Scientific proof of flood.

[duordi]

We've already addressed this.

1) this is 'discovered' impacts. We haven't looked everywhere so you conclusion is premature.

2) The site also lists the ages of the finds showing they didn't happen all at the same time and are not related to a single event.

You are using this data way outside of its credibility to support your conclusion.

If you are just looking at the picture to base your conclusions on, you are not using the 'data' that comes along with it.

Satellite images have been used to collect the data, they are not limited by access at ground level as a matter of fact the locations that have had ground samples are tabulated in the data along with the ones that have not.

North America has 54 sites and South America has 9 sites.

Are you going to suggest that the satellite data base gives information that far out of proportion.

Then lets look at North America, I assume you are not going to suggest that Canada, the United States and Mexico is preventing access.

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CILocSort.html

53 meteor strikes on the East two thirds of the continent and one in the West 1/3.

This is not a random distribution are you saying we haven’t looked at the west side of the continent? Canada did the research by the way, exactly where many of the missing strikes should be. You don't really think they just haven’t gotten to that pile of satellite photos yet?

Here is a close up of Europe, I assume they allow free access.
Notice how over 20 strikes are centered around the West tip of Finland while south on the map the same size land area shows no strikes.

This is not random.

If I consider strikes that are 10 KM in diameter or over.

There is no way the satellites will miss a creator that big no matter where in the world it was.

The disproportion in location varies little.

As for the sites opnion it is only an opnion based on assumptions which may not be correct.

The data is the only true information and theories are just that, theories.



Duane

 

[duordi]

The dates listed at the site are meanless if the meteor impacts are not random as they were determined with false assumptions about Earths history.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Satellite imagary won't show impacts in dense rainforest or jungle. I assume this is why impacts are not known in the Amazon Basin and equatorial Africa. The western coasts of both North America are part of the "ring of fire" and active mountain building has probably wiped out evidence of impacts. Also the majority of impacts have probably occured in oceans and would not be visible even if sea floor subduction had not wiped them out. We probably only see about 10% of the impacts that have occured in the last 3.5 billion years and none of those that occured during the late heavy bombardment of the inner solar system 3.8-3.5 billion years ago that caused all those craters on the moon.

A 40 KM wide crator can be seen even in a rain forest or even at the bottom of the ocean, isn't modern tecnology wonderful.
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/mjolnir.htm
The time distribution variation would not cause meteors to strike at a specific place on the planet.

As I have pointed out before these impacts can't be crammed into a YEC time frame without causing such severe problems that they falsify the flood rather than provide evidence for it. Got to go before my server shuts down.

Exactally my point, it proves a catastrophic event did occur capible of causing a world wide flood. Even with your opnions you realize what a single event of a large number of meteor strikes would mean.

I realize what that would do to the accepted theories regarding Earth history so of course it can not be accepted by an evolutionist.

So you have a choice science or your faith.

Duane

 

[Tomk80]

The dates listed at the site are meanless if the meteor impacts are not random as they were determined with false assumptions about Earths history.

Duane

How do they become meaningless. What does the distibution of the meteor craters do to the way we date them. How are the two related?

 

[Tomk80]

Satellite images have been used to collect the data, they are not limited by access at ground level as a matter of fact the locations that have had ground samples are tabulated in the data along with the ones that have not.

but according to your site not all potential impact craters are listed. It specifically states the following:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. Does the crater inventory include non-confirmed craters?[/font]

The simple answer is "no". Prospective new impact structres are only added to the listing if convincing details of shock metamorphic features, associated shatter cones or other similarly unambiguous evidence of formation by impact is presented, preferably in a published format. By excluding other prospective impact structures, we hope to maintain the integrity of the listing. As such, many promising, but hitherto unproven, impact structures are not included on the list.

The reason that a geological survey for metamorphic features must confirm the sites, is because not all thing that look like craters are in fact craters. In the faq page, which is also the source for the above quote, a few of these structures are mentioned.

So if no geological survey has been made, the impact crater is not included. Which means that impact craters on hard to reach places (such as in places which are hard to reach (oceans/jungles) have a much smaller chance of being included in the database.

