Yes, Percy, I understand your thinking, but I think like a floodist and it seems to me that the facts support my thinking as well as evo thinking.
Well, then, you get nowhere. Even though you are wrong about the evidence it is clear that what you need is diagnostic, exclusive evidence for the flood.
I'm not so sure that the deeper fossils are all that much more different from modern types than the wooly mammoth, the sabre-toothed tiger or eohippus are different from modern types.
Then you are wrong. Entire classes are missing from early fossil assemblages. For instance, where are mammalia in Devonian rocks?
The idea of the Flood includes the idea that the pre-Flood world contained some dramatically different forms of life than we see now, in keeping with the observed Geo Column forms. They are simply different varieties of their "Kind" and the genetic possibilities for those varieties were extinguished by the Flood.
Okay. What, then, are the kinds we have now that are similar to Triassic dinosaur lifeforms?
The creatures that look like birds may be flying reptiles. They may be related to dinosaurs. Birds may or may not be. How would anybody know for sure?
Well, for
you to be sure, or for most people to be sure? There is a difference. Most of us would look at the transitional nature of early bird/dinosaurs and their position within the geological record and say that evolution is a reasonable exlanation for the data. Your scenario does not explain all of the data that exists.
Analogous physical features don't necessarily prove it.
Of course not. NO one says that they do.
The assumption of inheritance has no more certain justification than the assumption of similar design. Genes might prove something. DNA might I guess. The variety of creatures is fascinating, but inheritance isn't PROVED by any physical correspondences or lack of them. Especially if you're bringing in natural selection to explain a "transitional" kind. It's possible the genetic potential of the huge reptiles was rich enough before the Flood to produce a flying type as well as many other variations. I really think that's possible. But the idea that the flying type is a descendant through modification by natural selection from a previous shared ancestor requires a bunch of trial-and-error intermediaries that don't exist between ANY postulated generational connections the ToE makes.
The problem is that the do exist. You have simply dismissed them and explained thema away by some contrived mechanism that rejects all modern geological thought.
Yes, now I know I've put myself beyond the Scientific Pale again. Oh well, it seems to be my permanent abode.
It is a reversible condition. But you have to want to learn. That is the hard part.
I suggested a different scenario: that they were likely soon overcome by the torrential rain, which would severely limit their ability to survive as they couldn't fly far in that.
But the torrential rains started early in the flood myth. So, why not one Cambrian bird?
And as far as water dwelling creatures go, as I also proposed, their survival potentials would in fact be the lowest because of the huge quantities of sediments that would have been sent into the water continuously from the beginning of the flood, both stirred up from the bottom of the oceans ("fountains of the deep") and eroded off the land everywhere on earth.
Yes and this would completely eradicate corals forever, but we digress. Realistically, where does this sediment come from during a global flood? As there is less and less land, the source of sediment shrinks and then completely disappears.
Sorting by locale, sorting by preference for the company of their own kind, sorting by survival strategies.
You are saying that only one type of habitat would be flooded or eroded at a time? You are saying that dinosaur predators would not have loved to prey upon Tertiary mammals? You are saying that flowering trees were faster or more intelligent than gymnosperms, or that their pollen moved with them to higher ground? This is getting extremely far-fetched, Faith.
But I still have to ask, in how many places do you find these Eocene, Jurassic, Permian layers with their corresponding fossils?
Virtually all of them, assuming that preservation was possible.
There is always this problem for someone trying to trace the evidence that what is presented is the CONCLUSIONS from the evidence, not the evidence itself. We are TOLD that such and such a creature is ONLY found in the "Eocene," we are NOT told where these layers exist around the world, how many fossil specimens are found where, etc.
All of this is available in the literature. It is beyond the scope of a MB to handle this quantity of information.
How many fossils are we talking about?
At least many thousands, if not millions.
Are any of them actually grouped together or are they placed in the same "era" by extrapolation from the Geo Timeline?
