>This looks suspiciously like "heads you win, tails I lose".
Ok, OK, I was thinking that when I wrote it...Sorry :-(
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. 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. That's all that has been done that I am aware of that is
published (except for the Paleocurrent research, which is only partially
published). That could discourage some, but I am really excited. We took
on hard subjects, and spent long years, and in every case we have tried, we
have been successful with an interpretation within the interventionist
scenario. I have omitted the five years I spent on the Pollen in the Grand
canyon, the footprints in the Paluxey, and the foottracks at Delta (all of
which, except the latter were published), but those were not our
predictions or our proposals, and the results we obtained were what we
predicted there also.
>Exactly when will we be able to hear the explanation? How many generations
>must pass by? Isn't it time to admit that maybe NO ONE's imagination is up
>to the task of explaining the geological data within a global flood scenario?
Well, I am not a geophysicist, so I have no training to tackle that
problem, and am not interested in doing so. I wish someone else was. But
don't blame me because I don't have an explanation, since I am going to
have to depend on someone like you working within the interventionist
paradigm to come up with an answer. But it will not be an easy problem to
tackle, and we should not expect answers without many years of work.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu