & all of them would retreat from advancing hot water."--Intelligence very much can be considered relevant, it contributes to an organism's ability to reason, understand, comprehand, and realize its ability to do a certain task an aloted time. If I threw you out in the middle of the ocean and I threw a 8 year old out in the middle of the ocean. You would survive much easier, or atleast avoid drowning for a longer period of time. Or if you put an ape, an iguana, and a snake in a forest area and flood it with water different factors including intelligence would effect what they will decide to do to avoid drowning. Regarding habitats there wouldn't exactly be too many levels to choose from, the levels would possibly be, bottom ocean, surface ocean, land dwelling, and fliers, possibly tree climbing ability would be a factor but probley wouldn't be very relevant in some cases."Also, this doesn’t explain why there ARE fossil amphibians, of the same size & body plan as carboniferous amphibian examples, in the same younger deposits as mammals & reptiles. If they’re so dense why aren’t they ALL deposited earlier? I need evidence to show all amphibians are denser than reptiles, & both are more dense than all mammals. Otherwise its just supposition."--Because there are more factors than just density, size and body structure. Also amphibians are well adapt to water (not that they all can really breath water so are subject to drowning) and would be able to menuver in a flood easier which would further increase the factor of intelligence in some kinds. 'Evidence to show all amphibians are denser than reptiles, & both are more dense than all mammals' wouldn't be too well of a concluding assertion. Better would be an experiment on how different kinds of animals would react in these situations all together. This would be a massive experiment in order for it to be accurate so we can only make logical theories on how the events would take place."Taking the section of the geologic record that contains mammals, there are many examples that contain similar species like antelope, large felines, canines, primates, entirely consistent in size, habitat, & potential drag factors but exist as fossils in rocks exclusive of each other."--Mammals exist in the fossil record all the way down to the extent of the beginning of the 'Mesozoic Era', Triassic and Permian Period. A supposedly '240-290 Million years of sediment' almost half of the Geologic column. I don't see a problem to why mammals are burried in the last half of the Geologic column. Maybe you didn't explain the question to what exactly you were asking."But there are fossil fish bigger than some cetaceans, not to mention existing ones. Were not just talking whales here, ALL marine mammals, as well as the reptile nothosaurs, plesiosaurs & icthyosaurs. So why would a whale not be buried as fast as a fish? You expect us to believe that the sum total of sedimentary rock was laid down in 190 days. An entire blue whale, let alone a dolphin, could be buried in a single day."--Yes it would be burried quite fast if it indeed was burried. If an animal as massive as a whale were not to be fully burried then other animals would quickly rush in and attack it as prey. The sediments would have been layed down in jumps, not all at once and not gradually. If it were gradually layed down I would have enough trouble wondering why there are fossils down there at all."There are single celled fossils in pre Cambrian rocks. These are very small & light, & DO suspend more easily in water than a dead fish. So, if countless billions of fish were killed in the fast changing conditions, why do other multicellular swimming organisms exist below them ? (Pikaia, Odontogriphus, Opabinia, Amiskwia, to name but four.) &, Why were most the easily suspended organisms of all deposited before all of them, without exception?"--Unless you could prove me wrong on this (I did a brief search on altavista and encarta but couldn't find anything) I would speculate that single celled fossils in pre Cambrian rocks wouldn't just be found in pre Cambrian rocks. So there would have to be some sort of mechenism to make multicelliar organisms not be burried in this sediment without exception (according to current findings in the quantity of preCambrian sediments digged through). I would argue that for one we havent unless you can prove me wrong dug through very much preCambrian rock at all. I would think that in order for this to be seen in the fossil record produced by a Global Flood this would be quite similar to what we would see. When Fish die they don't sink to the bottom right away they float to the top rather quickly. If a massive flow of rushing practically boiling hot water were to make contact in wide areas to sea creatures they would die and float to the surface rather quickly accept for a few acceptions to these poor fellas that I would think would be in pre Cambrian rock but then again we havent searched threw much of that rock. Also a factor would be that we would have to be digging through rock that is already under ocean water probably deeper than about 1000 feet. Otherwize if there was a Global flood then you wouldn't find sea creatures, period, in pre-Cambrian sediments in land areas now with very few acceptions according to uplift rates and whether it was underwater before the flood. In the beginning of the flood multicelliar organisms would have been all throughout the water so would be burried in all layers I would speculate, including pre-cambrian strata. I don't know how clear I was on this but if you have any specific questions ask away."The oldest undoubted fossils, primitive algae, exist in rocks 2.9 bn years old. (There are questionable example going back to 3.5bn years) What ever way you cook it, pre cambrian single celled life takes up at least 4/5ths of the fossil record. Whether you accept current dating or not. So why were these little fellas buried 5 times earlier than the fish, which you say were the first to be affected?"--The Sediment deposits would have happend in Jumps, it wasn't gradually layed down such as would be in a uniformitarian framework. The first thing that happens to most fish when they die is they float to the surface for a period of time and then sink to the bottom. No doubt pre-Cambrian strata is the oldest, its just whether you want to place the stamp of billions and millions or hours, weeks, and months on their deposits."I understand your experiment was only designed to show flowering plants float. May I suggest a better experiment. Less practical to do at home, I know, but bear with me. Take examples from various groups of flowering plants, put them in a tank for 190 days, see if they still float. Keep a daily record of what floats & sinks. I put it to you that within days there would be sinking plants, & as such, flowering plants should be represented VERY early on in the fossil record. Try it with a wave tank for comparison. If 1 plant sinks in 19 days, then there should be 10% of flowering plants in the oldest 10% of rocks."