Many fossils are grouped together. In fact, I was always taught to use fossil assemblages rather than individuals.
Are their layers of the same kind of sediment or different kinds of sediments in different parts of the world?
Frequently different. This is one of the problems with the flood hypothesis. There is no definable, worldwide unit that can represent a single global flood.
If you find a "gap" between such a layer /time period and others above or below, what REAL evidence is there to justify assuming it ever existed in that locale?
None. It may NOT have existed there. However, there is usually evidence of WHY it is not there, such as an erosional surface or a bedding fault, etc. etc. And, yes, there is evidence for such things.
You are now telling me that they all lived in the same region. I assume they were washed from DIFFERENT high places, preferring their own kind.
Just how do you wash things from different high places without crossing low places? Please give us an example of a significant river that does not cross several biomes. Why are humans not present in the lower layers since we live in most terrestrial biomes and leave our marks on marine biomes?
But nobody knows, ALL of it is speculation. The evidence to my mind definitely suggests that the fossils in the layers couldn't just have died in the normal course of life over millions of years but were encased in mud, all of them, bazillions of them. How the layers got themselves in the disposition they are in is what I'm trying to think about and creationists have generally come up with these kinds of scenarios.
Faith, a few years ago, I went to the Chesapeake Bay and found sediment with hundreds of shells and shell fragments in each handfull. So, where is the flood? Are you saying that the topmost layers of sediment in the bay are still there from the flood? If so, why are they bottom-dwelling creatures still present at the top of the column? According to you, they should have been gone by that time.
What evos have a BIG problem with that is NEVER acknowledged is how millions or years would have produced many horizontal layers of anything at all over so much of the earth, rather than heaps and valleys, and layers that contain fossil life in such apparently quickly-covering wet-sediment type "environments" too. Yes I know I've argued this already and everybody just informs me that it did in fact happen and this or that current observation of local smallscale geological processes explains it.
And you have consistently refused to acknowledge our points. Preferring to plead that since you don't understand it, the explanation is invalid. It is only YOU telling us that we have a problem....
It's funny too. I tried in the original sediments deposition thread to draw some conclusions from the great extent of the geological column over all the earth and was hooted down on the basis that the geological column is not such a perfect extensive thing in reality, heck those layers aren't even parallel. But when I start arguing from its being fragmented and scattered I get it proved to me that in fact it exists in perfect form in many places.
(emphasis mine)
You are inconsistent here. First you say 'all over the world' and then discuss individual locales. This is a problem that we cannot help you with other than point it out. I try, once again, to do so, but I do not hold much hope that you can recognize the problem.
Which is exactly what I've been trying to do. But I started with the one dinosaur bed only to answer PaulK. The actual bunching of the dinosaurs at the foot of an apparent "riverbed" certainly does support a massive one-time event better than the leisurely scenario given at the monument....
(emphasis mine)
Then why do we see so many events in the geological record?
I would assume so. And of course I'm repeating myself as usual , but what I find hard to understand is how, given the very nature of the geological forces which shape our planet, any given layer survived intact at all anywhere over the supposed millions of years allotted to the formation of each, let alone a stack of them as seen in the Grand Canyon and surrounding terrain.
As we have discussed many times, your personal incredulity is not evidence.
But evidence FOR the flood is in the strata themselves so visible in many mountains, and the mountains had to have been formed as a result of the flood or certainly afterward and didn't exist before, ...
So, what about the strata forming today? Are they forming in a global flood, also?
...according to the small depth the Bible says was required to cover all the mountains on earth at the time.
If the land was so low, where did all of the coarse-grained sediments come from, both early and later in the flood when there was no land above the water? This really makes no sense at all.
And I've understood that marine fossils are found in some mountain areas, fitting the idea that the mountains were mostly formed from the lowest strata.
Or they could have been deposited in the sea, then later uplifted to where they are now. Ever heard of plate tectonics?
™ Version 4.2
