Thanks, I'm not trying to find the "middle ground" between the two views, I honestly am not comfortable with the current flood model and honestly agree with some of the conclusions of evolutionists despite evolution being an incorrect theory.
Right, I wouldn't disagree with someone just because I don't agree with their entire worldview. I just try to distinguish between what is true and not true.
Concerning the current flood model, I'm sure there are many unexplained things and it needs some work, but could you check out the other topic I posted and let me know what you think of the evidence for the Tapeats to Kaibab being deposited by the flood? Also, would you have a problem with that based on different types of environments you may see in the layers?
I believe the geologic column is an accurate reflection of general conditions.
Why though? I don't doubt that maybe you can see particular environments, but the general order of the whole model is a "mental abstraction" based on the assumption that the anti-Scriptural history (cells to people) is true.
If an evolutionist looked at today's fossils in 1000 years time he would conclude that 100 million years ago the world was filled with dry grassland mammals with limited jungles. Some of the little ecosystems and niches where reptiles dominate (Komodo) he would probably allocate to the Mesozoic era instead of the Cenozoic era because of his commitment to a worldwide consistent geologic column, and would therefore miss the obvious, that certain types proliferate but the rarer types often survive in an ecological niche, ready to dominate again if conditions change.
Okay, right, so then you agree that the general order is arbitrary? That the strata either goes up or down on the column depending on the fossils they find in it.
By the "beginning of creation - I mean about the time of Adam, at creation or soon afterwards.
I was just wondering if you had them dieing before Adam sinned and brought death into existence.
I believe in micro-evolution, sauropods evolved from smaller sauropods. They were on the ark and dominated when the dry post-flood conditions became wetter.
I believe animals can change too, but I thought you were having "modern" looking reptiles or something change into sauropods, but I have no problem with sauropods changing into bigger sauropods.
I like the idea that large reptiles are very recent, this would help to disprove evolution,
One example of this is:
In 1925, this creature washed up on Moore's Beach in California:
Santa Cruz Judge W. R. Springer saw the creature and felt certain that it was a monster from a past age, "perhaps millions of years old"
, and he described it as having a long neck.
Many reputable people examined and described the creature, but some have argued that it was just a whale and that the neck somehow got stretched out in the ocean.
E. L. Wallace of Santa Cruz (twice president of the Natural History Society of British Columbia) examined the creature and disagreed with the whale interpretation. He said:"My examination of the monster was quite thorough. I felt in its mouth and found it had no teeth. Its head is large and its neck fully twenty feet long. The body is weak and the tail is only three feet in length from the end of the backbone. These facts do away with the whale theory, as the backbone of a whale is far larger than any bone in this animal. Again its tail is too weak for an animal of the deep and does away with that last version.
With a bill like it possesses, it must have lived on herbage and undoubtedly inhabited a swamp. I would call it a type of plesiosaurus."
Randall A. Reinstedt, author of Shipwrecks and Sea Monsters
, reported:"While such identifications were being printed in several bay area newspapers, the Santa Cruz Sentinel published an account of a "terrific battle" between a dozen or more sea lions and a monster fish that had been observed (near Santa Cruz's Houghton Beach - a few days before the Moore's Beach monster was discovered) by a Mr. E. J. Lear. As stated by Mr. Lear:
'I was driving a team toward Capitola (a neighboring Santa Cruz community) and suddenly I was attracted by some young sea lions not far out. They were lined up and several large lions were swimming back and forth in front of them. Much farther out I saw the water being churned to foam and thrown high up in the air, and then all of a sudden a big form shot into the air. It was shiny and I took it for a big fish. A dozen or more sea lions were battling it, and every once in a while all would raise out of the water. It looked to me as though all the sea lions were attacking it beneath as the monster came out of the water several times. In telling (of) the battle of that night I estimated its length at 30 feet.
The battle continued as long as I could see it from the road. I was driving toward Capitola with a load of sand. I have not seen the monster on the beach, but possibly it may have been that which I saw.'"
magazine, in their article about this creature, reported:"During the 1930's and 40's such creatures were spotted many times by fishermen of Monterey's Sardine Fleet, with one account stating that it was witnessed by one boat's entire crew of 12 men. ... One such report described the creature as surfacing near a fishing boat and staring at the crew with 'large baleful eyes from a rounded head that topped a long slender neck that stuck out of the water a distance of eight or more feet.'"
So, I think it was a marine reptile.
 Randall A. Reinstedt, Shipwrecks and Sea Monsters of California's Central Coast, (June 1975), p. 160.
 William C. Roberts, "California's Nessie," Skin Diver, (Nov. 1989).
 Ref. 1, p. 161-162.
but what is needed is carboniferous human and mammal fossils to give a real death-blow to evolution.
In a 1940 Scientific American
article written by Albert Ingalls, he discussed fossil human footprints found in Carboniferous rocks.
The footprints were found in Berea, Kentucky. W. G. Burroughs was the man who originally studied the tracks. He began his study of the tracks in 1930. He was a geologist who founded the geology department and taught at Berea college. There is now a small museum named after him in the college.