--For one, I would doubt that angiosperms would sink before gymnosperms. Flowering plants would be much more likely to float the longer period of time given angiosperms characteristics when in water. I found that plain grass floats to the bottom quite fast also though it decays considerably faster than others. I would give about 20 days to a maximum of about 35 days for the plants to sink according to the fossil record and other factors allow. Also it isn't 10% of the fossil record that would be the location of the plants. The sediment deposits would have happend in jumps, not gradually. It could have very well been 50% of the fossil record that elapsed before plants began to deposit, but of course that isn't what we see. The experiment you propose ignores hundreds of factors that could only be accuratelly observed as a massive experiment for flood deposition."That flowering plants float is not in issue, what is in issue is than gymnosperms (cone bearing), ferns etc. do as well. Gymnosperms exist earlier in the fossil record than angiosperms. Both float to the same degree. Both are hugely variable in the species they contain, from small plants to great trees. Examples of both can be found at all latitudes. So why are the gymnosperms buried after angiosperms, without exception?"--I think you mean, 'why are angiosperms burried after gymnosperms without exception'. Well for one, we havent looked through much sediment, given the factors for the flood there most certainly would be rare occurances of unusual burrials for the geologic time scale. However, we have only dug through probley .001% of the worlds sediment if not less. And both don't float to the same degree, Flowering and non-Flowering plants have different characteristics that would effect the period of burrial."How do all these insects survive on logs for 190 days without food? How do insects & other terrestrial arthropods survive, given they live on desert floors & lack access to vegetation?"--No one ever said that they all had to survive or even a considerable amount of them, only a couple of pairs of the same kind of insect would have to survive the flood. Food would have been abundant, vegitation piles and driftwood could have been massive and cover hundreds of square footage for insects and various anthropods to live on for the duration of the flood. Variation of anthropod species would not have been much effected untill after the Flood. Say there were only 20-100 variations of different anthropods, conversely to our hundreds of thousands today."Gymnosperms have waxy leaves too. So do ferns, cycads etc. All are found at different times in the geologic record."--Exactly how accordingly are these different Gymnosperms scattered throughout an era of the Geologic column?"Circular argument. Evidence supporting the flood was that, it was wetter then than now because of the flood ."--I would agree to an extent, I would consider whether the land was wetter or drier to be slightly irrelevant for aspects of the argument."Taking size, drag, habitat etc. into consideration as a way to explain taxonomic deposition of fossils fails miserably. For every example of, this was denser, it flew, or it was large, or it was small can be countered by a plethora of examples from different classes/phyla of animals & plants that refute this reasoning."--What exactly would these abundant examples from different classes/phyla of animals & plants that refute this reasoning be?"(Soroka & Nelson,1983, p136, & Science & Earth History, Arthur N. Strahler 1999, p 197) The magnetic field of the earth will not divert anything bigger than dust particles, as evidenced that meteorites can be seen at any latitude."--Unfortunatelly I don't have the resource to this reference so that I would be able to read this myself. But some factors would attribute to the way a meteor enters the atmosphere, speed and acceleration, size of the meteor, angle and trajectory on which it is entering the atmosphere."The temperature rise is attributed to the conversion of kinetic energy to thermal. The tunguska incident was caused by a cometary ice fragment the size of a football field (defined mathematically). It laid waste an area of hundreds of sq. kilometres. You require an object many trillions the size of the tunguska object."--Large fragments of the meteor would not be a problem for extraterrestrial planets but to trigger the flood if it indeed was a comet (kent hovind proposes this as to a mechenism needed to freeze mammoth in place upright and keep vegetation in their stomaches green but this is not needed because an elephants stomach acts as a storage compartment with less or no acidic activity to eat away at the vegetation) would not need to be a massive commet any times larger than a football field, the chunks could have been an ice meteor no bigger than a 20 ft diameter. possibly being the cause of the few large meteor impact sites around the world. This would trigger the collapse of the vapor canopy (if it is even needed) and a trigger to disrupt or even start tectonic activity."Also, we were witness to cometary fragments impacting Jupiters surface in the form of Shoemaker-Levy 9. It caused explosions actually larger than the earth. S-L 9 was also trillions of times smaller than the mass you require."Also comets are made not only of water, but methane, ammonia etc. If the heat doesn’t kill ya, then the ammonia will, or the explosion caused by all that methane going up."--The meteor does not need to be anything at all compaired to the Jupiter meteor explosion. Just enough to shatter the vapor canopy if it is indeed needed."So it comes down to this, all other theories have too much heat, & don’t adequately explain where the water came from, or where it goes. The only adequate alternative is to use existing water."--Not 'all' other theories, though this is too me the best explainable one seeing it hasn't fatal problems if there is at all any."No adequate mechanism for the rise of the ocean basins, & their subsequent drop exists"--Well if the existing water in the oceans has always been relatively the same quantity I see no problem in using tectonic uplift to bring the water to its current destination. Unless someone can point out a one.

