A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[otseng]

How we label the phyla is a human artifact.

All labeling would be a human artifact.

Let's look at how it is defined.

"At the most basic level, a phylum can be defined in two ways: as a group of organisms with a certain degree of morphological or developmental similarity (the phenetic definition), or a group of organisms with a certain degree of evolutionary relatedness (the phylogenetic definition)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum

So, different phyla should certainly have major differences morphologically and/or genetically. According to evolutionary theory, different phyla could only have originated through genetic changes. And these would have been fairly major changes to form major morphological differences enough to categorize organisms by.

I bring up the Cambrian explosion as evidence that the fossil record does not show a neat record of simple to complex life from the bottom to the top of the stratas. I'm not bringing this up to address how the fossils arrive at any particular strata.

The fact that there are fewer existing phyla now does not describe the variability of life as we know it now. It does not reflect that huge changes at the species level that has occurred in the fossil record.

I do not deny species level evolution. There are certainly a huge variety in the lower classifications of life (species, genus).

But, how can it be explained that there is a huge diversity of phyla at the beginning and only decreases over time?

grumpy can further elaborate on what he means by "complexity" but I am quite certain he does not measure complexity by the number of phyla.

Not only on the number, but on the morphological features of each phylum.

Once again, you avoid the central issues by bringing up an essentially irrelevant point.

I think it's entirely relevant considering we are discussing fossils at this time.

How would an increase or decrease in the number of words humans use to describe the phyla support or falsify the SG?

Categorization into different phylas are by major morphological differences. Whether they are called by something else, they would still have significant morphological differences.

What it shows is that the fossil record and the theory of evolution are incompatible. The fossil record does not show an increase in major morphological changes over time. Rather, it shows an abrupt onset of complex organisms and a decrease in phyla over time. Shouldn't one expect that if evolution is true, it should be few phyla at the beginning and an increase over time? Even Darwin recognized this problem. He expected that the data would catch up to his theory. But after 150 years, the data still is against the theory.

How would it help distinguish between the FM and the SG?

If the fossil record instead contained 1 or 2 phyla at the bottom and 50+ at the top, that would be difficult to account for in the FM. And it would be consistent with evolutionary theory. But, this is not what we see.

In the FM, macroevolution is not part of the model. There is no increase in the complexity of life over time. Complex life existed at the time of the flood. And they got rapidly buried.

About the only possible point I could see is that under the FM and assuming all life or most life that ever existed up to the time of the flood existed at the time of the flood, one should see all that life mixed up in the layers.

In fact, it seems to me one would expect all phyla existing throughout the layers, rather than fewer phyla as you have asserted is what we do find.

If the earth was a giant mixing bowl and the flood kept on stirring all the contents into one homogeneous mixture, then that might be true.

[nygreenguy]

But, how can it be explained that there is a huge diversity of phyla at the beginning and only decreases over time?

The earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. It took 1 billion years for the first life. It then took 3 billion years to get to the cambrian explosion. This is hardly huge diversity "at the beginning". In addition, there ARE fossils of "complex" critters before the cambrian, so its still a transition.

Also, what makes you think we have decreased in phyla? We have even more kingdoms now than we did then.

Categorization into different phylas are by major morphological differences. Whether they are called by something else, they would still have significant morphological differences.

True, but that is also now based on genetics.

What it shows is that the fossil record and the theory of evolution are incompatible. The fossil record does not show an increase in major morphological changes over time. Rather, it shows an abrupt onset of complex organisms and a decrease in phyla over time. Shouldn't one expect that if evolution is true, it should be few phyla at the beginning and an increase over time? Even Darwin recognized this problem. He expected that the data would catch up to his theory. But after 150 years, the data still is against the theory.

This is what it shows. However, there are things like mass extinctions, and major climatic events which alter the rates of things. We literally went BILLIONS of years with very slow changes. Evolution is exponential, and even more when certain environmental threshholds are reached (oxygen in the atmosphere), evolution of predators,

Then we have the issue of how apt the bodies are for fossilization. The formation of a mineralization "exoskeleton" is one of the big reasons so many fossils are found in the cambrian.

