Frumious Bandersnatch said:
So are you saying that Africa and North America were separate continents before the flood? What is your explanation for Biogeography?
Of course Africa and North America were separate continents before the flood, and the continental self is the old water line.
Are you saying that all or nearly all fossils formed during the global flood?
Of course not but the flood condition does lend itself to the possibility of a quick bury which would create some excellent fossils.
Does that mean that all the world's geological layers including those with extensive salt deposits and trace fossils that show animals going about their daily buisness as if nothing special were happening were formed by the global flood?
Except for those with hard shells or those that sink to the bottom of eutrophic lakes or are preserved by other means and of course rapid burial doesn't mean a global flood. The same creationists who claim that the fossil record couldn't have formed even in hundreds of millions of years without the global flood also claim that a significant portion of the fossil record was deposited pre and post flood, though they will never say which portion. Still, to say something could not have formed in a hundreds of millions of years but that a significant portion of it formed in a few thousand is more than a little inconsistent, wouldn't you say?
The point is that all over the world there are fossils of specific organisms in specific layers. Speaking of Africa the Karoo formation has the fossils of millions or maybe billions of Permian animals and above them some Triassic organisms ( after a gap) but no post Triassic Dinosaurs or mammals. How did that happen? The Morrison formation has Jurassic dinosaurs but no Eocene or later mammals even though the fossils of Oligocene, Miocene and Pleistocene mammals are abundant.
Glen Morton
Can you explain why animals that were buried deeper by the flood went extinct post flood while more of those that were buried as deep remained with us? What is the flood based interpretation of these and the other data on Glenn's web page? Is there one that makes any sense?
There is simply no way that any signficant portion of either the world's geology or fossil record could have been formed by a global flood. Given that fact along with so many other Falsifications of the Global flood. The only logical conclusion is that the story of the flood of Noah is based on a local and not a global flood.
FB
So much stuff and where to start.
I think most of your confusion is due to an attempt on your part to mix two opposing theories.
You see in the flood scenario there are people who know how to build boats who know were each type of animal existed before the flood and they may try to take them back.
The fossil record is not as air tight as your anti-flood biogeography site would describe it.
The same fossil data is used to prove that the continents were once all part of a super continent so that the fossil record and the current location of several species and the fossil record location can be explained without man kind to deliver them.
So either the fossil record follows the currently living species in an area or it does not.
My guess is that it is a mixture of evidence in one case supporting your argument and in another case supporting the super continent idea but both can be explained with the introduction of a minuscule amount of human intervention.
Before we discuss species it is necessary to define what is meant by it from a flood perspective.
Originally there were fewer "kinds" of animals then you are defining as species today.
Variation of the species is predicted and is defined as a curse in Geneses so we both expect mutation of a species.
In the flood scenario the majority of history on Earth while life exists would be after the flood with about 1/4 before and 3/4 so far afterwards.
Because of this the majority of variation in species would have developed after the flood.
This follows nicely with your variation count when you consider that the information will diminish as one considers a more distant past.
If life developed in a slow gradual process then the large number of "species" you defined as being current are out of proportion to the time you have allotted to them.
If we had a flood right now according to your species count the majority of life form fossils would be found in our miniscule time duration.
But in reality minor differences like a zebra and a horse would have the same bone structure and would be identified as the same species.
In this way your count and comparison between fossils is flawed.
So now we have a zebra and a horse but they are really the same animal from a fossil perspective.
The animals, plants and man himself has changed and degraded and also diversified.
Was there a dog before the flood? Yes.
How about a poodle, saint Bernard, and a Doberman.
The dog had changed before the flood but not necessarily to a poodle.
Was there a dog in Africa and in North America?
Probably, but not exactly like the one that replaced them after the flood.
Would they mutate into something that resembles the original if the climates after the flood was similar to before the flood?
That is what I would expect.
The flood is not the answer for everything that has ever happened on the planet.
Things died before the flood.
Things died after the flood.
Both times had erosion, relocation and formation of soil and even catastrophic events.
There is so much in your post I am not sure I hit on everything.
If there is a specific item you wish to discuss let me know.
Please realize that you have been working on your point of view for a long time and it is not possible for me to comprehend your ideas instantly.
Our ideas are so different the one item at a time would be better.
Duane
