Replies

See #10

That article's one of the weakest yet. It posits two contradictory excuses--first, that the sequence of fossils that we see represents where they lived; and second, that it represents the way they settled out from moving water. Well, which is it? Was the water moving fast enough to cause hydrologic sorting, or was it moving slow enough to kill animals in place?

And then it proposes that the animals found in higher layers were better able to escape; "more mobile and faster organisms would tend to seek higher ground...This would tend to separate men from trilobites, amphibians, and dinosaurs." There are plenty of large, slow mammals--how come we don't find mastodon bones mixed in with the dinosaurs? How come none of the smaller, presumably faster dinosaurs managed to get to higher ground along with the mammals?

Was the water moving fast enough to cause hydrologic sorting, or was it moving slow enough to kill animals in place?

To flood the entire Earth to the depth of Mt Everest would require 4,513,117,056 cubic kilometers of water, actually slightly more as the surface area goes up as the diameter increases, but work with me here. That is 1,305.87 cubic kilometers of water per second for 40 days. For comparison Niagara falls is .000,000,002.832 cubic kilometers of water per second. Then you have to pump all that water off the planet in a similar amount of time. Suffice to say that the water was moving quickly.

Now a better question. Given that wooden boats loose strength with size due to the limits of the material. How does a very large, heavily loaded, wooden boat stay afloat on such a turbulent sea?