"Please cite your evidence that the atmosphere a few thousand years ago was "more pressurized". "--Encased in 'pre-historic' amber, you will find air pockets, when analized these airpockets show that at one point in time atmospheric pressure was higher than today, also showing less nitrogen and more oxygen and carbon dioxide."Also, what does this have to do with where in the geologic timeline we would expect to find a small, hollow-boned, flying reptile as opposed to an ostrich?"--Actually an ostrich does have hollow bones."ROTFLMAO!! OK, birds aren't mammals. They are birds."--Calm Down schrafinator, I admit I did call birds mammals when they are not. I mistakenly called them mammals and I withdraw that they are (of course). I could say the same about you saying an ostrich's bones are not hollow."I don't know where you are getting your information about pterosaurs, but a lot of it isn't correct. Don't you think it would be a good idea to actually learn about pterosaurs from people who study them before you start making detailed statements about them?
Here's a short excerpt from "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs" (D. Norman & P. Wellnhofer), the second half of which is entirely on Pterosaurs and is written by Wellhofer, a leading world authority on pterosaurs. Note how this excerpt contradicts your assertions about pterosaur flight, AND your assertions about pterosaur weight, AND also shows that gliders are found *later* than flappers:
"[Early Rhamphorhynchoidea] were capable of continuous flapping flight. Later, advanced long tailed pterosaurs, like Rhamphorhynchus of the Jurassic, had long, narrow wings, and thus good soaring ability, combined with low weight, calculated at 1.07 lb (484g) for a Rhamphorhynchus with a wing span of 2.9ft (89cm). A herring gull of similar span weighs more than double." "--This is some good information, and after reading over what I wrote earlier I see that some of my assertions were incorrect, I would like to research more about pterosaurs, untill then I don't think it would be wise for me not to comment on the effects of their weight, strenght, and mobility till then. But I found one interesting evolutionary assertion. Some evolutionists think that the bat and pterosaurs are close relatives by their pelvis because they might have 'perched' simillarely to bats, hanging upside down. I am not absolutely sure on this but if this is true then this would make it extreamly difficult for a pterosaur to have mobility if at all it could land on vegitation piles. Also regarding weight, a bat would be a comparative figure it would be most simmilar to a pterosaur. Body weights of bats range from 2-g (about 0.07-oz) to more than 1.3-kg (2.9-lb). A pterosaur was still considerably heavy I believe."So, are you saying that all of the heavily-muscled, heavily-boned flightless ostrichs, weighing hundreds of pounds, would ALWAYS float, and the small, hollow-boned pterosaur which was a good flyer would ALWAYS sink? That is truly a fantastic scenario. It defies logic, you know."
Like I said before, Ostriches do have hollow bones, this would certainly effect whether they would float or not whether the body was dead or alive. Some more research would be needed to make assertions on this."One, this isn't a valid experiment because you didn't include any gymnosperms, such as ferns, so you have no comparison."--Actually I did, I simply forgot to mention them. I don't know exactly what kind of plant it was but it deffanantly wasn't flowering it only produces leaves. I went out and looked in my pool and they are the only ones still floating besides the few flower pedals and a whole flower."Tell me which ten plants you used. Did you include flowering trees? Did you include grass?"--Right now its 12:30 so I would have to wait to do another little experiment, but what I used was a bright red flower (if you must I could possibly get the names from my mother what type of flower these were) considerably large, I crushed up a pedal of it, smeared another pedal in my fingers and I put them in the pool, the smeared one dropped to the bottom after a couple hours, the crushed ones are still suspended in the water but not floating on surface, and the ones i didn't do anything to are still floating though starting to wilt but this seems to be helping it float for some reason. I didn't include flowering trees, unless the one tree that I used produces flowers where the stem and its leaves are still attached and are floating in the water extreamly well. I didn't include grass, that would be simple enough I should try grass."Are you saying that ALL grass and ALL flowering trees were uprooted and floated to the surface?"--According to my findings so far I have noticed that as long as the flower pedal, stem, or leaf is not dilliberately crushed up or smeared up almost into a gel for the pedals it almost turned into and chopping up leaves makes them seem neutral to the water (so far atleast). I think a good another experiment would be to see what happens when you make piles of misc types of leaves, flowers, and stems all together for the 'vegitation piles' and see how it goes."Why wouldn't all ferns float? Ferns tend to have shallower roots that most grasses, and certainly most trees, and thus would be more likely to float. "--I didn't conduct an experiment using a fern. Don't ferns have hair follicles on them? Similar to a large leaf I put into the water which did similar to the pedal to create a 'foil' like illusion from attaching air."Your problem here is that insects are found in the deepest layers for land animals."
No doubt, insects surely would get sucked to the bottom to be burried first, though ones that didn't get wet and were able to stay on piles of vegitation or driftwood would survive. Also after the 'first wave of sediment', the insects that didn't get burried rapidly would quickly decay and be eaten by fish and other predators. They love insects.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--Can fossils give us an accurate way of calculating the density, or weight to a permineralized bone besides that it is hollow? Of course a smaller pterasaur would weigh less than a large one. My question would be how do we know how dense the bones were or something of that nature. Another factor would be a ratio between body size, density, arrodynamics (if thats how you spell it), strength and wingspan. A modern albatross uses feathers, very much considerably effecting its flight. Few of my previous speculations were probably wrongly asserted. Though this does not contredict at all the idea that pterasaurs were less fortunate from some mechenism that brought them to their death earlier on than birds.

