Summations Only

Since not all the sea life died I believe it was the sediments in the water that killed the ones that did die.

I do not believe in a "supergenome" although I considered that possibility for a while. I now explain the great genetic diversity before the Flood and therefore in the saved creatures on the ark, as due to the much less junk DNA, probably almost none, and therefore a lot more functioning genes.

That particular argument was a lightbulb going on, brilliant.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not exactly sure what the salt does but there are quite a few cross sections where the strata sag as a unit when there is a salt layer in the mix. Looks like it percolates down through the sediments when dissolved, rises up through the sediments as domes when some condition is reached, enough of it?But it isn't just the salt that causes the "erosion" I see. There's a lot of limestone and dolomite and other soluble rocks in the stack, all suggesting the "erosion" occurred after deposition.

The modern approach by creationists to constructing the evidence for the Flood is usually traced back to Henry Morris, just a few decades ago.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I copied the picture into a Word document where I could zoom it much larger, and have a better sense of the scale. I couldn't see the ocean in the background before.I still have absolutely no idea how my "landscapes" are "demolished by transgressing seas." What transgressing sea for starters? And I see nothing getting "demolished" in the picture, just a lot of lumpy ridges, and certainly nothing that could become a flat sedimentary rock of the sort seen in the geo/strat column. Don't see it, no idea what you mean.And the idea you'd get angular unconformities from what, further deposits of sediment? makes no sense at all. Why wouldn't the sediment just fill in the "valleys."

You actually think any of the strata in the geo/strat column were formed by such a process? You actually expect this to become another such layer?

Try imagining something that fits the actual evidence that has creatures buried together. It's easy to pretend something else is probably what happened, suits your bias, but it didn't happen.

I never heard of Price until recently on EvC. That doesn't mean Morris didn't use his stuff, I just don't know, and it was Morris who put the YEC movement on the map as it were, at least as far as my own experience goes. Price never entered into my early readings on the subject.There is no ALLEN G. White, by the way, it's ELLEN. Her husband and a few others were founders of the church, I think, from a Google page, but she became a leading light over all of them at some point.

None of those pictures helps one bit to convince me such a landscape would ever in a million years become a flat slab of rock of the sort seen in the geologic/stratigraphic column(s). Like your many pictures of "flat" fields. I don't understand how anyone could entertain such an idea.As for the diagram I did comment on it finally after finally getting that it's the deep areas of "erosion" I was supposed to notice. At first it looked like my own diagram of how strata should look if there ever was erosion on the surface, but more attention to it convinced me that those sunken areas are more likely the effect of the many limestone type rocks and the salt in the layers, both being soluble and affecting layers after they were laid down.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't need to convince diehard evolutionists in order to know if I've done a good job or not. As I've many times pointed out, to deaf ears of course, the historical sciences CANNOT BE PROVEN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. It's all speculation, theory, imagination that becomes accepted but can't be proved. I think I've made a good case.

I've already shown that chimps and humans do not have the same body plan. Dogs and cats have more similar body plans but it is their body plans that make them dogs or cats nevertheless, flexible versus rigid skeleton for starters. And the body plans of chumps and humans are far more different than those of dogs and cats. Chimp has flattened face, hunched posture, commonly walks on all fours, big chest, heavy musculature, long arms that drag on the ground, short legs, hands for feet, there is no comparison with the human body type.I'm not sure the coyote and the grey wolf ARE different "species," but that word is awfully plastic. I believe they should be classified as the same Kind.And as I also pointed out, probably in a post you haven't yet read, the trilobite basic shape is even evident in those two different varieties. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nothing changed genetically after the Flood, what are you talking about?

I don't take credit for a lot of my ideas. I pray and God shows me things. And I've also never claimed not to make mistakes, I've made tons of them. But I also know I've done a basically good job of putting together the arguments for the Flood.

Somebody has a signature saying you sometimes have to ridicule an idea, and I agree. Insulting the idea might wake some people up who take it way too seriously. That's the hope. If ideas are really ridiculous they shouldn't be treated with respect, even the most accepted ideas of the day. And it is not true that I haven't done anything else to refute them. The landscape scenario problem is hard to get across but I've done a lot to describe and refute it.