Also, Id really like to see a source which said there was greater biodiversity in the cambrian, I find that pretty hard to believe.

In the FM, macroevolution is not part of the model. There is no increase in the complexity of life over time. Complex life existed at the time of the flood. And they got rapidly buried.

Care to tackle my issue of how everything fit on the ark (including plants)?

If the earth was a giant mixing bowl and the flood kept on stirring all the contents into one homogeneous mixture, then that might be true.

No, even if its WASNT a giant mixing bowl, we would see SOME mixing. SOME. Should see SOME rabbits in the pre-cambrian and SOME of the cambrian critters in the carboniferous. We should see SOME dinosaurs and people in the hadean.

Yet we dont. There is perfect separation based on evolutionary theory. Your model is a statistical impossibility.

[xcept]

I can see a pattern emerging here. You have a guideline you must follow. You have a set view on a set timeline. So you must make everything fit on this scale.

A couple things I've noticed is, the Cambrian explosion all creatures are folly formed. No intermediates or transitionals at all. In 4.6 bya the fossil record should ne littered with transitionals. I know I know everything is considered a transitional these days. Well that doesn't cut it or even make any sense. So back to the Cambrian. There have been found vertibrates in the cambrian layers. Only way to explain that would be... oh wait! You can't. You just simply have to deny it. Along with 70 mya soft dino tissue. Cannot possibly be true at all. Since there's no way it cou,dve survived that long.

Also the animals fitting on the ark, its been studied and done. Maybe look it up. Oh and try not to cuss and spit too much if you happen to read it on one of those lyine creationist websites. Its really sad when some 24 yr old seems to know more than a PhD scientist because they're a "lying creationist". No wonder these discussions are never civil.

[Goat]

Well, at least the class is still lively while I step out of the room for a little bit...

Since we are concentrating on fossils, could you explain how a desert environment,
with lizard tracks in it can be between two marine environments, both with worm burrows in them?

How can the Kaibab Limestone, a 300 foot thick layer formed in a marine environment with molluscs, crinoids, and brachiopods be above the Coconino Sandstone, which was formed from sand dunes with many lizard tracks in it
which is above the Hermit Shale, which is formed in swamps and lagoons, which is
above the Redwall Limestone, which is 400 feet thick of other marine fossils?

Please answer that question.

You have not explained that.

I gave my rebuttal here.

Since we have no skeletal fossils, it cannot be conclusively shown that they are from reptiles. The footprints could also have originated from amphibians.

Also, tracks begin and end abruptly which is better explained by being formed underwater.

Numerous fossil vertebrate trackways in the Coconino Sandstone of northern Arizona exhibit several features that imply that these trackways were not made in subaerial conditions. Some trackways begin or end abruptly on undisturbed bedding planes, and in other trackways the individual prints are oriented in a different direction from that of the trackway. These features indicate buoyancy of the animals in water. The animals were swimming in the water part of the time and at other times walking on the substrate, and they were sometimes orienting upslope on the surface of the underwater dunes, while being drifted sideways by lateral currents. Observations on salamander locomotion in a sedimentation tank with flowing water support this model.

Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin

How can lizards make tracks that start/end abruptly?

No.. but the reason the tracks get fossilized start end abrubtly. You have yet to show that 'a flood' is the best reason for that. Please use actual evidence to make your claim. What is the evidence for your claim?

Nor does any of your rebutall explain why you have hundreds of feet thick of marine environment above a desert environment, and below a desert environment.

You bring up some questions that really have nothing to do with the question, and think that resolves the issue. You have not even begun to approach the issue except with asking some questions, proclaiming that the FM resolves that (but not explaining how), and then ignoring the essential question.

[Scotracer]

But, how can it be explained that there is a huge diversity of phyla at the beginning and only decreases over time?

This is a simple question to answer - it is basic engineering knowledge. It is analogous to the advent of flight - in the beginning we had a massive variety of solutions but over time we moved into one shape: cylindrical body, two wings with the engines on them. Life fine-tunes to its environment, which will only have a couple of "ideal" solutions. You start it with massive variety and what survives takes over and eventually the number of solutions decreases.

