Summations Only

There are three other responses to your message that I haven't read yet, but this is all so over the top that I just have to respond. When something is "obvious" to no one but you, guess what? If you really had a clear and valid argument proving HereBeDragons wrong you'd be falling all over yourself to present it. Well of course you're sick of arguing about this, because your description of supposed events doesn't stand up to scrutiny, primarily because they so obviously contradict reality. Buried strata cannot tilt without disturbing the strata above, and without leaving behind any sign of cubic miles of missing expanses of the tilted strata. Your determination to maintain your ignorance is impressive. Sure you did, just as the Flat Earthers have "clearly clearly" demonstrated that the Earth is flat. Presenting evidence to Flat Earthers and explaining why they are wrong has just as much effect on them as it does on you. Unless you are seriously delusional you are purposefully misrepresenting your success in the discussion. Every claim you've ever made has been rebutted with evidence and analysis where the outcome is usually that you run away from the discussion. Could it be that you're already laying the groundwork for abandoning the thread? You've abandoned this thread before. And you're obviously engaging in the contradictory behavior of accusing others of denial while denying evidence left and right. Funny, I never have any problem finding what you've said in the past. Which of your wrong claims would you like me to look up?--Percy

Ah, yes, there it is again, your ever-present excuse that though you have all the evidence and argument you need to slay the twin beasts of evolution and geology, you just haven't been treated right and so you're just not going to respond. And despite posting no response you'll no doubt later again claim you proved the flood. In fact I still have so many messages left to read in this thread that it's likely a safe bet I'll find at least one of your posts making this exact claim.Comey characterizes Trump as having no external reference points in his life. Ethical people look to religious tradition or cultural tradition or history or logic or philosophy, but Trump looks to what will fill the hole within himself to provide the affirmation he needs. This describes you as well. It explains why you don't care how you treat other people, why you don't care how they feel, why you use your religion to excuse your hateful attitudes and behaviors, and why it's always all about you.Over the years many people have put a great deal of effort into posts that you have ignored, and then later had the hurt and disappointment compounded when you claimed no one had rebutted your arguments and that you had proved your case. Someone who cared about more than just herself wouldn't do this to people, and especially not for years and years.Be a true Christian. Treat people right and respond forthrightly to their evidence and arguments by finding your own evidence and arguments instead of making up stories. Don't argue through disparaging labels, don't run away, and don't pretend you're unaware when you offer an argument has already been rebutted many times. I can make no guarantees about how treatment of you might change, but behaving honestly and with integrity couldn't hurt.--Percy

You and I may be in the same boat when it comes to geology. I am not fluent in geological terminology. I find visualizing some geological scenarios difficult. Some diagrams can be very challenging to interpret. Because Edge is so fluent in these things I think he's unaware when his explanations are not clear to laypeople.So here I'll offer my interpretations of Edge's answers. Edge will hopefully correct me where I go astray. I'll be quoting from Edge's answers in Message 1884. I can't know which of Edge's answers you understood and which you didn't, so I'll comment on all of them. I'll get some good benefit from working out what Edge means, and I hope you will too, assuming you haven't abandoned the thread (I'm still 150 messages from having read to the end of the thread, but noticing that the post count in the banner at the top of the page is low today and was low yesterday and the day before it seems likely that you're no longer here). I don't know why Edge didn't comment on your use of the term "band of layers." I'm not sure what you mean by it, and I don't see how Edge could know, either. For that reason I could be incorrect about what Edge is saying "no" to.By stratigraphy I think Edge means a sequence of strata, and I believe Edge is saying "no" to where you say there are many stratigraphies per time period contained within the same rock layer. That may not even make any sense, since this seems to translate to "there are many sequences of rock layers contained within the same rock layer."When Edge says there are many Devonian stratigraphies he means that different locations around the world would each have their own unique Devonian stratigraphy. There could be one Devonian stratigraphy in Michigan, a different one in France, none in England, a different one in Iraq, a different one in Rwanda, and so forth.I didn't actually look up where around the world Devonian strata are present and where they are not, but hopefully you get the idea. Conditions during the Devonian differed all around the world, so the strata deposited differed, too. That's why there are many different Devonian stratigraphies around the world. There are also no doubt many parts of the world where only a subset of the Devonian is represented, and many where none is represented. In fact, since the Devonian was much more than 200 million years ago, and since almost no sea floor is older than 200 million years, there is probably little to no Devonian stratigraphy beneath the seas. I'm not sure why Edge let this go by without commenting on it, because it seems impossible to know exactly what you mean. Rather than speculate I'll just refer you to my previous paragraph, which hopefully explains it pretty clearly. Edge seems to be sure what you mean by "band of rocks", since he uses the term himself. If "band of rocks" means "sequence of strata", which is my only guess, then I'm unable to interpret what he says.What I can say is that strata from the exact same time period but from different parts of the world might well contain similar fossils, but it would depend. Perhaps trilobites from layers of the same age and type would be fairly similar around the world, perhaps not. And trilobites from layers of different types, say sandstone versus limestone which represent very different environments, would be unlikely to be similar, even when the layers are in close proximity geographically. If you were expressing skepticism about the need for the term "system" then I think I might agree with you. If the period and system names are identical (e.g., Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian), i.e., if there's always a one-to-one correspondence, then what's the point? There does seem to be some subtle conceptual idea that "system" is trying to communicate, but by and large I don't get it. About "system" Wikipedia says:

quote:

---

A system in stratigraphy is a unit of rock layers that were laid down together within the same corresponding geological period.

---

And geology.com says:

quote:

---

A stratigraphic unit of major significance which was deposited during a specific time period, and which can be correlated worldwide on the basis of its fossil content.

---

I could definitely use some help understanding the definition of system and why the term is useful. Edge let your comment "And one per time period" stand without remark, so this must mean that there is indeed a one-to-one correspondence between period and system, and that there is only one system worldwide for each period. Still seems like a weirdly unnecessary term to me.I don't understand Edge's "Not one layer" answer.I also don't understand why Edge let your "same physical level" comment stand. I interpret "same physical level" to mean same elevation above or below sea level. If that is what you meant then the same system would definitely be at different elevations at different places around the world. And in some places the system would only be partially present, and in others completely absent. Expanding on Edge's answer, because sedimentation is not continuous (net sedimentation only occurs at low points, generally lake and sea beds and coastal areas), and because of erosion of exposed parts of a system, and because of subduction of sea floor, I'll bet that no system is completely represented everywhere throughout the globe. I understood you to be asking a different question than the one Edge appeared to answer. I can't be sure, but it seemed like you were still questioning the need for the term system. Expanding on Edge's answer, exploring the world today we can observe the conditions necessary for depositing the different kinds of sediments. Sand is deposited along and near coastlines, silt and mud is deposited further from shore or in swamps and lagoons, calcareous sediments are deposited in warm shallow seas, pelagic sediments are deposited in deep ocean. We can see the lithified state of these sediments where strata are exposed in road cuts, mountains, canyons, outcrops, etc.. We recognize that sandstone represents ancient coastlines, that shale and slate represent ancient offshore areas or swamps and lagoons, that limestone represents ancient warm shallow seas.We see a sequence of strata of different types because the world is dynamic. Sea levels rise and fall. Land surfaces rise and fall. Mountains are pushed up and then eroded away. The most common cause of changing depositional environments is transgressing and regressing seas over millions of years following Walther's Law. With a transgressing sea a place that was coastline and is receiving sand deposits will eventually become offshore and receive mud and silt deposits, which bury the sand below them. As the transgression continues this place might become far enough from shore to become a warm shallow sea where calcareous sediments are deposited, burying the mud and silt deposits beneath them. This is how one commonly observed sequence of strata comes to be. This answer is pretty clear and is the same as what I explained above at greater length. It isn't clear to me what Edge thinks is your strawman, but I'm also unable to make sense of your question. While the need for the term system may not be clear, certainly there's nothing nonsensical about a one-to-one correspondence between period and system, so you must be referring to something else. Can you be more explicit about what it is that doesn't make sense to you? I agree with Edge that you often seem adamantly opposed to reality. Your most bizarre belief is that you don't think sediments are contributing to stratigraphic columns any more. Everyone understands that while standing in their front yard they stand atop a stratigraphic column, and that if they scatter some sand on their yard then they are contributing to that stratigraphic column, and that if they remove a shovelful of dirt then they are subtracting from that stratigraphic column, but you reject that. Everyone understands that sediments accumulating on sea floors everywhere around the world are contributing to stratigraphic columns, but you reject that. It's the weirdest thing that you can so determinedly reject realities that are undeniable, yet your verbiage opposing reality goes on for pages. Edge is picking up on your use of the word level that I commented on before when you said "physical level". I assumed that by level you meant physical level because that's what you said earlier, but maybe not.Also, you're using pronouns again, making it unclear what you're referring to. By "they" do you mean systems? Strata within systems? I'll assume you mean strata within systems. So if by same level you mean strata that appear in the same place within a system, then yes, strata that correspond to the same level within a system could be present at multiple places around the world.But they won't contain the same fossils. Different environments support different life, and different locations will have different species populations even if the