>A prediction of what you would see in
>a single global flood would be all types of organisms jumbled together. That
>is most emphatically NOT what you see. We can discuss this if you wish, and
>I can give concrete examples from the paleontological literature which show
>that you're absolutely wrong. can in no way support a young earth or
>a single global flood.
You have couched your words carefully when you say "A prediction..." because
you are aware that there are other possibilities, and you have erected a
straw man. Nobody who knows anything about geology would suggest such a
model was a useful concept. It is trivial to develop another model or bunch
of models that do not have this jumbled together condition. Your effort
reminds me of a statement from the leading biology text of our day I have
quoted on previous occasions, another straw man:
"If the kinds of animals and plants were not related by evolutionary
descent, their characteristics would be present in a confused, random
pattern, and no such hierarchy of forms could be established."
Nobody who knows anything about biology would suggest such a model was a
useful concept. Since I am unaware of any model by a creationist that posits
either of these conditions, I can only assume that they are equally straw
men, models posited in order to make them easy to confute.