I was told that there would be experts who provided facts with evidence. In my view, this means citations and specifics. I did not expect that undocumented sentences would serve as evidence. And I did not expect someone would consider an animal the size of an opossum to be a serviceable refutation of my extensive presentation regarding "Large Mammals" - - which include bears, giraffes, rhinos, etc. You folks are exchanging poorly conceived rebuttals amongst yourselves and think you are doing something important. J.E.S. is a great cheerleader, but he has no grasp of science, and yet he is the one who most actively discusses topics he doesn't understand. Ask yourselves what the K/T barrier means in a flood model. Ask yourselves why the mix of fossils differs so much below and above the K/T barriers. Back in 1979, my physics professor pointed out that as dramatic as the Grand Canyon may be, it could have been made and filled in, and made again, over and over again in the span of time that geologists have measured out for Earth. While this is perfectly consistent with your view that the entire structure could have been made in a single flood event, the fact there are hundreds (if not thousands) of terrestrial habitats locked within its rocks, should prove to any casual observer that the Grand Canyon represents many ages of terrestrial life, not a single flood episode that somehow preserves layers upon layers of different terrestrial horizons in perfect unflooded condition. Just ask yourself where are the hundreds of thousands of human bodies that should be fossilized with drowned animals in the Middle East - - if there was a global flood at any time before or after the first dynasties of Egypt? If there was a flood, it **had** to have been confined to the flood plains of Mesopotamia. Any other conclusion is just silly wishful thinking.

Gentlemen, This is the conversation I was told we would be having. I do not find any level of expertise being demonstrated on these pages. Innuendo, sweeping generalities, and word games is what I find here. I just don't have the time for it. Have a lovely week.

J.E.S. I have time to address another posting (and will go back to make sure I respond to all the unique responses as well). You write this rather sweeping generalization about ice core analysis: https://www.ce-debate.org/forum/article-discussion/answers-in-genesis-the-grand-canyon-evidence-for-the-flood " Also, a note about ice cores is that when scientists try to determine the number of layers, they often account for hundreds of thousands of years worth of compression at the bottom (if the ice cores are only a few thousand years old, the compression would be much less). This could skew the numbers to make the declared ages of the ice cores much greater than they may actually be. " You can say this, J.E.S., but articles have been published which outline exactly how these ice cores are analyzed,. They talk about the boundary layers that are formed within years (due to the seasonal melts of Spring and Summer). They talk about how distinctive these layers are from the annualized layer boundaries. They talk about synrchonizing the annual boundaries produced in areas of low-snow fall, vs. areas of more constant snow-fall. In other words, they have procedures for making 3 feet of ice from area comparable (and synchronized) with 20 feet from other areas. All this is very analagous to how botanists take tree rings from giant oak trees, and synchronize them with the very different set of tree rings of large pine trees. Some trees grow faster than others. Other trees are in constant environments (always cold or always mild) compared to trees that suffer the insult of extremes more frequently. If science was easy, we wouldn't need scientists. But comparisons become easier when sound methods are applied to comparing one set of data with other sets of data. J.E.S., maybe providing scientifically-sound rebuttals isn't really your area of strength. I would never dream of trying to sweep ice core data results under the rug with one paragraph of generalizations with no evidence or citations of evidence anywhere apparent. George Brooks

J.E.S. Regarding your recent posting on a "so-called" large mammal... https://www.ce-debate.org/forum/article-discussion/answers-in-genesis-the-grand-canyon-evidence-for-the-flood I hope you don't think I'm being fussy when I point out that it is only large in compared to a mouse or shrew! The Wiki article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repenomamus " Individuals of the known species in Repenomamus are the largest known Mesozoic mammals represented by reasonably complete fossils (though Kollikodon may be larger, and Schowalteria, Oxlestes, Khuduklestes and Bubodens reached similar if not larger sizes), adults of R. robustus were the size of a Virginia opossum with an estimated mass of 4–6 kg (8.8–13 lb) while the known adult of R. giganticus was about 50% larger with a total length of around 1 m (3 ft 3 in) and an estimated mass of 12–14 kg (26–31 lb). These finds extend considerably the known body size range of Mesozoic mammals. " I provided the sense of scale I was looking for when I mentioned "like" bears, lions, hippos, rhinos... you know ... Big Mammals. Finding a mammal the size of an opossum, while interesting from an evolutionary viewpoint, is hardly meeting the challenge. By the way, I will be away from my computer for the weekend and Monday... traveling across two states (twice!) ... and so I hate to abandon a thread when it is just getting started.... but this will give you more time to discuss and research. I will go through the thread and start up again when I get back ... (probably Tuesday am). George Brooks