environments are the similar. The best that can be said is that similar strata in the same place within a system will possibly have similar fossils.If by level you meant physical level then no, they do not occur at exactly the same level around the world. The elevations above and below sea level will vary widely. I'm having the same problem you are in conflating system and period. As I said earlier, more explanation from Edge about the need for the two terms would be helpful. I disagree somewhat with this in a couple of ways. One is that I do think that there's a lot about geology that one can teach oneself, but that there's also a lot that can only be learned in the field. The other is that I don't think your problems understanding geology are of the subtle nature of things that can best be learned in the field. A lot of what you refuse to understand about geology is simple reality and common sense. You're again objecting to system and period, and I'm still with you on this and hoping to better understand the need for both these terms. This is about system and period again, and that you call it amazing that every period has a system indicates that maybe I'm wrong that we're looking at this the same way. It can't be amazing because its just the definition of the words. A system is the rock layers around the world that correspond to a period. Why do you find that amazing? As I said several times already, the need for the word system (and the other terms at higher and lower levels of classification) is not clear to me, but the definition does make perfect sense. Though Edge chose to reexpress it more generally, what you said up to the part about fossils is correct. What you said about fossils isn't exactly wrong but misunderstands the point Edge was making.Making the point another way, the world is a messy place that doesn't provide neat boundaries, but despite that we humans have defined time periods with clear start points and end points. The Triassic ends and the Jurassic begins at 201.3 million years ago, but the processes that actually deposited the sediments 201.3 million years ago didn't know that humans would one day define that as a boundary between periods. Reality is just blind physical processes doing what they do and that take no account of the definitions humans will create millions of years later for their own convenience.A transgression could have taken place from 205 million years ago until 195 million years ago, spanning the Triassic/Jurassic boundary at 201.3 million years. The transgression would leave behind sandstone, siltstone and limestone layers of ages that span the 201.3 million year boundary. As you move laterally across a specific strata that spans this time boundary you will find that the fossils slightly older than 201.3 million years are fairly similar if not identical to fossils slightly younger than 201.3 million years.Edge mentioned Walther's Law, and you still don't understand how it works. It is a very slow and gradual process that is best understood by considering what takes place during transgressions and regressions that are caused by changes in sea level or land elevation or both. Floods cannot follow Walther's Law - they happen far too quickly. I've often cited to you the example of the 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami. The tsunami's incursion miles inland did not leave behind sorted sedimentary layers, or perform sorting of any type other than the normal settling out of sediments by size/density anywhere that standing water resulted. I don't have a better analogy, but I can explain the one Edge used. The tape is the geological timescale, but each location around the world would have its own tape. It's a vertical tape. The sedimentary layers at each location are recorded on the tape at that location from the bottom to the top (Law of Superposition). Erasures can happen, with sedimentary layers being removed from the tape by erosion, and the recording of more sedimentary layers can later resume. Or not. I assume that by convention Edge is referring to the terminology, the labels given the various periods, and the time bounds of those periods. A flood interpretation should have time periods, too, i.e., this layer was deposited on day 1, this layer on days 2 and 3, etc., though of course no evidence supports such time periods. In other words, Edge is skeptical of your expression of leaving aside your religious beliefs to objectively consider the evidence from the natural world. Your seventeen years of history here suggests his skepticism is warranted. In other words and in more detail, the same things have been explained to you over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread, and it doesn't make any difference. You still maintain that the Bible is the final word, that your interpretation is correct no matter what the evidence says, that you'll ignore any evidence you don't like, that you'll call ideas and people names, make up stories that have no evidence, ignore posts, repeat already rebutted arguments as if the rebuttals had never happened, abandon discussion, etc. and so forth and so on.--Percy

