Potential Evidence for a Global Flood

You keep being wrong about this.Darwin used the term "parent species" to refer to a species immediately ancestral to another species or variety, especially (though not exclusively) the wild ancestors of a domesticated variety.The existence of "parent species" is therefore not an alternative to universal common ancestry, but an inevitable consequence of it.The term is so self-explanatory that I hardly see how you could have made such a crass mistake; though I guess that being a creationist has a lot to do with it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The tried to radiocarbon date mineralized organic material from the Cretaceous?That's like trying to find out how old I am by sawing me in half and counting my growth rings. It is guaranteed to get the wrong result, because I am not a tree.And even using a method guaranteed to fail, they still got results several times older than their imaginary Young Earth ... at which point the unsubstantiated ad hoc excuses start.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Bumped for "Just being real".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This is, of course, not true. That's what's required for soft-tissue preservation. Which is extremely rare. That's an interesting use of the phrase "of course", but back in the real world we can see rapid sedimentary deposition without floods. And we invariably see it without global floods. If you are trying to say that under normal conditions burrowing animals never burrow up or down, then you are wrong.If you are saying that there's a greater proportion of such burrows than there should be, then we need a couple of figures from you:(a) What proportion of burrows in the fossil record have a vertical component?
(b) What should the proportion be, if geologists were right about geology?Please give references for (a) and show your working for (b). If you are trying to say that there are too few paleosol deposits, I should like you to present your figures for:(a) How many there are.
(b) How many there should be if geologists were right about geology.Please give references for (a) and show your working for (b). Perhaps in Opposite World the tracks of land animals with, y'know, feet, are only deposited underwater. In the real world, not so much. Your point is obscure, can you clarify it? It contains terms not to be found in geology textbooks, or at least not the ones I've read. But not to have taken several million years to form, a distinction which creationists seem unable to grasp, because they are idiots. Or several days, depending on the circumstances under which they were laid down.By the way, weren't you pretending it was "millions of years" in the last paragraph? Yes, yes you were. So now you're complaining that there aren't enough polystrate fossils?Seriously?Well, again, we need a couple of figures:(a) How many are there?
(b) How many should there be if geologists were right about geology?Please give references for (a) and show your working for (b).Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't know which rocks you're discussing here, but the pattern of sedimentation you're describing sounds like flaser deposits, which can be observed forming today.

But the effect you're describing, if it existed, would, if anything, decrease genetic diversity. This means that if it threw off the calculations, it would do so by making the bottlenecking event, if anything, seem like it was after the flood. Even given your bit of adhoccery, then, we should expect normal methods, not taking your "grandfather effect" into account, to show in each species a bottleneck within the last ~4000 years.What you need is an unproven ad hoc argument showing that we shouldn't see any bottlenecking at all; whereas your actual unproven ad hoc argument, if it held, would exacerbate the bottlenecks.

You don't even need "flood conditions" to produce ripples.Here's some fossilized tidal ripples: And here's some unfossilized tidal ripples: Here's some fossilized ladder ripples: And here's some unfossilized ladder ripples (I can't hotlink this image, you'll have to click on my link.)Here's some fossilized interference ripples: And here's some unfossilized interference ripples:

Perhaps you could expand on this. In what way do these localized phenomena suggest to you that the whole Earth was covered in water.Tress and aquatic life are, after all, being covered with water and with sediment today in various places, and you do not claim that we are now undergoing a global flood.Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
Not a global flood.http://gallery.usgs.gov/...y_exposed_snags_2_w-_Dan_Daly.JPG
Still not a global floodEdited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And yet we can see layers of sediment being laid down today, and we are not experiencing a global flood.

That's 'cos polystrate is a word creationists made up, not a term in real geology.

How many times do you need this explaining to you?There is a difference between saying that something happened millions of years ago, and that it took millions of years to happen. These are two different claims.For example, look at the rock in the image below. We know exactly how it formed, because people were there to watch. It formed over a hundred years ago. And each doublet (pair of black and white layers) took a day to form. Do you see the difference? Each layer was formed in one day and was formed a hundred years ago. These are different claims about the chronology of the rock. When you say the layers in which "polystrate" fossils are embedded did not take millions of years to form, you are in complete agreement with geologists, who say exactly the same thing. How do you get from complete, utter, unreserved agreement that geologists are right to your belief in the global flood they all say didn't happen?

No they haven't. Stop making stuff up.

d.p.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No-one, anywhere, ever, has claimed that a single distinct sedimentary layer in a sedimentary formation necessarily corresponds to millions of years of time. Some of them do. A kilometer of unbedded chalk would necessarily take a long time to form. On the other hand, the distinct layers of a turbidite would take about half-an-hour. A doublet in a proglacial lake takes a single year. A lamina in aolian sand, thirty seconds. Don't you think it'll cause confusion if you refer to the people you've made up in your head by the same name that is sometimes given to real people who actually exist? As every geologist in the world will tell you, they did not have to wait enormously long periods of time. No, because we are not the idiotic strawmen that you have constructed in your head. And the answer is no, since uniformitarian geological thinking does not pose a problem for uniformitarian geological thinking, and is in fact completely consistent with uniformitarian geological thinking.---Now, do you have any point to make about these fossils that contradicts anything whatsoever that geologists actually say? That's actually as in not in the fantasy world in your head.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It's very strange, isn't it?If geologists were like creationists, they'd begin their discourse by explaining that creationists believe that a dog cremated the world in six ways, they'd show at length how silly that proposition was, and then they'd sit down under the impression that they'd put forth an argument in favor of geology, a subject that they'd never mentioned.