Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some
lfen
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 181 of 304 (292858)
03-06-2006 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
03-06-2006 12:00 PM


Re: Dating answered, on to limestone sedimentation
Better than slow sedimentation rates explains it.
The referent is missing from the sentence fragment. To who is it a better explanation? Not to most educated and trained working geologist. They have looked at the theory and abandoned it on many grounds.
To a group of religionist who want the world to conform to a pre scienctific world view and don't want to understand science that flood hypothesis seems on the face of it more reliable and certainly it's much simpler. No measurements or mathmatics are required, nor chemical analysis etc.
Science is an interlocking locking set of disciplines. Physics uses math and chemistry can't conflict with physics, nor can biology conflict with physics and chemistry and thus they inter support one another.
A group of religionists is fighting science in order to hold to their emotional beliefs. But so far you've offerred no science just rationalizations that allow you to dismiss scientifically observed and verified findings.
You and your co religionists have faith in your view of the Bible as do Mormons, Muslims, etc have faith in their religions. None of that is science and none of those religion's beliefs can overturn science.
There is no factual basis for your religion, any more than there is a factual basis for Islam, or Mormonism.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 12:00 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 182 of 304 (292859)
03-06-2006 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by nator
03-06-2006 9:49 AM


Re: Are you ready to put Grass to the test Faith?
Because the currents in the flood carried different cargo.
Because the lower strata are mostly marine.
Otherwise I don't know and it's not of concern to me on this thread. I don't have to explain all the details.
My point is only that on the face of it the huge worldwide abundance of fossils is GREAT evidence for a worldwide flood.
Concede this obvious point. End of discussion as far as I am concerned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by nator, posted 03-06-2006 9:49 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by nator, posted 03-07-2006 6:24 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 183 of 304 (292860)
03-06-2006 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by jar
03-06-2006 11:11 AM


Re: No Claims Faith?
Your scenario is now something that can be tested. Do we find grass seeds and pollen at the lowest level with nothing but marine fossils and a very small post flood level above.
This is a misuse of the concept of testing. REAL science does REAL testing. This is not testing. This is simply more of the kind of fantasizing guesswork that is done in the service of the geo timetable and the ToE. You come up with a plausible thought to combat someone else's plausible thought and that's the entire extent of the "testing." None of this stuff is testable, provable, falsifiable, etc. There is no way to replicate any of it, there is no empirical test possible. It is all only a matter of who comes up with the most persuasive imaginative construction. That's all it is, it is NOT testing. Thus do the evos forever entertain the Emperor's New Clothes.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-06-2006 11:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 03-06-2006 11:11 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by jar, posted 03-06-2006 11:07 PM Faith has replied
 Message 193 by lfen, posted 03-07-2006 3:50 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 200 by nator, posted 03-07-2006 6:26 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 252 by Ratel, posted 03-10-2006 1:23 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 184 of 304 (292861)
03-06-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Modulous
03-06-2006 11:23 AM


Re: Parsimony
The reason why it isn't a better explanation is that it fails to explain all the things we see. The geology/evolution explanation does a great job of explaining it. The thing that explains the most in the most detail, with experimental evidence, is the better explanation.
Some time you guys are going to HAVE to recognize that when it comes to this whole scenario, this millions of years fantasy, that there is no such thing as "experimental evidence." See my previous answer to jar.
On the face of it the humungous abundance of fossils all over this planet is FANTASTIC evidence in favor of a worldwide Flood.
Period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2006 11:23 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2006 3:58 AM Faith has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 185 of 304 (292863)
03-06-2006 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Faith
03-06-2006 11:00 PM