The last sentence quoted above, taken in isolation, might give Faith the false impression that, for example, the Saharan erg does not overlie existing strata, which she would cite in support of her mistaken idea that sediments being deposited today have nothing to do with strata deposited in the past (by the Flood, in her view). Here's a diagram I found of the strata underlying a part of the Sahara in Egypt: --Percy

The fear I expressed to Edge in my previous message has come to pass - you misinterpreted what he said. I don't know why he didn't reply, but allow me to explain. Edge isn't saying that new sediments cannot be deposited upon existing strata. He's saying that's not a requirement. In a depositional environment new sediments will be deposited upon whatever is there, which could be strata or basal igneous rock. If there are other possibilities Edge had in mind perhaps he can describe them for us. Again, all Edge is saying is that there is no requirement that new sediments must overlie existing strata - they could overlie something else like igneous rock. I'm not sure why Edge stressed what seems to be a minor point, since most new sediments will be deposited upon existing strata given that most of the Earth's surface is strata rather than igneous rock (like the Canadian Shield), but the important point here is that Edge was definitely not saying what you thought. Edge is still stressing his point that new sediments do not *have* to be deposited upon existing strata. You are correct that when new sediments are deposited upon existing strata that they add to the stratigraphic column. Two comments. First, I think Edge didn't realize you were misinterpreting what he was saying, that he didn't realize you thought he was saying that no deposition is taking place atop existing stratigraphic columns. That's not what he was saying, and deposition is definitely taking place atop existing stratigraphic columns.But second, net long term deposition is not taking place in most of North America. Being above sea level it is mostly subject to net erosion. Net deposition only occurred in parts of North America when they were near or below sea level. And of course not all parts of North America were near or below sea level at the same time. This has been explained to you many times by many people, but because you still don't accept it even after all these years this is something that you should spend some time discussing. The reality is that the sedimentary layers being deposited today precisely resemble the strata in stratigraphic columns around the world. That's how we know that a sandstone layer was once a coastal region, or that shale was once an offshore region or lagoons and swamps, or that limestone was once a warm shallow sea. You exaggerate how universally flat and straight strata boundaries are. Obviously since many strata vary in widely in thickness they cannot be any more than generally flat and straight, and the deviation from flat and straight can be quite significant. The Temple Butte limestone at the Grand Canyon varies in thickness between 0 and 1000 feet thick. Between a point where it is 0 feet thick and another point where it is a 1000 feet thick its boundaries could not possibly be flat and straight, and they are not. Here's an image you've probably seen before: The geologic column is more conceptual than physical. You should really be speaking of stratigraphic columns. Edge was not saying that stratigraphic columns ever shift to new locations. What shifts locations is where net deposition and net erosion are taking place, which depends upon elevation above or below sea level. A region beneath the sea will be one of net deposition and will accumulate more and more sediments into strata of ever greater depths. The type of strata deposited will depend upon distance from shore, which has a large influence on depositional environment. Distance from shore will vary with rising and falling sea levels. If after millions of years the region is uplifted above sea level then it will become one of net erosion. If after more millions of years the region once more descends beneath the waves then it will again become one of net deposition and sediments will resume accumulating atop the unconformity created by the earlier erosion.--Percy

I see the main problem not as Faith's dismissal of the standard view but of her inability to understand it. If she understood it but rejected it then we could intelligently discuss it. But how do you have an intelligent discussion with someone about something they don't understand?It isn't that Faith doesn't know a great deal more about geology than your average person, because she certainly does. But what she knows is an eclectic patchwork of terms and concepts, and what she doesn't know or rejects is another eclectic patchwork of terms and concepts. There's also a general lack of understanding of how the real world behaves.One key example of something Faith doesn't understand is that sedimentary layers are being deposited today that are just like those we find in the strata exposed at the Grand Canyon. Another is that floods don't follow Walther's Law.--Percy

You're using IE 11? I just checked it out, works fine. I did this:

• Hover over the Search button at the top of the page.
• The search box appears. I move the cursor over the search box and enter the word "test".
• I hit return. I could have instead clicked on the Search button, they both do the same thing.
• A list of search results appear. I click on one of the message links.
• The message is displayed.
• I click the back button. The list of search results reappears.
• I click on a different message link.
• That message is displayed.
• I click the back button. The list of search results reappears.