North America has 54 sites and South America has 9 sites.

Which could be explained because of the criteria used for listing a meteor crater.

Are you going to suggest that the satellite data base gives information that far out of proportion.

Then lets look at North America, I assume you are not going to suggest that Canada, the United States and Mexico is preventing access.

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CILocSort.html

No, but according to your site satellite data alone is not enough to qualify a potential site as a confirmed crater.

53 meteor strikes on the East two thirds of the continent and one in the West 1/3.

This is not a random distribution are you saying we haven’t looked at the west side of the continent? Canada did the research by the way, exactly where many of the missing strikes should be. You don't really think they just haven’t gotten to that pile of satellite photos yet?

Here is a close up of Europe, I assume they allow free access.
Notice how over 20 strikes are centered around the West tip of Finland while south on the map the same size land area shows no strikes.

This is not random.

If I consider strikes that are 10 KM in diameter or over.

There is no way the satellites will miss a creator that big no matter where in the world it was.

The disproportion in location varies little.

As for the sites opnion it is only an opnion based on assumptions which may not be correct.

The data is the only true information and theories are just that, theories.



Duane

So, aside from the fact that satelite imagery alone does not a confirmed crater make, there is another problem with your statement. If the impact craters are somehow caused by a wave of large meteors, according to that theory the shower struck America, than mysteriously stopped for 6 hours and then struck Europe (given that the Atlantic Ocean shows almost no confirmed meteor craters and the current rotation speed gives a 6 hour gap in the timezones between Eastern America and Western Europe). Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?

 

[Loudmouth]

So, aside from the fact that satelite imagery alone does not a confirmed crater make, there is another problem with your statement. If the impact craters are somehow caused by a wave of large meteors, according to that theory the shower struck America, than mysteriously stopped for 6 hours and then struck Europe (given that the Atlantic Ocean shows almost no confirmed meteor craters and the current rotation speed gives a 6 hour gap in the timezones between Eastern America and Western Europe). Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?

Obviously the meteors were flattened which caused them to skip across the Atlantic.

 

[Tomk80]

Obviously the meteors were flattened which caused them to skip across the Atlantic.

That almost made me spray the beer in my mouth over my laptop. Bad, bad you for making such a joke while I'm having a beer! Almost cost me my laptop!

 

[Valkhorn]

The dates listed at the site are meanless if the meteor impacts are not random as they were determined with false assumptions about Earths history.

Duane

What? The location of an impact crater and the dating of such are completely independent.

And have you ever noticed that the sea floor is pretty much unexplored and underwater - which makes detection of impact craters very difficult (due to constant sedimentation, the young age of the sea floor, and constant underwater current erosion)?

And have you ever noticed that most craters are discovered where places are most explored? Northern Canada is pretty much inaccessible for most of the year due to harsh conditions, and most of South America is largely inaccessible due to jungle growth and very steep mountain terrains.

Satellites don't pick up impact craters that have been eroded away. Most craters that have been eroded away are detected through mineral deposits like shocked quartz - a mineral only found with very large releases of energy like an atomic bomb or an asteroid impact.

But you know I guess the burden of proof lies on you right now since the evidence is so largely not in your favor.

You should probably stop assuming what the answer/result is before you investigate. Science doesn't work that way.

And, before you claim that science bases things on assumptions, you should probably realize that if you had nothing to go on and went with the evidence that was there you would reach the exact same conclusions that scientists today are making.

So, I'm not sure what your point really is other than to fabricate as much as you can to support your religious belief. And yes, belief in a global flood is a religious faith which has no basis on any evidence at all.

 

[Split Rock]

Of course I do.

In this site the Ten Commandments were found on a rock in New Mexico.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_home.html

This is a site quote...

"The above inscription cannot be a fake for the following reasons. The actual time of discovery of the inscription is not known but was known by the locals as far back as the 1850's. At that time, the script of the text was unknown and therefore undecipherable. It was not until this last century that the ancient Hebrew (paleo-Hebrew) script was discovered in the Near East. Once this ancient script was discovered the Los Lunas inscription could be deciphered and was found to be a copy of the "Ten Commandments".

