The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

The article is titled "Numerical modelling of the large-scale erosion, sediment transport, and deposition processes of the Genesis flood"Go to AIG, click on Answers, scroll to Science then Geology then Sedimentation.Remember AIG do not look at data and see what they show, but to see how they can be mangled into a dogmatic mind-set.

But the "features" that "show" all this are just the fossilized contents of the rocks, aren't they? Which makes it a big joke if those contents are really only the accidental flotsam of the Flood. The only *real* problem for the Flood is the angle of repose of the grains of the Coconino sandstone which suggests aerial deposition.

Nonsense.Everything, every piece of evidence that has been found in the last 300 years is a "real" problem for the flood.In case you have not noticed Faith, that is the topic of this thread.There is no flood mechanism that can explain why fossils (or geological features or salt mines or the White Cliffs of Dover) exist.The idea of any Biblical Flood is DOA and has been dead for several hundred years and is only marketed by the snake oil salesmen and the con artists who prey on the gullible and willfully ignorant.

No. You would know this if you'd read my book. Do read my book sometime. It's the rocks themselves that show it. The highly ordered accidental flotsam of the Flood. No, that's just the only thing you can think of. There are lots of other non-marine strata, Faith.Even the Coconino sandstone has other indications of being aeolian. Such as the pinstripe laminae, and the footprints ...

There are a myriad "real" problems for the Flood,and so far you have adduced no mechanism for solving them.How about explaining the distribution of radiolarians and diatoms? Forget the way individual species are ordered, just tell us for starters why radiolarians are from the Cambrian up, but diatoms do not start till the Triassic. Remember these critters are of similar sizes, and should be randomly mixed by a raging Flood.

No they are primary textures in the rocks derived from known processes and duplicated in the lab.

How do you get sediments to lay themselves out flat with flat top and bottom unless deposited by water?

Many non-marine sediments are deposited by water, i.e. sediments deposited in rivers and lakes.Many sedimentary layers do not have flat bottoms, because they were deposited on top of a non-flat surface.Some of them do not have flat tops: for example, the foreset beds of a delta lie on a slope.Volcanic ash lies more or less flat because it is evenly distributed, there is no reason why it should pile up more in one place than some directly adjacent spot.Lava flows lie flat because lava when liquid is self-leveling.The mechanics of sand dunes and their lithification has been explained to you at some length and with references.If you would like to ask me about any particular stratum, go for it; otherwise I suggest that you read my textbook until you understand the mechanisms of erosion and deposition described in it.

None of what you said applies to the strata of the geologic column. And as I recall the explanation of how sand dunes get turned into slabs of rock was the usual speculation.

Yes it does. Of course it does. Specifically, it explains how sediments are deposited so as to look exactly like the sedimentary rocks that we see in the geological record.Which is something that you cannot do. You recall wrong. It was based on the usual direct observation.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Trying to change the subject yet again I see Faith. How the conventional theory works is irrelevant to this topic. Your job is to explain how a flood can order the fossils as they are found in reality.Stop trying to avoid the issue even though avoidance seems to be to be one of the only two responses left to Creationists, Floodist and so called "Bible" Christians.What is the flood model, mechanism, method, process, procedure or thingamabob that will sort the fossils in the order found in reality?Edited by jar, : are ---> as

What?What could you possibly mean by this statement?

Well, presumably she means that I was talking about real processes, whereas she attributes the strata to imaginary processes.Nonetheless, this is hardly an objection she can reasonably make to my post, since she asked me how real processes would produce the strata. I supplied what she requested, so either she needs to say that they wouldn't do what they manifestly do, or to thank me and shut up.

So you're going with the old Tornado in a Junkyard scenario. It wouldn't be able to assemble a 747 but it would be able to sort every screw, rivet, etc. into neat piles by size and shape.

Ah, but then we would be talking about erosion of a fossil 747; and, as you know, erosion is a figment of the geological imagination.But, good point. I never thought of it that way.