RedhorseWoman,(another long one)
About the fossil layers:(From answers in Genesis. Visit their site to read the entire article).
The reality of the geologic column is predicated on the belief that fossils have restricted ranges in rock strata. In actuality, as more and more fossils are found, the ranges of fossils keep increasing. The constant extension of ranges simultaneously reduces the credibility of the geologic column and organic evolution, and makes it easier for the Genesis Flood to explain an increasingly-random fossil record.
For approximately the last two hundred years, this succession of fossils in sedimentary rock has been used to argue that the earth has undergone successive events. For instance, trilobite-bearing beds are supposed to reflect a time when trilobites were the dominant life form on earth, and dinosaur-bearing beds are supposed to reflect a time when dinosaurs were dominant on the earth. However this view is weakened because the range of fossils from one supposed time period keeps extending and overlapping fossils ostensibly typical of another period of time in the past. In this article, I will examine some examples of increases of overlap of fossils that are assigned to different geologic periods of time.
Creationists, including myself,1 have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession. These include such mechanisms as the sorting of organisms during the Flood, differential escape of organisms during the same, ecological zonation of life-forms in the antediluvian world (such that different life-forms in different strata reflect the serial burial of ecological life-zones during the Flood), and TABs (Tectonically-Associated Biological Provinces -- wherein different life forms occur in successive horizons of rock as a reflection of successive crustal downwarp of different life-bearing biogeographic communities).
All of these mechanisms do away with the notion that horizons of fossils demand successive passages of time during which the organisms lived. In other words, they allow for there to have been only one set of mutually-contemporaneous living things on a young earth, instead of a repetitive replacement of living things over vast periods of time. Most of the earth's sedimentary record is viewed as being deposited by the Noachian Deluge, and not over successive depositional events in analogues of modern sedimentary environments on an evolving earth.
For example, although trilobites and dinosaurs were contemporaries of each other, there is no basis for believing that trilobite-bearing and dinosaur-bearing rocks were necessarily deposited at the same time all over the world. During the Flood, trilobite-bearing beds at one point on earth were probably being deposited at the same time as dinosaur-bearing beds at another place on earth.
Nor can it be said that, when dinosaur-bearing beds locally overlie trilobite-bearing beds, the former are significantly younger than the latter. This, of course, excepts the small amount of difference in time, within the Flood, that elapsed between the burial of the trilobites and the burial of the overlying dinosaurs.
When we consider the fact that fossil succession is limited in overall extent, it is another way of stating that there are many fossils which are found at many stratigraphic intervals. In fact, only a minority are confined to rocks attributed to only one geologic period.2
Since the early days of the acceptance of the standard geologic column, fossils have been turning up in 'wrong' places as more and more fossils have been collected, and this process continues to this very day. 3, 4,5 And even this does not include the numerous instances where fossils are supposed to be reworked from older strata, often with no independent supporting evidence.
-About the "million year old" artifacts. Tell me exactly which dating methods we are taking about. Carbon 14? Radiometric dating?
-"No one seems to mention any of these multitudinous dinosaurs."
What history books have you been reading? If you can't show me that there is no record of it than don't assert there is no record of it. I have given you some fairly modern examples already. Including a siting in England in 1405. I told you I would look further in to history if you give me tha chance to do so.
-"Do you honestly feel that publishing a theory means that it can stand up to scrutiny? Oh, please. Anyone can publish anything they want....publishing something doesn't make it true." You obviously don't understand what the book is. It is not just a theory. He doesn't simply write, "yeah. I think it's possible."
He PROVES the feasibility. He shows you that it is very possible by refuting virtually every argument there is against Noah's Ark. All of the arguments you are using on me, he answers all those questions in his book. And much more thoroughly than I can. He has spent years researching it. At least read his book. And I never said it was true because he published it. He just proves that it COULD happen.
-"Secondly, hay has to be fresh, or it loses its nutritional value."
Who said all he fed the animals was hay? I'm sure he took hay but I doubt that was all he had. As was in my earlier post, Noah probably fed a lot of the animals mainly on grain, plus SOME hay for fibre.
