No, the problem is not that it was unfinshed, but that it went off at a complete tangent from the point under discussion.The very simple point you are trying to deal with is that the appearance of birds is a point of resemblance to life as we see it now, compared to the fossils found in lower strata where birds are absent. That is all. It has nothing to do with "thinking like an evolutionist" unless you wish to argue that only evolutionists are rational.As for my last question, you do realise that you are invoking massive coincidences ? It is pretty implausible that every ankylosaur that we find fossilised somehow managed to do better than fast-moving dinosaurian predators and that the hippo population somehow managed to get to "high ground" or avoid being caught in lower strata by pure chance. These explanations would work for individuals, but they are highly implausible when applied to the entire population,This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-25-2005 02:33 AM

So you don't think in terms of earlier or later ? OK - just use "lower" instead of earlier and "higher" instead of later. The point remains unaffected.

Oh, come on. You know as well as I do that there's considerably more of a pattern than "no land plants below this line". We never find grasses with the dinosaurs, but you're certain that the dinosaurs were able to flee to higher ground than where they lived. So they certainly died high enough to be on grass, but where is it? For that matter where is the grass pollen that you can't escape in the present day? We never find it near those massive grazing dinosaurs?It just doesn't add up. Like what? What principle exists that causes a flood to sort plants? For that matter, to sort microscopic plant pollen? Since the progression of plant fossils is very real, this is a very real observation that you're going to have to take into account. It doesn't, apparently, grow under dinosaurs. Apparently it disappears without a trace whenever a dinosaur walks by. Why is that, exactly?

Well, they show different characteristics, but the idea of "depositional environments" in the sense of landscapes that covered the planet for millions of years at a time is strictly an Evo interpretation. In the case of the dinosaurs under discussion the "river" is easily explained as a temporary effect of the Flood, etc. Obviously I'll have to give more attention to each of the posted "landscapes." Well it all has to be accounted for, and accounted for in terms that answer "depositional environments" with local circumstances. Tomorrow I think. But I will be away for a while tomorrow too.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2005 02:41 AM

Whose making? I've been hearing this "high ground" sorting explanation for years now, and whenever we get to paleobotany, nothing.Ever. Plants represent the majority of the Earth's biomass by weight and your model can't even account for their very gradual and very obvious sorting in the fossil record? If you can come up with the explanation, send an email to Answers in Genesis. They'll love to hear from you because you'll be the first.

quote:

---

So, you asserted that the idea that the area where Dinosaur National Monument could only have been a sea prior to the Flood if there had bene more time than your YEC views allow.

​

Um I don't recall saying that. It COULD have been a sea I suppose but I believe the evidence that is interpreted as a sea is better interpreted as the result of the Flood.

