Polystrata fossils

That would work great if thats what was seen in reality. The problem is that plants are not found at the bottom and the animals at the top. If such a simple obsevation was to be found out there, don't you think that people would have noticed?Had there been a flood I would expect animals to head for higher ground. How would you explain the lack of such an observation?

You have a very parochial view of the world. A lot, perhaps most, of the geology that knocked out your Young Earth view was done by (mostly Christian) amateurs in Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They paid in time and money to find out things, rather than being paid.There was a huge burst of enthusiasm for geology and the earth sciences in general in the early nineteenth century, and some of the leading figures involved were clergymen.They wanted to find out truths about their God's creation, not to perpetuate myths, as you're doing.200 years ago, HEWG, there were loads of people with a more sophisticated and advanced view of the world and the universe than the one you seem determined to cling to today.It's 2007, not 1807. You're in a time warp. When are you going to start catching up?

This means nothing. It doesn't explain anything nor does it provide any testable mechanisms. All it amounts to is wishing. The premise from the "Hovind Theory" was that plant material became coal and animal material became oil. That is what was being tested against the evidence (and found lacking). But no all animals can run fast, so some would always be caught. Also, if we assume the global flood there is a point at which all those running animals run out of high ground. Therefore there should be piles of animal fossils at the tops of hills. Not found. Evidence of things not behaving as they do now, whereas we see the opposite -- from the Oklo fossil reactors to Super Nova 1987A. When you redefine terms to mean things not the way they are used by other, you enter the realm of talking about fantasy and delusion. Looks like they ruled out a single catastrophic event because they were unable to find any possible evidence for it. If that is bias, then it is in the physical evidence and not in the interpretations based on evaluation of all the evidence.Enjoy.

1.) The flood model where there was only ever one universal flood and no flooding ever since does not exist. It is a straw-man that keeps cropping up in this thread.2.) There is no single scenario that can account for all polystrate fossils.3.) Most polystrate fossils are indicators of rapid burial.4.) That talkdeceptions article in the O.P. is lame even for them. They don't even get to tell lies about the issue because they never get around to what the issue is. Maybe they can pat themselves on the back for a 'lie of omission' - that's all I can figure.5.) All fossils are polystrate vs. slow 'geology'. Any time they claim something like "each millimeter of depth in this rock represents 40,000 years" and that rock contains fossils - well, they're saying those bones stayed put out in the open for (meaurement in mm x 40k) years and fossilized.6.) Combine 3 and 5 and see how much evidence there is everywhere for flooding. See how few places in the entire world even qualify as reasonable sites for slow deposition. Put two and two together.7.) Or don't. If you're not convinced it's not because of the evidence. HEWG's been working his tail off; and me being lazy, I've given a concise summary. Shallow and deep have both been covered, so what's left?

You complain of a strawman and then write this!?