The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

OH! OH! Pick me ! Pick Me! I know the answer!!! WWOOOOHHHH No seriously, I understand your argument very well, and of course, there are two things to consider:- Is the fossil really pre-flood ? Remember that creationist contest the assumptions behind the dating methods, and a radio-carbon date of 10 300 years old for them does not mean it really is pre-flood. The strata in which it was found is very important to determine if it was pre-flood. And in the case it was found in a cave etc. of some sort, then from a creationists perspective it is definitely post-flood (as cavemen fossils are post-flood in the creationist model if I remember correctly)- Even if the age is correct, the false assumption is that all the current mtDNA lineage should come from 'noah's female kin'. This is not necessarily true, since Noah's sons also had wives, which weren't there own sisters most probably, and so we already have here multiple pre-flood mtDNA lineage that got to be passed down.I saw you make this argument several times, maybe even every times a flood topic comes up. The argument is valid, but one, or possibly two, of the premises are false.PS. I know it was a test for Calypsis4, but I gotta help him a bit.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Oh my, that's a question that usually gets covered in them long papers on flood geology (ya know, the boring ones)I'm not really into geology, so I don't know the conventional layer names at all. I have a book about it though, but it's at my parents hous ...From my personnal memory and deduction abilities hehe, I would think that pretty much all the sedimentary layers were deposited during the flood, maybe here and there some post flood layers appeared, and also maybe some pre-flood layers exist at the very beginning. But overall, all sedimentary layers containing fossils were deposited during the flood.And so as soon as you start having lots of fossils (read here: the cambrian explosion layers) then you have the beginning of the flood-deposited layers, which would stretch all the way to the upper-most layers.The real question here I guess is which layers are linked with what stages of the flood. Because in the current creationist model of the flood, there were multiple stages to it.Some layers at the same place could actually have been deposited at the same time during the flood, and so where a long-age geologist (note I didn't say evolutionist ) would see multiple layers of thousands/millions of years, a flood geologist would see one layer deposited by a flow of water, which produced multiple 'artificial layers' because the grains arranged in terms of size etc.As I've said, I hope this is clear, as it isn't my 'specialty' and so I have fewer english vocabulary on this, since I read about it less often.

Well then, the case is settled on my side I guess. If the specimen is from a cave, then it is post-flood from the creationist model of post-flood dispersion of population. Remember that after the flood, there was the tower of Babel, and only after this event did humanity spread out and populate other places. It is during this post-babel dispersion, which would have been in the middle of the ice age, that the majority of cave specimens were 'made' (if I can use this expression)If I can prevent in advance, I will guess that you will say 'this is religion based, and so as no relevance in this scientific discussion'. However, it would be faulty to attack the flood model, with an argument based on genetics, without wanting to consider the larger creationist model of the post-flood events. It is also more clever to argument against a model, by assuming this model to be true, only to show that is inconsistent with the current data. In this case, I think that the flood-babel-post babel model is consistent with this data.Furthermore, the historicity of Babel would by itself be another topic, one that would probably be very interesting, but so it would be beyond the scope of this thread to analyse if it has any scientific/historic significance.The only issue, then, remains the carbon-dating. Which is also another topic, one that I know you feel comfortable with the actual assumptions. But I'll let calypsis4 cover it in due time ...

I gave an answer to your post #6 though. Would you agree with me that the only point of disagreement on your mtDNA argument is the dating of the specimens ?

Ok I need a bit of clarification. Do you implying that because dinosaurs died 65 millions years ago all they could have left are fossils (ie bone wouldn't 'survive' all those years ??) ???