Re: No Claims Faith?
This is a misuse of the concept of testing. REAL science does REAL testing. This is not testing. This is simply more of the kind of fantasizing guesswork that is done in the service of the geo timetable and the ToE. You come up with a plausible thought to combat someone else's plausible thought and that's the entire extent of the "testing." None of this stuff is testable, provable, falsifiable, etc. There is no way to replicate any of it, there is no empirical test possible. It is all only a matter of who comes up with the most persuasive imaginative construction. That's all it is, it is NOT testing. Thus do the evos forever entertain the Emperor's New Clothes.
Of course it is testable. Outline what should be seen. Then we can look and see if that is what is found or if something else is seen.
That is a test.
Now, if you can, please respond to Message 119.
jar writes:
So grass pollen and grass seeds should be found on the lowest level. they are already there and growing before the flood and have been doing so for some time. The land then gets flooded. Then a layer of marine fossils and no more than a few thousand years of other material above the marine level cover the original layer that had the grasses.
Your scenario is now something that can be tested. Do we find grass seeds and pollen at the lowest level with nothing but marine fossils and a very small post flood level above.
If your scenario is falsified are you willing to agree that the evidence from grass points to there not being a world-wide flood?
If this is not an accurate description of your grass scenario, then please expand or correct it and we can look at the next version.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:20 PM jar has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 186 of 304 (292864)
03-06-2006 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Belfry
03-06-2006 11:38 AM


Re: Absurd how?
I explained it in Message 83. Anybody who can clearly think, visualize, what I'm talking about, ought to be able to understand what I'm saying. But everybody expects geology to be right and the ToE to be right and creationism to be wrong and Faith to be an idiot so they don't bother.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Belfry, posted 03-06-2006 11:38 AM Belfry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by roxrkool, posted 03-07-2006 12:18 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 187 of 304 (292865)
03-06-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Percy
03-06-2006 12:35 PM


Re: Dating answered, on to limestone sedimentation
The problem, Percy, is that I made some statements about what constitute great evidence for a worldwide Flood and they DO constitute great evidence for a worldwide Flood, but nobody will acknowledge this obvious obvious fact. This is the way all these discussions go until Faith is labeled an irritant and a distraction and discussed like an insect pinned to a specimen display for refusing to play by these rules. Nobody wiill acknowledge the PLAIN OBVIOUS SENSE of what I already said. All anyone does is make demands that I explain SOMETHING ELSE. Even Purpledawn who is normally no friend to my thinking understands that this is an abuse of debate. I do NOT need to know all the details to prove the Flood. My statement that Mark24 quoted in his OP {actually that PD quoted in her Message 74} is sufficient unto itself.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-06-2006 11:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 03-06-2006 12:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by PaulK, posted 03-07-2006 2:29 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 03-07-2006 8:27 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 188 of 304 (292866)
03-06-2006 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by jar
03-06-2006 11:07 PM


Re: No Claims Faith?
Of course it is testable. Outline what should be seen. Then we can look and see if that is what is found or if something else is seen.
NOT IT IS NOT TESTABLE. THAT IS NOT A TEST. That is all subjective guesswork, all subject to interpretation, all limited by your imagination. There is nothing replicable, nothing testable at all. It's just an exercise in imagination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by jar, posted 03-06-2006 11:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by jar, posted 03-06-2006 11:32 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 201 by nator, posted 03-07-2006 6:35 AM Faith has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 189 of 304 (292867)
03-06-2006 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
03-06-2006 11:20 PM


well, let's see if it is testable.
Faith writes:
NOT IT IS NOT TESTABLE. THAT IS NOT A TEST. That is all subjective guesswork, all subject to interpretation, all limited by your imagination. There is nothing replicable, nothing testable at all. It's just an exercise in imagination.
This is based on the information in Message 119.
So grass pollen and grass seeds should be found on the lowest level. they are already there and growing before the flood and have been doing so for some time. The land then gets flooded. Then a layer of marine fossils and no more than a few thousand years of other material above the marine level cover the original layer that had the grasses.
Your scenario is now something that can be tested. Do we find grass seeds and pollen at the lowest level with nothing but marine fossils and a very small post flood level above.
The first step is to describe what we should find if there is a flood. In this case we are talking about grass. It's but one of the issues involved. The test is to descibe what we should see if the flood ever happened. We then look at what is actually there. If what is actually there matches what was predicted, then that one little area is supported.
Once the issue of grass is resolved, we can look at other issues.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:20 PM Faith has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1066 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 190 of 304 (292871)
03-07-2006 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Faith
03-06-2006 11:08 PM


