In any case land and sea creatures fossilized in close proximity is consistent with the flood epoch.
Considering the biblical flood epoch didnt exist It is far more consistent with the actual explanation.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
In any case land and sea creatures fossilized in close proximity is consistent with the flood epoch.
65 million years ago?? Please.
Considering the biblical flood epoch didnt exist It is far more consistent with the actual explanation.
65 million years? with soft dinosaur tissue and blood cells? thats a heck of a long shelf life
the actual explanation is the Noah epoch
Show a single instance of non-avian dinosaurs preserved with modern mammals, and we'll talk.In any case land and sea creatures fossilized in close proximity is consistent with the flood epoch.
We also see a high mix of dinosaur and mammals buried in the gobi dessert
Show a single instance of non-avian dinosaurs preserved with modern mammals, and we'll talk.
65 million years? with soft dinosaur tissue and blood cells? thats a heck of a long shelf life
Modern? well some animals have not changed... bees... spiders.. ants... and a horse is a horse of course of course...
And as you know most appear in the fossil record fully formed lacking history
(It's as if they were created. Imagine my surprise)
In any case land and sea creatures fossilized in close proximity is consistent with the flood epoch.
'fully formed" is a nonsensical term and horse evolution is very well understood. We can go over that if you like.Modern? well some animals have not changed... bees... spiders.. ants... and a horse is a horse of course of course...
And as you know most appear in the fossil record fully formed lacking history
(It's as if they were created. Imagine my surprise)
'fully formed" is a nonsensical term and horse evolution is very well understood. We can go over that if you like.
No, we know that there was no flood. Have you watched Aron Ra's series on that topic? You seem to have forgotten that ice floats.the actual explanation is the Noah epoch
Modern? well some animals have not changed... bees... spiders.. ants... and a horse is a horse of course of course...
And as you know most appear in the fossil record fully formed lacking history
(It's as if they were created. Imagine my surprise)
And that is a grossly simplified image. The known history has over fifty species, many of them going to a "dead end". Creationists love to quote mine the parts of articles that way that image is wrong. But it is wrong only because the history is much more complex than that implies, not because there is no history of horse evolution.
And that is a grossly simplified image. The known history has over fifty species, many of them going to a "dead end". Creationists love to quote mine the parts of articles that way that image is wrong. But it is wrong only because the history is much more complex than that implies, not because there is no history of horse evolution.
By all means, show us a tyrannosaurus fossil found with a horse. Or even modern bees, spiders or ants.Modern? well some animals have not changed... bees... spiders.. ants... and a horse is a horse of course of course...
And as you know most appear in the fossil record fully formed lacking history
(It's as if they were created. Imagine my surprise)
Something that's always bugged me about creationism is why must things always point towards Christianity? Even if you take the view that this is evidence of a great flood (which I don't) then why must this then indicate that Christianity is true?
Muslims have the same flood story. The ancient Greeks had a flood story, as did the Vikings and the Sumerians.
What makes their stories any less probable than the Christian version?