There was enough room for the animals to get exersize on the ark. As Woodmorappe points out in his calculations. And there was most likely straw bedding for the animals. But remember, this was an emergency situation. Not a holiday cruise. They didn't need to "thrive", they needed to survive. They may have had to put up with harsher conditions on the ark. But as long as they can recieve their minimum requirments, they can survive. And what do you mean 100 cubic feet of bedding per animal per day? Why would the bedding have to be changed every day. And it's not like we're talking about 16,000 horses. We are talking about some larger animals among a WHOLE BUNCH of very small animals. I don't think a rodent would have much trouble surviving in a small cage. If you've ever owned a rabbit or hamster that isn't hard to see. You seem to want to place rules on the ark that apply to keeping animals happy and healthy on a farm. But much less is needed for one year of survival alone.
-"You say that there were NO pre-Flood cave paintings and artifacts? Well, that once again brings us back to the Neandertals, since they have found caves with Neandertal artifacts (of course, archaeologists have used those--according to you--bogus dating methods, which put them WELL before the time of the Flood). In order for your "truth" to be true, you are now saying that Neandertals were on the Ark with Noah. How did he accomplish this one?"
First off, neandertals weren't animals. They were like you and me. So unless Noah himself was one they weren't on the ark. You say that I don't know what you believe but you treat modern dating methods like gospel truth. I will give evidence against them in a minute. But first let me explain something. IF the dating methods are accurate, then these so-called "pre-flood artifacts" would be older than Noah's flood. But if these dating methods are not accurate, it is a different story. Perhaps they are older. Many artifacts could have survived the flood by being buried in the mud. Like all the fossils that were preserved as a result of it. The man who found the titanic has actually found ancient artifacts buried beneath the Black Sea.
-"Now, here you are doing a total about-face...You are NOW stating that you believe in evolution."
Actually, I am not stating I believe in "evolution" at all.(By evolution I am talking about macro/uphill evolution. Where there is new information present in the animals genes to create a new kind of animal.) Now I said that I believed that eohippus and sabretooth ere on the ark with all the other animals. Perhaps I should have reworded it. I believe that a pair of each "kind" of animal were on the ark. So maybe it wasn't exactly an "eohippus" or a "sabre-tooth" but one of their kind. i didn't once say that only modern counterparts were included because I doubt any of the modern "counterparts" we have today were on the ark. And it is not evolution when an animal adapts.
As I wrote in my post to Larc it is proven that many changes can occur without any "evolution" taking place. Micro-evolution is a fact of life. This is "horizontal" changes that occur to an animal in order to help it adapt to a new environment. Such as a horse kind becoming zebras, donkeys, etc. They will always be of the horse kind (not like eohippus who was mush different) but modifications can be made with the existing information in the animals genes. No informed creationist doubts this. It actually helps their cause.
It is proven that in nature these changes happen very rapidly when a creature is subjected to a new environment. If you want examples I have some. This shows that we can get a very large diversity of species from just one pair of animals. And it doesn't do much for the evolutionists cause because their theory says these changes happen progressively over millions of years. But in many cases it doesn't take more that a few hundred years. And not even evolutionist know this is not "evolution" as their theory defines it.
-"We are now talking 80,000 TONS of forage--minimum--for these animals."
How do you come up with a number like this. In case you didn't notice before we are not talking about 16,000 half-ton animals. We are talking about 16,000 animals that are probably on average the size of a dog. Not the size of a horse. There were very few large animals and even these could have been very young. You don't need TONS of forage for a rat or a dog. If you want every animal on the ark to be half a ton then of course it wouldn't work. As calculated the total amount of food would have taken up about 15% of the arks total volume. And 100 years isn't a tight schedule for growing and cutting hay. especially since he had three sons to help him. And though it is not mentioned it is also possible that Noah had hired hands. But this isn't necessary.
-"Pandas eat only Bamboo. Koalas eat only Eucalyptus leaves. Giraffes exist mainly on Acacia leaves. The logistics of this whole thing just boggle the mind."
The logistics may boggle YOUR mind. About the Panda eating only bamboo. A Panda can survive on rice porridge and other dried food as long as they are high in fibre. They don't naturally do this on their own, but they will eat it if it is available. Especially if that is all that is available. But then again we don't know for sure that pandas were present since they are probably descended from an original bear-kind. These go for the other animals too.
-"I used to believe your "experts", but after putting their theories to the test, I find that their theories are flat-out wrong."
You say this but it is all too obvious it is not true. I'm not flat out calling you a liar. But if you knew all the answers to these questions before, why are you asking them now? If you knew all of "my" experts theories I doubt you would ask so many questions. Tell me how you "put their theories to the test" and proved them wrong. You ask very good questions but you won't accept the answers as valid. But the answers are true. If they aren't true show me where they are wrong.
Jason.