Try out this exercise, sitting in front of fossil distribution data

TB

quote:

---

Obviously we will have a betrter idea when we gain a consensus on the flood boundaries.

---

When will you understand that this will never happen? It’s impossible to find the boundaries of a mythological event.TB here

quote:

---

I completely agree with you on the proclaimative nature of our model for the fossil record. I will claim it's early days for us. I personally find flood ordeing plausible.

---

TB to wm scott

quote:

---

No it doesn't, the erosion from highlands and depositon into basins happens with each surge. Our surges correspond to the mainstream epeiric seas

---

You may find it plausible that erosion from highlands and deposition into basins would order the fossils in a way that fits with evolution but I really doubt that anyone not desperately clinging to a long discredited ancient myth would agree.Here is one you left hanging beforeSo you are claiming that these "flood surges" sorted ammonites of approximately the same size and shape by the complexity of their shell sutures. How did that work? Were these the same surges that carried trillions of tons of sand hundreds of miles?It’s here.
EvC Forum: Flood sortingYou didn’t do too well here either.http://EvC Forum: Fossil Ordering Re-Visited -->EvC Forum: Fossil Ordering Re-VisitedThe fossil record cannot prove evolution but it is clearly consistent with evolution and totally inconsistent with the myth of the worldwide flood. It is another member of the long list of flood myth falsifications that YECs can't deal with.Randy

quote:

---

I can easily imagine the flood approximately sorting ammonites by fine details and biogeolgraphy. I wont claim any proof though.

---

How do you sort by biogeography when you require great masses of water washing down sediments from high ground and transport of those sediments in some cases over long distances? When one of your claims falsifies another as here you should realize that your whole thesis is fatally flawed.
Randy

quote:

---

Our scenario definetely predicts the marine, wet-land, coastal, in-land, highland orderings roughly consistent with the evidence. Sea-floordwelling species will be buried lower than mobile species.

---

No your scenario predicts that sediments should be washed from high ground by the surges and mixed with low ground sediments. Haven’t you talked many times about sediments washed down from high ground and transported long distances? How does this happen without mixing?Or maybe you mean the way gymnosperms like conifers and ferns that grow in mountains are found above flowering plants like water lilies and willows that grow in swampy low ground in the fossil record? Or is it the other way around? It seems your biogeography sorted these backwards. There are no modern biomes that have plants and animals sorted anything like the way they are in the fossil record. In fact biogeography makes no more sense than hydrodynamic sorting or flowing plants out running dinosaurs.I expect that many, many other examples can be found that don’t fit your prediction with no trouble at all, for instance the sequences of sea floor dwelling species that are found above other seafloor dwelling species and even above earlier mobile species but I don’t have time tonight.Randy