So there was travel between the Americas and Egypt about the time of Moses 900 years after the flood.

The script was the original most early language placing it close to the creation of the text and can be no earlier then the ten commandments were given.

Would you care to make a bold assertion that they didn’t take animals with them now that we know they made the trip?

The Jews were not the most technically advanced people of the day.

While this artifact is quite facinating, even if we accept it as authentic, it has not been dated to “900 years after the Flood.” Nor does it provide evidence for these people carrying undomesticated animals with them on their journey.

Would you care to make the bold assertion that they carried all the animals found in North America with them? Or just the ones in New Mexico? Again I ask, is there any scriptural support for this idea?

I think his point is that there are just too many species for Noah's descendents to handle, especially if they needed to travel all over the globe to remote islands, desert wastes and artic tundra to deliver them all.

Noah was a savior not a delivery boy.

His children would only have to be astute ship builders to handle the rest.

Only???

Are you joking?

Evolution provides a far simpler and rational explanation for the distribution of life on earth today.

Yes, the continents have to be slid up next to each other, and people were not suppose to exist yet so a land bridge had to be added for them later.

Of course the land bridge rose out of the water at the time of Moses and then disappeared again shortly afterward.

(Oops, I am being sarcastic. Its bad habit I have that I am working on, pelase bear with me.)

HA, HA!!

Plate Techtonics is such a funny theory!

Too bad we can actually measure the plates moving, and ocean sea floor spreading, huh?

Sand structure under a mile of water for a year is called rock.

It is called mud. Do you really imagine that all the types of rock found in the Grand Canyon can be made this way? This is naïve.

How are trilobites heavier than whales, squid, tuna, mackeral, coral reefs, etc., etc.? Why aren't flounders and catfish found with them, since they all inhabit the bottom of the ocean?

Are they lighter than pterosaurs? Why aren't modern birds and bats found with pterosaurs in the Jurassic sediments?

Different elevations and climate conditions, contain different animals.

Some types should be expected to be together others should not.

Some types would live in an area which would be affected first others later.

I see a lot of hand-waving, but no answer to my questions. Let me rephrase my questions. Would the Flood model predict that fish-eating bird and fish-eating pterosuars would be found in the same layers? Would it predict that trilobites and flounders would be found together, since they both occupy the bottom of the sea? If so, then why isn’t this what we find?

You have defined layers by what is in them according to the theory you are using.

If you are suggesting the sedimentary layers are consistent you are mistaken.

Some consistancy should be expected in a flood condition also.

Index Fossils were indentified long before Darwin and Lyell. It was thus known before such theories as uniformitarianism and evolution were accepted by scientists that certain fossils are consistently found in certain layers.

How do you know an ostrich and a tyrannosaurs rex are not the same species?
There is no scientific evidence unless of course the recent blood discovered in the bone is intact enough to determine the number of chromosomes.

Duane

Are you joking again? T rex was much larger than an ostrich and had lots of steak-like teeth. T rex did not have small wings, either.

 

[duordi]

How do they become meaningless. What does the distibution of the meteor craters do to the way we date them. How are the two related?

If the meteor impacts are from a single event then there can't be millions of years between impacts as the dating would indicate.

At least the non random portion of the impact pattern must be from an identical date.

This can be use to verify / correct dating systems or give indications as to just how accurate the dates are.

At least some of the dates should have a close match. By assuming these date are exactly identical a variation error can be determined.

The information has its limits as several of the strikes may be from an independent indecent.

As often is the case with science every step bings many more questions then answers.

Duane

 

[duordi]

While this artifact is quite facinating, even if we accept it as authentic, it has not been dated to ""900 years after the Flood.""

The fonts used date the text.

Hebrew fonts changed a lot after the exodus as they developed a culture of their own.
Go to this site
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/4_evolution.html

and hold the mouse over the green box next to the "A" and watch how the symbol of an ox head changed from an ox head to the letter A we use today.
The left side shows how the ox head changed into the hebrew letter Alpha.

Nor does it provide evidence for these people carrying undomesticated animals with them on their journey.

I have a record that the Ark carried undomesticated animals.
Traditions die hard.