What it shows is that the fossil record and the theory of evolution are incompatible. The fossil record does not show an increase in major morphological changes over time. Rather, it shows an abrupt onset of complex organisms and a decrease in phyla over time. Shouldn't one expect that if evolution is true, it should be few phyla at the beginning and an increase over time? Even Darwin recognized this problem. He expected that the data would catch up to his theory. But after 150 years, the data still is against the theory.

Given that we're talking about a geological hypothesis we should look at the geological issues behind the Cambrian explosion. The current understanding is a massive change in free oxygen in the atmosphere/hydrosphere that allowed multicellular life to flourish.

In the FM, macroevolution is not part of the model. There is no increase in the complexity of life over time. Complex life existed at the time of the flood. And they got rapidly buried.

Actually I think this is very crucial and it's time to give up with this charade. You are now denying one of the strongest theories from a different field to make your hypothesis fit? You don't care about doing science, you just want to deny reality to fit with your theology. For crying out loud otseng, you are denying some of the strongest science we have purely to fit with your wish. This thread has run its course (actually it had done about 40 pages ago...) - let's put a stop to this madness.

[nygreenguy]

I can see a pattern emerging here. You have a guideline you must follow. You have a set view on a set timeline. So you must make everything fit on this scale.

No, we have a timeline based upon evidence.

A couple things I've noticed is, the Cambrian explosion all creatures are folly formed. No intermediates or transitionals at all.

Still incorrect. Many species in the Cambrian ARE transitional of species which came before.

In 4.6 bya the fossil record should ne littered with transitionals.

And it is.

There have been found vertibrates in the cambrian layers. Only way to explain that would be... oh wait! You can't. You just simply have to deny it. Along with 70 mya soft dino tissue. Cannot possibly be true at all. Since there's no way it cou,dve survived that long.

1) give us some evidence. This is your last chance before I just simply stop bothering with responding to you. You come here make claims, refuse to back them up and even plagiarize. Thats not how things work around here. We expect a higher level of discourse. 2) your dino tissue is nothing more than an argument to incredulity.

Also the animals fitting on the ark, its been studied and done. Maybe look it up. Oh and try not to cuss and spit too much if you happen to read it on one of those lyine creationist websites. Its really sad when some 24 yr old seems to know more than a PhD scientist because they're a "lying creationist". No wonder these discussions are never civil.

I see it has been talked about, but Im not satisfied with the results. They are simply impossible in any scenario. Fitting all is impossible along with rapid diversification.

So, instead of saying its been studied and done, why dont you provide us with these "studies"

[Grumpy]

otseng

But, how can it be explained that there is a huge diversity of phyla at the beginning and only decreases over time?

Extinction events, failure to compete successfully, the elegant solutions of highly successful lines(look at the success of the chordata, every large land dweller on Earth is a descendent from the first fish with a backbone, we all have the same skeleton(with modification, of course)).

Those phyla in the Cambrian were from seperate lines in the PreCambrian(mostly one celled and very diverse). Evolution chose between those and we descended from the most successful.

What it shows is that the fossil record and the theory of evolution are incompatible.

What it shows is you have a serious misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what evolution is. The fossil record led to the theory of evolutio, not the other way round(as in the FM). The fossil record records the FACT that evolution occurred, the theory is our attempt to explain why that happened.

Shouldn't one expect that if evolution is true, it should be few phyla at the beginning and an increase over time?

Actually the exact opposite, once we leave the single cellular level and enter the discrete individual species level. Single celled creatures trade genes between species easily, discrete multicellular, sexual creatures do not.

But after 150 years, the data still is against the theory.

After 150 years of research and discovery the theory is confirmed to the degree that "Nothing in Biology makes sense..."(*) without it. You statement is false, disturbingly so.

* "Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)

Grumpy

[McCulloch]

Also the animals fitting on the ark, its been studied and done. Maybe look it up.

Perhaps xcept could provide a link.

I found a few:

• Was the ark big enough to hold the number of animals required?

  The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.[...]
  Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. [...]Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.[...]
  Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.

• Was Noah's Ark BIG ENOUGH to hold ALL the animals?

