For whatever - your insult, and radioisotope dating

Whatever, Perhaps you could "prove" the fossil record to be young to the same standard you expect JonF to prove it to be old?But since we both know "proof" doesn't exist in science, I'll try to demonstrate to a very low degree of tentativity that the GC is old by concentrating on one example, the K-T tektites. Brent DalrympleThe K-T TektitesOne of the most exciting and important scientific findings in decades was the 1980 discovery that a large asteroid, about 10 kilometers diameter, struck the earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The collision threw many tons of debris into the atmosphere and possibly led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms. The fallout from this enormous impact, including shocked quartz and high concentrations of the element iridium, has been found in sedimentary rocks at more than 100 locations worldwide at the precise stratigraphic location of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary (Alvarez and Asaro 1990; Alvarez 1998). We now know that the impact site is located on the Yucatan Peninsula. Measuring the age of this impact event independently of the stratigraphic evidence is an obvious test for radiometric methods, and a number of scientists in laboratories around the world set to work.In addition to shocked quartz grains and high concentrations of iridium, the K-T impact produced tektites, which are small glass spherules that form from rock that is instantaneously melted by a large impact. The K-T tektites were ejected into the atmosphere and deposited some distance away. Tektites are easily recognizable and form in no other way, so the discovery of a sedimentary bed (the Beloc Formation) in Haiti that contained tektites and that, from fossil evidence, coincided with the K-T boundary provided an obvious candidate for dating. Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit. The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from 64.4 to 65.1 Ma (Table 2). Similar tektites were also found in Mexico, and the Berkeley lab found that they were the same age as the Haiti tektites. But the story doesn’t end there.The K-T boundary is recorded in numerous sedimentary beds around the world. The Z-coal, the Ferris coal, and the Nevis coal in Montana and Saskatchewan all occur immediately above the K-T boundary. Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimetres above the K-T boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically. Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada. Since both the ash beds and the tektites occur either at or very near the K-T boundary, as determined by diagnostic fossils, the tektites and the ash beds should be very nearly the same age, and they are (Table 2).There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.1/So the K-T Tektites were dated by no less than four methods that corroborate. 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb . If that weren't evidence enough, lets take a look at how inaccurate they all must be, to fit a YEC worldview. The lower age given is 64.4 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth is what YECs perceive as 100% of available time, then 60 years is 1%. This means that all the above methods, were ALL (1,085,000-100 = ) 1,084,900% inaccurate. Let me reiterate, the YECs requires these FOUR different, corroborating methods to be over ONE MILLION PERCENT INACCURATE all at the same time!!Now, given that the four methods are different, & are subject to DIFFERENT potential error sources & yet still corroborate closely means that the various potential bugbears of each method have been reasonably accounted for in the date calculations themselves. This can only leave a YEC one place to go, the underlying physics. Half-life constancy.2/The range of dates is from 64.4 mya to 65.1 mya giving a 0.7 my range.64.4/0.7 = 92 (Not taking the 65.1 m.y. figure to be as favourable as possible to YEC's)The range of error is 92 times smaller than the minimum given date, giving us usable increments of time. Probabilistically speaking, we basically have four 92 sided dice. What are the odds of all four dice rolling a 92? On the familiar 6 sided die, the chance of rolling two sixes (or any two numbers, for that matter) is 6^2 = 36:1 (Number of sides to the nth power where nth = number of die).Therefore, the odds of four radiometric dating methods reaching the same date range by chance is..drum roll..92^4 (92*92*92*92)= 71,639,296:1Is there any YEC that is prepared to state that the four radiometric dating methods achieve their high level of corroboration by pure chance?If not, how much of the 65 m.y. old figure do you attribute to chance, & how much to radiometric half lives contributing to the derived date, percentage wise?Here is your dilemma. The error required by the radiometric methods are 1,084,900% to fit a YEC 6,000 year old view. If they accept that the methods are capable of not being in error by more than 1,084,000%, then they accept a 60,000 year old earth, minimum. So, saying that half lives contribute only 1% to any derived radiometric date, means in this case (1% of 65,000,000 is 650,000 years), so even this small contribution by half lives falsifies a YEC young earth.3/The chance of all four methods being off by (chance) 64,400,000 years when the result SHOULD have been 6,000 years is truly staggering.
64,400,000/6,000 = 10,733.33 recurring (following the previous example, we now have four 10,733.33 sided dice)
10,733.33 recurring ^4 = 13,272,064,019,753,086:1My questions to creationists are;A/ How do you account for four corroborating radiometric dating methods dating the tektites so closely at 65 m.y. old, given the odds of it occurring by pure chance?B/ IF you don’t accept that radiometric dating is valid as a dating method, how do you account for the four methods being over one million percent inaccurate, relative to a YEC assumed 6,000 year old earth?C/ If you DO accept that half lives affect the resultant date, even to a small degree, what percentage would you be prepared to accept that radiometric dating is influenced by half lives, the rest being just plain chance? And how do you come by this figure, evidentially?D/ How do you rationalise the odds of all four radiometric methods being wrong by a factor of 10,733 each, when the odds of such an occurrence is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 of them being wrong by the same factor?Now, please demonstrate the K-T boundary to be sub 6,000 years old (or whatever your favourite figure is).Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Whatever, So why did you say.... ?And I repeat my challenge; PROVE to to the same standard you expect JonF to prove an old fossil record, that the fossil record is young.What's good for the goose....... Or is it that you hold yourself to a different standard?If you aren't a YEC, what's your beef with radiometric dating? Are you happy with 66 million year old dinosaurs? If not, I want your PROOF that dinosaur fossil found below the K-T boundary are ALL younger than 65 my. I tell you what, I'll accept your corroborating evidence that = 70,000,000 : 1 or more that the K-T boundary & all fossil found below it are = < 65 Myo.Either that, or you have a very different meaning of "young fossil record" &/or "proof" to the rest of us.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall< !--UE-->[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-05-2004]

Whatever, I will happily grant you that frozen animals are relatively young. But this has no bearing whatsoever on fossils found within rock matrix that underly the K-T boundary that has been dated to 65 myo with 70,000,000 : 1 odds of such corroboration occurring by chance. I have only factored in one type of rock, do you want me to find more? Corroborating evidence is multiplicative, that means 70E6:1 gets multiplied. Yeah, "etc." indeed.What do you mean, "even Walt Brown believes"? Tektites are not basalt, they are glassy spherules formed during an impact. They are found in the same layers as the Iridium spike & shocked quartz.What you fail to explain is why the K-T boundary that has such good corroborating evidence of its date only has Dinosaur fossils below it. This makes all of the Dinosaurs > 65 myo & not a few thousand, right?God lifted up the K-T boundary & slipped all the mesozoic fossils in below it? Are you seriously suggesting that the dust from the Iridium spike that also dates to 65 million years old was lifted up by the flood & layered globally a few millimeters thick amongst other rocks that also date 65 myo by chance, without exception?Don't you think the flood would mix up all those tektites, Iridium dust, & shocked quartz a bit rather than layering it so perfectly? Not a single Dinosaur above it, not one. Iridium dust, shocked quartz, & tektites are all very differently sized particles that could not be layered so perfectly by a global flood. In fact the only thing your flood has managed to achieve is to order the geologic column by it's sequential radiometric age & most definately not the hydrodynamic properties of the particles that make it up. How did it manage that, do you think?Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-06-2004][This message has been edited by mark24, 01-06-2004]

Whatever,Please respond to this post pls.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Whatever, I don't care what Walt Brown believes, I care what you can show. Can you provide a single example of tektites being formed by volcanic activity? If not I suggest you drop it, wishful thinking ain't evidence.http://mineral.galleries.com/...neralo/tektites/tektites.htm

quote:

---

Tektites are still poorly understood. They are irregularly- and at times intricately-shaped nodules and blobs of a glassy substance. They have no crystal structure, and are therefore similar to obsidian, but are not associated with volcanic processes. Their chemistry is unique and somewhat unexplained.

