The Flood = many coincidences

ringo writes:Why are there no human remains below the flood line?

Admin writes:Hi Robert,That you can't provide what I'm asking for tells me that you either don't understand the request, or you have no answer but are responding anyway. Either way, the net result is that you're repeating your unsupported claims over and over again, which is disallowed by the Forum Guidelines:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

What you need to do is describe evidence of at least an arguably scientific nature that causes you to conclude that the K-T boundary is a flood layer from around 4400 years ago. That it exists, which is the only evidence you've cited so far, is not evidence for a flood or for any particular age.Perhaps it would help if a stepwise approach were taken by posing one specific question at a time for you, for example: What evidence leads you to conclude that the K-T boundary is around 4400 years old?For those of a countervailing opinion I ask the opposite question: What evidence leads you to conclude that the K-T boundary is around 65 million years old?

ringo writes: You haven't thought this through. There are fossils below the K-T boundary, which you call the flood line. That's where the dinosaurs are - and they're not all big dinosaurs. Some of them are similar in size to humans, or smaller.The question, again, is: Why are there dinosaur fossils only before the flood and human fossils only after? Where are the fossils of the humans who died before the flood?

bluescat48 writes:So then explain why there are no large mammals of any kind below the K-T line? No Giant Ground sloths, no mammoths, no camels, no saber tooth cats, not even one bone whereas whole skeletons of dinosaurs are found.

Admin writes:Hi Robert,You continue to describe what you believe without providing any real world evidence for why you believe it. If someone with an opposing viewpoint were to say, "The radiometric evidence for the K-T boundary says that it was deposited 65 million years ago," what could you offer in rebuttal?Others of your statements that require evidence: What evidence leads you to conclude that the K-T boundary layer was a sedimentary layer deposited by water? Please describe the details of the "stuff in the ground" that you are interpreting (appearance, context, compositiion, results of chemical and radiometric analysis, etc.) and the details of your method of interpretation. If this is an argument that "No one was there therefore no one could know," that means you couldn't know either and should not be arguing that you do know from your interpretation (still undescribed) of the evidence you're looking at (still undescribed).Say you were conducting a science class in how to interpret geological layers, and your example was the K-T boundary. Please explain how you would teach the class to analyze and interpret this layer in order to reach the conclusion that it is a sedimentary layer around 4500 years old.