Would sharks and T Rex buried together lean toward the flood?

whirlingmerc said:

Hell Creek rock formation in Montana has both shark and T Rex fossils.
Seems to lean toward rather than against the Noah epic.

Data reported in the Journal of Paleontology pp1-19, 21 Jan 2019

What say you?

Click to expand...

Wandering Monk said:

View attachment 30071 View attachment 30072 View attachment 30073 View attachment 30074 View attachment 30075 View attachment 30071 View attachment 30072 View attachment 30073 View attachment 30074 View attachment 30075 View attachment 30071 View attachment 30072 View attachment 30073 View attachment 30074 View attachment 30075

Click to expand...

tas8831 said:

I say demonstrate that evolution requires morphological change only.

I say explain why there are no TRex fossils in strata containing modern animals or plants.

I say - you can't.

Click to expand...

Nowhere Man said:

New Prehistoric Shark Species Discovered Alongside Sue the T. Rex | Science | Smithsonian

"And now , you know the rest of the story".

Click to expand...

tas8831 said:

Ah, so a non-scientist creationist misinterpreted/misrepresented a scientific article, got it.

This happens when they do their tried and true (i.e., false) methods of looking for 'gotchas!' - either relying on professional or other creationists to tell the truth on their websites/twitter/etc., or doing keyword searches and just running with the results.

Poor fools..

Click to expand...

whirlingmerc said:

In any case land and sea creatures fossilized in close proximity is consistent with the flood epoch.

Click to expand...

We also see a high mix of dinosaur and mammals buried in the gobi dessert

Click to expand...

whirlingmerc said:

65 million years? with soft dinosaur tissue and blood cells? thats a heck of a long shelf life

Click to expand...

whirlingmerc said:

the actual explanation is the Noah epoch

Click to expand...

whirlingmerc said:

Modern? well some animals have not changed... bees... spiders.. ants... and a horse is a horse of course of course...

Click to expand...

And as you know most appear in the fossil record fully formed lacking history
(It's as if they were created. Imagine my surprise)

Click to expand...

Audie said:

Whirrr is not much for actual engagement on the topics
he brings up.

Click to expand...

Pollen is a good one to ask about. Pollen is very
identifiable by species, goes everywhere and is all but
indestructible
Why no pollen of any sort in the Cambrian?
No grass pollen before the Cretaceous?

Click to expand...

Hockeycowboy said:

Yes, I just read that article Friday.
Interesting, eh?

As more and more evidence is found, it will become more and more clear.

Click to expand...

tas8831 said:

That creationists misinterpret/misrepresent actual science to prop up their beliefs....

Click to expand...

Hockeycowboy said:

Yeah, those measurements would never make a vessel seaworthy!

The Bible's description of the Ark's proportions, though, are modern, and does make a vessel seaworthy.

Click to expand...

tas8831 said:

Not to derail the thread - maybe you could start a thread detailing things like...

How much food and fresh water would a pair of elephants need in 1 year?

Is there more than 1 elephant kind? For example, are mammoths in the elephant kind?

What about bison? They are clean, apparently, so there were 14 of them. They are pretty big and eat a lot. How much food and fresh water had to be stored for them on this ark?

Click to expand...

Wandering Monk said:

Yeah, the usual 'literalist' response to this is that God put them to sleep, dormant for the period of the flood. Still not sure how biblical literalists come up with this explanation since it is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Hockeycowboy said:

"Once a hypothesis is proved false..."

Lol! Only in your narrow mind. You will find out, one day...hope it won't be to your detriment! I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Hockeycowboy said:

Yeah, the account says Jehovah God only gave Noah the instructions on how to build it...and He only brought all the animals to Noah...and He only closed the door.

And then, He only unleashed the waters above and below...

No need to believe that He protected Noah & his family and animals during the Flood. That's just too farfetched!

Click to expand...

whirlingmerc said:

There was only one global flood however there could be many local floods

Click to expand...

Hockeycowboy said:

The signs of the Last Days, is no parable!

Click to expand...

Hockeycowboy said:

If you understood the issues raised in Genesis 3, you would grasp why it has taken a while.
But "the beginning of pangs of distress (Matthew 24:7)" was in 1914:

“Ever since 1914, everybody conscious of trends in the world has been deeply troubled by what has seemed like a fated and predetermined march toward ever greater disaster. Many serious people have come to feel that nothing can be done to avert the plunge towards ruin.”—Bertrand Russell, The New York Times Magazine, September 27, 1953.

The London Evening Star commented that the conflict “tore the whole world’s political setup apart. Nothing could ever be the same again. If we all get the nuclear madness out of our systems and the human race survives, some historian in the next century may well conclude that the day the world went mad was August 4, 1914.”–London Evening Star, quoted in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, August 5, 1960, and The Seattle Times, August 4, 1960, p. 5.

“Half a century has gone by, yet the mark that the tragedy of the Great War [World War I, which started in 1914] left on the body and soul of the nations has not faded . . . The physical and moral magnitude of this ordeal was such that nothing left was the same as before. Society in its entirety: systems of government, national borders, laws, armed forces, interstate relations, but also ideologies, family life, fortunes, positions, personal relations—everything was changed from top to bottom. . . . Humanity finally lost its balance, never to recover it to this day.”—General Charles de Gaulle, speaking in 1968 (Le Monde, Nov. 12, 1968, p. 9).

“The last completely ‘normal’ year in history was 1913, the year before World War I began.”—Editorial in the Times-Herald, Washington, D.C., March 13, 1949.

