Cave animals show the flood didn't happen

[grmorton]

I would like any of the YECs on this board to please explain the distribution of cave animals found on three continents. These animals are living in holes eroded in carbonate sediment supposedly deposited by the global flood. Thus, during the flood, the animals couldn't have been living there. But somehow, a very strange group of cave animals is found on 3 continents.

[cite=Stephanie Pain, “Underground Australia,” New Scientists, Aug. 6, 2005, p. 32-33]“In the Pilbara, for instance, there are two species belonging to a primitive group of crustaceans called the Spelaeogriphacea. Then are only two other known species: one lives in cave on South Africa's Table Mountain and the other in caves in the Matto Grosso of western Brazil. Their strange distribution reflects the break-up and movement of continents over many geological ages. The ancestral spelaeogriphids were marine and widely distributed in the ancient Tethys sea. Some invaded fresh water in Gondwana and then they all went extinct - except for a few species that had found safety in the underworld before disaster overtook the rest. When Gondwana broke up and the southern continents drifted apart, these subterranean survivors were scattered around the globe.” [/quote]

Any of you young-earther/global flood advocates care to explain this one?

[OfficialPro]

I don't know why you think there's a problem or a "gotcha" here. Obviously these animals died after the flood.

If I were you I'd be careful about being dogmatic about WHEN exactly species went extinct. The whole phenomenon of "living fossils" (and stuff found to be alive that was THOUGHT extinct because of erroneous conclusions based on examination of the geologic column) kinda throws that whole thing in doubt.

Not every skeleton or organism becomes a fossil. Failure to find fossils of X species in a particular stratum doesn't mean much--other than failure of any carcasses of the particular type to fossilize. I wonder how many fossils of animals of the PRESENT era, in stratum laid down today, will be present for scientists to find thousands or millions of years from now.

These "just-so" stories are hilarious, I swear. These guys should write novels.

[grmorton]

I don't know why you think there's a problem or a "gotcha" here. Obviously these animals died after the flood.

If I were you I'd be careful about being dogmatic about WHEN exactly species went extinct. The whole phenomenon of "living fossils" (and stuff found to be alive that was THOUGHT extinct because of erroneous conclusions based on examination of the geologic column) kinda throws that whole thing in doubt.

Maybe you should learn to read. These animals are NOT extinct, they are living today.

Not every skeleton or organism becomes a fossil. Failure to find fossils of X species in a particular stratum doesn't mean much--other than failure of any carcasses of the particular type to fossilize. I wonder how many fossils of animals of the PRESENT era, in stratum laid down today, will be present for scientists to find thousands or millions of years from now.

Ahem, once again, your reading comprehension is shown lacking. I wasn't speaking of the lack of fossilization. THese are living animals. It is the DISTRIBUTION of the LIVING animals which reflects the past living arrangements of their ancestors. Please explain how the LIVING animals left the ark and decided to live in places which would exactly mimic continental drift.

These "just-so" stories are hilarious, I swear. These guys should write novels.

I too find things hilarious. I don't think I could make up a fictional character who shows more hilarious ignorance and lack of reading and thinking skills than what you have displayed here. This is what is wrong with YEC. You guys don't even understand a scientific paragraph and then you want to teach the world what science is all about.

[OfficialPro]

: Originally posted by OfficialPro

I don't know why you think there's a problem or a "gotcha" here. Obviously these animals died after the flood.

If I were you I'd be careful about being dogmatic about WHEN exactly species went extinct. The whole phenomenon of "living fossils" (and stuff found to be alive that was THOUGHT extinct because of erroneous conclusions based on examination of the geologic column) kinda throws that whole thing in doubt.

Maybe you should learn to read. These animals are NOT extinct, they are living today.

I didn't read it that closely. It was 10:00 at night, man. The part about them all going extinct except for a few species caught my sleepy eye--that's what I was talking about.

Not every skeleton or organism becomes a fossil. Failure to find fossils of X species in a particular stratum doesn't mean much--other than failure of any carcasses of the particular type to fossilize. I wonder how many fossils of animals of the PRESENT era, in stratum laid down today, will be present for scientists to find thousands or millions of years from now.

Ahem, once again, your reading comprehension is shown lacking. I wasn't speaking of the lack of fossilization. THese are living animals. It is the DISTRIBUTION of the LIVING animals which reflects the past living arrangements of their ancestors. Please explain how the LIVING animals left the ark and decided to live in places which would exactly mimic continental drift.

So they're living. So what? These are crustaceans, man. AND THEY LIVE IN WATER!!!!!! They wouldn't have needed to be on the ark. They would have "run" into the caves while the water levels decreased in the aftermath. Your argument fails on that point alone--THEY WEREN'T IN THE ARK. Only higher airbreathing creatures needed to be on the ark. Heck, even insects probably wouldn't have needed to be on the ark

:

These "just-so" stories are hilarious, I swear. These guys should write novels.

I too find things hilarious. I don't think I could make up a fictional character who shows more hilarious ignorance and lack of reading and thinking skills than what you have displayed here. This is what is wrong with YEC. You guys don't even understand a scientific paragraph and then you want to teach the world what science is all about.

Naw man, I was half asleep when I was reading it the first time. This is what is wrong with checking posts after 9:30 pm Pacific Time Now that I read it during the daytime I know exactly what it says. And you STILL don't have a "gotcha"!

[grmorton]

So they're living. So what? These are crustaceans, man. AND THEY LIVE IN WATER!!!!!! They wouldn't have needed to be on the ark. They would have "run" into the caves while the water levels decreased in the aftermath. Your argument fails on that point alone--THEY WEREN'T IN THE ARK. Only higher airbreathing creatures needed to be on the ark. Heck, even insects probably wouldn't have needed to be on the ark

Oh, there is a little thing about them being FRESHWATER crustaceans, who would die in the brackish water of the flood. That is 'so what'!

[OfficialPro]

Oh, there is a little thing about them being FRESHWATER crustaceans, who would die in the brackish water of the flood. That is 'so what'!

OK NOW I've got you!!!!! Whoever said the Flood was UNIFORMLY brackish???

[shunyadragon]

OK NOW I've got you!!!!! Whoever said the Flood was UNIFORMLY brackish???

physics

[grmorton]

OK NOW I've got you!!!!! Whoever said the Flood was UNIFORMLY brackish???

You are going to stir up 630 million cubic kilometers of sediment in the flood water, and with all that turbulence you are not going to mix the salt throughout the world's flood water? Go back to school and demand your money back.