Re: Absurd how?
Let's see what you stated:
Faith writes:
I've explained it many times in the past. It has to do with the idea that one particular kind of sediment and only that kind of sediment could have been slowly deposited, small increment by small increment day by day month by month, year by year over millions of years, and remain only that one particular kind of sediment spread over some great horizontal area, say the entire Southwest US covering four or five states, where we see all the fantastic layered formations and know that those layers are continuous over all that area, each its own peculiar sediment.
This is wrong. Rarely are sediments pure. Occasionally we have pure chalks, or pure limestones, or pure sandstones, but the majority of time, they are mixed and interlayered with other sediment types.
If you are arguing for flood deposition, you have a long way to go. The first seds to be deposited during a flood would be those with the highest specific gravity, meaning boulders, cobbles, sand, etc. would all deposit first before silt, clay, and carbonate or siliceous oozes. Therefore, limestone and dolomite, shale, and mudstone would all occur at the top of a geologic column deposited via a catastrophic flood.
In fact, I would expect to find sedimentary layers rich in magnetite, titanium, zircon, diamond, garnet, diopside, gold, platinum, ilmenite, and all the other heavy minerals. In California each year in Spring, people flock to the Sierras to pan gold because the Spring rains carry gold that has eroded out of the rocks by the Summer rains and winter frosting action. Erosion resulting from the catastrophic rains would surely free up some significant amounts of highly valued economic minerals. Surely.
Wonder why the Creationists haven't looked into this mega-Bonanza sedimentary horizon...?
And each sediment, so clearly different from a sediment below and above for quite a huge stack of sediments, dozens, all different from each other, a limestone here, a different limestone there, a sandstone, a shale, and so on and so forth, all originally laid down as sediment, most of it underwater in that region I understand, though presumably this could also be an aerial process, so I've heard tell around these parts, just bit by bit over millions of years.
Yes, so how WOULD a catastrophic flood's water chemistry change so dramatically as to first deposit a calcium carbonate and then a phosphorite or a calcium magnesium carbonate?
And no, neither carbonate nor shale are deposited subaerially. They require water.
I guess one could sort of accept that nothing but one kind of sediment could get deposited in that way over millions of years, sort of, but then you have to understand that apparently quite abruptly the whole scenario shifts and then not that sediment, not that same sediment at all, but an entirely new sediment starts being deposited, and is homogeneously deposited over another few million years, many millions according to some notions of what time period it supposedly represents, and everybody acts like this is perfectly normal, could have happened that way, does indeed reflect bazillions of years of deposition teeny bit by teeny bit --
but it is not reasonable at all to think it could have happened that way.
In mainstream geology, this is explained using the facies concept, which is a three-dimensional model representing depositional environments. And these days, stratigraphic interpretations of marine rocks are analyzed and studied within a eustatic framework (sea level changes over time) using sequence stratigraphic techniques.
In other words, the changes we see in the rocks are the result of relative changes in sea level. Rising sea levels cause continental flooding, like what would happen in Florida and other low-lying coastal areas if the ice sheets melted. Falling sea levels would result in retreating seas, which would likely re-exposed the Bering Land Bridge and increase continental areas.
This causes the various depositonal environments, such as the beach, near-shore, shallow platform, etc. to move landward. So basically, beach sands migrate landward, as does the carbonate platform, and the deeper shale environment. The weight of the sediment causes the wet sediments to compact and also the ground underneath to subside/sink. That's why sediments can accumulate to great depths. If the opposite happened and the ground instead started rising, erosion would take over and no sediments would be able to accumulate.
Falling sea levels result in a seaward migration of depositional environments. The beach sands will move back towards the sea and because the land sinks underneath the wet sediments, the sands start depositing on what was once the carbonate platform, so you get beach sandstone over carbonate. Further back, you have carbonate depositing above shale and so forth.
Changes in climate can cause increased terrestrial erosion and a subsequent increase in clastic input (into the marine environment). And if this happens in a place where carbonate is being deposited, carbonate precipitation will cease or slow down and can either result in sand deposition (sandstone) or a calcareous sandstone (carbonate precipitation was not halted completely). Clastic input, volcanism, restricted basin, etc. can even change the local chemistry of the water, resulting in dramatic changes in sediments, such as phosphorites, dolomites, evaporites, etc.
Different colors are often the result of carbon content, or lack thereof, as well as sulfide content, and mineralogical content.
These sorts of depositional changes are also reflected in the amount and types of fossils present. Some organisms do well in high energy environment such as the beach (clams, burrowers, etc.), while others prefer more quiet settings. So as the depositional environments migrate back and forth along continental margins, so does animal life.
Large influxes of clastic material or significant changes in water temperature or chemistry can starve or suffocate fossil resulting is mass kill zones, which when found in the rock are termed fossil hash zones. Typically, what is seen in th rocks, are few fossils here and there, occasional fossil hash zones, rare coral reefs full of fossils, and so on. Many times, particularly in shale formations, fossils are variably replaced by iron sulfides. Shale is clay-rich and clays are particularly good at scavenging all sorts of material, such as base metals.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me when you actually understand modern geologic principles.
And that's just the sediments, all these DIFFERENT sediments, so dfiferent from each other. Different colors of limestone even. Each independently laid down in its own time period of millions of years. I find this absurd and I have not ever even seen anyone discuss it. It is merely taken for granted although it is absurd.
See above.
Besides the sediments there are the different fossil contents, each layer apparently having its own pecular content (this is what defines an era or a time period after all), that and no other. Now, this is peculiar on any theory I would think, but the idea that these were laid down one by one over millions of years also seems absurd to me. And they don't even evolve from the bottom of a layer to the top of one, they are just scattered in these layers throughout, which sure suggests a one-time event to my mind, but people seem to uncritically accept that no, each one laid itself to rest on its own particular day in all those millions of years. '
See above.
So you have an inch of I don't know, shale, and then this small fossil thing, and another inch and three fossil things, and five inches and three of the same fossil and so on. Each inch supposedly must represent the deposition of oh hundreds or thousands of years, depending on how much time the whole layer is considered to represent, and how much erosion off the top of it (only the top too, which is weird if the whole thing was abuilding over aeons) is considered to have happened.
I believe, sediment accumulation is basically controlled by the rate of basin subsidence. If the basin for some reason stops subsiding, then sediment accumulation stops and either erosion or a depositional hiatus occurs. Deposition does not HAVE to be constant and is most likely curtailed, eroded, and/or stopped many times throughout it's depositional history.
I hope this begins to convey some of my puzzlement about these phenomena which are apparently taken for granted by geologists as having happened in the above fashion which seems impossible to my mind.
Your post clearly shows that you are completely ignorant of geologic processes and principles and are thus arguing from a position of ignorance. Hopefully you are now aware of that fact and will remedy the situation post haste.
I am not trying to defend the flood at this point but it certainly does seem that a one-time event of that magnitude would do a lot better job of accounting for the actual facts than the very very slow accumulation of very small increments of sediment with dead creature after dead creature laying itself in over thousands of years apart.
See above.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-07-2006 12:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:08 PM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 191 of 304 (292880)
03-07-2006 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
03-06-2006 11:15 PM


