> >Kevin O'Brien wrote:
> >
> >> You ignored the most serious error of all.
> >
> >Actually, one of the most serious problems for flood geology has yet to be
> >brought up - nesting sites. There are spots in Montana, Argentina, China and
> >many other places that have large dinosaur nesting sites, inclusing multiple
> >nesting sites in different strata. So we are to imagine, somehow, that in the
> >midst of this global flood, after the deposition of thousands of feet of
> >sediments already, large groups of dinosaurs managed to congregate and mate,
> >build nests, lay eggs, hatch them and raise them, then return there
> >several more
> >times to complete the process all over again. Obviously this cannot be
> >explained
> >by saying that all of the land had not yet been scoured clean, because the
> >sites
> >lie on top of sediments that were supposedly laid down from the PC/C
> >boundary to
> >the jurassic and triasic. It also cannot be explained by any hydrological
> >sorting hypothesis like size and differential mobility. It simply cannot be
> >explained using flood geology.
> >
>
> Unless you recognize that pregnant female dinosaurs would have to drop
> their eggs at some time during a stressful year, that the nest sites were
> water-laid, indicating inundation of the areas, and that the multiple
> layers show repeated inundations.
What does that mean, the nest sites were "water-laid"? They obviously weren't
built underwater, were they? You seem to be suggesting that during the flood,
pregnant dinosaurs built nesting sites to drop their eggs, or perhaps that while
swimming desperately to avoid drowning, they dropped their eggs and the flood
somehow floated in nesting material underneath them. What exactly are you
suggesting? Yes, they show repeated inundations, since the nesting sites were
covered, and then a new one built over the top in the next strata, but they had to
be built while the ground was solid. In a flood model, this means this seems
impossible to justify.
Ed