No reason to frown. If it had worked it would have been wonderful. :-) In
negotiations one always want to get the other side into that position.
>
>I have not said
>>it was impossible. But I haven't yet seen anything that gets close to
>>explaining the large number of questions I have. That bothered me and maybe
>>I gave up too soon. I have a deep respect for your knowledge of geology and
>>your dedication to a paradigm. And I would say that it is often
>>discouraging to the prospects of having an coherent explanation when even
>>you, one of the most knowlegdeable global flood advocates often say that you
>>can't explain x,y or z.
>
>
>Neither have I seen anything that gets close to explaining the large number
>of unanswered questions I have about evolution and the fossil record. So I
>am at least in good company.
Let me ask the question that really bothered me as I was leaving the global
flood viewpoint. The question is: Why did God make it so hard for us to
clearly see the global flood in the data of geology? Why was it that those
who didn't hold that view were able easily to come up with hypotheses which
would explain it all within their paradigm? I could only think of two reasons:
1. God didn't want us to see it. (which is not a satisfying answer)
2. We weren't correct in our interpretation that the Bible required a global
flood.
I chose the latter.
Just to show you how difficult a challenge
>you have posed to creationists, but not to evolutionists, our research in
>yellowstone took place over a period of 20 years, before there was any
>change in the picture of the fossil forests. I began my research on the
>Tapeats in 1971, and didn't have a viable explanation for 10 years, then it
>took another 5 years or so to generalize the data to all the outcrops, and
>another 5 years or so to get it published. Now it is going fast and
>furious, and we are cranking out stuff based on that 15 years work. But
>there was a long dry spell. Brand's work on the Coconino took 5 years to
>bear fruit, shorter, because he was working with modern organisms and doing
>experiments.
My understanding of the Coconino tracks is that the stride length is
constant. (David B. Loope, "Fossil Vertebrate Footprints in the Coconino
Sandstone (Permian) of Northern Arizona: Subaqueous or Subaerial?"
Proceedings of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, 1992, p. 70 )Is that what
one really expects if the animals are being carried partly by water?
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm