Falsifying Creation

"So the burrials SHOULD be random ... not ordered."
--No because that isn't how the Flood happend, the world doesn't just all of a soden fill up with water over a period of any short time as would need to be suggested for a randomness."Glad we agree on that ... Evolution IS refutable given approriate
evidence."
--Thats some very massive evidence, this evidence is almost speculative on Flood theory. If Evolution requires this sort of evidence, then I really don't know how to come against Evolution, it's extreamly flexible."It may NOT have to be THAT extreme, but not going into
that in this thread (I think it's more for a 'What would
convince you?' thread)."
--It would probably be a topical discussion for another thread I would agree."That's the nature of theories ... if new evidence emerges some or all
of a theory has to be re-arranged."
--Right, my note was to say that this is in support of Flood deposition theory, it would be expected."If the evidence is completely contrary to the theory the theory
WILL be discarded."
--Or greatly modified, depending on how much of a foundation it is, but yes your correct."Creationists do exactly the same. Come up with some evidence that
appears to refute a claim, and there's a bit more 'research', and
a get out appears."
--I'm not exactly what your implying, though I believe it is along the lines that my response would be that your going to find this on any creation or evolution supporting website. Straw-man seeming arguments, I would have to say that they are arguments that are meant to arrouse discussion and debate."Yes, and there will be layers above and below where those remains
are completely absent. (It is the 'below' part that is the
most important ... since scientists have been wrong about
extinctions in the past)."
--Yes that is what I would also argue, that it is how it is first found that is important. This is more naturally against a uniformitarian outlook though. Seeing as during the flood it was not about developing and then deposition, it was about ordered deposition, that is, everything was fully forumed towards its kind. Such as bats first appearing in the fossil record fully formed I believe in 50myo strata."So you agree that the fossil record shows an existence sequence
from older forms to newer, and yet still hold the Biblical
account of creation and of a great flood to be literally
correct ?"
--What I mean is that the fossils in lower strata, were deposited before the ones in higher strata."Evolution does not REQUIRE it as evidence, without this there is
plenty of other evidence for evolution (with which you tend
to disagree/interpret different, but none the less ... )."
--Oh it doesnt, but that would be a problem for Evolution, such cats suddenly appearing in the fossil record. Though I know that there are forms of cats simmilar to the lion and its relatives such as the tiger, I just havent seen much information on it. But I see that if such representation in the Evolutionary model is not required for evidence, than the Flood should be looked upon with the same eyes."For the flood model as you have stated it::Any animal touching bottom will be fossilised.
Animals on the Ark were those BEFORE speciation.Would require these proto-whatevers to support the model."
--See above, yes it would, unless you look at it the way you asserted above. Also, there are relative cats in the fossil record, I have been unable to see detailed information on the subject though. Encarta seems to avoid anything to do with cat evolution."So is the Bible literally correct or not, in this matter ?If the bible has omitted important information, then it is not
complete, and so we cannot claim what is there to be anything
other than an abridged/edited highlights version. That being the
case how can we ascribe literal truth to what IS included ?"
--Yes, it makes no mention of specifics in this sence, it gives us very nice clues, we simply apply these forces required and find the outcome."In general there are marked differences in vertebrate skeletal
structure between infants and adults. These alone can be
used to identify infant remains."
--Sounds accurate enough."In the flood model, with anything touching sea bed being fossilised
we should see many fossils of infants, since these would have been
too weak to survive for more than a very short time."
--Not really, you would defanantly see the diversity in skattered remains accross the geologic column, but there would defanantly be no bats or baby lions or something like that in cambrian strata."We do not see that many infant remains."
--Refrence on what we do see, taking this into account? Also I highly doubt that in an evolutionary sense that it is when things die or even the majority when they will possibly encounter fossilization. Because of the factor of decay with the need for landslides."Sorry ... the baby's crying I'll carry on with this reply later "
--To be continued "And what about throwing in an elephant and a juvenile
apatosaurus ?"
--Apatosaurus would have died first from effects of the ice age and short climate drop, self producing heat is a great advantage here, which is why such a large dinosaur would have died along with the other dinosaurs and other large reptiles/cold-blooded."Why would one (elephants can swim, sauropods are thought to have
been able to swim) hit bottom before the other ?"
--See above, also, they can't exactly 'swim', though they can stroll through water and take a bath per se."And not JUST one, all apatosaurs hit the bottom before ANY
elephants ... when survival is based (you agreed) on INDIVUDUAL
survivability."
--Yes, see above, this is quite a difference, the ability to produce ones own heat and not rely on outward environment is a emense advantage, and thus the appearence of the fossil record."OR in case we have a problem with supposing that a sauropod could
swim, why would ALL elasmosaurs (water dwellers as it is) die
before ANY elephants (or mastodons or whatever YOU would expect
to be the proto-elephant of Noah's time) ?"
--Elephants or mastadons, I would most likely agree are related along with the mammoth and such. And elasmosaurs, or pleseasaurs, basically the same, rely on air, thus would die off by cold air cooling a top layer of the ocean to very low temperatures, even though some places were greatly heated by tectonic activity and heat being produced at some places in the oceans, the K-T extinction would have been after the crux of the activity most likely."Fair enough ... what characteristics and factors could contribute
to the CONSISTENT sequence found in the fossil record."
--I'll quote myself:

quote:

---

There are many factors, intelligence, agility/menuverability(could it climb treas or have the ability to menuver in the midst of chaos well), shape/structure (fur, density (muscle sinks and fat floats I believe from because of density), lungs and air, etc), environment, habitat (did it live on the bottom of the ocean, middle, top of the ocean, live on ground, could it fly, and if it could fly how long can it stay in the air and when it is on the ground what is its relevance to menuverability (pterosaurs are thought to 'waddle' simmilar to the way bats menuver on ground as is shown by pelvis structure), also how can this animal adapt to quick changing environments, ie ice age or rapid climate changes could have caused virtually all non-insulated animals to die quickly and be subject to quick burrial on the next sediment deposits with little rustling around of the bodies. Hydrologic sorting plays a very small part in the reason they are burried the way they are.

​

--Note these arent all the factors, just the obvious ones to get discussion started.

---

--Environmental conditions would also contribute."Evolutionary theory claims that remains found in lower levels
were deposited long before those in higher strata. That
fits the data. If the lower remains lived and died before
the births of those in higher layers (regardless of the actual
time period) we would expect to see the progression which can
be OBSERVED in the fossil record."
--See above, thats my interperetation, and my argument on the fossil record."Interpratation of data ... true.Suppose you hadn't read anything about creationist claims about
how the fossil record originated."
--Actually, I havent been able to read too much In all truth, half of my arguments come from my knowledge on naturalistic geology and simply what would be obvious factors as I have listed."What about the fossil record would lead you to suppose that all
the remains had co-existed, and that some cataclism had burried
them in a sequence such that some forms appeared to precede others
in time AND in form ?"
--IMHO, I think that you would come up with some varied form of Flood scenario, which would actually be easier to attribute if we did not have to follow a biblical interperetation. Well I don't know if 'easier' is the word, more like, more diverse such as evolution, it is more flexible than it would be if someone earlier jotted what something was and you had to color inside the lines to be valid."The hypothesis that the fossil record indicated an order of existence
from long ago to more recent times was made based upon the data
BEFORE evolutionary theory existed."
--Biological evolution yes, because that was not in support untill Darwins theory on Biological evolution. Earlier then, the theory that the earth was old, and various Geologic implications were known much longer than Darwin."It was later used as additional
evidence to support evolutionary concepts put forward in the
origin of species."
--Yes, this is an interperetation of the data, I see mine as just as valid."Again, that's fair enough. We do not have sufficient knowledge
of dinosaur metabolisms to know how often they required food."
--Yes, but food would not be as much of a factor, whether they were reptiles would ve a very good debate though."The point I was trying to make is that there is NO logical reason
why ALL of one kind of animal could have died and been burried
before ANY of another kind, when all co-existed, and survivability
is individual."
--Hundreds of kinds of animals perished at roughly the same time, dinosaurs lived and died at about the same time, along with smaller mammals that were dying along-side the dinosaurs. Clams were burried along with other crustatians, different kinds of fish were burried with other sea creatures, etc."Sorry about the split in this reply ... babies!!"
--No problem "Nothing in the above goes very far to explain the consistency
within the fossil record ... see my previous posts!!"
--Ok, see my previous answers in continuing the discussion."Are you referring to evolution being able to exaplain anything ?"
--Not 'anything', but yes, that Evolution is quite flexible, but ofcourse this is fine, just as long as you substantiate the factor of its flexibility."If you are, isn't that an indication that it might be right."
--Just mabye it could be, but I wouldn't know, I still havent found the video tape of either in action, I simply see mine as just as valid and is substantiated by accurate ancient text which in my eyes, is quite amazing."Give me some sound, logical and/or physically credible explanation
of the sequence in the fossil record other than that given
by evolutionists and you might shake my foundations"
--See my Quote."Indeed."
------------------

"Excellent point, Retro. Science has no interest in disproving the existence of God or gods. In fact, science has no capability of doing so. The question has no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory, or any of the other realms upon which science - based on examination of natural phenomena - has jurisdiction."
--I am in full agreement here, I think that I may even have to copy and paste this as quote for some people strolling the forums. ------------------

TChere is my question:why do we not find any fossilized animals, that are modern...why do we find the strata so neatly formed...

quote:

---

TC quotes TC:
There are many factors, intelligence, agility/menuverability(could it climb treas or have the ability to menuver in the midst of chaos well), shape/structure (fur, density (muscle sinks and fat floats I believe from because of density), lungs and air, etc), environment, habitat (did it live on the bottom of the ocean, middle, top of the ocean, live on ground, could it fly, and if it could fly how long can it stay in the air and when it is on the ground what is its relevance to menuverability (pterosaurs are thought to 'waddle' simmilar to the way bats menuver on ground as is shown by pelvis structure), also how can this animal adapt to quick changing environments, ie ice age or rapid climate changes could have caused virtually all non-insulated animals to die quickly and be subject to quick burrial on the next sediment deposits with little rustling around of the bodies. Hydrologic sorting plays a very small part in the reason they are burried the way they are.

---

TC, did you ever explain to us why flowering plants were more agile, intelligent or had better swimming skills than most of the dinosaurs? Ah, maybe they could climbe trees, very tall ones. And what happens to organisms that live in shallow and medium depths when they die? Do they wait for an invitation to sink? As usual, creationist analysis breaks down when confronted with details. This is a silly, ad hoc explanation that makes evolutionist assumptions look like money in the bank. If you are going to espouse this just-so story, please give us more details and be prepared to answer some specific questions.

"why do we not find any fossilized animals, that are modern..."
--Speciation, as you see from me and Peter's discussion, the lion for instance, has been a product of speciation as is the tiger and such."why do we find the strata so neatly formed..."
--Hydrologic sorting sorts very fine layers. Take a good quantity of fine shavings of the green river formation rock and shake it a bit in a glass of water, you see it sort itself in this way. Also if you go to a beach, depending on what is made up of the beach sand, if you get a core sample, you may find layering.------------------

"TC, did you ever explain to us why flowering plants were more agile, intelligent or had better swimming skills than most of the dinosaurs? Ah, maybe they could climbe trees, very tall ones."
--Unfortunatelly, I am not as knowledgable in plant evolution or how it is found in the geologic column, as with other animalia organisms. Though I'll quote myself from another forum:

quote:

---

--One characteristic I found significant is that flower petals and its outer and internal structures have a very non-polar coating that are fiber-like in these structures. Thus when you dip it in water this is the reason you see the glossy foily reflection. they are literally water-resistant, though not water 'proof', you will also find that it is almost impossible because of this characteristic to sink it unless it were to rot away and after a while loose its glossy coating, this is also simmilar in many types of insects, which is one of the reasons most can float on water and some glide. Obviously 'agility or intelligence' or anything of the like would be at all a factor, so you rely on characteristics.

---

--A bit rudimentary."And what happens to organisms that live in shallow and medium depths when they die? Do they wait for an invitation to sink? As usual, creationist analysis breaks down when confronted with details."
--In all honesty, within Flood deposition theory, I have not uncovered a real problem besides the deposition of angiosperms - gymnosperms."This is a silly, ad hoc explanation that makes evolutionist assumptions look like money in the bank. If you are going to espouse this just-so story, please give us more details and be prepared to answer some specific questions."
--No problem.------------------

Sorry Peter (and TC), but I couldn't resist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"So the burrials SHOULD be random ... not ordered."
--No because that isn't how the Flood happend, the world doesn't just all of a soden fill up with water over a period of any short time as would need to be suggested for a randomness.

---

Umm, which Flood model are you describing? According to Genesis, the entire world was covered in about 40 days. That's pretty fast by any standards.

quote:

---

"Glad we agree on that ... Evolution IS refutable given approriate evidence."
--Thats some very massive evidence, this evidence is almost speculative on Flood theory. If Evolution requires this sort of evidence, then I really don't know how to come against Evolution, it's extreamly flexible.

---

It's not a question of the flexibility of the theory, TC (although even if it were, I'm not sure how that could be construed as a negative attribute). The original theory was so elegantly simple, and so well-based on available evidence, that almost all observations since have tended to reinforce the original idea. Some of the mechanisms have had to be tweaked a bit, but considering the numbers of scientific hypotheses that have been jettisoned over the years, the ToE appears to be practically a law of nature. You're correct that the Flood theory is highly speculative (I'm being kind). Also, you're correct that evidence refuting the ToE would indeed have to be extraordinary. Not to say it couldn't happen, but you'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath .

quote:

---

"That's the nature of theories ... if new evidence emerges some or all
of a theory has to be re-arranged."
--Right, my note was to say that this is in support of Flood deposition theory, it would be expected.

---

Except, TC, you have yet to present any positive evidence in support of a global Flood...

quote:

---

"Yes, and there will be layers above and below where those remains are completely absent. (It is the 'below' part that is the
most important ... since scientists have been wrong about
extinctions in the past)."
--Yes that is what I would also argue, that it is how it is first found that is important. This is more naturally against a uniformitarian outlook though. Seeing as during the flood it was not about developing and then deposition, it was about ordered deposition, that is, everything was fully forumed towards its kind. Such as bats first appearing in the fossil record fully formed I believe in 50myo strata.

---

Ordered deposition is NOT what would be expected by a flood. Look at ANY modern flood - the deposition of remains is utterly random. Therefore, if there were a Flood (unless your positing that the Noachian Flood didn't follow the basic laws of hydraulics and fluid dynamics), you would expect to commonly find totally random distributions (men with anthracosaurs with rabbits). In spite of possible individual anomalies (like a rabbit running faster or swimming longer than a dimetrodon), statistically the majority would be randomly sorted. This is NOT what is observed.Don't drag in "god of the gaps" inre bats, etc. Besides, you're a YEC, you can't even legitimately USE an argument that shows spontaneous bat creation 50 mya because for you the world has only existed for 6000 years. Even granting you can play with dates, there has been a fair amount of discussion concerning evolution of glider to flyer in mammals already.

quote:

---

"Evolution does not REQUIRE it as evidence, without this there is plenty of other evidence for evolution (with which you tend
to disagree/interpret different, but none the less ... )."
--Oh it doesnt, but that would be a problem for Evolution, such cats suddenly appearing in the fossil record. Though I know that there are forms of cats simmilar to the lion and its relatives such as the tiger, I just havent seen much information on it. But I see that if such representation in the Evolutionary model is not required for evidence, than the Flood should be looked upon with the same eyes.

---

TC, listen to yourself. In one breath you are denying the evidence of feline evolution, and in the same breath you are claiming you have no information on feline evolution. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know." At least as long as you don't couple this phrase with "It's all wrong." Before you can assert that something is false, it makes sense to check the evidence to insure you have some basis for the assertion...

quote:

---

"In the flood model, with anything touching sea bed being fossilised we should see many fossils of infants, since these would have been too weak to survive for more than a very short time."
--Not really, you would defanantly see the diversity in skattered remains accross the geologic column, but there would defanantly be no bats or baby lions or something like that in cambrian strata.

---

Why? This would be precisely required by your Flood. That these anomalies don't exist provides pretty damning evidence against the Flood being real.

quote:

---

--Apatosaurus would have died first from effects of the ice age and short climate drop, self producing heat is a great advantage here, which is why such a large dinosaur would have died along with the other dinosaurs and other large reptiles/cold-blooded.

