Summations Only

I'm not sure who said this but it is a prime example of an untested conditional probably based on an strawman version of the flood. The flood had an inundatory and recessional stage. The recessional stage consisted of an abative phase and a dispersive phase. We can explain geomorphology by expounding the abative phase, and we can explain the creation of strata during the inundatory stage.The placement of fossils would be dependent on the particular circumstances of their burial, based on whether they had been trawled and dumped, etc...flume experiments have proven than no matter which strata a fossil was in, because strata is laid down simultaneously when there is a current, the fossils would all be the same age if the strata was created by a current . This would mean that the fossil patterns would only represent the ecological zones that existed at the time of the catastrophism.I see untested conditionals a LOT with conspiracy theorists, they go something like this;"If we had gone to the moon the radiation would have killed the astronauts".Unless we can go to the moon to test if that is true under the original apollo conditions, then the conditional implication only remains a speculation like if we can't test a flood it only remains speculation, because conditional implications are characterized by consequents that MUST and indeed 100% always follow the antecedent, as proven by experimentation or testing. So speculative attempts to argue, "if the flood had happened then X, Y and Z would exist", are usually silly attempts to flippantly dismiss the flood when in reality the person arguing the conditional, is not arguing from a place of knowledge for they couldn't possibly predict the full outcome of a global flood, nobody could. We can only state what would reasonably follow had there been a flood, as a reasonable assumption.What we actually see from experimental testing with flumes, is that uniform principles do not apply to flowing currents which provably show that facies can be created quickly, and they break both the principle of superposition and continuity.IOW, when strata, under experimental conditions, are formed quickly, it can be shown that they are created by direction of the current and are laid down vertically and laterally, SIMULTANEOUSLY.(of course the flip-side of conditionals, is we can also use our own, and say, "if long ages are true then we would see less scarcity of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal fossils of herbivores"The Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems but are evidence of catastrophic transportation.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Your post makes sense to a degree, but not when we consider the actual fossils that exist, a lot of them in the middle of fighting, giving birth, or their necks thrown back in the suffocation position. When we consider the fossilization of soft-tissued fossils such as jellyfish or whatever..and what about the diving-Ichthyosaur that had it's head buried in one million years worth of rock. The explanation for that, through gradual process, by the scientist that explained it, was basically SILLY. And would the roman-mud have marine forms in it later on, like all the strata on earth do? Be them micro-marine forms or forms such as nautiloids in the grand canyonWhile your explanation is plausible, it isn't based on real science, only assumptions of uniformity.It's easy to say that in time the roman remains and animal remains will become fossils, but that's only an extrapolation. The flume experiments for stratification being created by large water-flow, explains the segregation of lamination, explains the homogeneously separated strata, and explains the particle-placement of the strata. Experiments have shown it can all happen quickly so just from my own personal position, why would I accept your extrapolation that over time there will be fossilisation and stratification, rather than accepted direct experimental evidence?The pressure caused by a large body of water would lead to many bizarre instances of fossilisation.So question: you propose a plausible scenario but you can't wait to see if your prediction comes true, meanwhile actual operational science that proves stratification can happen quickly, is conducted actually proving strata isn't laid down by slow superposition. Are you going to accept science or are you going to go with uniformity-assumptions which are not tested?If you would like to have an understanding of some of the actual science conducted, I recommend you watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWlNTLPozMoEdited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

You THINK you have done that, yes. In reality there are lots of things that you would not predict nor measure or see. If you are honest Ned, a lot of the time you would consider a conjectural-defence as an explanation, sure - but just because explanations are given, no matter how far-fetched, doesn't mean they happened that way.Ichthyosaurs don't go diving head first into the bottom of the ocean then get their heads stuck in the mud for a million years.We have "seen" a mini grand canyon cut out in days at Mt St Helens. We have seen flume experiments prove that stratification can happen quickly.Simply saying, "all the evidence is on the side of evo and long ages" is an ad nauseam P.R.A.T.T spread over the internet.No theory, no matter how factual, would have all of the evidence support it anyway, that would be a fantasy. Science doesn't work like that and you know it, extra-hypotheses are used to explain things that do not fit for starters. I will presume you had a rash senior moment , not thought through properly.You guys spread propaganda but your "explanations" are sometimes frankly DESPERATE, such as the young dino-flesh, and the ludicrous, inventive and imaginative stories they create to try and avoid that it is obvious evidence of youth.Creating tenuous and silly conjectural excuses for the contradictory evidence, aren't "explanations" in my opinion, they are better defined as excuses in order to save the evo-paradigm.Notice it is usually some unfalsifiable gibberish? That is the problem - sure, technically we can't disprove the excuses, but that doesn't make them good explanations over the highly explainable and correct, yecxplanations.