  The ark's total volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.[...]
  Only air breathing, land dwelling animals would have to be placed aboard the ark (Genesis 7:22).
  Many writers on the subject of Noah's ark have different estimates for the amount of animals that the ark would have to carry. Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their book, The Genesis Flood, estimate that approximately 35,000 animals were placed on board the ark. In another book written on the subject, Noah's Ark - A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe states that only about 2,000 animals would have to be on the ark. Being rather conservative he continues his study with the assumption that 16,000 animals could easily be cared for on the ark.
  
  Let's be conservative and use the figure of 40,000 animals. This allows for extra animals to represent those that have gone extinct and those animals that have not been properly cataloged. This figure of 40,000 animals is 5,000 more than largest previously mentioned numbers. Based on our present understanding of the number of animals this figure should satisfy even the most skeptical. [...]
  One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The arks total capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than 30% of the ark's space. In other words all the animals could fit on one of the ark's three decks. This would leave the other 70% of the ark's space for Noah's family, food, supplies, and baggage.

• Dear Noah ...
• All I Really Need To Know I Learned From Noah's Ark
• How did Noah fit all the animals on the Ark?

  [...]
  What about all of the excrement produced by all of these animals? How did 8 people manage to feed all of those animals and deal with tons of excrement on a daily basis? What about animals with specialized diet? How did plant-life survive? What about insects? There are a thousand other questions like these which could be raised and they are all good questions. In the minds of many, these questions are unanswerable. But they are certainly nothing new. They have been asked over and over for centuries. And in all of that time researchers have sought answers. There are now numerous, very scholarly feasibility studies which have put Noah and his ark to the test.
  
  With over 1,200 scholarly references to academic studies, Woodmorappes book is a modern systematic evaluation of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah's Ark (John Woodmorappe, A Resource for Answering the Critics of Noahs Ark, Impact No. 273 March 1996. Institute for Creation Research, 30 January 2005 http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-273.htm). Woodmorappe claims that after years of systematically examining all of the questions which have been raised over the years, all of the arguments against the Ark are found wanting. In fact, the vast majority of the anti-Ark arguments, at first superficially plausible, turn out to be easily invalidated.

• How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark? by Jonathan Sarfati
• Talk Origins

  What kinds were aboard the ark? Woodmorappe and Whitcomb & Morris arbitrarily exclude all animals except mammals, birds, and reptiles. However, many other animals, particularly land arthropods, must also have been on the ark for two reasons:

  • The Bible says so. Gen. 7:8 puts on the ark all creatures that move along the ground, with no further qualifications. Lev. 11:42 includes arthropods (creatures that "walk on many feet") in such a category.
  • They couldn't survive outside. Gen. 7:21-23 says every land creature not aboard the ark perished. And indeed, not one insect species in a thousand could survive for half a year on the vegetation mats proposed by some creationists. Most other land arthropods, snails, slugs, earthworms, etc. would also have to be on the ark to survive.

  Were dinosaurs and other extinct animals on the ark? According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark.
  
  It is also worth pointing out that the number of extinct species is undoubtedly greater than the number of known extinct species. New genera of dinosaurs have been discovered at a nearly constant rate for more than a century, and there's no indication that the rate of discovery will fall off in the near future.
  
  Were the animals aboard the ark mature? Woodmorappe gets his animals to fit only by taking juvenile pairs of everything weighing more than 22 lbs. as an adult. However, it is more likely that Noah would have brought adults aboard:

  • The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity.
  • Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn't have survived.

  [...]
  So, could they all fit? It is important to take the size of animals into account when considering how much space they would occupy because the greatest number of species occurs in the smallest animals. Woodmorappe performed such an analysis and came to the conclusion that the animals would take up 47% of the ark. In addition, he determines that about 10% of the ark was needed for food (compacted to take as little space as possible) and 9.4% for water (assuming no evaporation or wastage). At least 25% of the space would have been needed for corridors and bracing. Thus, increasing the quantity of animals by more than about 5% would overload the ark.
  
