Again, my ignorance is showing, but was the higher level due to having no ice caps, or perhaps shallower ocean basins which deepened with rift activity? or was it just relative to the height of the land masses? Or all that together? I suppose “higher” requires a fixed reference point, and nothing is really fixed that is easily measured, making higher a relative term.
How did Noah survive after the flood? He would surely have had scurvy but had to start farming in saline muck.
1 Like
Just for context, here is the seaway that covered North American during the Cretaceous:
Now, where on that map could plants and animals have survived??? The mind boggles.
4 Likes
There are times I just shake my head.
Why would the animals not just live on the tracts that were high and dry?
Speaking of which, why are many dinosaur species distinct between Laramidia and Appalachia?.
5 Likes
If those fossils are in completely unsorted deposits, of types that do not decay (all-calcium carbonate, and some of them are very fragile, then they cannot have been transported.
There were none. Late Ordovician is the timeframe for the absolute earliest terrestrial plants and animals.
1 Like
All of those. The level is generally defined relative to a global average of where is now sea level.
I’m saying the fossil record does not testify of organisms evolving into existence, but of their catastrophic demise, suddenly buried alive under tons of ocean sediments.
From earlier – this was too complex to understand I guess:
This refutes the YEC argument about the Kaibab uplift and the Grand Canyon in 11 seconds:
And this:
1 Like
Noah and his family would have been suffering from scurvy eventually. Nobody knew about vitamin c back then. They certainly didn’t know that it didn’t retain its potency for very long. Vitamin c limited the length of sea voyages in later ages. So this family, suffering from scurvy, would have had to scramble down the mountain, carrying farming tools, knives, food prep equipment, fresh water and food. (I hope they thought to pack seeds. God didn’t bother to remind them.) All the animals are wild, but God still commands that some should be sacrificed! Never mind that untold millions of animals have been wiped out. They desperately need to set up a shelter and find a source of fresh water! And now they must farm in saline muck filled with bloated animal carcasses. Good luck! I’d rather die in the flood.
Why would getting buried under tons of ocean sediments rule out evolution?
3 Likes
“Whale bones in sea sediments are completely consumed in just a few years in “whale falls” studies:”
The article doesn’t actually say that whale bones are completely consumed in all circumstances
The OP seems to hold an impression that because some whale skeletons aren’t preserved, that this means that whale fossils would therefore never form under any condition observed anywhere on earth at any time in the current age. But the cited source suggests no such thing.
4 Likes
What makes me chuckle is that @donpartain throws out radiometric dating because scientists dare to assume that physical laws are the same through time. At the same time, @donpartain sees nothing wrong with assuming whale bones were consumed in the past just as they are now.
6 Likes
Another double standard is the idea that the fossil record is segregated because faster animals were able to flee flood waters (tsunami’s?), while maintaining they would have trouble escaping sea ingress of a few meters per year. “Oh, dry land is five feet away, what to do? WHAT TO DO?”
7 Likes
Ron…you are confused. It’s not the Flood model, but the evolution model, that says sea ingress was just a few meters per year.
And this blistering rate of sea level rise is supposed to have picked up, transported, and deposited–across 75% of North America–3 million cubic kilometers of mostly ocean sediments in the Sauk transgression! Go figure.
The triceritops tusk found in the United States was dug up from a depth of barely a metre.
I’m not convinced it’s as simple massive depth.
Also, the fossil was damp when it was dug up.
This is the very specimen that contains tissue fibres and created a storm among world scientists a decade or so ago.
How does a 65 million year old fossil contain tissue that can be stretched and also proteins?
Read it again, it is you who are confused. Your flood model would rapidly crash over everything and make a jumbled mess, breaking and mixing everything together. Of course, that is not what we see because that is not what happened. In contrast, the fossil record and geology accords nicely with the formation of the interior seaway.
Nobody says this. This is not the geological record. Quit bearing false witness.
5 Likes
I don’t deny physical laws “are the same through time,” but don’t believe present-day rates of continental drift have always been the same through time.
What I’ve pointed out about radiometric dating is that it does not qualify as empirical science, since it is impossible (unless you have a time machine–and a lot of time to kill) to test and observe what happens to the decay rate over 4.6 billion years. “Empirical”–meaning, “experiential”–science requires direct testing and observation of test results (in addition to such testing being repeatable).
So, radiometric dating–with necessary assumptions–falls, instead, under the category of historical science.
All science is empirical. Historical science (which includes parts of physics, astronomy, geology, and biology, among others) is a subset of empirical science. Empirical science requires that models be tested by comparison with objective, physical observations. It does not require that the events being studied be happening right now – I don’t know where you got the idea that it does.
In reality, in fact, all science deals with phenomena that have already occurred and of which we have only indirect traces. That’s true whether we’re studying light from stars billions of years old or a reaction happening in the lab.
9 Likes
Do you know why isotopes decay at all? In the empirical here and right now, what is basis for radioactive decay? As you agree that physical laws are the same through time, how did decay rates change?
2 Likes
And then there is the Kaibab uplift and the Hawaiian island chain.
1 Like