The land would have been equally free for invasion, so that alone is not sufficient: you would require time for the land ecosystem to become saturated with species, which is going to take some time based on the initial populations.Now you propose that whales evolved to have flippers for front feet and a flat tail and almost complete lose of rear legs (down to a remnant hip bone) plus their whole breathing method and capacity and their streamlined body in only a few thousand years, but "macro"evolution doesn't happen? Do you realize this is more change than would be needed to get from a horse to a giraffe by orders of magnitude?Curious how you explain the coelacanth and the shark, both found in the fossil record from below the iridium layer (which I assume is still your "marker" for the flood date) and where they survived the flood (do we still have those "red-eye" continents or have they slowed down again?) Denial does not explain anything, and nature is notoriously unimpressed by it. Cashiers in many states do not accept Canadian currency, but that does not make the currency invalid. What you fail to grasp is that you need to explain a method for the "apparent" sorting if you are going to make your claims. If it is an error of interpretation, then provide the corrections to the interpretation that give as good an answer to all the questions of layers and species in a manner at least as consistent as evolution.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Sure they do. Henry Morris's The Genesis Flood first introduced the flood sorting argument, and it has been enhanced over the years with concepts like "hydrologic sorting" and "turbidity".What you're actually arguing is that Creationists who acknowledge the ordering are wrong, and that the ordering is only apparent because of population size changes.In a certain sense, evolutionary theory agrees with you. Successful fossilization is dependent upon many factors, and population size is one of them. The smaller the population, the less likely it is to leave behind fossil evidence, and populations of size zero will leave no fossil evidence at all.As you ascend geological layers, the appearance of new fossil types is not necessarily a result of evolution. It might also be due to migration, causing the population in a geographical region to suddenly increase in size from zero to many.The first fossil might also appear long ofter the organism originally evolved, for any of a variety of reasons. It might have evolved in another region where fossilization was rare because of climate, then migrated into a new region where fossilization was more likely. Or it might have evolved elsewhere in a region where fossilization occurred, but we haven't discovered it yet, or the region was subducted or eroded away and no longer exists. Or it might have evolved in the region under a climate unfavorable to fossilization, but then the climate changed. Or it might have had a very tiny population size which later increased, as you propose. And I'm sure we could think of other scenarios.The question becomes one of how to tell the difference between your proposal of a world where all species were created at one time and then their population sizes fluctuated, versus a world where evolution occurs.One argument against your proposal is that if it were true, then among all the millions of species that have ever existed there should be a fair number of species whose population fluctuated between very small and very large more than once over the course of time. This would mean we would find fossils of these species in widely separated geological layers. This *is* something that we occasionally find. For example, the Coelecanth disappeared from the fossil record millions of years ago, yet a couple species of Coelecanth still live. But there is no pattern in the fossil record of population fluctuations indicated by a number of species which keep appearing and disappearing as you ascend the geological layers, and it should be there if the ordering in the fossil record were merely an expression of populuation fluctuation and nothing else.Another serious problem for your proposal is that fluctuations in population size are influenced by a number of mostly environmental factors having nothing to do with how closely organisms are related to earlier residents of the region. Yet as we ascend the geological layers, what we find is gradually increasing differences from original forms, rather than a random pattern. If your proposal were true, then we should find at least some forms of long, long ago that at least vaguely resemble modern forms, but we don't. This evidence is contrary to what one would expect under your proposal.Another similar problem is the predator/prey ratio. In general, prey species exist in great numbers, while predator species exist in very small numbers. This ratio is necessary because each predator animal must kill many prey animals during a year in order to survive. If elk actually existed billions of years ago but simply weren't fossilized for the first 3 billion years of their existence because they existed in numbers too small to make fossilization likely, then the numbers would have been too small for the predator species to survive.Another problem for your proposal is that even if all the mammal species that ever existed were in numbers too small for fossilization to be likely, that is still such a huge number of mammals over such a large span of time that it is simply impossible that no mammal was ever fossilized until 130 million years ago. And not a huge mammal either like a mammoth or giant sloth, but just an extremely tiny ground dwelling creature.Your proposal is inconsistent with too much real-world evidence to merit serious consideration.--Percy

quote:

---

The fact that there is no grass with dinosaurs is explained easily by saying that grass was a minor plant in nooks and cranies of the world the and took off only after the flood.