Would you care to make the bold assertion that they carried all the animals found in North America with them? Or just the ones in New Mexico? Again I ask, is there any scriptural support for this idea?

I am not a Bible expert but hay I'll take a shot at it for the sake of argument.
If we assume a literal interpretation....

It is probable that the animals came from the garden of Eden.

( If the animals did not come from Eden then every thing in the garden died in the flood.)

The garden had the original of all species, and was protected from the curse of mutation and death, given to Adam because of his sin by excluding mankind from Eden.

The mutated corrupted forms of animals developed before the flood who were not in the Ark died.

Of course the same fate fell on the animals who left the garden of Eden and entered mans corrupt world after the flood.

The curse of "mutation" has affected all life now causing us to be pitiful examples of what we once were.

Plate Techtonics is such a funny theory!

Too bad we can actually measure the plates moving, and ocean sea floor spreading, huh?

I am in North America and I just moved my big toe toward South America does that mean I came from the North Pole?

In science lab we were never told we could extrapolate like that.

It is called mud. Do you really imagine that all the types of rock found in the Grand Canyon can be made this way? This is naïïve.

No there is volcanic and probably several other processes also.

I see a lot of hand-waving, but no answer to my questions. Let me rephrase my questions. Would the Flood model predict that fish-eating bird and fish-eating pterosuars would be found in the same layers? Would it predict that trilobites and flounders would be found together, since they both occupy the bottom of the sea? If so, then why isn’’t this what we find?

Why would you think they occupy the same geographical location just because they may be at the same elevation?
Answer: yes and no depending on if they occupied the same geographical area or not.

Index Fossils were indentified long before Darwin and Lyell. It was thus known before such theories as uniformitarianism and evolution were accepted by scientists that certain fossils are consistently found in certain layers.

This is also expected in a catastrophic condition that certain life forms would live together and therefore die together.

Are you joking again? T rex was much larger than an ostrich and had lots of steak-like teeth.

A Chiwawa and a Doberman are both still dogs.
When someone in the future finds Doberman bones after they are extinct then they may be considered a different species, but not yet.

The recent discovery of blood in a T-rex bone indicated it was just like the composition of ostrich blood.

T rex did not have small wings, either.

You can tell that by the pictures ( artist conceptions ) I bet.

Did you ever stop to wonder what the small little arms were for that could not reach its mouth?

Well if you put them back instead of forward .....

The t-rex theory just laid and egg.

Ha Ha. ( tear drop)

All joking aside it has been expected for some time that they were a bird of some sort.

It is amazing how far the established scientific community has drifted from the truth to satisfy the crowd pleasing money making displays.

It doesn't show much integrity on our part does it.

If they allowed themselves to drift that far from the truth with the t-rex it makes you wonder what other, shall we say, exaggerations, have been given as scientific fact.


Duane

 

[duordi]

What? The location of an impact crater and the dating of such are completely independent.

And have you ever noticed that the sea floor is pretty much unexplored and underwater - which makes detection of impact craters very difficult (due to constant sedimentation, the young age of the sea floor, and constant underwater current erosion)?

And have you ever noticed that most craters are discovered where places are most explored? Northern Canada is pretty much inaccessible for most of the year due to harsh conditions, and most of South America is largely inaccessible due to jungle growth and very steep mountain terrains.

Satellites don't pick up impact craters that have been eroded away. Most craters that have been eroded away are detected through mineral deposits like shocked quartz - a mineral only found with very large releases of energy like an atomic bomb or an asteroid impact.

But you know I guess the burden of proof lies on you right now since the evidence is so largely not in your favor.

You should probably stop assuming what the answer/result is before you investigate. Science doesn't work that way.

And, before you claim that science bases things on assumptions, you should probably realize that if you had nothing to go on and went with the evidence that was there you would reach the exact same conclusions that scientists today are making.

So, I'm not sure what your point really is other than to fabricate as much as you can to support your religious belief. And yes, belief in a global flood is a religious faith which has no basis on any evidence at all.

Actually the data indicates that the meteor strikes are from a common event due to localized clustering.

