Flood sorting

But surely for hydrodynamic sorting to have played any part at
all in consistent fossil ordering it would have to be a
deterministic process. It's not ... I checked up some research
papers on it ... the dynamics are so complex that the end results
are inconsistent even in lab. tanks.And hydrodynamic sorting would supercede the rest of your sorting
processes in a year-long flood, surely.Once the critters can no longer escape (the world was covered
after 40 days and the waters receded after 150 days) the major
'sorting' influence would be hydrodynamic sorting.If 'escape' is a factor, surely we should only find 'mobile'
animals in strata at higher altitudes ... don't animals flee to
high ground during floods? Or is the whole contour of the
earth changed at that time?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Peter

​

The flood occurred in surges based on geo-data (if there was a flood) so that is why it is not as simple as you are suggesting. Show me the links to the tank data. The amount of work done in this area would be incredibly minimal.

---

University of Michigan: File Not Found ( 404 )
Error 404: Page or Resource Not Found | NCEIBoth deal with the transport of animal remains.

Bump, indeed ........

The problem I have always had with this 'sorting'
argument is the complexity of the process. Experiments
on chicken bones reveal such vast complexity that the 'sorting'
is considered random.IF a flood (or flood surges) were responsible for the fossil
record (or a large proportion of it) wouldn't one expect
to see so many 'anomalies' (in evolutionary terms) that the
fossil record would never have been used to support the ToE
or may even have cast doubt upon it?Instead we have a situation where in order to attempt an undermining
of ToE's explanation for the fossil ordering we find an
elaborate, implausible concoction.I have tended to find that the simplest explanations for observations
are the most accurate.