Summations Only

The modern approach by creationists to constructing the evidence for the Flood is usually traced back to Henry Morris, just a few decades ago.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I copied the picture into a Word document where I could zoom it much larger, and have a better sense of the scale. I couldn't see the ocean in the background before.I still have absolutely no idea how my "landscapes" are "demolished by transgressing seas." What transgressing sea for starters? And I see nothing getting "demolished" in the picture, just a lot of lumpy ridges, and certainly nothing that could become a flat sedimentary rock of the sort seen in the geo/strat column. Don't see it, no idea what you mean.And the idea you'd get angular unconformities from what, further deposits of sediment? makes no sense at all. Why wouldn't the sediment just fill in the "valleys."

First, remember our friend 'vertical exaggeration', so the valleys are usually not quite so pronounced as in the diagram.But basically, correct. Rapid subsidence could cause surface features to be preserved as irregular surfaces. IIRC, this is shown in the subsidence of a part of Kingston, Jamaica, after. an earthquake. Lot's of artifacts such as foundations and small hills and probably tree trunks, etc. will be forever preserved in the next layers of sediment.But also, when we have low relief and a fluctuating sea level we get a lot of inter layering of terrestrial streams and swamps, etc. with shoreline deposits. This is the case in places like the coal measures of the Appalachians or the Bone Beds of Florida. Changes in sea level move the land/sea boundary back and forth across an area burying swamps and river channels.

You actually think any of the strata in the geo/strat column were formed by such a process? You actually expect this to become another such layer?

Bigger animals also have more body tissues and heavier skeletons (the cross sectional area of bones has to grow by the cube of the length to support the additional weight). Ratio of fat to muscle is also a factor. I don't think you can reach any firm conclusions about the effects of body size. I don't know what that first sentence means, but you've never explained how the flood could be responsible for fossil distribution. I don't think you can say anything definitive until you know how big is each wave, how far inland does each wave travel, and how much sediment does each wave deposit?One comment I will make is that you seem to be imagining an extremely heavy sediment load if you're imagining it possible that a wave of this sediment could sweep across, say, a fleeing zebra and bury it all at once. Seems something more like mud than water. Given that we now know that all current land sediments are only 10% of ocean volume at the time of the flood (I calculated and posted this a day or two ago) such a heavy sediment load seems very unlikely. And the problem of keeping all the sediments in their proper layers in the oceans only grows worse. And the likelihood that these sediments would be thick enough to suffocate any sea life also becomes very unlikely. How do you plan to take account of the effects of temperature on ocean currents, sediment, and corpse distribution? There's also the effect of accelerated drifting continents on ocean currents. And ocean salinity also affects currents. For example, increased fresh water from melting Greenland glaciers decreases the salinity of the North Atlantic. Normally the water flowing into the North Atlantic from the Gulf Stream cools and sinks (because cooler water is denser) and flows back down south along the sea floor. But fresh water is less dense than salt water, so the decreased salinity reduces the ability of the North Atlantic's waters to sink. This could, eventually, have an impact on the Gulf Stream and affect the climate of Europe. The Gulf Stream is what gives Europe a moderate climate. For example, London is way further north than Quebec, but it has a climate more like Washington, D.C. Couldn't decipher this. I couldn't decipher this, either, but I agree with the part about there being no reason for larger animals to be at the bottom. To me it seems like serendipity governs. Any corpse not immediately buried by sediments would sink at a later time dependent upon whether its lungs filled with water, and if so how long that took, and how long gases took to float the corpse, and how long it took the gases to release and for the corpse to sink. That's a lot of different things that could happen. There would be a lot of different outcomes.Imagine this scenario: Two zebras are running side by side fleeing an oncoming wave that washes over them. One of the zebras is immediately entombed, the other is not but is drowned and is carried along by the water. It's lungs do not fill with water and so it floats. When the wave recedes the zebra is carried back out to sea. How does it end up in the correct strata with the other zebra?--Percy

In a word, waves. Wave action is probably the most relentless and destructive and widespread form of erosion on the planet. Any of those we see in the geological record. The Tapeats Sea, for instance. Yep, that shows you how effective wave action is. Yes, eroded bedding planes of a folded sequence of siltstones. Yes, it hasn't been deposited yet. That's what makes the image so instructive. It is geology in action. Exactly all of those half-foot valleys would fill in and then become completely covered by sand and gravel, and then on up through the entire expected sequence. In fact, you could say that we see the future.

Try imagining something that fits the actual evidence that has creatures buried together. It's easy to pretend something else is probably what happened, suits your bias, but it didn't happen.

You are welcome to draw on that material if you want to believe it helps. But the point in dispute here is not what Creationists have done over the past few decades, but what science has produced that indicates that Creationism is wrong. That science is not just a few decades old.Scientists, by and large, are not interested in Henry Morris work. There is no effort to prove him wrong. Instead, we have the findings of science which any interested person can access.

George MacReady Price really started it, about one hundred years ago.However, I don’t see a good reason to discount the efforts of early geologists to explain the evidence in terms of a Young Earth and a global Flood. The fact that they chose different explanations doesn’t change what they were trying to do. Or the fact that they were unable to do so. It’s not as if modern YECs have any real success either.

That many traits are governed by multiple genes is generally true of life today, and all you're doing is extrapolating that to trilobites. It is also true of the limbs, backbone and heads of lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, bobcats, cougars and wildcats, which are all different species. Since chimps and humans have the same body plan and almost all the same bones, what structure are you referring to? But we can tell just from looking at the skeletons that these are two different species: However, many different species have the same "basic body shape". This is the coyote and the gray wolf. How do tell just from examining the skeletons that these are two different species: These trilobites are far more different than the coyote and wolf. Why aren't these two different species: --Percy

Incredulity is not an argument or a rationale, and you still do not understand how Walther's Law works. Did you read my explanation of Walther's Law in Message 2526. Then you're missing out on quite a bit. I don't have the same delusions of brilliance that you do, but my posts do tend to be packed with facts - or is that really why you don't read them?--Percy

IOW you have no idea.

You mean this picture? This is Welcombe Mouth Beach in North Devon, England. Here's a better image that puts things more in perspective: What look like plowed up rows of sand are actually the eroded edges of tilted strata. That's why Edge said that if this bench were to become buried beneath sediments that it would form an angular uncomformity.Maybe this one is even better, because in the foreground it shows more clearly that what look like plowed up furrows are rocks that are prominent on the left and then become smaller and smaller as you look toward the right. This image blows up pretty big and the details should be easy to see: Here's the diagram again. I'm posting my version rather than Edge's because although his has more detail you said you couldn't see it. I don't think the two images are of the exact same stratigraphic column, but I don't think they're too far apart either. An example of hills and valleys can be seen not too far from the top of the diagram where the Parma Sandstone overlays the Bayport Limestone. It's a stratigraphic column of the Lower Peninsula that fits into the framework of the geologic column. The original point Edge was making in his Message 2370 was that strata contacts can be (in your words) "lumpy and irregular and composed of all kinds of mixed sediments".--Percy

Who plagiarized pretty much everything from George McCready Price (1870-1963) without attribution.Who in turn made pretty much all of his stuff up based on the writings of the founder of the Seventh Day Adventists, Allen G. White (1827-1915).

I never heard of Price until recently on EvC. That doesn't mean Morris didn't use his stuff, I just don't know, and it was Morris who put the YEC movement on the map as it were, at least as far as my own experience goes. Price never entered into my early readings on the subject.There is no ALLEN G. White, by the way, it's ELLEN. Her husband and a few others were founders of the church, I think, from a Google page, but she became a leading light over all of them at some point.