Paleobotany falsifies the Noaic Flood

I feel the clam shells found on mountain tops, is simply confirming the kjv psalm 104 that God set a bounds that the water would not pass over, that they not turn again to cover the earth, kjv psalm 104:9. even to this day, the mountain's fractured tops are still rising a bit, probably due to the gravitational effect of the moon, pressing down on the oceans floor, etc...
P.S. There are probably a whole lot of factors that determine stratification of fossils, the concentration of salt water, bloating, how sediments stratify, in moving water, reshuffling sediments as the flood waters washed back to the sea, as glacial flood waters melted and contributed their sediments, etc...

I have already explained why mountain tops are rising in another thread:
EvC Forum: Re-enactments of the Noah's Ark voyage?None of the mechanism you propose, or have been proposed by others, could possibly account for the near perfect segregation of fossil species into their correct strata, and in patterns predicted by the theory of evolution.

WHAT HAPPENED TO LAND PLANTS DURING THE FLOOD?
- BTG No. 130b October 1999
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*
Copyright 2003 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved."And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We . . . preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein." (Acts 14:15)The Bible explicitly teaches that the great Flood covered the entire globe. Its primary purpose was to judge the sinful civilization of Noah's day (Genesis 6:7), but this judgment extended to the animals and even the earth (7:22,19). The pre-Flood vegetation is not specifically mentioned, but no doubt the waters devastated all land plants, trees, crops, forests, and swamps. What happened to their remains?Obviously some plants were buried in Flood sediments and were fossilized. Petrified trees are found in certain layers of Flood-deposited sedimentary rocks worldwide. Often one finds fossilized twigs or leaves or fern impressions, but these are fairly rare. Evidently the majority of plants didn't get fossilized. Where are the rest?Coal deposits have long been identified as the altered remains of vegetation. The volume of coal and its discovery even in polar regions give us a picture of lush vegetation in a pre-Flood world quite different from our own. There is evidence that the trees typically fossilized in Carboniferous coal seams may have even grown as near-shore floating "islands" with extensive shallow root systems, which became floating mats of vegetation during the Flood. Once buried, they would metamorphose into coal.Some mats must have been unthinkably large, far larger than any modern peat swamp, for the coals they left behind in some cases cover entire states.The concept of floating log mats has become a powerful one in Flood geology. Some geologic strata are identified by the presence of wood fragments, giving the impression that the mat was floating in shallow water with its underside abrading on the surface below.There are also many rock layers which seem to have required rather calm waters for deposition. A floating mat would have had a damping effect on even turbulent Flood waters, calming them at least locally for periods of time allowing deposition of these sediments. The mats may have been a temporary haven during the cataclysmic storm for various animals, helping them survive for weeks or even months, before finally being overwhelmed. Floating vegetation would also have been the place insects could have survived, particularly in their egg and larva stages, ensuring that they would be distributed worldwide to facilitate regrowth and pollination of plants from seeds, springs, and spores once the Flood was over.The Bible only mentions one such case of regrowth, that of the olive branch returned to Noah in the Ark by the dove. Olive trees are quite hardy, and the concept of a floating olive tree sprig, grounded by the receding waters, and sprouting in a short period of time is quite reasonable.And such is the case for all the details of the Flood account. Its global magnitude may astound us, but taken as a whole and at face value, the difficulties always resolve themselves as we study and believe.------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

Your source talks about trees, ferns etc. He neglects to mention that they are not the current species. This explanation isn't of any use until it covers the actual data that is available.You have to explain not just that there are fossils, including coal, but why they are of specific species and [i]not[/not] modern ones until we get to the most recent deposits.This is simple arm waving hoping the no one will notice that most of the facts of the situation haven't been touched upon and, in fact, falsify the idea being presented.Care to try again?

Jazz,Perhaps you could explain why there isn't a single example of a tree fern found after the Jurassic despite them being full trees, & at the same time why angiosperms trees aren't found until the mid Cretaceous? Furthermore, can you also explain why conifer trees are found lower than angiosperm trees?All three kinds of tree forming taxa produce both large & small varieties of plants. Why is it that they are found "together" & not distributed throughout the GC as if there had been a global flood?I also think you will have a hard time explaining why those huge Devonian & Carboniferous forests aren't found with the bones of mammals. There are more dead things than living even under the creationist paradigm, & their remains can't run away from flood waters. Wierd, eh?Mark

[qs=NosyNed]You have to explain not just that there are fossils, including coal, but why they are of specific species and [i]not[/not] modern ones until we get to the most recent deposits.[/qs]Can you clear this up. I dont know exactly what you are trying to ask

Mark's post 20 does a better job than I did. He is giving you some of the details that have to be dealt with.However, he is giving you only the barest hint of the huge number of details that have to be dealt with. Any hypothosis may be worth consideration even if it doesn't explain everything right off the bat. But it does have to handle the overall problem and at least a lot of the facts.I'll try another wording just to help out.You can't offer an explanation of the fossil record by saying "trees floated" or "there were mats of vegetation" you have to say why some specific trees floated and ended up in one place while others ended up somewhere else in the layers of rock.You have to explain why flower bearing plants got separated from other plants that were the same size and the same in other ways as well. Where are the conifers and flower bearing trees in the coal deposits?These "details" are touched upon by the references you have given. Reading the references suggests that they haven't even begun to understand the nature of what has to be explained. Or, at least, they are hoping their audience doesn't understand.------------------
Common sense isn't

I have to be honest here. I cant answer the question right now. I have to do some research

Please note, as you do your research, that those same subjects are the ones that Morris tightly shut his eyes to. He apparently didn't want to know the answers, and certainly didn't want the readers of his book to know them, for they blow his whole fantasy to bits.In addition to some of the species already suggested, look into why these pairs of fossils have never yet been found in the same rock:
--an allosaurus and grass, wheat, sugarcane, or bamboo
--a trilobite and an oyster
--a mososaur and a whale
--a eurypterid and a crab
--a rugose coral and a scleratinian coral
--a dicynodont and an alligator

Well, I think it is commendable that you're willing to do the work to look carefully at the situation. What I might warn you is that you're going to have a tough time.Since this kind of sorting problem is not new you'd think that organizations like AIG and ICR would have a detailed handle on it. Maybe they do and your research will uncover that and point it out to us. However, I have a strong hunch that you will be disappointed. All you will find is some vague arm waving that doesn't really deal with the issues.These questions aren't answerable with any scientific, logical ideas about what could happen. For this and a LOT of other reasons it finally comes down to: the flood is not a scientific idea at all it can not have happened. If you succeed in convincing someone that it did then the other conclusion that the person MUST come to is that God is a deceitful liar. I don't think you want to get to that. The only good conclusion that keeps God as you want him is that men wrote the Genesis account for primitive people without much understanding of geology etc. It is NOT a real description of events.------------------
Common sense isn't

I don't see how this explains fossil plant sorting? Remember, the fossil record is very well-sorted. Floods tend to result in jumbles. You need a mechanism that explains how a normally jumbling flood could result in near-perfect sorting. (This is the sort of unlikelyhood that you creationists compare to a tornado sorting a junkyard.)