​

---

The bones have cavities, like birds, ergo they are less dense. Pterosaur bones are adapted for flying. Its entirely possible they could fly better than birds. That they are extinct doesnt mean they died in the flood. Speculation, that could be applied either way does not explain the placement of pterosaurs in the fossil record.Bats manage perfectly well with membranes instead of feathers. Their flying skill, if anything, exceeds that of birds given their agility in the air.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--When scientists drill into amber they find little airpockets, upon examination of the amber you can see that the air density would have been approx, 50% higher, thus with every breath of air you would get twice the oxygen. What caused the extra density is under discussion, to my knowledge, of the source, many people use the vapor canopy theory, to be the cause, I have yet to ask the question really, I havent gotten to it I guess, It would be wize for me not to cling on to anything for dear life of the preasurization, it possibly could have been from a more powerful magnetic field, but that thought just popped into my mind this second. I believe that the vapor canopy can well explain it, though, we do not need the vapor canopy to the degree of one of the direct sources of Flood water.

---

If there was a vapour canopy giving 50% extra air pressure, it would reasonably DECREASE oxygen levels by 33%, ie from 21% to 14% by volume. How did you get extra 50% air pressure giving 100% more oxygen? Obviously you assume that the water vapour exists on top of the atmosphere pushing it down increasing oxygen levels.I need evidence that shows water, representing 50% of atmospheric pressure can exist on top of the existing atmosphere. What mechanism allows this given the actual reverse is observed. Ie most water vapour exists at the bottom of the atmosphere, due to the density of water vapour compared to other gases?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

--Intelligence very much can be considered relevant, it contributes to an organism's ability to reason, understand, comprehand, and realize its ability to do a certain task an aloted time. If I threw you out in the middle of the ocean and I threw a 8 year old out in the middle of the ocean. You would survive much easier, or atleast avoid drowning for a longer period of time. Or if you put an ape, an iguana, and a snake in a forest area and flood it with water different factors including intelligence would effect what they will decide to do to avoid drowning. Regarding habitats there wouldn't exactly be too many levels to choose from, the levels would possibly be, bottom ocean, surface ocean, land dwelling, and fliers, possibly tree climbing ability would be a factor but probley wouldn't be very relevant in some cases.

​

---

So I would last minutes longer than an 8 year old? What difference would intelligence make beyond knowing how to swim?If you put an ape, an iguana, & a snake in a forest area that was about to become what would be tantamount to the mid-pacific inside 24 hours, intelligence would be irrelevant, they would all die, mere hours would separate them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

"Also, this doesnt explain why there ARE fossil amphibians, of the same size & body plan as carboniferous amphibian examples, in the same younger deposits as mammals & reptiles. If theyre so dense why arent they ALL deposited earlier? I need evidence to show all amphibians are denser than reptiles, & both are more dense than all mammals. Otherwise its just supposition."

​

--Because there are more factors than just density, size and body structure. Also amphibians are well adapt to water (not that they all can really breath water so are subject to drowning) and would be able to menuver in a flood easier which would further increase the factor of intelligence in some kinds. 'Evidence to show all amphibians are denser than reptiles, & both are more dense than all mammals' wouldn't be too well of a concluding assertion. Better would be an experiment on how different kinds of animals would react in these situations all together. This would be a massive experiment in order for it to be accurate so we can only make logical theories on how the events would take place.

​

---

If amphibians are the best adapted terrestrial vertebrates ie they live in water much of the time, they should be the last deposited, not first.You need to show that what affects reptiles, doesnt affect amphibians, doesnt affect mammals, etc. in earliest deposited examples of each, without exception.You are trying to introduce factors beyond denstity (rightly) that will affect an organisms taxanomic appearance in the fossil record. My point is, that these are so many & varied that you SHOULD be able to find large mammals with dinosaurs, & small pterosaurs/mice/moles/ etc. etc. etc. with early amphibians. Factors that affect one species of amphibian wont affect another, & given so many potential variables are involved, the clear defining points in the fossil record couldnt happen. There will always be a reason why a mole should be found with early fish.Why do shelled molluscs appear in the Cambrian & not at the bottom of the pre-cambrian? These babies go straight to the bottom. Also, why do soft bodied cephalopods first appear in the same layer, they should float, be suspended etc.I may have unintentionally mislead you as well, unicellular life appears about 2.9 bn years ago, but soft bodied stuff appears about 2 bn years ago. Jellyfish like stuff. Jellyfish most definitely should be the last to be deposited, they make a life out of floating, yet there they are, right near the bottom, BELOW shelled molluscs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

--Mammals exist in the fossil record all the way down to the extent of the beginning of the 'Mesozoic Era', Triassic and Permian Period. A supposedly '240-290 Million years of sediment' almost half of the Geologic column. I don't see a problem to why mammals are burried in the last half of the Geologic column. Maybe you didn't explain the question to what exactly you were asking.