---

You don't rember insisting that the idea that the area WAS sea before the Flood assumed long periods of time ? Well you did. And I still have no idea how anybody could resonably make such a claim depsite asking you to back up your claim.So on to the points.1) Your evidence that it is "flotsam and jetsam from the Flood" is that it looks as if it was a sea area for a considerable period of time. Simply saying "same evidence" with no explanation of how it supports your view is not going to get you anywhere.2) If you wouldn't expect me to know in advance that you would make that assumption how is the fact that you DID make that assumption relevant to the point under discussion ?3) I'm saying that even if I had known that you would make that assumption it is not relevant. The point under discussion is your assertion that the idea that the area was sea prior to the Flood assumes long periods of time. So I don't understand why the fact that you preferred a different scenario has any relevance.Your mistake was to assert the very point under discussion - that the area could not have been sea prior to the Flood wihtout long areas of time. Your illogical answer is to attempt to support that assertion by asserting that you took the area to be "flotsam and jetsam form the Flood" - which simply does not address the point.As to your later assertions, there is certainly more evidence than has been produced in this discussion - we have only seen a basic survey of the geology aimed at a popular audience, not any of the detailed studies down on the area. To claim that there "is no other evidence" is to say "I don't know about any other evidence therefore there can't be any". Which MIGHT be OK if you had an exhaustive knowledge of geology but you don't. And since you haven't seen that evidence you have no idea whether it would support or contradict you.As to fainess, if the evidence supports both sides equally then why is it reasonable to insist that one particular side coopted the other sides' evidence ? If you want to be fair why bias the discussion in that way ?Worse is the insistence that no other evidence is needed - if the evidence really is equally well explained by both sides then obviously we shouldn't rule out looking for more. Especially when that evidence quite likely has been published somewhere. It is especially bad when it is remembered that the reason for discussing this particular place is because it is precisely the sort of area that you brought up as evidence for the Flood - so it should be the best area to find evidnece for the Flood over conventional geological views. If the Flood can't manage better than a draw on "home ground" as it were then it is in poor shape.As to your claim that the conventional view requires more steps I really have to ask you why you think that. Your Flood explanation requires more assumptiosn and evidence (finding the stratum that represents the original surface, sources for all the dead creatures supposedly washed in from elsewhere) while the conventional view works pretty much with the evidence we actually have.With regard to the rivers acan you please make up your mind. Do you have the geological descriptions of the buried river beds or not ? Are they all consistent with you Flood scenario or not ? If you have groudns to beleive that there are no such descriptions published then please explain why. Don't just say that the evidence we've looked at is all that could possibly exist. Equally don't assume that because popular presentations of landscapes don't present detailed descriptions of the evidence that they are not bsed on such evidence.As to your scenaio it seems pretty obvius to me that sicne the Flood is supposedly dumping very thick layers of sediment everywhere that static marien life that lives on the bottom is going to end up buried at the bottom of the Flood strata - where else would it be ? So of course it would have to be dug up fom there if it is going to appear in higher strata - and no, tides are not going to be adequate.I am glad that you admit to adding the idea that dinosaurs would have intentionally gone down to the river to die, but if that wasn't the point you were calling silly then what was ? As to the numbers - well you didn;t mention them and if you were seriously suggesting that dinosaurs chose to go to the river to die then that would make the numbers higher than if they did not. But if you think that the numbers are too high then let us see what they are - how many dinosuars are buried there, how long does conventional geology allow for that and why is that period of time inadequate. If the numbers are the issue then lets see them - order of magnitude estimates will do if they produce a clear result.One final bit [quote] Let us review the process of thought here. Neither does the Dinosaur Monument have any EVIDENCE that supports their fanciful scenario of dinosaur death by the river. The SAME evidence is the basis for both their scenario and mine. [/qs]IF the evidence is the same then it is pretty unlikely that you could have solid support for your view. However sicne you don't know all - or even a fraction of the evidence already gathered it isn't true you are using the same evidence. You are only using the small fracton of that evidence that you know.
And when the best you can seem to do is to say that it is "fanciful" that dinosaurs could possibly die near a river (copared to the contortions required for you to explain the marine fossils in higher strata) well I have to ask how you can possibly claim that your view is better than the mainstream view.

A little history might help you put the debate in context.While there are some like yourself who simply have an inherent interest in the debate, for most people on the evolution side the beliefs of evangelical Christians about creation and evolution would be of little interest were it not for for their efforts at promoting their views outside their local religious communities. This is an incomplete list, but here are some of the activities of Creationists that alarm those concerned about the teaching of science in the U.S.:

• 1981: Arkansas legislature passes a law requiring equal treatment for Creationism and evolution in public school science curriculums. Ruled unconstitutional by judge Overton in 1982.
  ​
• 1981: Louisiana legislature passes a similar law also requiring equal treatment for Creationism and evolution. Overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987.
  ​
• 1987 and after: Although grass roots efforts have always been a part of the Creationist repertoire, after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling Creationists turned their efforts away from legal approaches and stepped up their efforts with state and local boards of education and with textbook publishers. Realizing that states like California and Texas carried enormous weight with textbook publishers, they focused their efforts on these states' boards of education. As a result of these efforts textbooks began diminishing treatements of evolution in their textbooks. Smaller states with insufficient clout to influence textbook content were forced to go along.
  ​
  Creationists also focused their efforts on local school boards, arguing for representation for Creationism and against coverage of evolution.
  ​
• 1999-2005: Kansas Board of Education makes several well-publicized efforts to reduce the teaching of evolution in public schools.
  ​
• 2001-2002: Ohio general assembly passes a bill to include coverage of Intelligent Design in public school science curriculums.