---

You are aware, of course, that the book you base your worldview on makes no mention whatsoever for any ice age? Stands to reason, of course, since the supposed writer(s) lived in a flipping desert. However, large dinos and the other fossils used as evidence for an old earth (at least) are found throughout the world even in places - including Egypt - where ice never came. Odd, isn't it?

quote:

---

"Why would one (elephants can swim, sauropods are thought to have been able to swim) hit bottom before the other ?"
--See above, also, they can't exactly 'swim', though they can stroll through water and take a bath per se.

---

How in the name of Darwin did you arrive at this little gem, TC?

quote:

---

"And not JUST one, all apatosaurs hit the bottom before ANY
elephants ... when survival is based (you agreed) on INDIVUDUAL
survivability."
--Yes, see above, this is quite a difference, the ability to produce ones own heat and not rely on outward environment is a emense advantage, and thus the appearence of the fossil record.

---

No doubt this explains why there are NO dinos buried ABOVE any large mammal, flightless bird, mammoth, etc. Not even ONE SINGLE FOSSIL out of place.

quote:

---

"OR in case we have a problem with supposing that a sauropod could swim, why would ALL elasmosaurs (water dwellers as it is) die
before ANY elephants (or mastodons or whatever YOU would expect
to be the proto-elephant of Noah's time) ?"
--Elephants or mastadons, I would most likely agree are related along with the mammoth and such. And elasmosaurs, or pleseasaurs, basically the same, rely on air, thus would die off by cold air cooling a top layer of the ocean to very low temperatures, even though some places were greatly heated by tectonic activity and heat being produced at some places in the oceans, the K-T extinction would have been after the crux of the activity most likely.

---

Wait a sec, now you're conflating the KT extinction - reliably dated to 65 mya - with the Flood? What about the Permian extinction? 90+% of all species on the planet disappeared in a few thousand years. I thought THAT was supposed to be the Flood. How does Flood myhtology account for the other 3 major extinction events - in the most minor of which over 50% of extant species disappeared. Care to comment? (Preferably without absolute denial followed by "I don't know.")Okay, that's about as far as I can go without getting either irritated or repeating myself. Looking forward to hearing TC's comments.