---

Ill clarify, there are species of rodents, felines, bats, primates, proboscideans etc. that are all mammals, & exist in the same habitats, that are the same size, are all hairy, subsist with the same lifestyle etc. Yet still are not found in the same aged sediments as other examples of rodents, felines, bats, primates, proboscideans etc! Given the factors leading to their depostion, they should be. Same is true of all taxonomic classifications.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"But there are fossil fish bigger than some cetaceans, not to mention existing ones. Were not just talking whales here, ALL marine mammals, as well as the reptile nothosaurs, plesiosaurs & icthyosaurs. So why would a whale not be buried as fast as a fish? You expect us to believe that the sum total of sedimentary rock was laid down in 190 days. An entire blue whale, let alone a dolphin, could be buried in a single day."

​

--Yes it would be burried quite fast if it indeed was burried. If an animal as massive as a whale were not to be fully burried then other animals would quickly rush in and attack it as prey. The sediments would have been layed down in jumps, not all at once and not gradually. If it were gradually layed down I would have enough trouble wondering why there are fossils down there at all.

---

But making the sediments lay down in fast deposits & having intervening periods, means even more is deposited at once, making it even more likely it was buried in one go. What would be big enough to eat a blue whale that didnt suffer extinction? & youre just addressing the blue whale. The other cetaceans that are of similar size to nothosaurs, plesiosaurs, & icthyosaurs survived where they didnt, why? Why did some cetaceans die out & not others?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

"There are single celled fossils in pre Cambrian rocks. These are very small & light, & DO suspend more easily in water than a dead fish. So, if countless billions of fish were killed in the fast changing conditions, why do other multicellular swimming organisms exist below them ? (Pikaia, Odontogriphus, Opabinia, Amiskwia, to name but four.) &, Why were most the easily suspended organisms of all deposited before all of them, without exception?"

​

--Unless you could prove me wrong on this (I did a brief search on altavista and encarta but couldn't find anything) I would speculate that single celled fossils in pre Cambrian rocks wouldn't just be found in pre Cambrian rocks. So there would have to be some sort of mechenism to make multicelliar organisms not be burried in this sediment without exception (according to current findings in the quantity of preCambrian sediments digged through). I would argue that for one we havent unless you can prove me wrong dug through very much preCambrian rock at all.

​

---

http://www.naturesafari.com/... Wisconsin
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Chapters/... China
http://www.siu.no/noradrap.nsf/... East Africa
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/... Australia
http://www.infoniagara.com/d-history-geo.html Canada
http://www.kaibab.org/gc/geology/gc_layer.htm Grand Canyon
http://www.wm.edu/geology/virginia/piedmont_kids.html Virginia
http://www.coloradocollege.edu/Dept/GY/faculty/... Montana & Idaho
http://www.shropshire-cc.gov.uk/museum.nsf/... EnglandI could go on for some time. Pre-cambrian rocks consist of about 4/5ths of the fossil record & there is no shortage of them. I did a search on Yahoo with pre cambrian rocks & the results just went on & on, these examples were drawn from the first 2 pages. Weve seen a LOT of these formations.Single celled organisms do exist in the fossil record at higher levels, but thats not the point. They (along with some soft bodied multicellular animals & plants) were buried before anything else, & they should have been last.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

I would think that in order for this to be seen in the fossil record produced by a Global Flood this would be quite similar to what we would see. When Fish die they don't sink to the bottom right away they float to the top rather quickly. If a massive flow of rushing practically boiling hot water were to make contact in wide areas to sea creatures they would die and float to the surface rather quickly accept for a few acceptions to these poor fellas that I would think would be in pre Cambrian rock but then again we havent searched threw much of that rock. Also a factor would be that we would have to be digging through rock that is already under ocean water probably deeper than about 1000 feet. Otherwize if there was a Global flood then you wouldn't find sea creatures, period, in pre-Cambrian sediments in land areas now with very few acceptions according to uplift rates and whether it was underwater before the flood. In the beginning of the flood multicelliar organisms would have been all throughout the water so would be burried in all layers I would speculate, including pre-cambrian strata. I don't know how clear I was on this but if you have any specific questions ask away.

