"and aren't mammals supposed to have evolved after dinos ?........just like the birds found in dino stomachs !."

Wow, this sort of sentence shows you actually know nothing. I mean, seriously? This is BASIC stuff most 10 year olds know. This makes you look stupid pete, at least introduce some refinement to your arguments.


"btw, stu, do you know anywhere there is a complete column ?"

Nope, there isn't one. But that is irrelevant, at least in the manner you mean it (oh that there was - joy!). Thing is, if the flood only occurred a few thousand years ago you'd expect to find uninterrupted stratigrahic columns everywhere, but bits are missing, lots and lots of them. You talk about dramatic uplift but that implies tectonic activity, something you deny exists because it is an agent that affects evolution. It's difficult to know how to answer this, as without going through the fundamentals of geology any discussion is meaningless.


"I have written up some of the evidence against it HERE, but as to peer reviewed journals, run by evolutionary believers, even fully qualified scientists that don't toe the party line don't get published , though I have heard that occasionally some articles get through if the reviewers don't realise the Darwinist story is challenged in some area."

Utter, complete rubbish. So it's all a big conspiracy then? You give the people that study this, give their time freely and gladly in peer reviewing papers very little credit of you think they're all out to propagate some non-existent agenda. That's a total fantasy on your part, and a baseless accusation.


"lots of stuff called soft tissue has been found in dead animals that evolutionists say are millions of years old. if they were millions of years old, there would not be stuff that could decompose still there"

No! No! No! You arrogance is showing again pete. Firstly, don't presume that we have reached the sum of our knowledge, as we haven't by a massively long shot, whether by scientific enquiry or divine revelation. Secondly, the mechanisms of preservation are becoming understood because we're looking for them now. A hundred years ago we had no idea of the levels of preservation or how certain proteins and other organic molecules and markers survive the diagenetic process. Also, there's a lot more on this to come as I've seen some preliminary results and they are impressive to say the least, but they need to be tested and then go through peer review and so are under embargo (standard practice in science to make sure released research is as accurate as possible ).

I know several people involved in this field and they are finding some very interesting results and are changing the way we excavate our specimens. Exciting stuff!

So pete, you need to do what the rest of us do when reporting our research or commenting on other people's: collate your data, draw your conclusions, make your arguments and write it all up, get it peer reviewed and present it. If you're right about the flood, then you'll change numerous scientific disciplines at a stroke and if your data and analysis was sound, then that's great.

But you won't, will you?