---

So where was the grass? Where in the world should we search for these illusive, pre flood grasses? The fact that we have found ZERO below the K/T boundary (below which we find all dinosaurs) no matter where we look in the world makes your proposal difficult to accept.

quote:

---

It is very common for different plants to change in dominance and even happens today.

---

At the species level, yes. However, we are looking at things above the species level. But let's move to your example below.

quote:

---

For example there is a famous tree,I think redwood, that used to dominate the nothern hemispere but today is resticked to small areas in China.

---

We are talking about one species here, not an entire family of plants. What you need use as an example is world wide replacement of pine trees with palm trees. In fact, grasses can be found in more environments than coniferous trees so perhaps this isn't even comparable, but it is a start. If grasses were around they would have shown up in the fossil record due to their ease of fossilization (especially their pollen) and sheer numbers.

quote:

---

As to aquatic mammals/reptiles not together in the fossil record. Simple mammals did not take to the sea until after the flood. Before the ancesters of whales/seals were on the land. But as on the land there was a dominance shift and so the sea was free for invasion.

---

Please tell me how a killer whale survived on land? Or are you saying that wolves and killer whales are in the same created kind?

Thank you.You have finally agreed that Macroevolution happens.Now let's examine this a little deeper.You are saying that not only does macro evolution (some land animal evolving into dolphin and whales), but that this Macroevolution proceeds at an astounding pace, from land animal into whale in only 6000 years.While evolutionists will agree with you that Macro-evolution happened, land animals evolved into whales, the issue is the speed. The time period you propose is very rapid. In addition, during this whole period there were human observers.How do you explain

1. the lack of first hand observations of the stages of change?
2. the relative scarcity of remains?
3. the fact that we do not see such rapid change continuing?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Again as has been said before creationists do not accept that there is any sorting. This is an interpretation of fossils in the field.
tHE "SORTING" was just another side of a hill of similiar creatures.
All fossils are a photagraph of a momment in a day. The day they were fossilized. Not fossilization event after fossization event after fossilization event over millions of years.
It is not demonstrated to be so. And its unreasonable and unnessesary.

---

Robert,So, all the fossils were created more or less instantly by these hydraulic effects, and fossilised in their positions on the hills.So, answer me this:What were the willows trees - consistently at the top end of the geologicial record, but consistently found in low lying country near water - doing at the top of the hill? Were they on holiday?Why did the proto-mammals sort themselves out in line up the hill by jaw design?Why are all the dinosaurs sorted by families? Were they having their annual family get-together?How does this explain the strict sorting of marine fossils.And, finally: Why do we find the same patterns in every part of the world?

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

Your right and I was wrong that some creationists do offer explanations for fossil sorting that accepts the sorting as a premise.
I don't and perhaps others likewise. This will change in time.You wrote a great deal about whats wrong with the idea of how the seeming sorting took place. Yet you are still accepting the geologic layers as a premise in your criticisms. Also you are using the word specis when we use the word kind. And reduce animals to a few basic kinds. There are in fact very few mammal kinds in the world.Rob

This is like my home the grass has to be dealt with far too regular.
The grass family could lose or gain dominance as easily as a specsis.
Or because it didn't rain before the flood grass was unable to cope. Or grass is just a sub-kind of another kind that is very present in the fossil record.

The changes of aquatic creatures would still be micro and not macro. And yes it would be quick. Not thosands or hundred years but only generations. Probably most speciation now on the planet was finshed within a hundred years of the flood. the fossil evidence insists on this.To your three points.
No people would be watching as they werte slow to leave ark set down.I presume you mean there are relative remains about intermediate stages. (odd on this forume to hear that). Speciation is a sudden reaction and not a process from point a to point b. There would be no intermediate fossils even in the unlikely case of fossilization.
There are some examples where needed of aquatic creatures in between (as we see it not them)Possible explanations as to why Rapid change does not take place today as it is not needed.
Also from a biblical standpoint creatures were to quickly occupy the earth after the flood and so the means was there. Probably speciation is a result of wealthy envirirments for immigrant kinds.
Rob

quote:

---

The grass family could lose or gain dominance as easily as a specsis.