​

---

As I have shown theres a lot of rock.How did the predators of unburied blue whales survive these hot waters? When cetaceans float, their lungs can fill with water, making them denser than water, making them sink. Ray finned fishes that have enclosed swim bladders, that cant fill with water. So cetaceans, nothosaurs, plesiosaurs & icthyosaurs should exist below the first ray finned fish.Multicellular life is found at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, the lowest surface point on the planet, so I would expect these arthropods at the bottom of pre Cambrian sediment, along with shelled molluscs, & (not) single celled organisms.Single celled life in the oceans exist as phytoplankton in the upper layers, & are not distributed uniformly. The last to be deposited, not the first.Uplift rates would not allow marine strata to become terrestrial in 4,500 years. Need evidence if youre claiming otherwise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

"The oldest undoubted fossils, primitive algae, exist in rocks 2.9 bn years old. (There are questionable example going back to 3.5bn years) What ever way you cook it, pre cambrian single celled life takes up at least 4/5ths of the fossil record. Whether you accept current dating or not. So why were these little fellas buried 5 times earlier than the fish, which you say were the first to be affected?"

​

--The Sediment deposits would have happend in Jumps, it wasn't gradually layed down such as would be in a uniformitarian framework. The first thing that happens to most fish when they die is they float to the surface for a period of time and then sink to the bottom. No doubt pre-Cambrian strata is the oldest, its just whether you want to place the stamp of billions and millions or hours, weeks, and months on their deposits.

---

Mainstream geology doesnt suggest a uniformatarian deposition either (not saying you think it does, but just to clarify).Fish are already in the seas when the flood started, and countless billions would have died from quick environment changes in the water located too close to erupting underwater basins during the flood. - In response to my argument that fish should be late in the record because they are marine in the first place (when you thought the Cambrian was the beginning). However, when I pointed out that when the Cambrian period started the fossil record was already 4/5ths complete you changed your mind & said fish float when they die. So they could be later after all!This was a bit naughty of me, because I knew where I was going with this. The point I wanted to make was that you will say anything to explain anything, you have a theory to explain their early AND late deposition. So will the real fish theory please stand up!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

--For one, I would doubt that angiosperms would sink before gymnosperms.

​

---

Why? Are you on the verge of a pterosaur claim again? Evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Flowering plants would be much more likely to float the longer period of time given angiosperms characteristics when in water. I found that plain grass floats to the bottom quite fast also though it decays considerably faster than others. I would give about 20 days to a maximum of about 35 days for the plants to sink according to the fossil record and other factors allow. Also it isn't 10% of the fossil record that would be the location of the plants. The sediment deposits would have happend in jumps, not gradually. It could have very well been 50% of the fossil record that elapsed before plants began to deposit, but of course that isn't what we see. The experiment you propose ignores hundreds of factors that could only be accuratelly observed as a massive experiment for flood deposition.

---

Firstly, to criticise my experiment that expands upon yours is a bit rich!Secondly,what are angiosperm/gymnosperm characteristics in water? This is an extraordinary claim that gymnosperms sink 1st! You must explain why gymnosperms of all sizes sink first.
Evidence pls.Grass, a flowering plant appears in the fossil record. Given grass floats to the bottom quite fast (your words), it should appear much sooner. Its decay is irrelevant, it is COMMON in the record.How much faster do other angiosperms decay?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--I think you mean, 'why are angiosperms burried after gymnosperms without exception'. Well for one, we havent looked through much sediment, given the factors for the flood there most certainly would be rare occurances of unusual burrials for the geologic time scale. However, we have only dug through probley .001% of the worlds sediment if not less. And both don't float to the same degree, Flowering and non-Flowering plants have different characteristics that would effect the period of burrial.

---

So, what youre saying is, angiosperms & gymnosperms are buried at the same time, but we just havent seen it? Your claiming gymnosperms 1/ sink 1st, so we SHOULD see them in lower layers compared to angiosperms. 2/ are now saying that they are there all along, but we just haven't seen them in the same early layers!The fossil record is entirely consisent re angio/gymnosperms. Do angiosperms sink slower or not?Isnt this like the just because transitional fossils havent been found, doesnt mean they dont exist in the fossil record argument that were not allowed to make?
Thats a no-go. In hundreds of years of study, not one instance of what you describe has been found. Additionally, were not just talking flowering plants & conifers, but horse tails, seed ferns, ferns, & club mosses, & you need to prove to me that they do indeed sink before angiosperms.Ive seen creationists argue that the fossil record is 99.9% complete & there are no transitional fossils. Make your mind up creationists!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"How do all these insects survive on logs for 190 days without food? How do insects & other terrestrial arthropods survive, given they live on desert floors & lack access to vegetation?"

​

--No one ever said that they all had to survive or even a considerable amount of them, only a couple of pairs of the same kind of insect would have to survive the flood. Food would have been abundant, vegitation piles and driftwood could have been massive and cover hundreds of square footage for insects and various anthropods to live on for the duration of the flood. Variation of anthropod species would not have been much effected untill after the Flood. Say there were only 20-100 variations of different anthropods, conversely to our hundreds of thousands today.

---

How do bees feed given dead vegetation doesnt produce nectar?
How do colonies of insects survive without there nests, not to mention queens, & males that only emerge on a couple days every year? This day varies from species to species.
How do 20-100 variations turn into hundreds of thousands in 4,500 years?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Taking size, drag, habitat etc. into consideration as a way to explain taxonomic deposition of fossils fails miserably. For every example of, this was denser, it flew, or it was large, or it was small can be countered by a plethora of examples from different classes/phyla of animals & plants that refute this reasoning."