This is by no means a complete list, just some highlights. It is the continuing efforts of Creationists to force representation of their religious beliefs into science programs that most people are reacting to. Speaking for myself, but I'm sure many people feel the same way, if it weren't for these efforts I would have little to no interest in this debate. I don't think there wouldn't even be a debate.--Percy

Hi Faith.I haven't participated in the discussions with you (although I've enjoyed following them) because a) it appears you have more than enough on your plate with about a zillion responses to each post you make, and b) up to now your discussions have been primarily limited to geological topics, a subject about which I know very little having taken a grand total of one (count 'em, one) geology course in my entire life. However, when you make statements such as: ...I feel the need to caution you. You are opening up a humungous can of worms here. If you think the geologists (either amateur or pro) have been difficult to deal with, don't get the biologists and their ilk on this board involved in your discussions. The potential implications of your statement here are enormous - and I don't think you should start a whole new series of discussions until and unless you finish off your geology topics. Might I suggest that you either retract the above statement, or at the very least indicate you will hold it in abeyance until such time as you have the luxury to deal with it? A simple, "Okay, we won't go down that road yet, and I won't bring it up again until later." or the equivalent would be sufficient.In any event, I'm enjoying your conversations: you are obviously an intelligent, highly articulate writer that is a pleasure to read. I don't want you to disappear under an avalanche of new posts. Even if you're wrong...

quote:

---

It not only implicates Faith, but her mother.

---

Actually, it mostly implicates the irresponsible father, which I see you neglect to mention at all.

Okay, it is at this point that I want you to take a moment and clear your mind of all the other debates raging in this thread, as this is very important. Take a deep breath and reread what you said (and I just posted above).This is clear evidence that you are not understanding the problem, and it is what I have been suggesting. If you have no interest in the methodology and simply want to look at possible explanations to get at the "truth", then you have left the realm of modern science.This is not an insult, but a clarification. Science requires a specific methodology, and if you admittedly don't care then I am unsure what problem you have with people pointing out that your theories or arguments are not scientific.For scientists, regardless of what "truth" might underlie the models developed, they adhere to a rigorous process. The methodology is quite important.If we are to compare ToE and Creo as scientific models... don't we have to be concerned that the methodology is scientific? If not, aren't you clearly de facto advocating for the dismissal of current scientific methodology? I think this is disengenuous on your part. You just got done posting a quote whose message was overtly political and specifically regarding the teaching of religion in school... or since that would not be possible then taking children out so as to have religious education elsewhere. To act as if that is not exactly what I was discussing seems a bit off.It would appear that you should know, or be aware it is education that has generated this debate at some level. Is this not an open admission that you understand the teaching of evo to students is the cause of this debate? This is correct. That is why there should be no problem with teaching the ToE in any biology class. If it was a class on UNIVERSAL TRUTHS, then one might have a case. The fact that in a science class they would discuss one current scientific model among others, has nothing to do with advocating or denouncing any metaphysical position. This is another debate entirely. However I don't see why taking them out of schools will help them. Are they not to be taught what current scientific models exist, even if they are eventually to be instructed that the literal biblical account is different? IAnd if you are for this, I hope you are also not for using state money. Again I am not understanding this. How does a scientific model challenge a metaphysical concept? There are many avenues to defend the metaphysical concept without needing to lie to children and tell them scientific theory does not contain the ToE, or simply hide that fact from them.Lying would of course include knowingly telling them a certain theory is an equal scientific theory when it is not scientific, or one does not make clear it uses a vastly different concept of scientific methodology. Though not dogmatic, I am an agnostic-atheist who has a high regard for modern science and the ToE. Your post said my "worldview" was essentially going to corrupt everyone and turn children into nihilists (something I am not and that was a bald-faced lie on the part of the author). Now you just said his predictions are true.How can you not see that that is insulting, and an apriori rejection of someone else's thoughts and observations? For a guy that came on with a valid point regarding bias, it might be worthwhile to double check your own actions and thoughts.If an atheist at EvC posted a quote by some prominent militant atheist about how the increased teaching of Xian doctrine to children would lead to greater ignorance and killing, and that this can be shown to have happened, and then the poster said it was certainly true... wouldn't that strike you as somewhat insulting?You don't have to address this, but seriously think about it.More important to this thread will be acknowledging the different methodologies desired for science (between evo and creo), and what role methodology plays in science.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