Re: Dating answered, on to limestone sedimentation
The problem is that you have not backed up your claim that any of the items you list is evidence - let alone "great evidence" of a global flood.
Simply demanding that people unquestioningly believe what you say is not productive discussion.
The more so since the few additional details you provided about your ideas on how fossils got into mountains shows that that point is better construed as evidence against your views.
The fact is that you need to back up your claims with evidence and reasoning. And you refuse to do that.
Until you do we can quite reasonably reject your claims.O

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:15 PM Faith has not replied

redseal
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 304 (292881)
03-07-2006 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
03-04-2006 4:19 AM


The flood explanation is utterly inadequate. The pattern of fossil forms is contradicted by hydrodynamics. In any flood, the smallest particles separate out last, the largest, first. This means all the large organisms first. What do we find at the bottom of the fossil record, bacteria. Where do we find large organisms? At the top. Exactly the opposite of what you would expect from the flood model. I could go on.
It appears that Satan has addled your wits! The sciences of man have shown that hydrodynamics is yet another proof of The Flood:
"In an unpublished experiment at Loma Linda University, a dead bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian were placed in an open water tank. Their buoyancy in the days following death depended on their density while living, the build-up and leakage of gases from their decaying bodies, the absorption or loss of water by their bodies, and other factors. That experiment showed that the natural order of settling following death was amphibian, reptile, mammal, and finally bird. This order of relative buoyancy correlates closely with 'the evolutionary order,' but, of course, evolution did not cause it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 03-04-2006 4:19 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by lfen, posted 03-07-2006 3:58 AM redseal has not replied
 Message 198 by mark24, posted 03-07-2006 4:12 AM redseal has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 193 of 304 (292883)
03-07-2006 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Faith
03-06-2006 11:00 PM