---

Tektites are glassy spherules & are not associated with volcanism, period. You would find tektites concentrated around volcanoes if that were so, & they aren't. The Iridium levels in magma/lava is at too low a concentration to explain the Iridium spike caused by any level of volcanism. Shocked quartz isn't associated with volcanism, either, it is normal quartz subjected to immense pressure during impacts, this is why it is found in & around impact craters & not volvanoes. OK?Moreover, you have failed to explain why these particulartektites all date to 65myo, & so does the Iridium spike, & so does the shocked quartz. All are found layered together so perfectly. There was a flood going on, remember, or did you forget that 65% of your alleged sediments were scoured from the surface by water? Strange that layering of differently sized particles is possible in circumstances where hydrodynamic sorting should render it impossible, wouldn't you say?Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-06-2004]

Whatever,Please respond to this post, please.Your explanation of the facts of the K-T boundary is insuffient. We have rocks dating 65 million years old containing shocked quartz at the Chixculub crater, a global Iridium spike also dating to 65 million years ago, & tektites associated with the aforementioned crater that themselves date to 65 mya.How do such different phenomena get deposited in such a narrow stratigraphic range when they 1/ Aren't associated with volcanism or tectonic activity; 2/ Have different hydrodynamic properties; 3; Still manage to have been sorted in such a way that each independently dates 65 million years old?Basically I'm asking you to explain how a flood manages to sort differently sized particles with radiometric age being the sole criteria.I put it to you that such an explanation has obvious & glaring contradictions, & that a far more sensible & empirically supported explanation is that 65 million years ago a bolide impacted the earth causing shocked quartz, a spread of tektites, & a global deposition of dust containing a high level of Iridium. This coincided with a mass extinction. At no stage is there any reason to believe that there was a global flood given the obvious impossibilities of achieving such a goosd correlation.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Whatever,Are you avoiding me? Please deal with this post. So you accept evidence of floods where it occurs, all you need to do is show GLOBAL evidence that there was a single flood that occurred all over the earth at one time. I'll give you a big hint, there isn't any. None at all. Lot's of local stuff at different times, but not a single evidence of one flood that covered the entire earth.Secondly, catastrophisms aren't required for fossilisation, sterile conditions are. This is why we have dessicated dinosaurs with their skins on, & fish, plesiosaurs etc. occurring in highly sulphurous, &/or anoxic rock (high H2S & low O2).There are multiple extinction events, the pleistocene isn't even one of the "big five", so why you hang your hat on an extinction that took place at different times on different continents is beyond me. It would be interesting to see you try & explain the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic & Cretaceous mass extinctions via a flood model, all of which occur tens to hundreds of millions of years before the Pleistocene, & devastate the flora & fauna by orders of magnitude greater than the piffling Pleistocene goosebump events.Your claim that "pleistocene extinction shows a massive extinction of life all over the earth" pales into insignificance when compared to the big five & mainly affects the megafauna anyway, & as such is completely unwarranted. Interesting that you simply focussed on the last extinction event, however minor. But out of interest, where are the frozen Acanthostega gunnari you see in my avatar? Where are all of the other Cenozoic & earlier frozen life forms? No Trilobites? No basal tetrapods? Strange, they are all found in the same latitudes as the frozen mammoths. Why do you think they are absent? Could it be that they became extinct millions of years earlier than the mammoths, & were never contemporaries in the first place?Given that you accept the evidence for a set of events that occur at different times at different places that is collectively known as the "Pleistocene extinction", please explain how the other big five, let alone all of the other minor events fit into your flood model. As you may have guessed, I am particularly interested as to how your flood manages to sort rocks radiometrically whilst the fountains of the deep ejaculate with such abandon upon the earth. I am interested in how dinosaurs aren't found in rocks that post-date 65 my. I am also interested in how you worm your way out of the 65 my date of the K-T boundary when four different methods concur to the tune of over 70,000,000 : 1 of such an occurrence happening by chance. So how do explain the incredible concordance between different methods that have different assumptions? Oh, my mistake, you don't. You just repeat your objections in the face of incredible statistical evidence that radiometric dating is reliable to within a couple of percent. Your bad, not ours. Oh please, please, please go for it! Explain the appearances & disappearances of plants, animal, fungi, monera, & protists & the sub-clades found within them.Here's a few problems for you to juggle with. Explain the stratigraphic pattern of plant clades that bear trees. Explain why nothosaurs & plesiosaurs are found exclusive of cetacea without exception. Explain the gross ordering of the fossil record based on size & why it is exactly the opposite of what is expected by hydrodyamic sorting. A fossil record sorted hydrodynamically should have the large organisms at the bottom & the small at the top, but the fossil record for the first 5/6th sees little more than single celled life, wierd, eh? Explain why the earliest terrestrial vertebrates are distintcly "fishy". Explain why the rock particles in the geological column aren't ordered by particle size (& hydrodynamic sorting); the GC should have breccia at the bottom, followed by gravels, sands, muds, & clays. Does it not strike you odd that this is not the case at all? And so on, so on, ad infinitum.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-07-2004][This message has been edited by mark24, 01-07-2004]

