Many creationists have tried to claim that the order of the fossils is due to hydrodynamic sorting, ecological zonation and the ability of an animal to flee from the rising waters or recolonization. Whitcomb and Morris claim that mammals are on top of the geologic column because they were smarter than other animals and were able, therefore, to flee from the rising flood waters more intelligently.1 This, of course is silly as even humans wouldn't be able to flee from the rising waters by running hundreds of miles (say from Houston to New Mexico where there are mountains) in order to avoid a worldwide inundation.

That being said, I think it will be appropriate to illustrate the craziness of this idea by examining a few of the mammals that Whitcomb and Morris say should have been able to flee from the rising flood waters. My favorite is the glyptodont. This heavily armoured, giant 'armadillo-type' animal would have sunk to the bottom. Here is his picture:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/glyptodont.jpg

[Sarcastic mode on] Obviously one can clearly see that this animal with the heavy bone armour is perfectly adapted to running and swimming at extreme speeds. [sarcastic mode off]

In David Tyler's recolonization model, this animal must swim from Ararat to South America--the only place where he is found. That is a silly idea.

The next speedy critter we need to consider is the giant sloth. They lived only in the New World. Sloths are not known for their speed across the ground. There is no reason to think that the giant sloth was exceptionally rapid either. Here is what he looked like.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/glyptodont.jpg

Those stubby back legs with the flat feet will not allow him to run very fast. Why isn't he found with the slow moving amphibians?

And once again, within recolonization, this creature, whose living modern representatives get very cold very easily, had to swim the Atlantic to get to the New World, the only place he was found as a fossil. Once again, rather silly.

And last but not least, the Dodo bird, who couldn't fly and was too stupid to figure out that he needed to flee from man. Why is he found only in the uppermost layers of the geologic column?

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dodo.jpg

It is patently absurd to believe that these animals could have fled from the rising waters and escaped burial. In both the classical flood model and the recolonizatoin model, this animal must have swum to the Pacific islands he lived on. This simply doesn't make sense.

It is really strange to me with all the catastrophism in the 2000 years after the flood, which is what David Tyler suggests is appropriate to account for all the 75,000 feet of sediment above the Ordovician, that there is no single specimen of a living mammalian species found as a fossil in rocks older than the Miocene. How were the mammals able to avoid burial and death by catastrophism which was so great that we would call it a global flood? David must have birds who can't fly, swim to Pacific Islands, Glyptodonts, who can't swim, must somehow make their way across the already formed Atlantic Ocean, and sloths who can't take the cold must swim cold waters to get to the New World.

Creationists who believe such things are burying their head in the sand.



References

1 Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961), p. 273-277.

Glenn, the "giant sloth" picture is the glyptodont again ... obviously a link error.

Originally posted by JonF

Glenn, the "giant sloth" picture is the glyptodont again ... obviously a link error.

Given the current state of my participation on this board, I am unable to edit that post. Thus all I can do is point the readers to the following picture of the sloth:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/giantsloth.jpg

Sorry for the mess up.

I always liked paleontology. Is the glyptodont a relative of the armadillo, or just some convergent evolution? I can't remember; I always was more interested in therapods when I was a child, as far as fossils go.

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the following is in jest:

Clearly, as the dodo lost his flight through a microevolutionary loss of information, so did the glyptodont and giant sloth after flying to South America.

*bump*

As the recolonisation model seems flavour of the month, I thought I'd bring to its proponent's attention this bunch of- unusually!- completely unanswered questions.

K

Originally posted by Gilgaron

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the following is in jest:

Clearly, as the dodo lost his flight through a microevolutionary loss of information, so did the glyptodont and giant sloth after flying to South America.

Gil! Might we have a spew warning next time?

Justin

Speaking of ecological zonation, various fossil assemblages demonstrate reasonably coherent ecosystems, given the imperfections of the fossil record. As one moves higher in the fossil record, these ecosystems grow to resemble modern ecosystems and gradually blend in with them.

Leaving aside the fact that there is zero possibility that modern ecosystems could be the result of single pairs of organisms from a few thousand years ago, a flood model which created all the fossils must explain the level of coordination between fossil ecosystems and modern ecosystems.

A post-flood recolonization model, on the other hand, must explain how so many multiple, intricate, long-succession ecosystems were able to develop in just a few thousand years.

In both cases, the situation would be further complicated by the kind of hyper-evolution the flood models require – evolution at that rate would probably impede the formation of stable ecosystems, either fossil or modern.

Even a mighty dull version of Ockham’s razor suggests that mainstream models are better.

-Neil

Originally posted by NeilUnreal

A post-flood recolonization model, on the other hand, must explain how so many multiple, intricate, long-succession ecosystems were able to develop in just a few thousand years.

In both cases, the situation would be further complicated by the kind of hyper-evolution the flood models require – evolution at that rate would probably impede the formation of stable ecosystems, either fossil or modern.

Even a mighty dull version of Ockham’s razor suggests that mainstream models are better.

-Neil

Since I started this thread I don't think there should be any objection to me posting to it from anyone in ownership of TW. I will raise this issue in the debate, but if one is to believe in recolonization, one must explain the Yellowstone fossil forests, which appear to be a sequence of in situ grown trees. Typical YEC explanations for that won't work. After all, the age of the Specimen Ridge forests is well into the more tranquil recolonization time.

The sloth travels at 0.068mph flat out so you can work out how long it took to get to Mesopotamia by the Bering land bridge.

Also how come sloths can run faster that velociraptor which only made it to the so-called Creataceuous? Or did did Noah shackle the v-raptors with a biodegradable shackle?

Originally posted by kuboes1831

The sloth travels at 0.068mph flat out so you can work out how long it took to get to Mesopotamia by the Bering land bridge.

Also how come sloths can run faster that velociraptor which only made it to the so-called Creataceuous? Or did did Noah shackle the v-raptors with a biodegradable shackle?

There's a little-known corollary of differential escape that states that no animal can run faster than its own eggs.

I like to cite the glyptodont vs. pterodactyl situation myself - glyptodonts were heavy, slow and lived on plains - pterodactyls were light, airborne and could live on cliffs or in trees - yet the glyptodonts are found higher than the pterodactyls.

Roy

Originally posted by rthearle

There's a little-known corollary of differential escape that states that no animal can run faster than its own eggs.

I like to cite the glyptodont vs. pterodactyl situation myself - glyptodonts were heavy, slow and lived on plains - pterodactyls were light, airborne and could live on cliffs or in trees - yet the glyptodonts are found higher than the pterodactyls.

Roy

I took a picture of a Glyptotherium Nov. 30, at the Museum of Natural History in New York. I will attach it here. One can see that these guys are STREAMLINED for fast running and swimming.

[attachment=1]

for more on this topic see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/flee.htm