SoSick I think you've missed a few of my points. You cannot expect freshwater fish to survive a year in salt water, or vice-versa. Try getting those marine fish, put them in a brackish aquarium instead of a purely fresh water one, and then observe how long they live. I think you'll find you quickly end up with a lot of expensive dead fish.
You claim that pockets of fresh water would have existed during the flood. I understand that flood waters covered the entire earth. Especially with this fountains of the deep/water bursting up idea, how would the waters not have mixed? Can you give a model that explains this?
I was also making a point about the composition of the sea floors and how they do not reflect evidence for a flood. Can you please address the following:
"[P]resent-day marine life is but an impoverished remnant of that which had originally been created and had existed before the Flood" (1996, 142). However, the actual pattern of extinction we see shows evidence to the contrary. Living genera (plural of genus)become decreasingly represented in fossils as one goes deeper in the geological column, until there are no recent genera in the Triassic, and only about 12 percent of recent genera have any fossil record. Extinct genera continue back to the Cambrian (Morton 1998a). This pattern exactly matches what one would expect from evolution. It contradicts a global flood, which should include modern fish more or less uniformly throughout the flood-deposited sediments.
What you said was:
First, fish can swim. they can survive under water for years and years.
Are you suggesting that no fish at all died during the flood, not even due to natural processes such as ageing? The quote I presented above refers to the bodies of fish that died at that time, and how they ought to be mixed with the bodies of other creatures such as trilobites, if the creatures were contemporary. Instead, what we see on the seafloor, as on land, is precise fossil sorting.
I think you have to assume that all dinosaur bones are buried very very deep to make the statement you did above concerning that. There isn't any real reason to make that statement otherwise. So that has to be called an assumption, a rough guess.
Radioisotope dating is not a rough guess. There are relative methods of dating the rock in which a fossil is found, and also absolute methods. The absolute methods include radioisotope dating, paleomagnetic dating (which I explained earlier), and thermo-luminescence dating (quartz exposure to heat). The relative dating methods can complement these in many ways. Can you explain how these methods are erroneous?
There's a guy in one of the western US states that makes a living digging up dinosaur bones of all sorts
Irrelevant. How is this evidence for creationism?
Rock just doesn't simply 'disappear' btw.
Technically they are eroded and deposited by wind or water. Same result.
Most dinosaur bones I've read about are not found in rock. They are found in dirt.
Cite an example I can look up then.
they are found after floods a lot of the time too, when a few feet of surface layer gets washed away.
See comments above about erosion.
I am making a point that things decompose, erode and corrode rather quickly in the sea.
Let me try to get this straight: are you telling me that it's impossible for marine fossils to have formed? How do you explain the millions of marine fossils found in sedimentary rocks then? How do you explain the existence of the entire Burgess Shale Formation? Do we close our eyes and wish it away? Did a band of renegade scientists plant the fake evidence there in the cover of darkness?
Well, assuming that ice cores are ONLY drilled from ice on land and NOT from glaciers, we won't argue about it, still doesn't matter. Ice is Ice whether on land or on sea. it floats.
It's been snowing in Greenland off and on for well over 40,000 years. The ice accumulated there is not floating around like an iceberg would do. And yes there are glaciers and yes they move, but at known rates. My sister-in-law is a glaciologist and she studies these things. She goes to Iceland a few times a year to take measurements and study the geological processes there. I assure you she does not think it's futile because ice floats and glaciers move.
from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_coreAn ice core is a core sample from the accumulation of snow and ice over many years that have re-crystallized and have trapped air bubbles from previous time periods. The composition of these ice cores, especially the presence of hydrogen and oxygen isotopes, provides a picture of the climate at the time.
Many materials can appear in an ice core. Layers can be measured in several ways to identify changes in composition. Small meteorites may be embedded in the ice. Volcanic eruptions leave identifiable ash layers. Dust in the core can be linked to increased desert area or wind speed.
Isotopic analysis of the ice in the core can be linked to temperature and global sea level variations. Analysis of the air contained in bubbles in the ice can reveal the palaeocomposition of the atmosphere, in particular CO2 variations. There are great problems relating the dating of the included bubbles to the dating of the ice, since the bubbles only slowly "close off" after the ice has been deposited. Nonetheless, recent work has tended to show that during deglaciations CO2 increases lags temperature increases by 600 +/- 400 years [9]. Beryllium 10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity which can be a proxy for solar strength (see proxy).
There may be an association between atmospheric nitrates in ice and solar activity. However, recently it was discovered that sunlight triggers chemical changes within top levels of firn which significantly alter the pore air composition. This raises levels of formaldehyde and NOx. Although the remaining levels of nitrates may indeed be indicators of solar activity, there is ongoing investigation of resulting and related effects of effects upon ice core data.[10][11]
Can you give me your reasons for disagreeing with the above, and why you reject the dating of a Greenland ice core to 40,000 years? Are the scientists just lying again?
I do not understand your hangup with parasites now. Is it very difficult to understand that these pests live in dead and decaying flesh and other organic matter?
It's just one example of feasibility that I picked to discuss. If the creatures living on the earth now are all related to the few that survived the flood, then all existing viruses, bacteria, parasites, and other microorganisms must have survived -- either as species, or some higher order in Russ' grand scheme of things. Some of these need specific host organisms to survive. So the humans and animals on the ark must have hosted them. Some of these cause disease and death. Yet all the creatures from the ark must have survived. I'm not talking about the organisms that live on corpses. You are presumably aware that there are many parasites that require a living organism in which to live, such as flukes and tapeworms?
if you cannot see the answers to the most basic things Linda, which I have given you AGAIN in this post... all of my explaining,
You haven't actually explained anything. And your refusal to engage with the fact that there is no global genetic bottleneck of all living things is a dodge.
Regarding your list at the end of your post. Ice floats -- so what? Fossils are dug up -- so what? They can be faked -- so what? None of these things has anything to do with disproving evolution. If you disagree with the ways that fossils, ice cores, and sea floor samples are dated then you need to explain how they are wrong. You also need to explain how the YEC model covers all the facts, including the feasibility of the flood (plenty more questions there; I can start asking them but I thought I'd give people a chance to engage with what I've already posted first), and where the geological evidence for it is.
It isn't just a matter of what you personally believe. If I lived in certain states in the US then there would be people on the school board trying to force science teachers to teach my daughter this pseudoscience and say that it is a viable alternative theory to old earth and evolution. That means the facts need to be accurate (which they are not -- see my post to Bex re:ambulocetus, and Humphrey's attempts at explaining the light from stars), and they need to explain the observable evidence at least as well as existing scientific theories. That means answering the questions I am posing here. I'm afraid remarks like "ice floats" don't go very far in that direction.