I also tried clicking on the Search button and performing the search from the detailed search page. This worked also.Is one of these pretty much how you did your search? Maybe you're using a different version of IE? What OS version are you running?--Percy

No, your conclusions rely upon the first couple pages of Genesis and a bunch of stuff you made up. Evidence is not part of your approach. Right, you don't have evidence regarding ice sheets, nor for anything else. You're not a geologist nor even making any effort to just become conversant in geology. You're not going to read much about it. You can't even see much of the evidence presented to you here. Yet you think your views have merit. Delusional much? I agree you're doing very well maintaining ignorance, in just the way you describe above.People who have evidence present and describe their evidence. People who don't have evidence just claim to have evidence, like the way you started your message: "My conclusions DO rely on evidence."--Percy

Really? ICR traces its roots back to 1970, nearly a half century ago. Henry Morris's The Genesis Flood was published in 1961, more than half a century ago. The fundamentalist movement promoting Biblical inerrancy is over a century old. None of that is "very recently."Creationism remains unchanged from when I first learned about it in the 1980s. The only new "development" was a brief fad called intelligent design, but it never really recovered from the Dover trial. Having a head start is not where the advantage lies. Having evidence is where the advantage lies. Newton's couple hundred years head start on Einstein didn't help him when the evidence showed Einstein right. Hutton's couple hundred years head start on Wegener didn't help him when the evidence showed Wegener right that the continents move.So science's head start on Biblical literalism will be no help were the evidence to show Biblical literalism right, but so far there is no evidence that does that. Literally none. The best you've been able to do is come up with scenarios that are as magical as if God himself were to have done it through miracles. Any evidence you do have comes from conventional geology - none of it was gathered by YECs. The rest is just made up stories adhering to your interpretation of the first couple pages of Genesis. Reputations in science are made by overturning existing interpretations or theory. The greatest hope of any scientist is to show some part of science wrong, or at least incomplete.--Percy

I don't know what "old style creationism" is - when did it change? The only thing notable about Faith-style creationism is that it makes even less sense than actual creationism. The measure of science is how well it describes reality - the Bible has nothing to do with it. The bulk of your evidence was uncovered by geologists (the rest comes from charlatans like Steve Austin, Guy Bertault, Andrew Snelling and John Baumgardner). You've misunderstood, misinterpreted or simply made things up about evidence and then were immediately corrected and/or rebutted. Hundreds of times. You're calling things names again. Mammals are only found in strata back to Pennsylvanian layers. Dinosaurs are only found in strata from shortly after the beginning of the Triassic up until the end of the Cretaceous. Reptiles are only found in strata back to late Carboniferous layers. Fish are only found back as far as early Silurian strata. Multicellular life is only found back as far as Archean strata. These are facts, not illusions, and no flood, global or of any other sort you might imagine, is capable of such sorting. I collected some petrified wood at Yellowstone back in '61. The present is the key to the past, so anything a volcano could do today to trees and a lake volcanos in the past could do also. You give no hint of what evidence at Yellowstone you're referring to that is similar to what happened to Spirit Lake (yet another opportunity for you to present evidence that you pass up, but I'm sure that won't stop you from telling us again and again how much evidence you've presented when the actual truth is that you almost never present evidence but a great many stories), but anyone can read about the many successive layers of petrified forest there.--Percy