The geological column determined dates are therefore incorrect which undermines your entire belief in a non-catastrophic Earth history and the geological column chonoligical sequence.

The best you can hope for is that somehow you can discredit the evidence or that a large number of undiscovered meteor strikes will be found creating a total random distribution.

Of course the current distribution is so unbalanced you have little hope of achieving anything close as proven when we look at localized areas which have been well searched.

It is ironic that the very science that you claim to follow indicates the truth but you are unwilling to accept it.

Your faith in your theories are strong but reality has a way of being very persistent.

I do not envy your position.

Duane

 

[notto]

It is ironic that the very science that you claim to follow indicates the truth but you are unwilling to accept it.

Your faith in your theories are strong but reality has a way of being very persistent.

I do not envy your position.

Duane

Wow. You have no ideas how funny it is to hear you say this.

Your theory is based on a graphic of meteor sites from a website. You ignore what the data behind the graphic tells us, you have no idea what the meteor sites look like, what the data tells us about how old they are, the condition they were found in, the data from drilling, whether they are on the surface or not, and the rational observation that the clustering is due to strikes we have found, not all strikes, and then you say something like this.

Why? Because your religious views are clouding your view of the evidence.

 

[Tomk80]

If the meteor impacts are from a single event then there can't be millions of years between impacts as the dating would indicate.

At least the non random portion of the impact pattern must be from an identical date.

This can be use to verify / correct dating systems or give indications as to just how accurate the dates are.

At least some of the dates should have a close match. By assuming these date are exactly identical a variation error can be determined.

The information has its limits as several of the strikes may be from an independent indecent.

As often is the case with science every step bings many more questions then answers.

Duane

Your putting the cart before the horse. We need to establish whether it was a single event, and we need dating to do this. Remember, the locations can be due to random events and the spread of the locations might have another explanation than being from a single event. So you need an independent measure. Dating is such an independent measure and gives a large discrepency with your 'theory'. So what you need to do is either:
a) show that the dating is incorrec or
b) show that the results from the dating are dependent on them being the result of the same event.


But let's summarize the data once more. The data shows a large number of meteor craters in well-explored areas and a small number in areas that aren't well explored.

From the site it is clear that satellite data can track down meteor craters, but that craters that haven't been confirmed by geologic markers (such as shocked quartz) are not listed.

Such geologic markers can only be obtained by traveling to the area and either drilling into the location or collect the material from the top (dependent on how buried the crater is). The site also gives a table on the craters, listing whether they were confirmed by drilling, open air sample collection or both.

The craters have been dated. By the best of our knowledge, the dating methods are independent from the impact event itself. The dating methods give widely varying dates for the different craters. So to the best of our knowledge, the strikes were millions of years apart and not part of a single event.

If the meteor craters were in fact the result of a single event, the pattern is strange. It shows a large number of impact craters in Western Europe and America, but no impact craters in the ocean between them. Although Western Europe and America show most crater, craters are found all over the word. So if they are part of a single event, the meteor rain has hit every part of earth. Assuming that the event was a single meteor rain from a single point in space, it had to have been going on for at least 24 hours. But somehow, in the six hours it takes the earth to turn from Northern America to Western Europe, no meteors hit the earth. Your model faces a lot of problems, even without going into the physics of it all (you do realize that you are in fact proposing an event which could only have resulted in a very fried Noah and arc).

On the other hand, the craters might have been single events. The reason we have found so many in Nothern America and Western Europe, can then be explained by the fact that these regions are best explored. Australia is well-explored too, and also shows a large number of impact craters relative to the size of the land. Since only confirmed craters are listed on the site you gave, and exploration is necessary for a crater to be confirmed, the number of craters in an area would be dependent on it's accessability to exploration and this is indeed what we see. Furthermore, the geologically active sites will probably result in the destruction of craters. So we wouldn't expect many on these sites. The dating method, which is independent of the event, also shows that the meteor strikes cannot be dated to the same time period.

Given the above, the most likely explanation is that the impacts are indeed random and spread out over a large period of time and that the perceived pattern is caused by the possibility for exploration of the sites and the geological activity of these sites.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

A 40 KM wide crator can be seen even in a rain forest or even at the bottom of the ocean, isn't modern tecnology wonderful.
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/mjolnir.htm
The time distribution variation would not cause meteors to strike at a specific place on the planet.