“Looking back from the vantage point of the present we see clearly today that the outbreak of World War I ushered in a twentieth-century ‘Time of Troubles’—in the expressive term of the British historian Arnold Toynbee—from which our civilization has by no means yet emerged. Directly or indirectly all the convulsions of the last half century stem back to 1914.”—The Fall of the Dynasties: The Collapse of the Old Order (New York, 1963), Edmond Taylor, p. 16.

No previous war in history compared with it. It was so different that historians of that time called it The Great War.
Of it, an encyclopedia states: “World War I took the lives of twice as many men as all major wars from 1790 to 1913 put together.” It noted that total military casualties were over 37,000,000, and added: “The number of civilian deaths in areas of actual war totaled about 5,000,000. Starvation, disease, and exposure accounted for about 80 of every 100 of these civilian deaths. Spanish influenza, which some persons blamed on the war, caused tens of millions of other deaths.–The World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, Vol. 20, p. 377.
World War! Pestilences! Food shortages!

“Everything would get better and better. This was the world I was born in. . . . Suddenly, unexpectedly, one morning in 1914 the whole thing came to an end.”—British statesman Harold Macmillan, The New York Times, November 23, 1980.

“Increasingly, the 75-year period from 1914 to 1989, covering two world wars and the cold war, is being seen by historians as a single, discrete epoch, a time apart in which much of the world was fighting war, recovering from war or preparing for war.”—The New York Times, May 7, 1995.
“The whole world really blew up about World War I and we still don’t know why. Before then, men thought that utopia was in sight. There was peace and prosperity. Then everything blew up. We’ve been in a state of suspended animation ever since . . . More people have been killed in this century than in all of history.”—Dr. Walker Percy, American Medical News, November 21, 1977.

“It is indeed the year 1914 rather than that of Hiroshima which marks the turning point in our time, for by now we can see that . . . it was the first world war that ushered in the era of confused transition in the midst of which we are floundering.”—Dr. René Albrecht-Carrié, Barnard College, The Scientific Monthly, July 1951.

“In 1914 the world lost a coherence which it has not managed to recapture since. . . . This has been a time of extraordinary disorder and violence, both across national frontiers and within them.”—The Economist, London, August 4, 1979.

“World War I and its aftermath led to the greatest economic depression in history during the early 1930’s. The consequences of the war and the problems of adjustment to peace led to unrest in almost every nation.”–The World Book Encyclopedia (1966, Vol. 20) on page 379 under its heading “World War I”

Author Maurice Genevoix, who was a military officer during that war, said of it: “Everyone agrees in recognizing that in the whole history of mankind, few dates have had the importance of August 2, 1914. First Europe and soon after almost all humanity found themselves plunged into a dreadful event. Conventions, agreements, moral laws, all the foundations shook; from one day to the next, everything was called into question. The event was to exceed both instinctive forebodings and reasonable anticipations. Enormous, chaotic, monstrous, it still drags us in its wake.”—Maurice Genevoix, member of the Académie Française, quoted in the book Promise of Greatness (1968).

“The modern era . . . began in 1914, an
d no one knows when or how it will end. . . . It could end in mass annihilation.”—The Seattle Times, January 1, 1959.

“In its scope, its violence, and above all, in its totality, it established a precedent. World War I ushered in the century of Total War, of—in the first full sense of the term—global war. . . .Never before 1914-1918 had a war absorbed so much of the total resources of so many combatants and covered so large a part of the earth. Never had so many nations been involved. Never had the slaughter been so comprehensive and indiscriminate.”–World War I, by H.W. Baldwin, pages 1,2

The World Book Encyclopedia noted that the number of soldiers killed and wounded was over 37,000,000, and added:
“The number of civilian deaths in areas of actual war totaled about 5,000,000. Starvation, disease, and exposure accounted for about 80 of every 100 of these civilian deaths. Spanish influenza, which some persons blamed on the war, caused tens of millions of other deaths.”—1966 edition, Vol. 20, p. 377.

More than 50 years after 1914, German statesman Konrad Adenauer wrote: “Security and quiet have disappeared from the lives of men since 1914.”—The West Parker, Cleveland, Ohio, January 20, 1966.

“Some historians believe that the 20th century will be seen as a time of unparalleled savagery,” notes The New York Times.

An article in The Washington Post concurs: “Our 20th-century wars have been ‘total wars’ against combatants and civilians alike,” it says. “The casualties, including the genocide of the Jews, are measured in the tens of millions. The barbarian wars of centuries past were alley fights in comparison.” Civil insurrections have added to the carnage. How many have died? “The ‘megadeaths’ since 1914, by an estimate of Zbigniew Brzezinski, have totaled 197 million, ‘the equivalent of more than one in ten of the total world population in 1900,’” says the Post. It adds that it is an “indisputable fact that terrorism and wanton killing are embedded deeply in the culture of this century” and that “no political or economic system has so far in this century pacified or satisfied the restless millions.”

As regards economic consequences, Ashby Bladen, a senior vice president of The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, writes: “Before 1914 the monetary and the financial systems were compatible. . . . If one takes August 1914 as marking the dividing line between them, the contrasts between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries are striking. In many aspects of human affairs there has been a complete reversal of trend. . . . One major reason was the severance of the linkage between the financial system and money with intrinsic value that began in 1914. . . . The breaking of the linkage was a momentous event. . . . 1914 marked a radical, and in the end catastrophic, transformation of that system.”

Etc., Etc.

Click to expand...