Re: No Claims Faith?
You might as well put your fingers in your ears, or hands over you eyes and yell, " I can't hear you" or "I can't read you".
Geology and Astronomy to pick two fields of science that depend on field studies. There are laboratory experiments but much of what they study are unique events out there. You don't understand science and you don't want to because you want to be able to imagine that science is just like your religion, a matter of picking plausible imaginative stories based on your personal comfort. I do suspect that you know your beliefs are insupportable and that is why you come up with these elaborate rationalizations that science is just another religion that contradicts yours, but it's really a very different set of activities and does require and use evidence that is scrutinized.
Emperor's new clothes hmmmm? Sounds like a projection to me. You have put your faith in religionists who didn't know what they are talking about. They aren't God they only have taken the authority to claim to speak for the divinity and they have convinced a lot of people to follow them. They are unwilling to subject their thinking to rational scientific scrutiny because it's easier to base everything on pre scientific thinking, beliefs, and literature.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:00 PM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 194 of 304 (292886)
03-07-2006 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
03-06-2006 11:05 PM


Testing testing 1...2...3
Some time you guys are going to HAVE to recognize that when it comes to this whole scenario, this millions of years fantasy, that there is no such thing as "experimental evidence." See my previous answer to jar.
I will recognize it, if you can rebut the "experimental evidence" in a thread where it is on topic. At this time, we have what I would call experimental evidence in favour of a long period of sedimentation versus no experimental evidence in favour of a Global Flood.
On the face of it the humungous abundance of fossils all over this planet is FANTASTIC evidence in favor of a worldwide Flood.
Period.
The fact that the fossil are found all over the planet can mean that either
a) There was a Global Flood and the bodies were spread out around the world.
b) Life was global and died locally.
The latter idea seems to be the simplest option. Is there any evidence that it was a Global Flood that put them there? The distribution of fossils might offer some clues, but we run into two problems.
1) The geographical distribution does not seem to be uniform. Consistent with organisms dying were they live rather than being carried around in flood waters.
2) As you said "The flood does not clearly explain fossil ordering. That's a problem with the flood idea".
It seems clear that the fossil distribution both geographically and the order in the column are poorly explained with the flood model. Because of this, I'd say it was rather weak evidence, not FANTASTIC evidence.
The good example of problems that crop up when trying to explain what we see in terms of a Global Flood would seem to be the White Cliffs of Dover. There are some other examples that have been listed in this which cannot be easily (or at all) explained by a Global Flood scenario. In my book, if an explanation runs into difficulties of this magnitude it gets thrown out, at least provisionally.
I am quite happy if you want to say that the fact that we find an abundance of fossils globally distributed is the one of the best evidences of a global flood. However, you'll have to excuse me if I don't find it particularly compelling evidence.
None of the evidence uniquely identifies the source as a flood. It could have been a flood, but more and more sub explanations are needed to explain the evidence that looks contradictory to it. It begins to become the enemy of parsimony.
I'm looking for evidence which says 'only a flood could have done this'. If you have presented what you would consider your evidence then I suggest we look into that sister thread I proposed (and Percy is happy with promoting), to see if geology can or cannot account for it better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 11:05 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Admin, posted 03-07-2006 8:46 AM Modulous has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 195 of 304 (292887)
03-07-2006 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by redseal
03-07-2006 2:38 AM


"In an unpublished experiment at Loma Linda University, a dead bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian were placed in an open water tank. Their buoyancy in the days following death depended on their density while living, the build-up and leakage of gases from their decaying bodies, the absorption or loss of water by their bodies, and other factors. That experiment showed that the natural order of settling following death was amphibian, reptile, mammal, and finally bird. This order of relative buoyancy correlates closely with 'the evolutionary order,' but, of course, evolution did not cause it."
This is hilarious but please, when you quote material would you please cite it. Is this from a web link, a book, magazine etc.?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by redseal, posted 03-07-2006 2:38 AM redseal has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024