Exactally my point, it proves a catastrophic event did occur capible of causing a world wide flood. Even with your opnions you realize what a single event of a large number of meteor strikes would mean.

I realize what that would do to the accepted theories regarding Earth history so of course it can not be accepted by an evolutionist.

So you have a choice science or your faith.
Duane

You are misleading yourself because of the larger number of small craters that have been found and confirmed in well explored areas.
Let's look at the places where craters 30 km in diameter or larger are found

Keurusselkä Finland
Shoemaker (formerly Teague) Western Australia, Slate Islands Ontario, Canada
Yarrabubba Western Australia
Manson Iowa, U.S.A.
Clearwater West Quebec, Canada
Carswell Saskatchewan, Canada
Saint Martin Manitoba, Canada
Mjølnir Norway
Woodleigh Australia
Araguainha Brazil
Montagnais Nova Scotia, Canada
Kara-Kul Tajikistan
Siljan Sweden
Charlevoix Quebec, Canada
Tookoonooka Queensland, Australia
Beaverhead Montana, U.S.A.
Kara Russia
Morokweng South Africa
Puchezh-Katunki Russia
Chesapeake Bay Virginia, U.S.A.
Acraman South Australia, Australia
Manicouagan Quebec, Canada
Popigai Russia
Chicxulub Yucatan, Mexico
Sudbury Ontario, Canada
Vredefort South Africa

There is a somewhat higher number in Canada because the Canadian Shield is very geologically stable and of course Candada is very big, but overall the distribution looks pretty random to me.

There are few craters in the Western US but that area is not geologically stable. Most of Washington, Oregon and Idaho were buried by the Columbia River Flood Basalts between 17.5 and 6 million years ago so earlier impacts there would have been covered up. Other lava and ash flows from the Cascade Mountains may have covered up impacts in California which is also a very geologically unstable area.

Impacts in west central India more than 65 million years ago would have been covered up by the Deccan Traps. There is one impact, Lonar, known on the Deccan but any that may have occured before the Deccan eruptions are buried under more than a mile of lava. Any that hit in Siberia that got covered by the outflow of the massive Siberian Traps at the end of the Permian would have probably been obscured as well.

Of course any that hit Antarctica or Northern Greenland are buried under a lot of ice and would also be pretty hard to find. There are many processes that can wipe out evidence of land impacts.

As far as impacts on the ocean floor goes a crater would have to be pretty big to be detectable and we have only explored a small fraction of the ocean flood. Of course subduction and seafloor spreading ae continually recycling the ocean floor. The oldest in less than 200 million years old and most is much younger so most ocean impacts would have left no evidence by now anyway.

There is absolutely no evidence that any significant fraction of these impacts came from a single event and much against it as we have discussed. In a subsequent post I give some details on what would have happened to earth if these impacts had been related to a single event.

FB

 

[duordi]

Wow. You have no ideas how funny it is to hear you say this.

Your theory is based on a graphic of meteor sites from a website. You ignore what the data behind the graphic tells us, you have no idea what the meteor sites look like, what the data tells us about how old they are, the condition they were found in, the data from drilling, whether they are on the surface or not, and the rational observation that the clustering is due to strikes we have found, not all strikes, and then you say something like this.

Why? Because your religious views are clouding your view of the evidence.

Yes, you believe it is a faulty data gathering process, a common response.
I have been in discussions in which the data was not in my favor.
It was not fun and I had to change my opnions.
I am not laughing because I know how hard it is.

If your ideas are correct then you will be vindicated by the data eventually.
If not scientifc proof is a cold reality.

Duane

 

[notto]

Yes, you believe it is a faulty data gathering process, a common response.

You haven't gathered any data. You are basing your conclusions on a (faulty) causual glance at a graphic you found on a website. You are ignoring the data behind the graphic you present as evidence. You ignore the methods of collection, the analysis of the data, and the conclusions provided by your own source.

Sadly, this is done willfully on your part. This will never lead you to truth.