Adminmoose, Why? The topic has expanded from dating to include the flood/stratigraphy, all of which are related considering whatever's assertions. If the tpoic has wandered it has done so in a way that seems controlled & relevant.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-07-2004]{Noted - I'll leave things alone, and see where it goes, in it's muddled sort of way - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-07-2004]

Whatever,I'll bet there are a lot of scientists going Doh! right now. Perhaps what is "obvious" to you is utterly incorrect?Perhaps you can name the compounds formed? Or perhaps the element is trapped in the lattice of the rock?Or perhaps this is utterly irrelevent to the topic under discussion?Perhaps you might do me the honour of replying to my previous posts(s)?Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-07-2004]

Whatever, Well, is it or not?Have metal-argon compounds been formed in the rock or not? Are you making assertions without knowing?The test to see whether argon has been captured is to compare dates inferred by methods using argon with methods that don't use argon. Results, whether using argon or not are highly concordant & we must conclude that argon capture is not occurring. So why do non-argon using methods results match so closely with argon based methods?You are in every way a typical creationist. You think that if you can introduce some alleged problem in isolation & without actually demonstrating that there actually is a problem you can throw the baby out with the bath water & ignore all radiometric methods. You think that addressing 1 point in 5 is acceptable debate & leaves you with the best hypothesis despite numerous unanswered contradictions to your position.I have gone to some length to explain the value of corroborational evidence here, & am waiting an explanation as to why different methods achieve the same results despite facing different potential problems, ie not using argon at all! Er, what crack that extends 47,000 miles that goes all around the earth?Iridium is found in relatively small quantities all throughout the gc. There is a massive spike dating 65 million years ago. Why did this settle above the dinosaur bones but below ALL CENOZOIC FOSSILS WHICH CAN BE JUST AS LARGE AS THE DINOSAURS!!!!!!! Good grief, you really haven't thought this through, have you?Here are the problems with the K-T boundary phenomenon point by point.FACT. Tektites date 65 myo using different methods. Shocked quartz is found at the K-T boundary & dates 65 myo. A large Iridium spike is found in rock dating 65 myo using different methods.FACT. The above are associated with impacts & not volcanism/tectonic activity.FACT. Shocked quartz, Iridium dust, & tektites all get in the same geological layer, & this is independent of radiometric dating.1/ Why do they appear in the same layers when hydrodynamic sorting should have them in layers exclusive of each other?2/ Why do they all date to 65 myo regardless of what method is used?3/ Why has the alleged global flood sorted rocks/particles by radiometric age rather than what would be expected hydrodynamically? Specificall, explain why the rock particles in the geological column aren't ordered by particle size (& hydrodynamic sorting); the GC should have breccia at the bottom, followed by gravels, sands, muds, & clays etc. Why aren't they?As regards using exinction events to infer a flood induced exinction.4/ Why does the Pleistocene extinction take place on different continents at different times?5/ How does the flood explain the other extinctions, the evidence of which you implicitly accept because it's the same as the Pleistocene evidence?6/ Why does the K-T boundary with all it's corroborating evidence occur 65 my earlier than the Pleistocene extinction? (Don't forget the other extinction events when formulating your answer!)7/ Even if one ignores radiometric dating, there is still a gap between the K-T boundary where the dinosaurs became extinct consisting of the Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, & Pliocene, & the megafaunal extinctions in the Pleistocene. Why are there stratigraphic gaps between extinction events if there was only one extinction by definition?And generally.......8/ Why do rocks in the Paleocene so consistently date 65-55 my, Eocene 55-33 my, Oligocene 33-24 my, Miocene 24-5 my, Pliocene 5-2 my, & the Pleistocene 2-0.01 my?9/ Why is the entire geologic column ordered by radiometric age, regardless of isotopes studied, rather than hydrodynamic sorting? Why is the only criteria for stratigraphic sorting radiometric age?Lastly, you asserted that: 10/ Explain the stratigraphic pattern of plant clades that bear trees.11/ Explain why nothosaurs, plesiosaurs & icthyosaurs are found exclusive of cetacea without exception.12/ Explain the gross ordering of the fossil record based on size & why it is exactly the opposite of what is expected by hydrodyamic sorting. A fossil record sorted hydrodynamically should have the large organisms at the bottom & the small at the top, but the fossil record for the first 5/6th sees little more than single celled life?13/ Explain why the earliest terrestrial vertebrates are distinctly "fishy".I have asked some of these questions multiple times now, you are not going to be allowed to make unnsupported assertions, & you are not going to be allowed to ignore relevant facts.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Whatever,Liquefaction doesn't explain the fossil ordering at all. It fails to explain taxonomic sorting. ie why nothosaurs & plesiosaurs are found exclusive of cetacea without exception, for example. It also fails to explain the ordering by size not seen in the fossil record during the Mesozoic & Cenozoic (Triassic onwards).It is bunk.Mark

