From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Water Sorting
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 10:43:11 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Oct6.131208.23016@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <n0b4et@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>>Tag: Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>> 
>>>The fossil record (even as assembled by 19th-century
>>>Creationists, not to mention the much more extensive work
>>>that has been done since then) clearly shows that different
>>>forms of life appeared at different times. Change
>>>unquestionably occurred; the only question is how.
>> 
>>LT> "All it shows is that different forms of life appear in the
>>LT> fossil record at different _layers_! [P] As to the interpretation
>>LT> of that, evo's say its because of evo, but an equally if not more
>>LT> valid interpretation is that of hydrological sorting in the flood.
>> 
>>Alas, you haven't been paying attention. Just how did water sort
>>the fossils by their age?
>
>Hahaha, hahahaha. As the old saying goes, Circular Reasoning (TM)
>strikes again! You jest, no?
>
>--
>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889

 Oh, come on, Lionel, really. This is kinda boorish. I mean, here there
have been any number of posts in the past week or two on why hydrological
sorting is a Bad Idea, for reasons like...
 
 1) Known hydrodynamic principles (you know, the ones that let us build
hydroelectic dams, pollution-filtration systems, sewers, etc.) predict
an actual sorting nearly opposite to what is in fact observed in the
record,
 
 2) Known geological principles (you know, the ones that let us figure out
where mineral deposits are, that let us figure out what kind of rock to
base a skyscraper on, and so forth) are utterly unable to substantiate a
worldwide flood anyway, except by positing things like sedimentary deposition
rates *billions* (yes, *billions*) of times greater than anything currently
seen,

 3) We find actual footprints in layers that, according to the flood
"model," should have been miles under water,

 ...and so forth.
 
 And you come back with a line about saying that dating fossils by layer
is circular reasoning?
 One might almost suspect that you were avoiding issues. In fact, I so
assert. Lionel is avoiding these issues. You can easily prove me wrong,
Lionel; and if you do, I will offer a public and abject apology. The
way to prove me wrong is to respond to this post in a point-by-point
manner, giving a brif overview of why these above issues and points are
unfounded. I won't hold my breath.

 You didn't even understand his point. He was asking (as far as I can tell,
I don't want to put words in his mouth) why these 'hydrologically sorted'
fossils show signs of being different ages at different layers... by *many*
*different* dating methods, each of which is based on *unrelated*
principles. If you still, after having read t.o for this long, are unfamiliar
with the dating methods involved, and what they are based on, please ask and
I think we can accommodate you.

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: talk.origins