Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Hydrodynamic sorting has been a fairly common explanation over the past few years
See HERE, point 8
__________________
"And yes, to prove evolution is wrong does not mean creation is right. But, the goal is just that, to prove evolution is wrong. Nothing else."
-juvenissun
Celebrating your own brain, is kinda a gay! as far as i am concerned the brain is a paraisite! a tapeworm!
-Lillen
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
There is a sequence of fossils through the geologic column, that shows change over time.
If you dont believe in evolution, then what is the explanation for this? What DOES it mean, if not evolution?
Another one is that the faster animals ran up mountains and left the slower ones behind. Thus, the slower ones (amphibians, reptiles) were buried earlier and the faster ones (mammals) were buried later. This brings up amusing pictures of sloths outrunning velociraptors up the mountain side as the flood waters close in! It is also not clear to me how plants ran up the mountain, since they can't move.
__________________ "We must abandon the prevalent belief in the superior wisdom of the ignorant." – Daniel Boorstin
"Ignorance should NOT be tolerated just because it's cloaked in religion."
-Phred
"Creationists can't all be right but they can all be wrong."
-Frumious Bandersnatch
The key to this is found in your sentence, which shows a preconceived idea.
You didn't stop your sentence at the comma, you had to add that it shows 'change over time'.
Even the hydrostatic sorting notion is an example of change over time, though. The timeframe is brief (days) but the differences across strata of the geologic column are still accounted for in the literal-contortionist evidence-twisting; first the trilobytes died and settled to the bottom, then the reptiles and amphibians died off, next to succumb to flood waters was the dinosaurs, and last were those wily mammals...
Then your question brings up the kicker: evolution.
To no greater or lesser extent than any other explanation (hydrodynamic sorting included) does...
In other words, you're simply saying: geologic column = change / time
Yep, just like creationists say, too
= evolution.As far as evolution is concerned, it means nothing --- zero --- zip.
The logical conclusion to this is that it means the same thing for creationists... zero--- zip. So why do Creationists like to carp on about it so much?
What it means is, is that animals died --- and according to the Documentation, death is a result of the Fall.
The story stops there if all you do is merely squint at the geological column from a distance... For those of us with the curiosity to look closer and think a bit, it explains a fair bit more.
Even the hydrostatic sorting notion is an example of change over time, though.
I don't believe in this "hydrostatic sorting notion" though.
It assumes the Flood waters were non-turbulent, and that things just floated to the bottom nice and peaceful.
You guys are a million laughs.
One minute, you're saying the Ark couldn't have survived the stress of such a catastrophe as the Flood; then the next, you're saying bones somehow "hydrostatically sorted" themselves.
And to be honest, I don't even think the remnants of what died are even on this planet.
(Although I do believe they are on another planet --- but not this one.)
It is neither "progressive", nor "through time" --- at least, not time in the evolutionary sense.
oh? you mean that the strata that are millions of years old and lie beneath the younger ones were all put there at the same time, and have "embedded age"?
If you dont care for the word "progressive" what word would you use to describe the type of change that is seen?
I don't believe in this "hydrostatic sorting notion" though.
It assumes the Flood waters were non-turbulent, and that things just floated to the bottom nice and peaceful.
You guys are a million laughs.
One minute, you're saying the Ark couldn't have survived the stress of such a catastrophe as the Flood; then the next, you're saying bones somehow "hydrostatically sorted" themselves.
And to be honest, I don't even think the remnants of what died are even on this planet.
(Although I do believe they are on another planet --- but not this one.)
Hydrostatic sorting can take a hike.
Take this up with your fellow creationists, they were the ones who introduced the concept. So if it's not hydrostatic sorting and it's not change over time, what is the explanation then? Why don't we ever find fossils of trilobites and monkeys in the same layer, or terrestrial plants in rocks older than 500 million years?
It is also not clear to me how plants ran up the mountain, since they can't move. 
Linear Mode