​

--What exactly would these abundant examples from different classes/phyla of animals & plants that refute this reasoning be?

---

Ive given plenty, but fire some more at me & Ill just as reasonably say why something else should be the same, when it isnt. I didnt want to get into this, but if you insist. In fact its what weve been doing for a couple of posts now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--Unfortunatelly I don't have the resource to this reference so that I would be able to read this myself. But some factors would attribute to the way a meteor enters the atmosphere, speed and acceleration, size of the meteor, angle and trajectory on which it is entering the atmosphere.

---

The ONLY factors are mass & velocity. Are you saying one entered the atmosphere & gently alighted upon terra firma when all comets are observed to have VERY high velocities? To give one example. http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~mcombi/HST/hyaku.htmlIn this case 53 km/s!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--Large fragments of the meteor would not be a problem for extraterrestrial planets but to trigger the flood if it indeed was a comet (kent hovind proposes this as to a mechenism needed to freeze mammoth in place upright and keep vegetation in their stomaches green but this is not needed because an elephants stomach acts as a storage compartment with less or no acidic activity to eat away at the vegetation) would not need to be a massive commet any times larger than a football field, the chunks could have been an ice meteor no bigger than a 20 ft diameter. possibly being the cause of the few large meteor impact sites around the world. This would trigger the collapse of the vapor canopy (if it is even needed) and a trigger to disrupt or even start tectonic activity.

​

--The meteor does not need to be anything at all compaired to the Jupiter meteor explosion. Just enough to shatter the vapor canopy if it is indeed needed.

---

Why would a comet trigger the vapour canopy, should such an unlikely thing exist?Mammoths could be found in place upright if they floated upright as water froze.So were not saying water comes from the comet now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"So it comes down to this, all other theories have too much heat, & dont adequately explain where the water came from, or where it goes. The only adequate alternative is to use existing water."

​

--Not 'all' other theories, though this is too me the best explainable one seeing it hasn't fatal problems if there is at all any.

​

"No adequate mechanism for the rise of the ocean basins, & their subsequent drop exists"

​

--Well if the existing water in the oceans has always been relatively the same quantity I see no problem in using tectonic uplift to bring the water to its current destination. Unless someone can point out a one.

---

The problem you dont see is there is no evidence, nor mechanism for it.This comes to the crux of my argument, you have claimed the evidence points towards a flood scenario. If so, which one? All of them? You need to cite these evidences so they can be discussed. You have said a lot of this might have, or I see no problem in using tectonic uplift but not produced evidence. So, if the evidence so clearly points to a flood, which scenario? & lets have that evidence.I quote myself in another thread.
See my signature? Occams razor. For our purposes it means the best theory to fit all the evidence. Very simple, no contention there. But I've seen you say that the evidence points to a flood. So, I'm trying to pin you down to exactly what evidence you have, & what the theory you have doesn't explain, that other theories do, & vice versa. At the end of the day, the theory that best fits the evidence is exactly that, the best theory. I could theorise that salt water comes from a Galactic Goat that pisses brine, we could discuss it if you want. If you have evidence that points to different interpretations that CAN'T be explained by mainstream geology, lets have them. At the same time you need to consider what any flood theories don't explain. So, given you & others maintain there is evidence that makes a flood theory the best theory, lets have it! I'm not asking anything unreasonable. Just that you back up your claims.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-27-2001]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-27-2001] {Shortened display form of a bunch of URLs, which were causing the pages to be way overwide. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-22-2006 04:16 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Please cite your evidence that the atmosphere a few thousand years ago was "more pressurized". "

​

--Encased in 'pre-historic' amber, you will find air pockets, when analized these airpockets show that at one point in time atmospheric pressure was higher than today, also showing less nitrogen and more oxygen and carbon dioxide.

---

This is not evidence that the air was more pressurized *a few thousand years ago*, which is what I asked for.

quote:

---

"Also, what does this have to do with where in the geologic timeline we would expect to find a small, hollow-boned, flying reptile as opposed to an ostrich?"

​

--Actually an ostrich does have hollow bones.

---

The ostrich and emo only have one hollow bone in their bodies; the femur, so they would have been much more dense than a small winged dinosaur with mostly-hollow bones. Here's my source: http://www.netpets.org/birds/healthspa/vet/ratite.html"The only pneumatized long bone in the ostrich and emu is the femur."Please explain why it is that flightless ostriches would ALWAYS be found in layers above those in which small, less-dense flying pterosaurs are, if your explanation of sorting by density is true?

quote:

---

"ROTFLMAO!! OK, birds aren't mammals. They are birds."

​

--Calm Down schrafinator, I admit I did call birds mammals when they are not. I mistakenly called them mammals and I withdraw that they are (of course). I could say the same about you saying an ostrich's bones are not hollow.