But you DO find birds of some sort. And you find birds more and more as you go up the "column." What you would find with the dinosaurs is simply whatever varieties lived in the particular locale with the dinosaurs, and you would find them together also because they were able to put off the inevitable just about as well as the dinosaurs were. You find birds with the land animals in general because birds were as good at finding temporary safe haven as the higher land animals. Sure, that's the evolutionist explanation but mine works just as well -- that the supposedly more "primitive" types of birds are still just birds, and they hung out with the dinosaurs for some reason, that is they lived in the same locale. Archeopteryx is just a bird that lived before the Flood, whose genes died out in the Flood. Somebody pointed this out, but I also didn't claim that ability to flee was the only factor. I started out considering only the dinosaur case to explain the observed facts about that ONE situation, and pictured them huddling on a high place from which their corpses were carried downstream as the flood receded, accounting for the appearance of something like a riverbed in the layer as well as their being all jumbled together in a heap at their final destination.But going from that specific scenario to a generalization, there had to be many factors that affected ability to lengthen survival. Size would have been a factor as well as speed. The dinosaurs could have survived some depth of water before being drowned in it. Speed isn't going to help a small animal that can't climb trees. Location would have been a factor, some already being placed on higher ground. Again, the ability to prolong survival does seem to me to be the main determinant of position in the strata, but this ability can have to do with many factors. Now you've answered many suppositions I didn't make. My generalization is -- Factors That Prolonged Survival. Many such factors. Another big factor is location - part of the world the animal lived in, involving characteristics of the habitat as well. Time out to point out again that you have misprepresented my view. Not if they were already on high ground or good climbers or huge like dinosaurs. And if it took quite a few days for the flood to build to the point of threatening all land life then they wouldn't have needed to be speedy to get to high ground in time if they needed to and it was within reasonable distance. For the dinosaurs I proposed that they died on the high ground but that they were not buried until the flood receded and their bodies were carried downhill along with sediments, to be buried in the bunches where they are typically found. But, following your scenario, which isn't my scenario, presumably because they are less slow and dumb they are on high ground above the parts overtaken by water -- there IS land left at this point, the high ground they are occupying, and perhaps there's still higher ground with more animals huddled on it nearby. Not following you. My scenario of the dinosaurs DID have them buried after or as the water was receding. I figure the animals all huddled together with their own Kind pretty much wherever they could find the best place to huddle, and the most favored would have found higher ground for the purpose if it was to be found.It's possible most of the land animals were carried to their final burial places as the waters of the flood receded. Certainly there must have been heavy erosion at that point as well as during the flood, now caused by runoff from still-soaked hillsides and tidal pull as well while the tides were still coming up that high, with hills breaking up and huge mudslides occurring from the saturation. I think it must have been tidal action that accounts for the layering effect. If different sediments are laid down one on top of another by rivers, then something similar must have been going on in the flood.But, here's another more important thought: I doubt this absolute ordering idea. The Geological Column being an idealized fiction, there is no certainty about the ordering. It is imposed on the facts based on only a few locations where such ordering is apparently the case. A great deal of the Geo Column is assumed, not observed. Where a layer is missing it is assumed according to the theory to have been there. A floodist assumes it never was there. The land animals and the best able to lengthen survival among those would most likely be in upper layers in any deep stack, but there is no reason to assume a hard and fast rule that one kind of land animal had to be superimposed on another. That may be the case in one location but not in another, as it is the timeframe theory and not actual reality that does the final sorting. Hundred or so layers of only land animals? But these hundreds are simply layers found scattered throughout the world, not ever found all together in any one place, and fitted together conceptually rather than actually, strictly according to the theory of fossil progression, right? Nor to me either, as it isn't the one I proposed. Yes and I've accepted this overall appearance of fossil ordering and in fact don't doubt that it is the case overall, but only overall, shown in many fragments of the Geo Column but far from all. Above I've given my reasons why I doubt now that it really demonstrates the hard and fast rule we are told it does. It's merely a conceptualization that involves mentally filling in supposed gaps in the strata found in different parts of the world, gaps that a floodist doesn't consider to be gaps, but just one of the many ways things fell out in the catastrophe.

