The Flood = many coincidences

I think I gave a excellent answer to the whole matter.
Your the boss.Since all must understand sedimentary rock is from laid sediment by water and this is what is found on earth then your complaint must be why I assert its from 4500 years ago!
We do start from biblical boundaries .
Then we look at the field evidence of what is sitting there.
I guess all I can say is there is no reason to know when the sediment was laid in and of itself.
its all about other associations.
Its just water layered sediment and so a creationist interpretates it as the big flood that laid it.
It still is about interpretation of stuff in the ground.
I am having trouble understanding the complaint here.
Nobody witnessed it being laid. its only from other ideas and associations that conclusions are drawn.

You haven't thought this through. There are fossils below the K-T boundary, which you call the flood line. That's where the dinosaurs are - and they're not all big dinosaurs. Some of them are similar in size to humans, or smaller.The question, again, is: Why are there dinosaur fossils only before the flood and human fossils only after? Where are the fossils of the humans who died before the flood?

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

So then explain why there are no large mammals of any kind below the K-T line? No Giant Ground sloths, no mammoths, no camels, no saber tooth cats, not even one bone whereas whole skeletons of dinosaurs are found.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hi Robert,You continue to describe what you believe without providing any real world evidence for why you believe it. If someone with an opposing viewpoint were to say, "The radiometric evidence for the K-T boundary says that it was deposited 65 million years ago," what could you offer in rebuttal?Others of your statements that require evidence: What evidence leads you to conclude that the K-T boundary layer was a sedimentary layer deposited by water? Please describe the details of the "stuff in the ground" that you are interpreting (appearance, context, compositiion, results of chemical and radiometric analysis, etc.) and the details of your method of interpretation. If this is an argument that "No one was there therefore no one could know," that means you couldn't know either and should not be arguing that you do know from your interpretation (still undescribed) of the evidence you're looking at (still undescribed).Say you were conducting a science class in how to interpret geological layers, and your example was the K-T boundary. Please explain how you would teach the class to analyze and interpret this layer in order to reach the conclusion that it is a sedimentary layer around 4500 years old.

I don't expect to find human remains from before the flood. the areas humans lived in would of been covered by hundreds of feet of sediment. again they would of lived in areas covering a small part of earth and in fact possibly are not under the sea in some areas.
The world was shattered by the flood in many ways.Dinos are only a collective term for some kinds of creatures.
i only expect to find them below the k-t line. I see them as part of the unclean creatures. so the ark took on a ratio of 14:2 of clean to unclean which suggests the post flood world would be unlike the pre flood one. So dinos were the losers in numbers and these types went extinct before the post flood fossilization events happening a few centuries after the flood.
Remember also only the most sedate areas , relative, would have remains of creatures. so in the middle of great land masses.

Many answers.
First i don't except the classification systems used. tHere were no dinos. They are just kinds of creatures. There are no mammals. just creatures with a few like details.
Some dinos could simply be the later creatures found in the fossil record, above the k-t line, or living today.
Since i see few kinds i don't need to see camels , for example, on the ark.
Then many creatures could of been very segregated on earth.
So whole areas might not be represented in the fossil record below the k-t line.

dating methods are not actually geology but about more atomic matters. They need to prove their case first.i don't mean the boundary level was laid by water.
I only mean, what everyone agrees, that water laid the sediment stratas. The line is other peoples idea. I just use it.
Both sides agree the sedimentary rock strata were laid by water. slow or fast. they say over great time different episodes. We say over one year time with great segregated flow events.
This creationist says the k-t line is the difference in the flood year and the later centuries.
I only use the common knowledge. Then reinterpretate it.
I invent nothing.
i use the important points they use. Fauna/flora difference at the boundary line.
The line doesn;t exist. Just the great difference in rock type and flora/fauna within in it.
I would say to any class look at the field evidence. look at what the non creationist side says about its deposition processes and time and look at the creationist ones.
it is just about interpretation of practical rocks in the field.
Our evidence is the same on both sides.

I'm asking you why you'd expect to find dinosaur fossils before the flood but not human fossils. You claim that all human fossils remains were destroyed by the flood and dinosaur remains were not - but that's just empty speculation.The Bible says nothing about humans being concentrated near the coast, nor does it say anything about the flood being more "sedate" in some areas than others.You seem to be using the word "expect" dishonestly. Your so-called expectations are really nothing more than an ad hoc attempt to cover a rather silly statement about the K-T boundary. They have no basis in either fact or logic and no basis in the Bible.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

Hi Everyone,I'm going to suspend my efforts to actively moderate this thread for now, but I will continue to monitor it. Robert doesn't seem to understand anyone's requests for evidence, but he seems sincere and I don't think increased administrative pressure would be any more likely of success.This has been a courteous and considerate discussion, but largely empty because Robert will present no specific evidence to support his case, instead making vague and unspecific references. He says, "I only use the common knowledge," but never tells us what he thinks that common knowledge is. He says, "I use the important points they use," but never tells us what he thinks those important points are. He says, "Look at what the non creationist side says about its deposition processes and time," but never tells us what he thinks the creationist side says.It has been said many times here that you can't reason someone out of a position someone never reasoned themselves into, and Robert has revealed no reasons based on evidence for what he believes. I advise those arguing from evidence and pleading with Robert for evidence to be cautious in allocating their time to this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Just because you don't accept the classification of life doesn't make your ideas right. Whether the classification is right or wrong does not alter the point that there are no dinosaurs, ammonites, trilobites, or euripterids above the line and no cats, eagles, ground sloths, or humans below. If the dflood occurerred and all life existed at the time of the flood , then there would be all types of fossils below the line, regardless of relationship.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

I can't believe this thread is still going strong.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Well its impossible to convince someone when they reject reality and substitute their own. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

It is geology, and it has been proven. You can even measure the cooling of a granite formation using radiometric dating: PaleosolsIf cooling of a geologic formation is not geology, then what is? Then it would be a very poor marker for the global flood, wouldn't it? No, they don't. Such features as paleosols discussed in the link above were not laid down under water. The Coconino sandstones are another good example. These are fossilized sand dunes from a wind blown desert. You say a lot of things. We are interested in the evidence that backs up what you say. Based on what evidence? How do you explain the iridium signal at the K/T boundary? How do you explain the K/T tektites that date to ~65 million years before present found at the K/T boundary? How do you explain the absence of a single modern mammal below the K/T boundary? What evidence supports your explanations? Yes, look to see which interpretation is backed by evidence and which is backed by zero evidence. So far, you are pushing an interpretation backed by zero evidence. The interpretation of standard geology is backed by all of the evidence.

No. Cooling of rocks etc is not geology. Its concepts of atomic mechanisms. Geology is the processes that create and form materials of the earth.
Your dating stuff is speculative.
The thread seems to be cooling here.
The evidence for creationist ideas here is simply interpretation of practical field results. yes thers a biblical foundation but still the point is that nothing contradicts and indeed suggests greatly the biblical flood story by the rock strata and the k-t line.
All there is IS stuff in the field.
Then thinking about it.
the rocks make a creationist case or at least a creationist case fits with what is found.
Rock solid.

You can clearly see that because Robert Byers does not poses the intelectual capacity to understand it so it must be pure bullshit. And still there where no human remains at the time to build a boat beat around the bush all you want that will not make the facts go away. no it does not each line representing 1 million years<---humans HUMAN.