Not a reasonable position - The fact of remains of land animals having been found, many smaller than humans, denies the point - We should expect human remains in the natural course of things... And they are found. However, along with that, one must consider that humans would be more adept at battling the flood - having a superior ability to get to higher ground, make rafts and boats, cling to flotsam, and etc... While certainly not perfectly true, one might suggest that many human deaths came from perishing long after other animals by way of starvation, or drowning when their 'craft' became waterlogged, succumbing to currents or mega-waves, and etc... What that does to the placement of their remains, later in the flood, is beyond my ability to fully consider.
If the Flood buried a multitude of people and distributed their bodies among the world’s sedimentary rocks, finding even one human fossil in such a vast area would be unlikely.
Again, a poor position. That other remains have been found supposes the very same for humans.
Underwater mudflows during the Flood would have ground human bones to powder.
Again, a poor position. That other remains have been found supposes the very same for humans.
Floodwaters receding off continents might have likewise pulverized them.
Again, a poor position. That other remains have been found supposes the very same for humans.
Catastrophic geological processes may have buried ancient continents in their entirety, virtually erasing all evidence of people.
It is more likely that the flood preserved cities - Human habitation tends to follow sea coasts and rivers - low lands... as the flood waters rose, such places would be quickly inundated, and barring initial flood damages, would tend to be below the raging currents that would eventually occur once the waters rose to a point where the waters were made free to gain speed and power. If the oceans are higher today than they were in times before the flood, then preserved cities will be found beneath the waves - And they are.
Whoever discovers a pre-Flood human bone or bone fragment might not identify it as such, since that finding would not fit evolutionary expectations.
Very true.
In all truth, my first impression of the article, was that it was a bit weak.
However, when I got to the last paragraph, where he asked:
“Where Are Evolution’s Fossils?
Dr. John Morris wrote in 1992:
If evolution is true, and humans have lived on Earth for three million years, many trillions have lived and died. Where are their fossils? This is the more vexing question.1
What have we learned since then? That not only are evolution’s human fossils still missing, but so is any other trace of their existence. Countless human bones should fill caves, crevices, and graveyards. Their ancient firepits and trash heaps should be found around every corner. Scientists have described a few extinct ape fossils and evidence of unfamiliar-looking humans, but their continued failure to find the human fossils expected from millions of years of evolution only intensifies this “more vexing question.””
THAT paragraph brought up a pregnant question, and I wonder if there is a valid answer to the question.