Upon suggestion and discussion with Dr. Frank Thone (Science Service, an organization for the popularization of science associated with the Smithsonian) Burroughs gave the tracks the latin name "Phenanthropus mirabilis,"
which means "looks human; remarkable."
In the Scientific American
article, four photos are shown. When looking at them, it instantly becomes obvious that these pictures are of carved human footprints and you wonder what on earth Burroughs and Thone were thinking when they named them Phenanthropus mirabilis
The fact that these pictures appear in the article discussing the human footprints, gives you the impression that these are the humans footprints being described, but they're not. The article says:"On sites reaching from Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westward toward the Rocky Mountains, prints similar to those shown above, and from 5 to 10 inches long, have from time to time been found on the surface of exposed rocks, and more and more keep turning up as the years go by."
 (emphasis mine)
The article states that ethnologist David I. Bushnell of the Smithsonian Institution, "examined a number of them."
The article says:"He [Bushnell] states that every one of them is unquestionably a carving made by the Indians. As they are always found near water, he suggests that the human foot was a symbol which some ancient Indian people associated with a watering place."
Ian Juby and David Willis went to the college in Berea to investigate the tracks. They found a copy of the Scientific American
article in Burroughs archives, complete with his comments on the bottom of the page.
Burroughs says that Bushnell never examined the Ky. fossil tracks or the ones in the article. So, here we see him making a distinction between the photos and the Ky. fossil tracks he examined, but he did seem to recognize the tracks pictured in the article.
David Willis obtained a Dr. Gilmore's correspondence from the Smithsonian. In his correspondence with Gilmore, Burrough's sent a photograph of what he called "Indian carvings"
he had examined about 30 miles away from the Berea track site. It would appear that somehow the photos that wound up in the Scientific American
article were of the "Indian carvings" found some 30 miles from the fossil human footprints, which Burroughs had also visited at one point and had determined were Indian carvings (petroglyphs) not tracks.
A letter to Borroughs from Waldemar Kaempffert, Science Editor of the New York Times
, read "Dear Sir: The footprints to which you refer in your letter of recent date are probably not human in origin. There is not the slightest fossil evidence that Man was known in this country back of the last Ice Age. Faithfully yours, (signature of Kaempffert)."
(dated January 27, 1938. Burroughs noted he wrote back on January 31, 1938)
Burrough's response was probably the only time he wrote so emphatically: "They are P O S I T I V E L Y human footprints - brought to view thru erosion of millions of years."
Burroughs invited Kaempffert to come see the tracks for himself, but it is unknown whether Kaempffert ever took him up on the offer.
The tracks were found in a ledge of rock that was part of the Pottsville formation sandstone. This is one of the original photos of the site from Dr. Burrough's archives:http://i44.tinypic.com/1zptlb4.jpg
The toes are oddly placed in these footprints. This is caused by the person habitually running barefoot. In fact, one person who had visited the tracks with Dr. Burroughs had placed his feet within the tracks and noted the remarkable match:"My own feet as you will recall, fitted in the tracks perfectly, even to the arches, the only exception being the wider toe spread in the track. During my years residence and travels in Far Eastern Oriental countries, I was a very close observer of the natives, their habits and customs. the foot tracks you discovered could well be those of barefoot natives of remote villages and jungle settlements or those of aboriginal tribes with whom I came in frequent contact, so near do they approach the formation of these prehistoric 'tracks'. Most cordially yours, A. Merle Hooper"
(Private correspondence to Burroughs from A. Merle Hooper, October 18, 1938)
Both David Willis and Ian Juby obtained wax castings of the Berea tracks from the Berea college museum. Here's a picture of a wax casting:http://i43.tinypic.com/2mmuxkx.jpg
There is displaced mud surrounding the prints. Burroughs pointed this out repeatedly in his correspondence. Burroughs and others who examined the tracks also pointed out that the grains of sand in the sandstone were more compacted under the tracks, and this compaction was visible under a magnifying glass. One of those persons was an artist and a sculptor by the name of Frank Loug (sp? The signature is difficult to read). Obviously Burroughs was seeking Loug's opinion as to whether these were carved tracks or not. Loug made an interesting observation to which he wrote in an undated, signed letter (transcribed exactly as written, spelling mistakes are in the original):"It is my opinion as artist and sculptor and from careful examination with magnifying glass, the impressions in the stone at [the Finnell farm] was made by imprint pressure in the substance before this hardened into stone. There is no logical, artistic argument to sustain an opinion that those marks are carved, chiseled, or made by hand. In the first place the prints are scattered aimlessly over the rock with no apparrent design; secondly there are no tool marks visible; thirdly the prints so closely resemble those made by human feet in a soft substance that a manual production so faithful could be, not only, almost beyond human skill, but is inconceivable since an artistic motive for such work would be lacking.