The point of the quote was to demonstrate that I personally am not for pushing creationism in the public schools. Period. Oh honestly. Well have it your way. I don't know my own mind, obviously, but you do. No, it's only my thoughts on the subject expressed when the subject is brought up. I am not without thoughts on the subject, but those are NOT my reason for debating. In fact, according to my view of the education question there would be no more reason for me to be debating this than Percy has for debating, as he said, as my solution does not require convincing anyone of anything -- just pull the kids out of the schools. Debate occurs because of the desire to convince the authorities for the purpose of putting creationism in the public schools. I don't have this purpose. I don't want the conflict, and not just about evolutionism, about the whole Christian worldview, which can't be taught in public schools. As I said, "just as the reverse is not right." Those who regard the ToE as a false theory should not have it imposed on their children either. Even if you think they are wrong, communities ought to have the right to pursue and teach their own beliefs (as long as none of it threatens public safety of course). The whole point of American freedoms was the recognition that there are different views and one mustn't be allowed to silence or intimidate another. The ToE is as "metaphysical" as you're going to get. At some point the theory should certainly be discussed, but what creationists object to is such things as depictions of dinosaurs roaming a world in which there are no "modern" animals and plants, and telling the children that this time is such and such millions of years ago; and getting them to learn the Geo Timeframe as if it were fact, or the Linnaean taxonomic charts presented in terms of descent from one species to another rather than as just a classification system. Could be. In context, however, it was merely my answer to the supposed idea that creationists only debate this for the purpose of imposing creationism on the public schools. It was meant to be reassuring that I have no such desire. Why not? Christians pay taxes too. Why should we be forced to subsidize education for others according to a worldview we oppose while having to support our own independently on top of paying taxes? Free us from taxes and we'll support our own schools absolutely.This definitely is another debate but in fact I've already said more than once that I would like to see both theories taught to the children in Christian schools and especially the ability to think through evidence taught to them above all. Alas, we occupy such different worlds of thought here it is hard to give brief answers. We are talking about questions of fact, not "a metaphysical concept." Creationists KNOW the ToE is FACTUALLY SCIENTIFICALLY EVIDENTIALLY REALLY TRULY wrong, despite your absolute conviction that it is right. It is probably best not to say more to try to defend it, especially since I'm doing my best to argue it here as it is. Otherwise just leave it as a great mystery. Fine, we'll teach them that too. I want them to know everything everybody thinks and be able to think through it for themselves, but they have to be thoroughly grounded in the Christian worldview as part of that objective, and they aren't going to get that in the public schools. But it isn't to be personalized. The fact is observable that the moral tone of the schools has degenerated dramatically just in the last half century, past sexual permissiveness on to murder based on nihilistic values, as well as the intellectual quality. This is what Hodge predicted and he was right. This is not about individuals, it's about the inevitable development of the atheistic worldview. It simply does inevitably lead to such cultural deterioration although many individuals nevertheless maintain the Christian standards of the old culture that is fast disappearing, without knowing that is where those standards came from originally. Now, please try to get this in the spirit in which it is intended. I am NOT insulting anybody. This is about the Zeitgeist as a whole and its overall effect on the culture, not about individuals. Oh for pete's sake. And again, I'm a woman, not a guy. I am not going to respond to this topic again as it is obviously going nowhere. Actually such accusations are made against Christians quite frequently these days and I've debated many. The insult isn't the point, it's much bigger than that. This is all way too abstract for the topic as I'm envisioning it. If it's required of me to learn what you are talking about it would take at least another thread devoted to this topic alone.

EVERYBODY.The issue of whether or not Creationism is Science or Evolution is or is not a fact is not related to Christianity.The issue is between Evolutionists, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Pagan, Jewish, Atheist or any other affiliation, and a small sect of Christian Evangelical Creationists.Please, quit trying to suggest that there is some relationship or support for Creationism within all Christian Churches. As I've pointed out time and time again, the vast majority of Christian Faiths support the TOE and oppose Creationism.Whenever the issue has come up, the primary opponent of Creationism is and has always been Christians. Christians oppose Creationism on both scientific and theological basis.

