Brainache said:
Putting together all of his observations, Dr Brand thus came to the conclusion that the configurations and characteristics of the animals trackways made on the submerged sand surfaces most closely resembled the fossilized quadruped trackways of the Coconino Sandstone. Indeed, when the locomotion behaviour of the living amphibians is taken into account, the fossilized trackways can be interpreted as implying that the animals must have been entirely under water (not swimming at the surface) and moving upslope (against the current) in an attempt to get out of the water. This interpretation fits with the concept of a global Flood, which overwhelmed even four-footed reptiles and amphibians that normally spend most of their time in the water.
Even if it is true that these fossilised footprints were formed underwater, why would that be evidence for a global flood 4,000 years ago?
Such tracks do not form under-water... Archimede principle; the creature's apparent weight would not have been enough to imprint the ground.
And, if it was fleeing for it's life, wouldn't it be swimming? It's so much faster and easier (especially for an amphibian) a mean of locomotion when in the water, and it allows you to stay at the surface.
Also, isn't the Grand Canyon itself supposed to have been forming during the flood? What is the scenario here? A flood enough to rip rocks apart, but not enough to wash away some footprints?
The text indicates that water was released as rainfall from the atmosphere, which apparently may not have happened before prior to that moment,
So... No rains? Ever?
How did the plant grow?
It's also likely that all the water would have evaporated living animals with nothing to drink...
and that "the fountains of the deep" were released.
It was not all in any canopy.
What are these funtains you speak of? I mean, outside of the regular cosmology of the Middle-Eastern people of the time?
And any canopy could vary greatly in thickness and density per pressure.
What? No!
The pressure under the canopy would equilibrate itself over time!
If you had any significant different pressure between two bodies of atmosphere, you'd end up with tornado-level winds until the two bodies get close enough!
It's academic at best anyway. Believers do not know. Deniers do not know.
To claim you know how it all was not is as unrealistic as me claiming I know how it was.
Yeah... That's BS.
There are thousands of way the whole story conflict with what we know of geology, physic, botany, geography, biology, genetic, engineering and such...
On the other hand, for it to 'work' you have not only to add many elements to the narrative that are not in the original text (aka, make s*** up) as well as just give the whole story a bunch of passes 'there was a giant water canopy that contradict everything we know of planetary formation and hanged on nobody knows what'; 'the pressure differential didn't kill people instantatly because... it didn't'; 'there were fewer only one species per animal kind and they evolve at incredible speed and everybody carried extra-chromosomes back then, just in case'; 'pathogenic microbes appeared later'.
Honestly, what about you drop the pretense of scientific explanations? I don't understand it and I realize it is impossible by all scientific understanding but, eh, I believe it and God can break the laws of Nature as he sees fit.
It's not only more honest, it also can not be attacked and, he, as the added advantage that you don't have to make stuff up to add to the Bible...
