First of all, hi everyone, I've been lurking here for a while, and just thought I could attempt to bridge a misunderstanding about the grass issue. Hopefully this will help rather than harm the discussion.
The question was raised about what sort of distribution we should expect to see of grass in flood deposits. Faith, I believe you replied that the lower layers were absent any grass because they were primarily marine deposits, in other words, the grass environment wasn't fossilized until later in the progression of the flood waters.
The challenge for the global flood is that there are a great many layers that preserve *land* environments and vegetation- but grass doesn't appear until the very highest levels- the Cenozoic strata, I believe is what geologists call it. Before that we have different kinds of land plants of all sorts, cycads, ferns, sedges, etc., but no grasses (or grass seeds or pollen) until you get to those top layers. So do you see why that would cause us to question why a pattern like that exists? Wouldn't those grasses have been in the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous land environments? Why aren't they there, if these layers all represent the same period of time? That's one of the puzzles the global flood theory would have to overcome.
I'm coming from this as layman, like you are, so hopefully you won't feel I'm trying to talk over your head. I've also tried to keep this post focused on the "Global Flood Evidence" topic rather than put forth evidence for mainstream geology.
™ Version 4.2