I can testify that the sand grains within the tracks are in closer combination than those on the rest of the surface of the stone. They have many appearances of having been compressed by a weight pressure, as the stone surface bulges upwards and outward around the tracks. Then our track, half of which is visible on the surface of the stone, the other half concealed beneath the partly cracked away, overlying layer of newer stone would seem to disprove any argument that these marks were around. All of the marks present an appearance singularly like that of human tracks."
Loug brings up a significant point about a particular track which became exposed over time, of which the heal is only visible in this early photo:
This particular track is significant in that it was only exposed after Burroughs had started his research, and several eye witnesses signed a testimony documenting how this track became exposed after the overlying layer had eroded away. The letter reads:"We, the undersigned, herewith go on record that we saw the following on the sandstone rock which bears the fossil tracks on the farm of Mr. O. Finnell, Rockcastle County, Ky.. At the end of the rock outcrop where one footprint is partially covered by Pottsville sandstone solid and in place, the Pottsville sand grains near this partially exposed track did not show foot-prints in the rock, until within the last few weeks. During these last few weeks sand grains have been gradually worn away due to people having walked on the rock and brushed the rock off, and rain water having washed over the rock, until now there are several imprints of toes and the front parts of the feet exposed to view. ....This is one of several additional proofs that the tracks are real tracks, such proofs being the uproll of the sandstone adjacent to each track where the sand was pushed upward by the pressure of the creature's foot, the closer texture of the sand within than outside the tracks due to pressure of the feet, the fact that two tracks are distinctly seen to pass beneath solid Pottsville sandstone in situ.
Yours very truly, signed, W.G. Burroughs, M.R. Burroughs, G. Pruitte Sentt(?), Mark H. Clark, W. A. Finnell.
June 28, 1939"
This is why the footprint count at the track site varies in the reports. Originally it was ten tracks, then eleven, then twelve. It's because other footprints were being exposed over time. The tracks are clearly not carvings.
Several of the tracks were in right-left pattern, enabling identification of the track maker as bipedal (walking on two legs).
Here's a picture of Ian Juby at the site today:http://i40.tinypic.com/spuctd.jpg
Glen Kuban and Talk.Origins have not had a chance to visit the archives at the college in Berea and presumably do not know that there is compelling evidence for these specific tracks being genuine and not carved. So, they conclude that they are not genuine and show the Indian carvings from the Scientific American
 Albert G. Ingalls, "The Carboniferous Mystery," Scientific American 162
 Ian Juby, "Special report #1: The strange fossil footprints of Berea, Kentucky," Ian's Creation Blog & Newsletters
, (Feb. 18, 2012); http://ianjuby.org/newsletter/?p=525
 Glen J. Kuban, "Alleged Human Tracks in Carboniferous Rocks of Kentucky," Paleo.cc
, (June 2005); http://paleo.cc/paluxy/berea-ky.htm
 "Berea, Kentucky Carboniferous 'Footprints'" TalkOrigins.org
6000 years is a lot longer than 1 year, yes I believe that ecological niches are rapidly filled. Imagine if kangaroo populations kept increasing until there was little vegetation left in southern Australia. They couldn't suddenly hop 2000 km to the jungles of the north and so huge populations were about to die off because there were no predators. Animals start dying, and some desperate kangaroos start nibbling on the carcasses. Some of them do not survive the meat, but because of variation a few had the stomach acids strong enough to handle meat. These scavenging kangaroos start to proliferate and after a few generations are more suited to meat eating because of natural selection and yet start to hunt because kangaroo populations have nearly died off and vegetation is starting to take a foothold again. these scavengers start picking on the small and helpless of the kangaroos but the scavengers with stronger shorter hindlegs do better because of acceleration. The ones with sharper teeth do better. As you have shown in the human skeletons, meat-eaters have stronger jaws, these meat eating kangaroos would have stronger jaws. They breed at probably 3 years old and so can micro-evolve rapidly. I see no restrictions on a fully micro-evolved Tasmanian Tiger developing from a kangaroo in less than 600 years over 200 generations.
That sounds possible. The thylacine seems like it's part of the canine kind though. It seems more similar to canines, but you may be right.
http://www.wired.com...al-family-tree/ Look at research done on what is actually post-flood Australian marsupial populations:
This South American opossum had a genetic deviation of a certain type. ALL Australian marsupials have the same genetic deviation, which is a normal hereditary occurrence that all your descendents will retain the same genetic deviation that you have. This is not showing any sort of evolutionary improvement in the genome sequence , this study merely showed a common ancestor for Australian marsupials, indicating rapid micro-evolution of post-flood species.
Are you saying all of the marsupials had a common ancestor or am I misunderstanding you? You have placental moles and marsupial moles. It's more likely that they are the same kind of animal. I imagine that some animals went to Australia after the flood and for some reason (e.g., environmental pressures), they became marsupial varieties or maybe some already existed. I just don't think all of the marsupial creatures can be related. They have a marsupial mouse and saber-toothed "tiger". If those kind of changes are possible, we should have historical records describing such large-scale transformations.