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

[Subduction Zone]

No, the evidence says so.
Have you heard of Stephen Jay Gould?

Lol.

What about Gould? He was a fairly famous paleontologist. Can you support your claim with a quote that is not out of context or from a bogus source?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The conversation you're responding to, was about the Cambrian biota, and the Ediacaran not providing any precursors.

It wasn't about the Flood.

Right, and you just repeated your claim that you have yet to support.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Well seeing the flood of Noah's didn't cover the whole earth
But yet scientist have found out in deserts mountains many clam shells 300 miles from the nearest ocean.

This flood of water happen million of years before the flood of Noah's ever happened.

2 Peter 3:5-7

5--"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water"

Note here in verse 5, The earth standing out of the water and in the water.
In Genesis 1:2, we will find the earth standing out of the water in the water.

So where exactly do you suppose this water came from, seeing that this flood of water was there way before the flood of Noah's happened.

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"

Note here in verse 6, everything
Perished, meaning nothing survived.
Unlike the flood of Noah's, there were
8 people and animals survived.

But in this flood that 2 Peter speaks about nothing survived, everything Perished.


7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men"

Note here in verse 7, God is not going to destroy the earth again by a flood of water.

God going to destroy everything by fire.

Do you understand plate tectonics at all?

 

[Audie]

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?

So after all this to you still think that "leans toward"
what you hoped for?

 

[Audie]

What about Gould? He was a fairly famous paleontologist. Can you support your claim with a quote that is not out of context or from a bogus source?

I have read a lot of his articles and honestly, I find
his style and content boring. And withal, we could
have done without his "punctuated equilibrium" theory,
even if it were not exploited by dishonest creos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have read a lot of his articles and honestly, I find
his style and content boring. And withal, we could
have done without his "punctuated equilibrium" theory,
even if it were not exploited by dishonest creos.

What I find a bit amazing is that even after years of debating and failing that creationists think that Gould is some sort of boogie man for those that accept evolution. I think they may be projecting their need for a literalistic approach onto others.

Also you will note that he did not meet the challenge. He did not post a quote from Gould that was neither quote mined or from a reliable source.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I have read a lot of his articles and honestly, I find
his style and content boring. And withal, we could
have done without his "punctuated equilibrium" theory,
even if it were not exploited by dishonest creos.

Gould gets credit for being honest about the lack of transitional fossils and major anilmal groups appearing fully formed in the record.

 

[whirlingmerc]

So after all this to you still think that "leans toward"
what you hoped for?

One would expect a mixture of types of fossils even of animals which do not live together in a flood catastrophe and that's what we see

One thing for sure these kinds of findings do not support a slow and gradual uniformitarian view like that of the geology of Lyell which influenced Darwin's views. They support models of catastrophism which indeed is consistent with a flood catastrophe.

 

[Audie]

One would expect a mixture of types of fossils even of animals which do not live together in a flood catastrophe and that's what we see

One thing for sure these kinds of findings do not support a slow and gradual uniformitarian view like that of the geology of Lyell which influenced Darwin's views. They support models of catastrophism which indeed is consistent with a flood catastrophe.

sigh

 

[Audie]

Gould gets credit for being honest about the lack of transitional fossils and major anilmal groups appearing fully formed in the record.

You have no idea at all what you are talking about,
and no interest in doing any better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gould gets credit for being honest about the lack of transitional fossils and major anilmal groups appearing fully formed in the record.

You do not seem to realize that since his time countless more fossils have been found. You are taking a literalistic approach to the concept of fossils. The fossils that have been discovered to date are less than the total number of species found ten years from now.

Odds are that you do not understand what a transitional fossil is. But tell me what you want to see transitional fossils of and I can probably tell you whether they exist or not and what they are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One would expect a mixture of types of fossils even of animals which do not live together in a flood catastrophe and that's what we see

One thing for sure these kinds of findings do not support a slow and gradual uniformitarian view like that of the geology of Lyell which influenced Darwin's views. They support models of catastrophism which indeed is consistent with a flood catastrophe.

No, that is not what we see. To fossilize a T-Rex fossil would usually have to have died in a streambed. A T-Rex that died in the middle of a forest would be consumed by other life and rotted to nothing before it could be preserved. This was a T-Rex that died in a stream. The sharks lived in the stream and like sharks do it lost teeth Sharks are constantly losing teeth. I am not a biologist, but I bet that they would be shed if they did not break off during feeding. A large dinosaur corpse that was eaten by sharks would almost certainly have shark teeth with it.