Oooh, good one!

Whatever, So why do mammals coexist with dinosaurs? Bit of a blunder, wouldn't you say? Why do large reptiles post date the dinosaurs, & er, co-exist with mammals? Another blunder?Any gases/bloating in dead animals would be lost loooooong before the flood ended, rendering it a non-explanation, & even if it were, it would still be falsified by most of the gc being an exception.But since you consider density of bones a factor, why are pterosaurs buried with the dinosaurs in the Mesozoic rather than at the top of the Cenozoic? Why are basal birds found in the same layers as the mighty sauropods? This is why liquifaction etc are non-explanations, the moment you make a prediction with it you also present a falsification that I can instantly satisfy.Here's one I allude to in a previous post, why aren't ALL trees found at the top of the GC? Why do seed ferns (trees) become extinct in the Jurassic? As you might have noticed, trees float, but gastropods & bivalve molluscs literally sink like stones, so why are there shelled molluscs above trees?You see, Whatever, the only consistent explanation that includes all the facts is that life is millions of years old & has evolved. The notion that a global flood occurred is a fairytale nonsense that possesses no evidence of its own & is directly falsified by FACTS.Please respond to THIS POST.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-08-2004]

Whatever, I did check it out & I presented a couple of examples of why it is a false explanation. Interestingly, like you always do, you declined to address them.Why do birds with hollow bones appear in the same strata as the mighty sauropods? How does liquefaction explain this?Why do small mammals co-exist with the mighty sauropods? How does liquefaction explain this?Why do various clades of tree bearing plants appear & disappear at different times? The seed ferns haven't been seen since the Jurassic, where they coexisted with the mighty sauropods. How does liquefaction explain this?Answer to all three; Liquefaction cannot explain it. In fact there is no evidence that liquefaction was ever a property of the sediments that fossils were found in.Here's an experiment for you, get a snail shell (preferably already vacated) & throw it in a bucket, fill the bucket with sand, mud, or whatever takes your fancy. Observe how the shell doesn't a bloody inchmove from the bottom of the bucket. Liquefaction is rare, & NOT associated with floods. It didn't rearrange sediments, it layered more down. I ask again, what global crack around the world. There isn't one, & outside of your imagination, there is no evidence of one. No it doesn't, didn't you read Walts site? If you threw a dinosaur into quicksand it would float, as would you. It may sink a few feet deeper than you, but that's basically it. All dinosaurs should be found at the same layer with the Iridium layer, not beneath it, except for the ones that get scooped up by the flood waters & deposited ABOVE the K-T boundary.There is absolutely no reason a shrew & a dinosaur, in the unbelievably unlikely event that they were buried in liquefaction sediments would end up in entirely different layers. And as point of FACT, they are not! Sauropods & tiny mammals co-exist in the same sediments. I think you will find Walt Brown was rather hoping that his audience exhibit the same level of ignorance that you are displaying as regards the fossil record.Furthermore, you really have shot yourself in the foot by claiming that the K-T boundary is the level of flood onset. Where do the sediments & fossils below this come from? The dinosaurs appeared about 225 mya, the fossil record goes back THREE BILLION YEARS! The flood now has failed to explain the origins & stratigraphic ordering of 11/12th of the fossil record!!! Let me put it another way, the flood only explains the Cenozoic sediments, everything before that was not layed down by the flood, yet the same pattern of rocks & fossil trends occurs during a flood as when a flood isn't occurring. The same passing of radiometric time manages to continue uninterrupted that explains 1/12th of the fossil record that dates the previous 11/12ths. A bit strange, don't you think?Please respond to THIS POST.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-08-2004]