Creationism is not just bad science, it's worse theology.

This message has been edited by jar, 03-25-2005 03:17 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I said "it would appear", not "I know". I guess I just don't understand how a person says they are unaware that the evc debate centers on what to teach children, and then gives quotes that say just that. Whether YOU are pushing for it or not is besides the point, the fact is that is what is driving the debate, as the quotation you listed quite clearly shows.If you maintain you had no knowledge of this then I have to accept it. It just seems very strange. I understand that you are not pushing for creo to be taught in public schools. But the debate is formed based on what is being taught in public schools... right? I mean if the schools were not teaching evo and allowing in religious education, you wouldn't be having any problems, right? Okay, this I do not understand at all. As the ToE is not religion, what comparison does it have to parents not wanting an opposing religious view taught to their children? I am also a little concerned about the implications of this.Are you saying you think it will be a good thing to fracture the educational system such that every community and household should be capable of granting a degreed education, based on whatever beliefs they particularly hold? Such that flatearthers should be able to renounce round earth geography, geology? Alchemists can renounce atomic theory? Newtonians can reject General Relativity Theory?It seems to me that our educational future is heading for a bit of a breakdown if we are now to throw every "theory" to the wind of public opinion, and pretend they all count as current best models and be taught as such. Its a tentative scientific model, not a metaphysic. Timelines are taught because they are part of the model. Children in chemistry courses are taught about periodic tables and electrons, yet I assume you have no problems with these models do you?Indeed what is a photon? Science is not metaphysics, which if you will note is literally outside of (before) physics. Science is a branch of epistemology. I'm not sure if you are aware but the government has already done this. Churches and sunday schools are run tax free. Public education is about learning practical skills, including basic scientific theory and methodology. Kids can go to church run schools outside of class time devoted to basic skills. And it is tax free.Or am I missing something?Actually, what is the problem with private religious schools already in existence? I am not absolutely convinced that the ToE is right. It is a tentative model, with much work to be done. I am only convinced that it is currently the best model, and have hopes that it is relatively close (especially the larger general theory) to the "truth" of what happened.Clearly we have different species. Clearly we have change within them at this time. I have yet to see a concrete (evidence-based) barrier to speciation through the sorts of changes we see everyday, given time.I have no idea how you can claim creos KNOW the ToE is wrong, specifically when you throw in factually, scientifically, and evidentially. You are a good writer and seem to be intelligent. But I am now starting to get the hint that CK was right.This no longer seems like a serious discussion. This is not about individuals, it's about the inevitable development of the fundamentalist Xian worldview. It simply does inevitably lead to such cultural deterioration although many individuals nevertheless maintain the common secular standards of a diverse culture that is fast disappearing, without knowing that is where those standards came from originally. Now, please try and get this in the spirit it is intended. I am NOT insulting anybody.Does that ring true to you?I am an atheist. I have a worldview that is not Xian in origin, nor supportive of Xian values. While some Xian values are derived from the same foundations which I use for my moral system (they are pagan), to say that I am following the Xian doctrine is as silly as saying the Dalai Lama doesn't know it but he's really a Quaker. My worldview stands in stark contrast to nihilism, rejecting it up and down the board. Foisting that moral outlook on my "worldview" is an insult.I hope we can drop this subject, but if you can't figure out that it is insulting to tell a person that his worldview will bring ruin to the world, well what can I say?And to say the only reason I might have some decency is that I practice Xian doctrine without knowing that is where I got it... didn't you just insult me for thinking I knew your mind? Whoops, my mistake. I actually hadn't seen you post where you mentioned this, though I did see others call you she. I didn't know if it was true or not. It shouldn't. You should be able to find some good sources, even some quick reading ones, on metaphysics, epistemology, and scientific method. I'd add that some historical knowledge of modern science would be helpful, especially those that discuss other models within science that are NOT ToE related.If you are interested in the truth, this shouldn't be too taxing. You may find that you can hold your position and yet come to the table with a firmer understanding of what you want/need to debate in order to move your position forward.Simply insisting you know what science is, and that methodology is not important, sort of takes the air out of whatever you say next. It really doesn't make sense from a historical standpoint.Its sort of like saying you know what planes are, but you feel bernoulli's principle is irrelevant for discussing how to build one, and whether yours will be able to fly. A lot of engineers will stand around scratching their head at what you are talking about.