No, actually it's all you making things up. You're trying to define kind? Where? You've made no attempt to define kind. You contradict yourself below by saying the opposite, that sea stars, sea cucumbers and sea daisies have shared structures that make them the same kind. Which is it? Do shared structures indicate the same species or the same kind?It's undoubtedly wrong to say that shared structures indicate the same species, since many structures are shared among many different species. As I said earlier, if poisonous tentacles, mouth location and segmentation means that sea stars, sea cucumbers and sea daisies are all the same species, then number of limbs, mouth location and segmented vertebrae mean that you're the same species as a chimpanzee. But that's obviously not true, right? So you are wrong to say that shared structures define species, right? If sea stars, sea cucumbers and sea daisies are all the same kind, then because they cannot interbreed they cannot be the same species. So you are wrong to equate species with kind. You are also wrong to capitalize kind. You are once again wrong. If kind groups together different species, then kind and species cannot be synonymous. If you say so. But this just proves you wrong again to claim species and kind synonymous. Using the word kind in a sentence is not a definition. Really? Then you're easily confused. A lion is a species of cat. The American robin is a species of bird. The rainbow trout is a species of fish. Where's the confusion? Are you calling species and kind synonymous again? How many times do you want to be wrong? Species is an irreducible category in terms of breeding populations. You haven't defined kind. This has inherent problems. How will you select which structures to share, which to differentiate? For example, what structures separate the wolf kind from the cat kind? How do you determine which structures matter and which are incidental? How do you keep from classifying yourself and a chimpanzee as the same kind? Here's that same contradiction again. Up above you said that "shared structure is what I mean by Species", now you're saying that your film said that shared structures is what it meant by kind. Looking things up in Wikipedia, the tentacles of sea cucumbers are not poisonous, they do not ambulate via their tentacles, the mouth is not in the center bottom, and they are not segmented. Sea stars do not have tentacles (they have arms completely unrelated to the mouth tentacles of sea cucumbers), they do not ambulate via tentacles, and they are not segmented. I could find no good information about the sea daisy.But clearly you've been misinformed. I think what this little circus really shows is that you have a strong tendency to trust bad information. The only thing that is clear is that you are contradicting yourself, then doing it again when the contradictions are pointed out. There is nothing in Genesis saying this, there is no evidence of an ark, and still no definition of kind. Microevolution wouldn't produce different species. What about species? If the ark only had two of the hawk kind, diverging into races wouldn't produce all the different species of hawk. Then that was wrong. Species has a clear definition for sexual species. Kind has no definition - all you've been able to tell us is that it is a larger taxonomic group somewhere above species. You're talking baloney. There's species and kind, and you seem to keep confusing the two terms. You're just full of excuses. All you need is an unambiguous definition of kind. You're the only one experiencing linguistic difficulties, and it's because you keep trying to employ a term for which you have no definition. Your confusion will continue until you define kind. You're the only one having a problem because you're the only one making things up as you go along. Any semantic confusions are of your own making. Stop making excuses and define kind.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

First, you don't have a paradigm. You have religious beliefs trying to pawn themselves off as science.Second, the only definitional problem is that you haven't defined kind. Genomic change is inevitable because copying errors during reproduction are inevitable. You're posts represent a continuum of excuses for why you can't make coherent arguments. Define kind. Invent new terminology all you like. There are only two rules. 1) You have to define your terms; and 2) You can't redefine existing terms. More silly excuses. If you can't articulate what you're trying to say then you shouldn't be posting.--Percy

Here's a criteria:

quote:

---

Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you:
do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets

---

So do you want people to ignore much of what you say? To make up evidence? To make up explanations with no evidence? To repeat arguments that you've already rebutted but that they ignored? To parade religious views as science? To use terms they don't define? To give new definitions to terms that already have definitions? To hide behind name calling like "illusion" and "paradigm" instead of making arguments that have substance? To claim confusion to avoid discussion? To create confusion to avoid discussion?You don't, right?So why do you do it to other people?I wouldn't call you a bad Christian because I don't make judgments in terms of religion. But it is clear from your participation across a range of topics and from the way you treat people here that you do not possess the qualities one normally associates with Christians, like consideration, tolerance, generosity, empathy, compassion, integrity. Your main interest seems to be to inflict your own beliefs on as many people as possible, and not out of concern for their souls but because you're right and others should yield to your will.In this thread you've continually accused people of being enthralled by a paradigm, but you've been sold a bill of goods by a religion. Religions are cheap, there's thousands of sects out there, and a number of them are just as dogmatic and certain as yours. But the key to how the world works isn't written in a book. It's written in the world itself.--Percy

As Feynman said, paraphrasing, "The easiest person to fool is yourself."--Percy

But your rebuttals of the fossil order are nothing but denial and name calling like "illusion", "paradigm" and "mental exercise". You don't actually have any arguments against the fossil order because it is real. The deeper the strata in the geologic column, the more different the fossils from modern forms, and paleontology has classified these extinct forms according to the Linnaean system.You do seem to recognize that the lack of any mixing by the Flood requires explanation, that no rabbit ever got buried with a trilobite, no pterodactyl with a bat. Even if that's all you'll concede, that's an order, not an illusion, one that can't be explained by "Unknown factors, hydraulic mechanisms" as you attempted in Message 1813. I rebutted this in Message 1986, but your reply in Message 1988 addressed almost none of my rebuttals, including that one.--Percy