"Sorry Peter (and TC), but I couldn't resist."
--Thats fine "Umm, which Flood model are you describing? According to Genesis, the entire world was covered in about 40 days. That's pretty fast by any standards."
--Yes that is fast, though in being more specific for randomness would be more like flooding the earth in a matter of an hour or some hours. Though even if you were to do this, you would still find a remnance of a uniform burrial, though it sertainly would be much more random. Also then you have very little obsticle for environmental conditions such as the rising ice age killing the dinosaurs at the point of the K-T boundary."It's not a question of the flexibility of the theory, TC (although even if it were, I'm not sure how that could be construed as a negative attribute)."
--Yes, it would not neccessarelly be a 'negative attribute', though it is something that should very much be taken into consideration when discussing the highest theoretical validity for YEC and OEC interperetations."The original theory was so elegantly simple, and so well-based on available evidence, that almost all observations since have tended to reinforce the original idea."
--In a scence it is very close to Flood theory, you just take it down to a drastically short time period. The idea of survival of the fittests is all for flood theory and constitutes its randomness."Some of the mechanisms have had to be tweaked a bit, but considering the numbers of scientific hypotheses that have been jettisoned over the years, the ToE appears to be practically a law of nature."
--From my observation and experience, Evolution by common descent (or the theory of an Old Earth), has been the most modified theory in all scientific history. Though ofcourse that's somewhat the cause of it being such a fundemental theory for much of other geologic and biological interperetation being refined and fashioned over the years."You're correct that the Flood theory is highly speculative (I'm being kind)."
--I was more addressing the fact that if you found a human in cambrian strata or something liket that, Flood theory itself would have to be greatly modified."Also, you're correct that evidence refuting the ToE would indeed have to be extraordinary. Not to say it couldn't happen, but you'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath ."
--I think we can agree on that one."Except, TC, you have yet to present any positive evidence in support of a global Flood..."
--Thats because were discussing the validity of a flood deposition for organisms, if you would like to ask that question, what specific would you like to tackle?"Ordered deposition is NOT what would be expected by a flood. Look at ANY modern flood - the deposition of remains is utterly random."
--The global flood was, hm.. how could I put this. Just a bit more catastrophic than any nile-river or mississippi flood of today.."Therefore, if there were a Flood (unless your positing that the Noachian Flood didn't follow the basic laws of hydraulics and fluid dynamics), you would expect to commonly find totally random distributions (men with anthracosaurs with rabbits). In spite of possible individual anomalies (like a rabbit running faster or swimming longer than a dimetrodon), statistically the majority would be randomly sorted. This is NOT what is observed."
--Thats right, because hydrologic sorting is a vastly small percentage of what would be a consideration in flood deposition, for hydraulics and fluid dynamics to be the sole prospect, no organism should be able to move (they all must be dead before any flood activity) and the flood should flood every point on earth at the same time. I see that an order of deposition is fundamental in what should be found."Don't drag in "god of the gaps" inre bats, etc. Besides, you're a YEC, you can't even legitimately USE an argument that shows spontaneous bat creation 50 mya because for you the world has only existed for 6000 years."
--I never said that I was bringing in the god of the gaps argument in, nor is it substantiated by what I said. I was making a point that since bats should be fully formed as bats during the flood, this is what we see, we don't see any proto-bats to the degree of evolution. And they appear in supposedly 50 myo strata."Even granting you can play with dates, there has been a fair amount of discussion concerning evolution of glider to flyer in mammals already."
--Yes, sure you can always speculate on what should be found, its whether you've found it that is going to really make the matter."TC, listen to yourself. In one breath you are denying the evidence of feline evolution, and in the same breath you are claiming you have no information on feline evolution."
--No I did not den feline evolution, i said that as an example as an attatchment to what I said earlier for clarity. And then I said that within this example, I have seen what the theory is on feline evolution, though have little evident background information on it rather than the theory itself."There's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know." At least as long as you don't couple this phrase with "It's all wrong." Before you can assert that something is false, it makes sense to check the evidence to insure you have some basis for the assertion..."
--Yes that is true, though this is not what I was asserting."Why? This would be precisely required by your Flood. That these anomalies don't exist provides pretty damning evidence against the Flood being real."
--Because as I stated earlier in the post, the flood did not just all of a soden flood the world with 500+ feet of water at every point on earth to give this randomness. My theory on flooding is ice cap's melting some from the heating of the oceans which would flood the world and then with the massive global vapor saturation in the atmosphere rain for 40 days and a rebuilding of the polar ice caps from a slight nuclear winter."You are aware, of course, that the book you base your worldview on makes no mention whatsoever for any ice age?"
--Why would it make such a mention?"Stands to reason, of course, since the supposed writer(s) lived in a flipping desert."
--I concur "However, large dinos and the other fossils used as evidence for an old earth (at least) are found throughout the world even in places - including Egypt - where ice never came. Odd, isn't it?"
--For a cold-blooded organism to die, you don't need to freeze it from an ice cap, you simply need to lower the climatic temperatures, the bible does make slight reference about this. Saying that after the flood there would be seasons the way they did."How in the name of Darwin did you arrive at this little gem, TC?"
--Take a look at an elephant, if you throw the thing in the ocean, how long is that thing going to swim? A sauropod does not have the same ability as a pleseasaurus."No doubt this explains why there are NO dinos buried ABOVE any large mammal, flightless bird, mammoth, etc. Not even ONE SINGLE FOSSIL out of place."
--Yup."Wait a sec, now you're conflating the KT extinction - reliably dated to 65 mya - with the Flood?"
--I mean that as reference to the geologic column and its layering, not the times that it puts on them."What about the Permian extinction? 90+% of all species on the planet disappeared in a few thousand years. I thought THAT was supposed to be the Flood. How does Flood myhtology account for the other 3 major extinction events - in the most minor of which over 50% of extant species disappeared. Care to comment? (Preferably without absolute denial followed by "I don't know.")"
--No doubt your going to have a Permian extinction of Acritarchs, Archaeocyathids, Molluscs, Echinoderms, Gusulinid Foraminifera, Corals, Diatoms, Dinoflagellates, Stromatoporoids, Trilobites, etc when the sea floor was going through mass catastrophy in heat and tectonic activity. What other extinctions would you like an answer for?"Okay, that's about as far as I can go without getting either irritated or repeating myself. Looking forward to hearing TC's comments."
--Looking forward to the continuum of the discussion.------------------

quote:

---

"TC, did you ever explain to us why flowering plants were more agile, intelligent or had better swimming skills than most of the dinosaurs? Ah, maybe they could climbe trees, very tall ones."

