Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

Well, I think I'll jump into this thread with a question for creationists concerning the flood: How exactly does hydrologic sorting explain the distribution of fossils? A good example of this is Nautoloid fossils. The higher we go in the geologic column, the more complex the sutures are for these creatures. The lower we go, the less complex the sutures are. Now, hydrological sorting is supposed to explain why dinosaurs appear on one geological level and hominids on another. Certainly, they are of different size and shape (generally). But Nautoloids are of the same size and shape, the difference is in their sutures. Why would hydrologic sorting sort them out according to the complexity of their sutures?SLD

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Well, I think I'll jump into this thread with a question for creationists concerning the flood: How exactly does hydrologic sorting explain the distribution of fossils? A good example of this is Nautoloid fossils. The higher we go in the geologic column, the more complex the sutures are for these creatures. The lower we go, the less complex the sutures are. Now, hydrological sorting is supposed to explain why dinosaurs appear on one geological level and hominids on another. Certainly, they are of different size and shape (generally). But Nautoloids are of the same size and shape, the difference is in their sutures. Why would hydrologic sorting sort them out according to the complexity of their sutures?"
--Considering the Creationists explination of why the fossils are sorted the way they are is much more complex than what someone would think, even more complex than I used to think days ago. I believe we breifly went threw this a little bit from my previous knowledge, though It I beleive was inconclusive, but really you can't come to a real conclusion unless you can do an experiment, [snip]

---

IOW: You have no idea. Face it FalseCreation. You don't have an answer, because there cannot be an answer. Hydrological sorting cannot explain the distribution of the fossils in the geological column. To argue so is patently ridiculous. Why would we find ferns throughout the geologic column, but angiosperms only since the Cretaceous? Dinosaurs of all sizes, appear only in the Mesozoic, while other animals, only appear in the Cenozoic even though they are of the same size as Dinosaurs. Trilobites disappear at the Mesozoic, but horseshoe crabs, lobsters and other arthropods are still around. The global flood cannot in the slightest explain the distribution of fossils, and your own post proves it.SLD

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"IOW: You have no idea."
--You mean In your words.

​

"Face it FalseCreation. You don't have an answer, because there cannot be an answer."
--I just gave you the fundementals.

​

"Hydrological sorting cannot explain the distribution of the fossils in the geological column."
--Hydrologic sorting sertainly can't on its lonesome and as I explained earlier, it plays quite the small part in it.

---

??? It's the only creationist explanation offered for the distribution of fossils. The fossils were put in place by the great flood and hydrological sorting is responsible for explaining the location of each in the geologic column.

quote:

---

​

"To argue so is patently ridiculous."
--Really?

​

"Why would we find ferns throughout the geologic column, but angiosperms only since the Cretaceous?"
--I think I'd like to ask a relevant question, what exactly is it that the scientists are looking at to determin when angiosperms entered the fossil record? I'd like to start here, where I should have started earlier.

​

---

Scientists are looking at fossils of both pollens and leaves of angiosperms.

quote:

---

"Dinosaurs of all sizes, appear only in the Mesozoic, while other animals, only appear in the Cenozoic even though they are of the same size as Dinosaurs."
--Size doesn't matter hardly at all, size is relevant to probley 2-4% (thus hydrologic sorting) of the reason we find things the way they are. Also, dinosaurs are all unusual reptiles, one thing to start us off with a discussion of this is that they are pretty much extinct so we dont' know exactly what their antomy would be in botany, we can only speculate.

​

"Trilobites disappear at the Mesozoic, but horseshoe crabs, lobsters and other arthropods are still around."
--The first sediments would have been deposited in the oceans, and buried marine animals. Slow movers such as the trilobites would have been entombed first, while fish could have more easily escaped the underwater avalanches. Strata up to the Mesozoic gives abundance of time for trilobites to be burried. Horseshoe crabs and lobsters have a much more vast amount of menuverability than the trilobite.

​

---

So, fast moving conches out raced the slow moving trilobites? Gee, wouldn't one modern creature get entombed in the Cambrian? It's funny how creationists want to talk about the alleged improbability of evolution and biogenesis, but then make up stories to explain their data that are so patently impossible. What are the odds that a flood would put all the fossils in their place just so; giving the appearance of evolution?

quote:

---

​

"The global flood cannot in the slightest explain the distribution of fossils, and your own post proves it."
--Were just getting started, im expecting this thread to rage for thousands of posts. Also you have pretty much just joined lately.

​

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

​

​

---