Mugview wrote:
micatala wrote:
The evidence is profoundly at odds with the notion that all, or even most, extinct creatures were buried in a single catastrophic event.
Basic hydrology shows that objects that are heavier sink faster in water. This would mean that creatures who got caught up in a flood would then be sorted with the heaviest on the bottom.
That simply does not happen. Dinosaurs come in all sizes. The big one should be at the bottom, and the small ones at the top. Keep in mind there are dinosaurs smaller than humans and other mammals.
The basic hydrology is applicable to "dead" objects without ability to fight the current. If this is applied to dead creatures, that somehow all suddenly were dead just when the flood started, then naturally the big one should be at the bottom and the small ones at the top.
Taking into account the difference between live and dead creatures might make the situation more complex, but it does not help your position.
Some dinosaurs would be more mobile than humans, some less. Pterosaurs would clearly be more mobile than humans. Plants would not be mobile at all.
Thus, for example, ALL the plants should be under all the creatures killed during the flood.
That does not happen. Consult the Grand Canyon.
However, if the flood rose gradually, then the bigger creatures might have better chance to run away to a higher place than the small ones which limited energy reserves.
At the end, as there was no more place to run, the big and small creatures might die drowned and fell down at the ground where they last stood. The small creatures might rest at the lower slope than the bigger ones.
Human, birds and many other resourceful creatures might be able to find a way to prolong their survival until finally succumbed to the flood. Thus, their remains should be at the topmost of the layers.
There were flying dinosaurs. Why do they not appear in layers with birds? Why are their dinosaurs under plant fossils? Your explanation here only makes your position seem even more unreasonable.
micatala wrote:
In a mud slide, all the creatures caught in the slide get buried together. This would mean all beings alive at the time, assuming a world wide mud slide which seems rather problematical given even possible topographies, would tend to be buried together.
THis is not what we see.
In some area, such as sea coast, the drowning due to increasing level of liquid water is more imminent than the mudslide. If there was a vibration on the ocean floor (or burst), then it could result in tsunami.
However, in land area, with excessive rainfall, the danger of sudden mudslide is more real. Just look at the recent examples in the United States and Eastern Europe.
Mudslide had a huge burying power and in a very short period of time. Because of mudslide, many fossils were found well preserved, even for soft-tissue creatures.
How does any of this help your position? If an area experiences a mudslide, then all the animals not able to escape the slide would be buried together. How would this explain the very different types of animals and plants we see as we progress through the layers of the Grand Canyon, for example?
Perhaps I should ask, do you believe dinosaurs were alive at the time of the flood?
Do you believe any species went extinct before the flood?
Which species do you think went extinct during the flood?
Mugview wrote:
micatala wrote:
Consider even just the Grand Canyon.
Read through the following and give us an explanation of ALL these details in terms of your proposed flood and mud slide.
http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/ge ... c_geol.htm
http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/ge ... _layer.htm
In particular, perhaps you could explain how there are no dinosaur fossils, and no fossils of flowering plants in any of the layers in the grand canyon.
You might also explain how land animals and sea creatures alternate in the layers, and especially the existence of animal tracks within sandy environments within the middle layers. How did such tracks survive your mud slide? If the either pre-dated or post-dated the flood, where in these layers would you locate the flood and how would you explain the existence of layers before and after the flood?
We may never be able to explain all of these.
The absence of the dinosaur or flowering plant fossils in Grand Canyon area may indicate that the region was not a dry land, but rather a water body. The finding of tracks on sand below mud layers could be a strong evidence supporting this. Some land animals might be caught by the waves and pulled into water and perished. Their fossils would alternate with those of sea creatures.
I can accept the first sentence. However, that does not make your position any more reasonable.
As far as dry land and aquatic environments, you find BOTH within the layers of the Grand Canyon.
The topmost layer contains aquatic life.
â—¦Kaibab Limestone - This layer averages about 250 million years old and forms the surface of the Kaibab and Coconino Plateaus. It is composed primarily of a sandy limestone with a layer of sandstone below it. In some places sandstone and shale also exists as its upper layer. The color ranges from cream to a greyish-white. When viewed from the rim this layer resembles a bathtub ring and is commonly referred to as the Canyon's bathtub ring. Fossils that can be found in this layer are brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth.
Further down, we find evidence of a land environment.
â—¦Coconino Sandstone - This layer averages about 260 million years old and is composed of pure quartz sand, which are basically petrified sand dunes. Wedge-shaped cross bedding can be seen where traverse-type dunes have been petrified. The color of this layer ranges from white to cream colored. No skeletal fossils have yet to be found but numerous invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows do exist.
â—¦Hermit Shale - This layer averages about 265 million years old and is composed of soft, easily eroded shales which have formed a slope. As the shales erode they undermine the layers sandstone and limestone layers above which causes huge blocks to fall off and into the lower reaches of the Canyon. Many of these blocks end up in the side drainages and down on the Tonto Platform. The color of this layer is a deep, rust-colored red. Fossils to be found in this layer consist of ferns, conifers and other plants, as well as some fossilized tracks of reptiles and amphibians.
If the top layer was created during the flood, how are there footprints in lower layers? How did the sea creatures end up on top of the land creatures? That would completely contradict your statements above.
Further down, you have another layer with primarily sea life, including corals and trilobites.
â—¦Redwall Limestone - This layer averages about 335 million years old and is composed of marine limestones and dolomites. This is probably the most prominent rock layer in the Canyon as it usually forms a sheer cliff ranging from 400-500 feet in height, which has become a natural barrier between the upper and lower regions of the Canyon. The only way though this barrier is in areas where the rock has faulted and broken apart to form a slope which can be climbed upon. The deep reddish color of this layer is caused by iron oxides leaching out of the layers above it and staining its outward face. Behind the reddish face the rock is a dark brownish color. Numerous marine fossils can be found in the Redwall Limestone including brachiopods, clams, snails, corals, fish and trilobites. Many caves and arches can also be seen in the Redwall.
So, now you have alternating layers with sea life on top, then land life of various types including plants, then more sea life including corals. Keep in mind that in many cases, the plants are buried as they lived, showing no evidence of having been swept up into a maelstrom, broken to pieces, etc.
Just north of Grand Canyon there are a number of dinosaur quarries (Utah Colorado border), where thousands of dinosaur fossils were preserved intact one upon the others (even those who were estimated to live 60 million years apart based on the geological column theory). It indicates that those area would be considered a safe sanctuary for dinosaurs (and other species) until the calamity of mudslide buried them all in several layers of materials.
There are still hundreds of sites not yet excavated which is estimated to cover many types of dinosaurs.
I can certainly accept that regional differences in environments will make a difference in the fossil record.
However, that does not explain how a global flood is at all consistent with the Grand Canyon.
Perhaps you should look over the layers again and explain which of the layers in the Grand Canyon were formed as part of or because of the flood.
Do any of these layers pre-date the flood? Were any of those left intact during the flood? Are there any layers that formed after the flood was entirely finished?
Consider also that humans have varied mobility, and some would have just died before the flood or at its outset and not been buried. Creatures that all died, say, on day one of the flood, including humans, should be sorted hydrologically. This would mean you should find dead humans together with similarly sized creatures, including dinosaurs. You should find humans in layers below pterosaurs and archaeopteryx (sp?).
Remember, real science takes into account ALL the evidence, down to the last detail. If there are details inconsistent with a global flood (and there clearly are), that negates the flood model regardless of how many details seem to be consistent with the flood model.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