---

Do you have evidence of a whole family of plants as diverse as grasses being forced out of an ecosystem? They can be found in every ecosystem from arctic to tropical, arid to rainforest, etc. Sorry, but evolution and dispersal of grasses millions of years ago makes a lot more sense.

quote:

---

Or because it didn't rain before the flood grass was unable to cope.

---

Ignoring for the moment that grasses can be found in desserts, let's instead look at comparative ecosystems. If we go to the tropics we see grasses and ferns. Ferns are known for needing higher levels of rainfall, therefore if we find ferns we know that there was ample rainfall. So the question is, how is it possible to have ferns but no grasses in areas with ample rainfall?

quote:

---

Or grass is just a sub-kind of another kind that is very present in the fossil record.

---

So a grass evolving from a non-grass? Isn't that macroevolution? And also, you still have not commented on why we find aquatic, air-breathing organsism in different levels (ie whales and aquatic reptiles).

quote:

---

The changes of aquatic creatures would still be micro and not macro. And yes it would be quick. Not thosands or hundred years but only generations. Probably most speciation now on the planet was finshed within a hundred years of the flood. the fossil evidence insists on this.

---

And the changes needed to go from ape to man are far less than the changes needed to go from land mammal to aquatic mammal. Therefore, ape to man would be microevolution, would it not?

OK here goes.
Geography was different back then and willow trees etc would be fossilized where thet grew.
These proto-mammals didn't sort by jaw. That is just an interpretation of fossil assemblage.
Dinosaur families and marine fossils fits fine with what I said.
Regards Rob

quote:

---

Geography was different back then

---

What evidence led you to this conclusion?

quote:

---

These proto-mammals didn't sort by jaw.

---

Yes they did: At the bottom is a reptile, and at the top is an early mammal. Notice the movement of the jaw bones into the middle ear where they are used for sound transmission. Also, the fossils ARE sorted in the fossil record. Why would they stack up in such an obvious pattern?

I wanted to put all of this together in one post for future generations. I must admit that your response is extremely enlightening.Originaly RB said. That is pretty simple. Things like cows or something were living on land and after the flood decided to live in the water. Some pretty major changes would be needed, legs became flippers, nostrils moved from the nose to the top of the head and developed flaps to close them off, bodies became streamlined, but pretty much what Evolutionists have said was what happened. But RB is implying speed like no one else.So, I responded. to which RB replied: So for all the Evolutionists here on the board, the wisdom of Rob.Changing from a land mammal into a whale is not Macroevolution. And changes from a land animal into a whale can happen in just generations, less than a hundred years.

You heard it here folk!

​

Nobody saw the cow change into a whale. Why???

​

Because they were slow to leave the Ark, folks".

​

Good grief.

​

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ah crap. Original post off topic and nothing but derisive comments. Thought I would take the thunder out of an admin's sails.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-16-2004 05:25 PM

quote:

---

Geography was different back then and willow trees etc would be fossilized where thet grew.

---

So, pre-flood, all the wet river valleys with willow trees were at the top of the mountains, and the drier land that conifers prefer at the bottom. Did the rivers flow uphill then?

quote:

---

These proto-mammals didn't sort by jaw. That is just an interpretation of fossil assemblage.

---

Loudmouth has answered that one perfectly. I will just add that regardless of your opinion on timescales a fossil found in a lower strata must have been buried earlier than one in a higher strata. Relative deposition times are rarely in doubt. Even if not all strata are found in the same place correllation will give an order.An example if (reading from the top) you find strata ABC in one place and CDE in another, it's certain the relative order is ABCDE.

quote:

---

Dinosaur families...

---

Why do you never find Ceratopsians (horned dinosaurs) of the Cretaceous period with the Sauropods of the Jurassic.

quote:

---

...marine fossils fits fine with what I said.

---

Neatly sorted in developmental stages. If they all lived together, whay aren't they all fossilised together.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.