Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it

Nope. The Ark was specifically intended to prevent extinctions.

All based on the bogus evidence of the false interpretation of the strata and their fossil contents. Of course those show worldwide effects, they represent what died in the worldwide Flood, not in the volcanism that came after the Flood, by which time all the strata were laid down and all the dead things in the fossil record thoroughly dead. Such a JOKE to peer into one of the strata and make claims about what supposedly happened during a mythical time period assigned to that block of rock. Like reading tea leaves.

Nope, the ark preserved a few of the species (really, varieties or races) out of the huge array then living, and those few, plus whatever happened to survive in the ocean, are the source of everything living today.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, congratulations for reading this article (at least in part). Admittedly, few YECs would actually do that.However, I (and others here) have noticed that you do not provide any kind of actual evidence or links of your own (other than perhaps some dubious, unconstrained references from DI, etc.).So, how about it? Why not provide some kind of support (I won't even ask for 'evidence') rather than just assertions such as:

Nope. That isn't what the Bible says:

quote:

---

Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

---

"Every living thing od all flesh" is pretty clear.

Again, no support for your claims. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

So...The Ark had a 99% failure rate.

Are you claiming that the critters actually found are not the critters actually found?If either of the Biblical flood actually happened would it not have killed what the stories say it killed? How did the magic flood keep from depositing any humans or lions or tigers or bears or bunnies or ohmys?What is bogus about claiming that what is actually found in reality is what is actually there in reality?What is bogus in pointing out that humans or lions or tigers or bears or bunnies or ohmys never show up in those layers when in fact humans or lions or tigers or bears or bunnies or ohmys never show up in those levels?

Oh I'm sure you're surrounded by it and only need to recognize what is actually there, same with the evidence for the Flood. Such evidence would be for instance the massive fossil cemetery of the Karoo. If only it wasn't all tied up in Old Earthisms. Get those OE glasses off your nose and you might see some amazing things you never dreamed of before.

Oh they're all there, only all of them from Precambrian to Holocene all lived together before the Flood and all died in that Flood and got buried in their own burial levels. Well, those were all buried in the uppermost strata just before the Flood waters receded, the water taking a great deal of those layers with it into the ocean, or perhaps into huge rubble piles here and there where anything organic would have rotted away rather than being fossilized. That would be my guess. You mean the fossils? But they ARE there in reality. It's what they represent that's in question. They all died in the Flood, all from Precambrian to Holocene, rather than in separate time periods over hundreds of millions of years. I think I explained this pretty well above. Look at that cross section of the Grand Canyon - Grand Staircase area for instance. The Holocene or supposedly most "recent" era is the least represented, the most eroded away. Those creatures would be in Holocene strata or possibly layers above it that no longer exist at all. If there isn't much of it left then it all washed away and buried the creatures wwithin under circumstances that would not permit fossilization. The strata are nicely designed to fossilize, having originally been wet and then having been compressed under other strata for a few thousand years, but piles of rubble would not encourage fossilization.

Faith, since the Karroo Supergroup is such a large fossil cemetery, could you please point out where the mammal section is?

So, no humans died in the early phase of the flood, when rainfall was pulverizing the hills and massive slurries of sediment were covering the landscape?Okay, so humans could run away, but what about their homes and tools and other artifacts. How did those escape the erosion and inundation?

Yup, yet another guess that explains nothing.What is the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that allows your magic flood to only deposit any humans or lions or tigers or bears or bunnies or ohmys in the uppermost strata just before the Flood waters receded, the water taking a great deal of those layers with it into the ocean, or perhaps into huge rubble piles here and there where anything organic would have rotted away rather than being fossilized. Again, why did no humans or lions or tigers or bears or bunnies or ohmys get included? Yet no humans or lions or tigers or bears or bunnies or ohmys get included?

I haven't spent a lot of time on the Karoo but have the impression there are no mammals represented there or some reptilian type mammals or something like that.. Perhaps what I just wrote in Message 700 about the general lack of mammals and humans in the fossil record also applies to the Karoo.

Because they would have been buried in the uppermost strata which washed away into the ocean or rubble piles where they all rotted away.