 

[Split Rock]

I have a record that the Ark carried undomesticated animals.
Traditions die hard.

That is why science is based on evidence and not on "traditions."

It is probable that the animals came from the garden of Eden.

( If the animals did not come from Eden then every thing in the garden died in the flood.)

The garden had the original of all species, and was protected from the curse of mutation and death, given to Adam because of his sin by excluding mankind from Eden.

The mutated corrupted forms of animals developed before the flood who were not in the Ark died.

Of course the same fate fell on the animals who left the garden of Eden and entered mans corrupt world after the flood.

The curse of "mutation" has affected all life now causing us to be pitiful examples of what we once were.

Where is this Garden now? Were these pure animals protected from the Flood? If not, why? According to you, they were not cursed with Man's sin.

I am in North America and I just moved my big toe toward South America does that mean I came from the North Pole?

In science lab we were never told we could extrapolate like that.

You are doing much more extrapolating with old bible stories than modern geologists do with the evidence.

Not only can we measure plate movement today, but we also have supporting evidence for the existance of Pangea (which I assume you are saying is a wild extrapolation) in the form of biogeography and the shape of the continents themselves. In addition, old geological features such as mountain ranges line up surprisingly well when the continents are placed together as Pangea (for example the Appalachians in N. America and mountains in Northern Europe)

I recommend reading "The Restless Earth," by Nigel Calder. It is an old book (1972) but the basics have not changed since then. It is old enough that your local library should have a copy.

Why would you think they occupy the same geographical location just because they may be at the same elevation?
Answer: yes and no depending on if they occupied the same geographical area or not.

Trilobites are found all over the world and are never found with flounders or any other fish. Nor are they ever found with crabs, lobsters, shrimps, or any extant species of any kind! Why is that??

This is also expected in a catastrophic condition that certain life forms would live together and therefore die together.

Why don't they die with any modern species??

A Chiwawa and a Doberman are both still dogs.
When someone in the future finds Doberman bones after they are extinct then they may be considered a different species, but not yet.

This is a good point. It shows how much variation is inherent in a species, and was one of Darwin's important arguments for evolution. However, no one would think these animals were from different families or classes based on their skeletons.

The recent discovery of blood in a T-rex bone indicated it was just like the composition of ostrich blood.

No one has ever claimed T rex blood was the same as an ostrich's. Just that they had similarities.

You can tell that by the pictures ( artist conceptions ) I bet.

Did you ever stop to wonder what the small little arms were for that could not reach its mouth?

Well if you put them back instead of forward .....

They would break.. very good idea!

All joking aside it has been expected for some time that they were a bird of some sort.

It is amazing how far the established scientific community has drifted from the truth to satisfy the crowd pleasing money making displays.

It doesn't show much integrity on our part does it.

If they allowed themselves to drift that far from the truth with the t-rex it makes you wonder what other, shall we say, exaggerations, have been given as scientific fact.

It is mainstream scientists that have recently concluded that theropod dinosaurs are related to birds. It is "creation scientists" like D. Gish that claim otherwise. How does any of this mean that the scientific community has drifted from the truth?? You are making no sense. ???

 

[Numenor]

The garden had the original of all species, and was protected from the curse of mutation and death, given to Adam because of his sin by excluding mankind from Eden.

The mutated corrupted forms of animals developed before the flood who were not in the Ark died.

This is extra-biblical and utterly baseless. More adhoc-ism from Creationists.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yes, you believe it is a faulty data gathering process, a common response.

The distribution that you see is the result of inherent bias in the data gathering process and in the preservation process. The distribution of larger impacts does not appear to me to be significantly different from a random distribution. You should also realize that random does not mean evenly distributed, especially with relatively small number statistics. I have atached a couple of scattergrams of 21 randomly distributed points. To the unwary they may seem to have non random distribution with clusters in certain places.

I have been in discussions in which the data was not in my favor.
It was not fun and I had to change my opnions.
I am not laughing because I know how hard it is.

If your ideas are correct then you will be vindicated by the data eventually.
If not scientifc proof is a cold reality.

Duane

Let me break the news to you. The data are not in your favor here either.
FB