​

--Unfortunatelly, I am not as knowledgable in plant evolution or how it is found in the geologic column, as with other animalia organisms. Though I'll quote myself from another forum:

​

--One characteristic I found significant is that flower petals and its outer and internal structures have a very non-polar coating that are fiber-like in these structures. Thus when you dip it in water this is the reason you see the glossy foily reflection. they are literally water-resistant, though not water 'proof', you will also find that it is almost impossible because of this characteristic to sink it unless it were to rot away and after a while loose its glossy coating, this is also simmilar in many types of insects, which is one of the reasons most can float on water and some glide. Obviously 'agility or intelligence' or anything of the like would be at all a factor, so you rely on characteristics.

---

I don't suppose that the fact that these plants are largely rooted in the ground would have any effect on their buoyancy.

quote:

---

--A bit rudimentary.

---

Your analysis cannot handle details. Perhaps this is why it is so appealing to the layman.

quote:

---

"And what happens to organisms that live in shallow and medium depths when they die? Do they wait for an invitation to sink? As usual, creationist analysis breaks down when confronted with details."

​

--In all honesty, within Flood deposition theory, I have not uncovered a real problem besides the deposition of angiosperms - gymnosperms.

---

Why do you not answer my question then? I'm sure we can come up with any number of problems if you wish. All that is necessary is a little knowledge. Why is there a recognizable progression of trilobite species in the fossil record?

If flowering plants survived the Flood by floating, then necessarily all flowering plants (except those used for fodder on the Ark) today would be capable of floating for months on end, and remain viable. Why then are there plant species found exclusively on islands and nowhere else in the world? All flowering plants should be cosmopolitan if TC's explanation for their survival of the Flood is correct.

"I don't suppose that the fact that these plants are largely rooted in the ground would have any effect on their buoyancy."
--How are they found in the Geologic column, are they rooted or see effects of rotting, etc. This would be good information to figure the method of deposition."Your analysis cannot handle details. Perhaps this is why it is so appealing to the layman."
--On its own, yes it wouldn't be to handle details, its more of something that will entertain the need for discussion on the topic."Why do you not answer my question then?"
--What question was that?"I'm sure we can come up with any number of problems if you wish."
--And I hope to discuss them."All that is necessary is a little knowledge. Why is there a recognizable progression of trilobite species in the fossil record?"
--I'll quote myself:Falsifying Creation - Post 65 - http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=75&m=65#65

quote:

---

--I found in the contents that Trilobite Evolution, Enviroment, and the Decline of the Trilobites the most interesting. Trilobite Anatomy I had allready had knowledge of.
--I found some things interesting in the articles:

​

Environment - http://www.brookes.ac.uk/geology/8361/1998/kirsty/envir.html#environment

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

This trilobite seen to the right (Bumastoides, taken from PaleoPalace.com) did not have the ability to see, however this did not pose a problem as it was constantly submerged in the sea floor sediment.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

--And indicating from an earlier read text, Eyes obviously appeared later in Trilobite geologic history, in which they were sometimes 'swimmers', but also well built for retreat to submerge themselves in sediment. This seems to comply with a theoretical Flood.
--Also, just as a thought, it was an interesting note to read that it is evident that they lived at ocean bottom salt water. I'm not sure if it would effect Trilobite fossilization, but as I learned from research in the Field of Marine Geology, ocean bottoms are not only next to freezing, but well oxygenated. Thereby complying an argument of Evolutionary deposition with the factor of decay and anaerobic and aerobic bacterial activity.

---

------------------

"If flowering plants survived the Flood by floating, then necessarily all flowering plants (except those used for fodder on the Ark) today would be capable of floating for months on end, and remain viable."
--Not neccessarelly, Flowering plants first according to record appear in Cretaceous sediment, this could have been layed down anywhere from 2-5 weeks after the start of the first deposits."Why then are there plant species found exclusively on islands and nowhere else in the world? All flowering plants should be cosmopolitan if TC's explanation for their survival of the Flood is correct."
--Speciation and population genetics, producing diversity.------------------

quote:

---

edge:"I don't suppose that the fact that these plants are largely rooted in the ground would have any effect on their buoyancy."