  However, Woodmorappe makes several questionable and invalid assumptions. Here's how the points discussed above affect his analysis. Table 1 shows Woodmorappe's analysis and some additional calculations.
  [follow the link for the actual table of calculations]

  • Collecting each species instead of each genus would increase the number of individuals three- to fourfold. The most speciose groups tend to be the smaller animals, though, so the total mass would be approximately doubled or tripled.
  • Collecting all land animals instead of just mammals, birds, and reptiles would have insignificant impact on the space required, since those animals, though plentiful, are so small. (The problems come when you try to care for them all.)
  • Leaving off the long-extinct animals would free considerable space. Woodmorappe doesn't say how many of the animals in his calculations are known only from fossils, but it is apparently 50-70% of them, including most of the large ones. However, since he took only juveniles of the large animals, leaving off all the dinosaurs etc. would probably not free more than 80% of the space. On the other hand, collecting all extinct animals in addition to just the known ones would increase the load by an unknown but probably substantial amount.
  • Loading adults instead of juveniles as small as Woodmorappe uses would increase the load 13- to 50-fold.
  • Including extra clean animals would increase the load by 1.5-3% if only the 13 traditional domestic ruminants are considered, but by 14-28% if all ruminants are considered clean.

  In conclusion, an ark of the size specified in the Bible would not be large enough to carry a cargo of animals and food sufficient to repopulate the earth, especially if animals that are now extinct were required to be aboard.

[McCulloch]

Still waiting on evidence to support the many, many claims you have made thus far.

I'll take Joey's role here. Claims made by xcept:

1. Many scientists cannot overcome this problem [of creatures which have shown no evolutionary changes in 400 million years]. Cockroaches, coelcanth, ants, dragonflies, horseshoe crabs all haven't evolved, ever.
   Please show that there are any modern biologists who have difficulty with the concept of some species not evolving while other species do. Please show that the animals listed have never evolved.
2. Carbon dating is skewed by water. If water covered all then that would render carbon dating useless.
   Please provide some source or evidence that water renders carbon dating useless.
3. So we evolved from one celled organisms in a few short millions of years, but a shark hasn't changed in 100 mya? Its an obvious contradiction.
   Please show how the shark's evolutionary stability contradicts evolutionary theory.
4. The earth was one continent as stated in genesis.
   Please show evidence that the earth had only one continent any time during human history
5. The continent cracks apart rapidly, creating volcanoes, platetechtonics.
   Please show evidence that such geological change could take place as rapidly as the flood model requires.
6. The volcanoes sending ash into the air blocking out the sun causing the ice age.
   Please show evidence that there was only one major ice age and that it occurred after the great flood.
7. The fact that life can speciate doesn't prove they can jump from one species to another.
   Please show that you understand the meaning of the word speciate.
8. God gave this information [about the pre-flood world] to Moses directly.
   Please provide evidence that God provided information directly to anyone.
9. The flood model makes more sense of why we have trillions of buried fossils.
   This is what we are debating. Please do not make assertions without evidence. Virtually all of the scientists who have studied the matter disagree with your opinion on which makes the most sense.
10. It was once said by a scientist, not sure who, but he said give me a tanker full of iron and I will give you an ice age.
    Please source this claim or withdraw it.
11. The marsupial animals could travel further than the placental animals because they do not have to stop for as much as even weeks like a placental animal does.
    Please provide evidence that marsupials outrank placentals in migratory behavior. The mammal with the longest migration is the humpback whale. The land mammal with the greatest migration is the caribou. Other well known migratory mammal species are American Bison, African Elephant, some bat species, gnu, pronghorn, reindeer, zebra and various marine mammals. I could not find any reference to marsupial migration.
12. Similar admissions from evolutionists have acknowledged that no examples of such evolutionary transitions have yet been documented in any of the billions of fossilized remains from the supposed geological ages of the past
    Please cite a few examples of such admissions.
13. the animals fitting on the ark, its been studied and done.
    Please link to or quote some such studies. We cannot debate assertions made without reference.

[micatala]

How we label the phyla is a human artifact.

All labeling would be a human artifact.

Let's look at how it is defined.

"At the most basic level, a phylum can be defined in two ways: as a group of organisms with a certain degree of morphological or developmental similarity (the phenetic definition), or a group of organisms with a certain degree of evolutionary relatedness (the phylogenetic definition)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum

So, different phyla should certainly have major differences morphologically and/or genetically. According to evolutionary theory, different phyla could only have originated through genetic changes. And these would have been fairly major changes to form major morphological differences enough to categorize organisms by.