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-25-2005 06:04 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I was told by somebody here that birds are in the SAME layer with dinosaurs. Perhaps he simply meant to make me the butt of jokes. I took it straight. I tried to figure out how they get buried together. I'm not talking about birds from another layer above but birds in the same layer as they were supposedly buried together with the dinosaurs somehow.Now I'm realizing that "in the same layer" doesn't mean "together" in any case, and that the whole picture here is in need of correction. I'd guess that MOST of the creatures are found buried with their own kind rather than WITH other kinds -- yes or no? The idea that such and such a creature existed at the same time as others is just the product of the mental leap that claims a layer here is really the same as another there because of its position relative to the content of some other layer in both places etc, but in fact the actual occurrence of different kinds of animals buried together is rare -- yes or no? The whole thing is a product of the mental construct that links it all together, not the fact of the layers actually found and observed.Then Percy said only a very primitive type of bird is found with the dinosaurs. Well, it's still a bird. The question is how are they found buried together. This caused me to think they are simply from the same locale. But now I figure they haven't BEEN found buried together at all, just supposedly in the same time period because of the mental construct that links the layers in a particular order, not because of what is actually observed in reality. Yes or no?I have looked for information about where all the contents of the Geo Column have been found, and what exactly these contents are and which layers have been preserved where and how anybody knows that a layer in Asia is "really" the same layer as one in South America and so on, but this information is apparently not all in one place and it is very hard to track down. Just finding an online list of the fossils associated with a particular era is difficult. I did finally find such a list for the Tertiary and Quaternery but it involves clicking on the Latin names on a long list of links and then it only gives a brief sketch of what the animal supposedly looked like and it doesn't tell me where the fossils were found or any other actual objective information. It's probably partly that there is too much information to be had in one place but it is no doubt a result of evolutionist thinking that this information is not in one place too, as they don't regularly organize the information in terms of the objectively observed facts, but in terms of the theory.It is frustrating to have so much trouble trying to find the answer to a single question such as "What birds are found with dinosaurs in what strata in what parts of the world?" And "in what parts of the world has the stratum of the Jurassic period been found?" And "How different are the sediments in a particular layer of the Geo Column from that same supposed layer in another part of the world?" And again, "How do you know this layer here is the same as that layer there?" Really, as I've said, I'd have to BECOME a geologist to get a grip on all this information. ALL? Look, this started out with reference to the ONE dinosaur monument in Utah. I do believe that dinosaur bed has features in common with other dinosaur beds, since it appears that many are found together in one place as if washed there all at once, but I don't know if a "riverbed" is part of them all. It is, however, a part of this Utah location apparently, judging ONLY from their story about how the dinosaurs died beside a river and were buried together downstream.Your scenario is a bit different from mine. I figured the dinosaurs might stay alive longer because of finding higher ground and because of their size which would help them resist the water longer, but that when they died they'd die where they were, and later be washed from higher ground in the "river" that was runoff from the higher ground. The flood had to recede to account for the "riverbed." They were probably tumbled and buried in sediments during the flood too, but I was trying to account for the "riverbed" in Utah, and the dinosaurs' apparently having been carried down it to their final position, where some of their jumbled bones are exposed in the side of a hill which forms a wall of the monument. Again, you can drop the ALL and think "Utah Monument" OK? It was a way to account for why they were buried together. But since apparently they WEREN'T buried together anyway, that scenario can be scrapped. But no, I didn't imagine anything quite so ludicrous as your little story here. I just thought the dinosaurs would present a high perch in the absence of trees. When the perch goes down, tree or dinosaur or whatever, the birds could fly, but I thought that might be difficult in a torrential rain and that they'd go down sooner than later anyway, in roughly the same locale.HOWEVER, since the theory has it that there were no real birds in the time of the dinosaurs you can scrap the whole thing about the birds. The dinosaurs however were no doubt washed into one place and buried together, dead or alive.AGAIN, I'm beginning to understand that a great deal of the business about fossil groupings is an artifact of the theory rather than the actual observed reality in any case.