---

Only one of it's bones is hollow, as my research taught me.

quote:

---

"I don't know where you are getting your information about pterosaurs, but a lot of it isn't correct. Don't you think it would be a good idea to actually learn about pterosaurs from people who study them before you start making detailed statements about them?
Here's a short excerpt from "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs" (D. Norman & P. Wellnhofer), the second half of which is entirely on Pterosaurs and is written by Wellhofer, a leading world authority on pterosaurs. Note how this excerpt contradicts your assertions about pterosaur flight, AND your assertions about pterosaur weight, AND also shows that gliders are found *later* than flappers:
"[Early Rhamphorhynchoidea] were capable of continuous flapping flight. Later, advanced long tailed pterosaurs, like Rhamphorhynchus of the Jurassic, had long, narrow wings, and thus good soaring ability, combined with low weight, calculated at 1.07 lb (484g) for a Rhamphorhynchus with a wing span of 2.9ft (89cm). A herring gull of similar span weighs more than double." "

​

--This is some good information, and after reading over what I wrote earlier I see that some of my assertions were incorrect, I would like to research more about pterosaurs, untill then I don't think it would be wise for me not to comment on the effects of their weight, strenght, and mobility till then.

---

Wunderbar.

quote:

---

But I found one interesting evolutionary assertion. Some evolutionists think that the bat and pterosaurs are close relatives by their pelvis because they might have 'perched' simillarely to bats, hanging upside down.

---

I do not think that Biologists think that bats and pterosaurs are related. Some scientists think that certain pterosaurs have a similar structure to bats, and may therefore have hung upsideown. This doesn't mean they are related.

quote:

---

I am not absolutely sure on this but if this is true then this would make it extreamly difficult for a pterosaur to have mobility if at all it could land on vegitation piles. Also regarding weight, a bat would be a comparative figure it would be most simmilar to a pterosaur. Body weights of bats range from 2-g (about 0.07-oz) to more than 1.3-kg (2.9-lb). A pterosaur was still considerably heavy I believe.

---

According to my dinosaur book quoted previously, pterosaurs ranged in size from the size of a sparrow to a creature with a wing span of about 40 feet.They also were quite varied in form, but each had a unique wing structure and extreme lightness of skeleton.This causes some problems for your Flood scenario.

quote:

---

"So, are you saying that all of the heavily-muscled, heavily-boned flightless ostrichs, weighing hundreds of pounds, would ALWAYS float, and the small, hollow-boned pterosaur which was a good flyer would ALWAYS sink? That is truly a fantastic scenario. It defies logic, you know."
Like I said before, Ostriches do have hollow bones, this would certainly effect whether they would float or not whether the body was dead or alive. Some more research would be needed to make assertions on this.

---

I have looked it all up. Pterosaur skeletons are all very light; ostrich skeletons, because they only have a single hollow bone, would be, relatively, much heavier and dense.

quote:

---

"One, this isn't a valid experiment because you didn't include any gymnosperms, such as ferns, so you have no comparison."

​

--Actually I did, I simply forgot to mention them.

---

No offense, but I don't believe you.

quote:

---

I don't know exactly what kind of plant it was but it deffanantly wasn't flowering it only produces leaves.

---

All plants have leaves. Just because it didn'ty have a flower on it doesn't mean it was a gymnosperm. If you don't know what it was, you don't know what it was, so you can't say.

quote:

---

I went out and looked in my pool and they are the only ones still floating besides the few flower pedals and a whole flower.

​

"Tell me which ten plants you used. Did you include flowering trees? Did you include grass?"

​

--Right now its 12:30 so I would have to wait to do another little experiment, but what I used was a bright red flower (if you must I could possibly get the names from my mother what type of flower these were) considerably large, I crushed up a pedal of it, smeared another pedal in my fingers and I put them in the pool, the smeared one dropped to the bottom after a couple hours, the crushed ones are still suspended in the water but not floating on surface, and the ones i didn't do anything to are still floating though starting to wilt but this seems to be helping it float for some reason. I didn't include flowering trees, unless the one tree that I used produces flowers where the stem and its leaves are still attached and are floating in the water extreamly well. I didn't include grass, that would be simple enough I should try grass.

​

"Are you saying that ALL grass and ALL flowering trees were uprooted and floated to the surface?"

​

--According to my findings so far I have noticed that as long as the flower pedal, stem, or leaf is not dilliberately crushed up or smeared up almost into a gel for the pedals it almost turned into and chopping up leaves makes them seem neutral to the water (so far atleast). I think a good another experiment would be to see what happens when you make piles of misc types of leaves, flowers, and stems all together for the 'vegitation piles' and see how it goes.

---

You are missing the point of my questions.Why would ALL flowering trees (some in upright forest formation) and ALL grasses be uprooted and be deposited in the top layers, while ALL gymnosperms, regardless of density, would remain in the lower layers?Here is a very good article which deals with these sucessive fossil forests. In some locations there are over 60 layers.How do you explain these successive fossil forests?Also, when the Flood supposedly took place, things were growing. All plants weren't in some pile somewhere.

quote:

---

"Your problem here is that insects are found in the deepest layers for land animals."
No doubt, insects surely would get sucked to the bottom to be burried first,

---

Except that insects aren't found in the deepest layers. That's why I said "deepest layers for *land animals*".How do you explain this?

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-27-2001] {Fixed a bunch of quote boxes, which were making a big mess of this message and the entire page. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-22-2006 04:38 PM