Fair enough so far.

I bring up the Cambrian explosion as evidence that the fossil record does not show a neat record of simple to complex life from the bottom to the top of the stratas. I'm not bringing this up to address how the fossils arrive at any particular strata.

The fact that there are fewer existing phyla now does not describe the variability of life as we know it now. It does not reflect that huge changes at the species level that has occurred in the fossil record.

I do not deny species level evolution. There are certainly a huge variety in the lower classifications of life (species, genus).

OK.

But, how can it be explained that there is a huge diversity of phyla at the beginning and only decreases over time?

I would suggest the answer is obvious. Lot's of species went extinct. It just so happened that in some phyla, all the species in that phyla went extinct.

How on earth is this a problem either for the SG or for evolution?

As I recall, it was otseng who brought up complexity. If we're going to debate complexity, I'd like a definition of what is meant by that.

How would an increase or decrease in the number of words humans use to describe the phyla support or falsify the SG?

Categorization into different phylas are by major morphological differences. Whether they are called by something else, they would still have significant morphological differences.

What it shows is that the fossil record and the theory of evolution are incompatible.

This is a false assertion.

There is nothing incompatible with a decrease in the number of phyla and the theory of evolution. Species go extinct. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says it is impossible for all the species in a given phylum to go extinct. The theory of evolution also does not imply that any particular amount of morphological variation has to occur, either within phyla or between them.

As far as I can see, this is claim completely and totally without any basis in fact or logic.

The fossil record does not show an increase in major morphological changes over time.

Even if this were true, I fail to see how this is a problem for evolution.

In addition, what do you mean be "not showing an increase in major morphological changes?"

Rather, it shows an abrupt onset of complex organisms and a decrease in phyla over time. Shouldn't one expect that if evolution is true, it should be few phyla at the beginning and an increase over time? Even Darwin recognized this problem. He expected that the data would catch up to his theory. But after 150 years, the data still is against the theory.

You are creating your own straw man expectation of evolution here.

How would it help distinguish between the FM and the SG?

If the fossil record instead contained 1 or 2 phyla at the bottom and 50+ at the top, that would be difficult to account for in the FM. And it would be consistent with evolutionary theory. But, this is not what we see.

Again, you have yet to explain how a decrease in the number of phyla contradicts the theory of evolution.

In the FM, macroevolution is not part of the model. There is no increase in the complexity of life over time. Complex life existed at the time of the flood. And they got rapidly buried.

Until the FM can address which life survived the flood and how, we really can't say anything about what the FM has to say about the increase in the complexity of life over time. Today it is estimated there are probably 10 million, perhaps as many as 100 million species on the planet. There are roughly 250,000 identified species in the fossil record.

See http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/miller.html


Did all the millions of species now in existence also exist at the time of the alleged flood, and if so, how did they survive it?? If only a few species survived the flood, why do we have so many now? How did they evolve in the less than 100,000 year time line you have given for the flood?

About the only possible point I could see is that under the FM and assuming all life or most life that ever existed up to the time of the flood existed at the time of the flood, one should see all that life mixed up in the layers.

In fact, it seems to me one would expect all phyla existing throughout the layers, rather than fewer phyla as you have asserted is what we do find.

If the earth was a giant mixing bowl and the flood kept on stirring all the contents into one homogeneous mixture, then that might be true.

One does not need a homogeneous mixture. But under a flood, we should see way, way more mixing up of the fossils than we do.

You are the one who has said that the flood was moving corals from the environment they existed in to a position on top of buried fish and trilobites. Seems like you are saying the flood was a mixing bowl when it suits your purpose and denying it when it isn't. At one point I recall you described the flood waters as a sort of slurry.

Which is it?

How much turbulence was their during the flood? Were there varying amounts of turbulence over space and time? If so, how did this happen?

If there was enough turbulence to wash a bottom dwelling animal like coral on top of buried fish and trilobites, and then bury more marine animals and plants on top of that, how is it reasonable to suggest that no humans got mixed up with any dinosaurs, no flowering plants got mixed up with early dinosaurs?