In case you forgot these were carpet shark teeth. They are mostly bottom feeders:

Carpet shark - Wikipedia

This was a very small species of carpet sharks that lived in freshwater. They were not found at first because no one was looking for it and this was a very very small species. The teeth were less than 1 mm across and the shark was thought to be a foot to a foot and a half long:

Ancient carpet shark discovered with 'spaceship-shaped' teeth

 

[Audie]

You do not seem to realize that since his time countless more fossils have been found. You are taking a literalistic approach to the concept of fossils. The fossils that have been discovered to date are less than the total number of species found ten years from now.

Odds are that you do not understand what a transitional fossil is. But tell me what you want to see transitional fossils of and I can probably tell you whether they exist or not and what they are.

We keep getting that "fully formed" thing that they find
somewhere in the creoplaybook.

But never will you find any creo who has any notion at
all what a "not fully formed" organism would be.

Then there is "uniformitariansim v catastrophism" which
is so 19th century. A person would have to be somewhere
below ready to start Intro to Pre-remedial Geology to think
that is a topic, let alone a controversy.

I will say this for it though-it is a lot more up to date
than "flood geology".

 

[Subduction Zone]

And Uniiformitarianism ve catastrophism" is SO
19th century.

At least it is more up to date than "flood".


Nor could he tell us what a "not fully formed" critter
might be.

I know "fully formed" is a phrase that tells us that a person has no clue as to what he is talking about since they can never properly define it. By the way, have you ever heard Ray Comforts version of the evolution of the "first dog"? If you want to prevent brain damage then the traditional oven mitt will not due. That one is so painful that a pair of catcher's mitts are needed.

EDIT: Put on your catcher's mitts and go to the three minute mark, please don't hate me for posting this:

 

[Audie]

No, that is not what we see. To fossilize a T-Rex fossil would usually have to have died in a streambed. A T-Rex that died in the middle of a forest would be consumed by other life and rotted to nothing before it could be preserved. This was a T-Rex that died in a stream. The sharks lived in the stream and like sharks do it lost teeth Sharks are constantly losing teeth. I am not a biologist, but I bet that they would be shed if they did not break off during feeding. A large dinosaur corpse that was eaten by sharks would almost certainly have shark teeth with it.

In case you forgot these were carpet shark teeth. They are mostly bottom feeders:

Carpet shark - Wikipedia

This was a very small species of carpet sharks that lived in freshwater. They were not found at first because no one was looking for it and this was a very very small species. The teeth were less than 1 mm across and the shark was thought to be a foot to a foot and a half long:

Ancient carpet shark discovered with 'spaceship-shaped' teeth

As I recall from my biology-
shark teeth are formed, and move, in a sort of conveyor belt
and, yes, are constantly being lost. Note how snagglle-
tooth sharks always look and how they have rows of them.

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

The sediment in the formation averages over 500 feet I think, which represents tens of millions of years of deposits. It was part of a shallow sea which gradually receded, perhaps several times. Both creatures existed concurrently. I fail to see an issue,

 

[Audie]

The sediment in the formation averages over 500 feet I think, which represents tens of millions of years of deposits. It was part of a shallow sea which gradually receded, perhaps several times. Both creatures existed concurrently. I fail to see an issue,

If our friend were on trial he would get a lot
more interested in careful analysis of data,
and not so crazy about pre conceived conclusions.

 

[Road Warrior]

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?

Fossils take a lot longer to form than 6000 years.

In addition, sharks, cockroaches and a few other critters have been around since the time of the dinosaurs, over 65 million years ago.

Respect: Sharks are Older than Trees | Smart News | Smithsonian

 

[Polymath257]

Gould gets credit for being honest about the lack of transitional fossils and major anilmal groups appearing fully formed in the record.

Have you ever even read any of his stuff? I mean, for example, a full essay of his?

 

[Polymath257]

I know "fully formed" is a phrase that tells us that a person has no clue as to what he is talking about since they can never properly define it. By the way, have you ever heard Ray Comforts version of the evolution of the "first dog"? If you want to prevent brain damage then the traditional oven mitt will not due. That one is so painful that a pair of catcher's mitts are needed.

EDIT: Put on your catcher's mitts and go to the three minute mark, please don't hate me for posting this:

Sorry, but I hate you for posting that. My brain is now mush.