Naturally, grace is most important. I am a guest on your list. But in terms of evidence, all you are doing is throwing around very large sweeping generalities. I have not based my observations exclusively on co-mingling .... and have spent much of my writing on why they aren't even in the same strata. Is this how Creationist refutations are supposed to work? Certainly they lived at the same altitudes, yes? Where are the millions of Egyptians, and Chinese and Africans who would have been fossilized along with the dinosaurs (living in their own parts of the same strata)? How do rhinos swim better than marine reptiles or survive drowning better than giant brontosaurs? You really have to tick down the 11 point list.... before you sweep it all under some creationist carpet.

Kirk, Let's assume you have no idea how to date rock.... and that for the most part, all you know is how to compare strata from around the world, and fit them into a general master sequence. And since you have all this free time (because you aren't testing rocks for age), you can spend more time looking at the flora and fauna trapped within various rock strata. After a while, you can begin to make general statements about various strata, that apply consistently to specific strata, no matter where the strata are in the world. 1) All medium to large dinosaur fossils are found beneath the K/T boundary layer, even the large Marine Reptiles that were competent swimmers. 2) Only smaller dinosaur fossils, structurally similar to current day birds, are found above the K/T layer. 3) No large mammals (e.g., rhinos, giraffes, lions, bears, tigers, etc) have been found in layers below the K/T layer. In fact, they are not even found immediately above the K/T layer. They appear after smaller versions, with similar anatomies, are found below them. 4) Rather gigantic dinosaurs are found (presumed drowned?) at deeper strata than even awkward or shorter large mammals who - - by all rights - - should have drowned long before Brontosaurs drowned, or even before the large Marine Reptiles presumably drowned. 5) Whales, of all varieties, did not drown along with either the terrestrial dinosaurs or the Marine Reptiles.... but only long after (i.e., above) these creatures of the Dinosaur age are found in the strata. 6) Why would cows and land turtles and sloths all be drowned in the strata where whales drowned, but not earlier, when slow-moving dinosaurs were found to have been drowned? 7) Why didn't Marine Reptiles of the Dinosaur Age not survive flood waters at least as well as whales did, or at least more effectively than triceratops and other bulky or armored reptiles? 8) Why are no marine reptiles and whales found in any of the same strata? 9) Based on chronological estimates for the Global Flood, it would have occurred sometime after the 3 pyramids of Giza, Egypt were built. But we find no record or archaeological record of the Egyptian society being traumatized by a global flood? Nor do we find the corpses of millions of Egyptians and other human populations of the same epoch, in any of the strata in which we find the dinosaur fossils? 10) No evidence of human hunting of dinosaurs for food or skins has ever been found, especially not below the K/T boundary, where humans have never been found, and where dinosaur remains are exclusively found. Similarly, we have never found remains of dinosaurs feeding on humans, or on whales, or on any other of the larger mammals that do not appear in the strata until above the K/T layer. 11) Ice Cores at either polar region, can be precisely analyzed, and aligned to match changes in warm and cold seasons (versus yearly rather than seasonal intervals) and show - - clearly and with no confusion - - 100,000+ years of uninterrupted patterns of snow fall and freezing, with no massive flooding in the top 6% of the ice layers. There is no known flood scenario that can explain all these observed patterns of evidence simultaneously. In contrast, multiple flood events, spread out over millions of years, are able to explain these elaborate intertwined patterns of evidence - - and rather precisely so! George Brooks

Kirk Peters, You wrote: " Aging fossils by what strata they are in, and aging the strata by the fossils that are in it is one such example of a circular argument. " Au contraire, my good fellow. The point of the evidence is to show how theorizing about fossils is **not** a circular discussion. You seem unaware of the logic involved.

T_Aquaticus, Fancy meeting you here. So help me get oriented. What do you find the most compelling of the Young Earth Creationist threads? I had hoped the Grand Canyon had been exhausted by now. But I can see that there is material that I am rather impressed with along the Evolutionary line of thinking... so I guess there's a benefit no matter what angle is being pursued.