Summations Only

And they did that over and over and over again. Yeah, burrowing is very common in the animal world to escape rising water. Of course the trackways usually are walking, not running.Plus pausing to compost to make paleosols.And growing various plants in those paleosols so they would be found with roots intact.And carrying entire forests, soil and roots and all, to drop on top of existing forests. 27 of them at Specimen Ridge.

You said they don't. Just magma.Name one stratum that spans an ocean bedWhen we drill into the ocean floor we see layers of rocks.

Yeah, the water that was wild and scouring the rocks to dust carefully picked up the nests and carried them upright for miles. None of the gigatons of sediment in the water got caught in the nest.You haven't made the case for why you claim our examples of sedimentary layers forming today are the wrong location, time, scale, and shape.

You think wrong.

https://tinyurl.com/y7pkdx6s

Leonardo da Vinci figured out that didn't happen back in the 13th century.

quote:

---

In Leonardo's day there were several hypotheses of how it was that shells and other living creatures were found in rocks on the tops of mountans. Some believed the shells to have been carried there by the Biblical Flood; others thought that these shells had grown in the rocks. Leonardo had no patience with either hypothesis, and refuted both using his careful observations. Concerning the second hypothesis, he wrote that "such an opinion cannot exist in a brain of much reason; because here are the years of their growth, numbered on their shells, and there are large and small ones to be seen which could not have grown without food, and could not have fed without motion -- and here they could not move." There was every sign that these shells had once been living organisms. What about the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible? Leonardo doubted the existence of a single worldwide flood, noting that there would have been no place for the water to go when it receded. He also noted that "if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time." He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it. He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood.

​

How did those shells come to lie at the tops of mountains? Leonardo's answer was remarkably close to the modern one: fossils were once-living organisms that had been buried at a time before the mountains were raised: "it must be presumed that in those places there were sea coasts, where all the shells were thrown up, broken, and divided. . ." Where there is now land, there was once ocean. It was possible, Leonardo thought, that some fossils were buried by floods -- this idea probably came from his observations of the floods of the Arno River and other rivers of north Italy -- but these floods had been repeated, local catastrophes, not a single Great Flood. To Leonardo da Vinci, as to modern paleontologists, fossils indicated the history of the Earth, which extends far beyond human records. As Leonardo himself wrote:

​

quote:

---

Since things are much more ancient than letters, it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries. . . But sufficient for us is the testimony of things created in the salt waters, and found again in high mountains far from the seas.

---

---

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.htmlYou're a few centuries behind. Your idea that all sorts of delicate and brittle objects were carried around whole by the raging waters is the most ridiculous of all your siliy ideas.

But you are obviously not aware of the reasoning of many others. Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the EarthAnd oodles of non-radiometric dating that agree. You have a real problem acknowledging that fact.

You continue to skip the critical step of explaining why it is impossible.

He certainly was bright enough to figure out that a flood cannot pick up whole formations and carry them elsewhere without extensive and obvious damage.There are no vast caverns of water under the surface. There is water trapped bound in other molecules, inaccessible and not formed by water from above the surface.

ITYM "No matter how good the other dating schemes seem to be, I'm not going to contradict my fallible interpretation of what I believe is God's word."

So many, many people doubt your fallible interpretation of what you believe is God's word. Including most Christians (no, you don't get to decide who is a "real" Christian and who isn't)>

The evidence is the fossils, not your claims about them. It seems you are incapable of comprehending this.You need to explain why and how the abundance of fossils supports your claim that they they are more consistent with a fludde than the mainstream scenario. Including how they are distributed in the stratgraphy. And making up more ad-hoc fantasies is not support.We see the abundance and have an explanation which is consistent with all else scientific we know about the Universe.

Oh, the abundance is probably consistent with a fludde. It's also definitely consistent with the mainstream explanation. So it's no basis for thinking one explanation is better than the other. So, unless you can make a rational argument that the abundance is not consistent with the mainstream explanation, it's a wash and discussing it is fruitless. BTW depreciating isn't rational argument; don't say "stupid", "silly", "ludicrous" or the like.The distribution , now that's a different story. Again we have an explanation which is consistent with all else scientific we know about the Universe. You have "no known physics can account for it but something must have done it". We know a lot of physics. There's good reason to believe only direct Divine intervention could produce what we see by a fludde.There our explanation clearly is better, and the distribution of fossils is an observed fact that cries out for explanation.

Has it occurred to you that there might been too many organisms in the fossil record to be explained by the fludde? Your scenario may require more life at one time than would fit on the planet? Shells and the Biomass of Earth: A serious problem for young earth creationists: Then what did it? Oh, you have no answer, right? Physics and chemistry, of which we know a lot, couldn't. What else is there? Standard Faith meaningless noise. I told you that insulting the mainstream interpretation is fruitless.Of course, you have no evidence or argument against the mainstream interpretation, so insults are all you have.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Name some and link to their work.All I've ever seen are pitiful attempts at apologetics.