[rjsimmon]

This is a Meta-article that contains no site-specific scientific data or research whatsoever and is produced by a member of an obscure, unrecognized, non-scientific internet group attempting to pass off his agenda as scholarly.

What? Are you intentionally being obtuse or simply having a knee-jerk reaction to something that challenges your biased opinion?

References

1. Schieber, J., Southard, J. and Thaisen, K., Accretion of mudstone beds from migrating floccule ripples, Science 318(5857):1760–1763, 2007.

2. Macquaker, J.H.S. and Bohacs, K.M., On the accumulation of mud, Science 318(5857):1734–1735, 2007.

3. As waters clear, scientists seek to end a muddy debate, Physorg.com, 13 December 2007; .

4. Details of the research is posted at . The page links to videos that show the experiments and resulting deposits, which are posted on YouTube: Part 1 ; Part 2 ; Part 3 .

5. Hayward, A., Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies, Triangle, London, pp. 123–125, 1985.

6. Wonderly, D.E., Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young- Earth Creationist Writings, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, Hatfield, PA, 1987; .

7. Wonderly, ref. 6, pp. 39–40.

8. Wonderly, ref. 6, p. 41.

9. Macquaker and Bohacs, ref. 2. p. 1735.

[xcamel]

No, I'm pointing out a false premise, extracted from common knowledge, for creationist Internet spamming purposes.