​

TC: How are they found in the Geologic column, are they rooted or see effects of rotting, etc. This would be good information to figure the method of deposition.

---

Some are rooted. But, regardless, why do we find root systems of gymnosperms in Carboniferous coal seams but no angiosperms? Why do we see no pollen, leaf impressions, etc.?

quote:

---

edge: "Your analysis cannot handle details. Perhaps this is why it is so appealing to the layman."

​

TC: On its own, yes it wouldn't be to handle details, its more of something that will entertain the need for discussion on the topic.

---

Hunh? So, do you agree, or what?

quote:

---

edge: "Why do you not answer my question then?"

​

TC: What question was that?

---

The one you missed.

quote:

---

edge: "All that is necessary is a little knowledge. Why is there a recognizable progression of trilobite species in the fossil record?"

​

TC: I'll quote myself:

​

Falsifying Creation - Post 65 - http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=75&m=65#65

​

--I found in the contents that Trilobite Evolution, Enviroment, and the Decline of the Trilobites the most interesting. Trilobite Anatomy I had allready had knowledge of.

​

--I found some things interesting in the articles:
Environment - http://www.brookes.ac.uk/geology/8361/1998/kirsty/envir.html#environment

​

This trilobite seen to the right (Bumastoides, taken from PaleoPalace.com) did not have the ability to see, however this did not pose a problem as it was constantly submerged in the sea floor sediment.

---

Ah, good. Then why is it that the younger (Devonian) trilobites appear to have lived in deeper water. Seems to me that they would be the first to go in your scenario. Do you think maybe they were smarter, or faster? And if you can infer these things, I expect to never hear from you the argument that evolution depends on too many assumptions...

quote:

---

--And indicating from an earlier read text, Eyes obviously appeared later in Trilobite geologic history, in which they were sometimes 'swimmers', but also well built for retreat to submerge themselves in sediment. This seems to comply with a theoretical Flood.

---

Well, so much for creationist arguments that the astounding trilobite eye emerged suddenly in the Cambrian. And if they were built to retreat into the sediment, why don't we find a single one that did so and put itself out of place in the fossil record?

quote:

---

--Also, just as a thought, it was an interesting note to read that it is evident that they lived at ocean bottom salt water. I'm not sure if it would effect Trilobite fossilization, but as I learned from research in the Field of Marine Geology, ocean bottoms are not only next to freezing, but well oxygenated. Thereby complying an argument of Evolutionary deposition with the factor of decay and anaerobic and aerobic bacterial activity.

---

I'm not so sure about the oxygenizing environment of the sea floor. I think there are several references including the ones on the Black Sea flooding that would disagree with you. Where do you think we get pyritic black shales from anyway?It seems you are committing the common creationist fallacy of consistency in these statements. Since some deep water zones are close to freezing in temperature, they all are. I think there are some tropical coral reefs that would disagree with you on this. And that since some sediments are oxidized that they all are. It is truly amazing then that we have anoxic sediments, is it not? Sorry, but the world is a little more complex than you would like it to be.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"If flowering plants survived the Flood by floating, then necessarily all flowering plants (except those used for fodder on the Ark) today would be capable of floating for months on end, and remain viable."
--Not neccessarelly, Flowering plants first according to record appear in Cretaceous sediment, this could have been layed down anywhere from 2-5 weeks after the start of the first deposits.[/QUOTE]Are you saying that flowering plants did not lose leaves or emit pollen until the flood started?

quote:

---

"Why then are there plant species found exclusively on islands and nowhere else in the world? All flowering plants should be cosmopolitan if TC's explanation for their survival of the Flood is correct."
--Speciation and population genetics, producing diversity.

---

And mobility with survivability begets uniformity. Which way do you want it?

[QUOTE][b]--Not neccessarelly, Flowering plants first according to record appear in Cretaceous sediment, this could have been layed down anywhere from 2-5 weeks after the start of the first deposits.[/QUOTE][/b]I don't understand the relevance. Please reiterate. [QUOTE][b]--Speciation and population genetics, producing diversity. [/QUOTE][/b]In that case, you agree that few extant plants would survive the Flood by floating?