Whatever, I'm sorry mate, this is utter unadulterated bullshit. At this stage there's simply no nice way of putting it. What you are trying to absolve the flood of is any kind of hydrodynamic sorting whatsoever. Cobblers, utter & absolute nonsense. A global flood that doesn't hydrodynamically sort anything, well whoopy fuckin' doo!? You heard it here first. The only massive turbulent body of water that calms to a mill pond that doesn't, I suppose it wasn't wet, either?May I remind you that you claimed that the Alvarez event occurred pre-flood, & this was why differently sized particles were found together in such close harmony (at the K-T boundary), presumably why they weren't mixed up & sorted hydrodynamically by a global flood. This means that ALL dinosaurs escaped the flood, not a single one is found above the K-T boundary, not one. Given this is the case, why do flood deposits look exactly like non-flood deposits of the previous 11/12ths of the fossil record? And how do you explain the pattern of fossil deposition (particularly that of ALL OF THE DINOSAURS) that covers most of the gc, that you claim wasn't deposited by a flood? Uniformatarianism? Dirty word, but I see no other choice, you've been hoist by your own petard. Again you completely ignore your own argument. Why are their small mammals & hollow boned birds alongside colossal sauropods? If there was too much sediment for the dinosaurs to rise back through that sediment how come the smaller stuff made it down? Magic? Or a poorly thought out argument?Clearly you didn't attempt the experiment with a snail shell.Furthermore, can you associate any instances of liquefaction with flooding? If not then it is simply wishful thinking that liquefaction occurred globally during a flood, when you can't even manage to simulate what must be such a common occurrence in a bucket.Particles will not settle out of suspension untill waters are sufficiently calm, & then do so at a particular rate, this is different for different sized particles. So we go from a raging torrent to a mill pond through various stages & should still expect organisms & inorganic particles to be hydrodynamically sorted. Even if this took place at different times in different parts of the world it utterly fails to explain the extinction events that you have clammed up about. Why does the Permian mass extinction occur precisely at the Permo-Triassic boundary globally if different things are settling differently? Interestingly it doesn't seem to matter what method you date this event it seems to pan out at ~250 million years old, wherever it is dated, yet another amazing corroboration for you to ignore. The same goes for the rest of the extinctions. Why does the entire geologic column get sorted radiometrically & not hydrodynamically?Please also address this:"Furthermore, you really have shot yourself in the foot by claiming that the K-T boundary is the level of flood onset. Where do the sediments & fossils below this come from? The dinosaurs appeared about 225 mya, the fossil record goes back THREE BILLION YEARS! The flood now has failed to explain the origins & stratigraphic ordering of 11/12th of the fossil record!!! Let me put it another way, the flood only explains the Cenozoic sediments, everything before that was not layed down by the flood, yet the same pattern of rocks & fossil trends occurs during a flood as when a flood isn't occurring. The same passing of radiometric time manages to continue uninterrupted that explains 1/12th of the fossil record that dates the previous 11/12ths. A bit strange, don't you think?"You also fail to address the issues with "liquefaction sorting" (why am I surprised at this stage?), point by point, please. Here they are again:"Why do birds with hollow bones appear in the same strata as the mighty sauropods? How does liquefaction explain this?Why do small mammals co-exist with the mighty sauropods? How does liquefaction explain this?Why do various clades of tree bearing plants appear & disappear at different times? The seed ferns haven't been seen since the Jurassic, where they coexisted with the mighty sauropods. How does liquefaction explain this?Answer to all three; Liquefaction cannot explain it. In fact there is no evidence that liquefaction was ever a property of the sediments that fossils were found in."You are becoming an evasive pain in the arse. ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS FOR A CHANGE. With every evasion, & every trumped up wishful-thinking scenario you just bury yourself deeper & deeper, & liquefaction won't return you to the surface. YOU STILL HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS THIS POST. Please do so, point by point, in addition to the relevant points in this post, it highlights some of the many direct contradictions to your worldview. You are basically ignoring facts that are to difficult for your POV. I know what a mid ocean ridge is, but I also know what it isn't as well, & that is a "crack" that circumnavigates the world. You said: I ask again what crack that caused the mid ocean ridges?Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall