Yep. A two inch slab of rock with shoeprints and a trilobite in it. The thing was apparently killed when whoever was wearing the shoe stepped on it. The back of the heel was even worn down, like most shoes today that are worn for any length of time.

1of2:

I guess I should start refering to you as 1of2 or something like that, to distinguish from The First One. Oddly enough, no source is given for the Iridium layers claim. I say oddly, because he references scientific papers throughout the book. And yes, that includes some Creation Science papers, but it also includes "Geology", "Nature", "Science", "Science and Arts", "Science Newsletter", "Anthropological Institute Journal", et al. Again, it's titled "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood", by Walt Brown. If you get it, please tell me if it's newer than sixth edition. That's what I have, and it's three or four years old.

And as for liquefication, it would be more of a quasi-fluid, as it would have to be composed mostly of sediment (something like quicksand), so I doubt many people have much experience with it. As I said, bones of various animals were buried in a liquefication experiment, with the result being that the bones sorted into the same order as fossils throughout the world, but size didn't matter.

------------------
"I told you. You're dead. This is the afterlife. And I'm God."
--Q to Picard, "Tapestry".

And you know what? I completely agree with the first scientific argument, but I can't refute the evidence of the second, which as left me utterly, thoroughly, and totally confused.

I think I'm gonna go lie down now.

------------------
"I told you. You're dead. This is the afterlife. And I'm God."
--Q to Picard, "Tapestry".

"How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The
water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter."

OK, here it assumes that the Earth had actually been around billions of years before the flood, which can be quite
easily disprooven. But that's for another thread. If the Earth had been around for around 1500 years before the
flood, the water would have remained contained. You also have to assume that the Earth was created by an intelligent
designer, who placed the water under the rock.

"Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would
be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would
have been poached."

Not if you account for the pressure. It would have shot the water so high into the stratosphere that it would have
frozen (which also accounts for frozen mammoths and such). Water from above the atmosphere? I think they're
getting their theories confused.

"Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly
sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would beshot
thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with
the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen."

Try the floor of the Atlantic. They apparently don't know the general theory, which is that a crack appeared for some
reason in the shell, and the pressure forced the water out. The force of the water escaping spread the crack around the
globe, at somewhere around three miles per second. This also explains the origin of the Atlantic, as the creation of the
ridge would have pushed the continental plates apart. The water would have shot miles into the sky, then fallen as
rain or ice.

"Why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as
much as the Appalachians during the Flood?"

They weren't eroded at all. They were created by the flood, or, more specifically, by the plates sliding around when
the Mid-Atlantic ridge was created. The impact was greatest on the west side of the Americas, so that's where all the
big mountain ranges are.

"Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years..."

Only if you make liberal assumptions about how old certain specimines are.

"How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution?"

As I said, liquefication. And as for the evolutionary sequence, I'd say that if it was any other way, you'd still say it was in evolutionary sequence. In other words, if birds were below dinos (as some actually are), you'd probably say that dinosaurs evolved from birds!

Nearly all the rest can be explained by liquefication.

>Only if you make liberal assumptions about how old certain specimines are.

Wrong. Tree rings are easily the most verifiable records of history, especially climactic history. Trees add 1 ring sequence (light and dark) in a year. The rings vary in size due to climactic conditions, usually, water supplies. You can tell how old a tree was by counting its rings. You can tell WHEN a tree was alive by comparing its rings to the rings of other trees whose lifetimes you know. For instance, say you have a bristlecone pine that has lived for 1000 years (many have, it's believed to be the longest-living plant in the world). You look at it and note 1000 rings.. the first 20 or so of which are very narrow due to an extended drought at the time.
Then you find a nearby, long-dead tree. You check its rings. You notice that the spacing of the rings is the same, except that the 20-year drought period is only halfway through the life of the tree. Conclusion: This tree was halfway through its life when the drought struck, therefore it is another 500 years older than the living tree.
Through continuous regression in this manner, using only trees and fossils of trees found in the same area, we can find, and have found, complete tree-ring records at least as far back as 10,000 years.
Without a SINGLE "liberal assumption."

"Water shot high into the air would freeze"
Well in that case, it would have SNOWED for forty days and forty nights.

Only that water that got thrown into the stratosphere would be turned to ice or snow, and it would only stay frozen in the upper latitudes. In the lower latitudes, it would melt on the way down. (All assuming you're in the northern hemisphere.) For all we know, it did snow for 40 days and nights in the polar regions, and that's what formed the ice caps! : )