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

[ChristineM]

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.

 

[whirlingmerc]

65 million years ago?? Please.

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

 

[whirlingmerc]

Considering the biblical flood epoch didnt exist It is far more consistent with the actual explanation.

the actual explanation is the Noah epoch

 

[sooda]

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

The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained
www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

 

[sooda]

the actual explanation is the Noah epoch

What is this "Noah Epoch" you are talking about? Did you just make that up?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Show a single instance of non-avian dinosaurs preserved with modern mammals, and we'll talk.

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)

 

[SalixIncendium]

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

Probably one of those six thousand year old tyrannosauruses...

 

[sooda]

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)

Horses have changed and the Onager is extinct.

 

[sooda]

Scientific creationists must similarly train their minds to reject the overwhelming evidence from geology, biology, physics, and astronomy which contradicts their interpretation of the Bible.

Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer

 

[Audie]

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

It could be, but the particular circumstances
would need to be examined. Land animals are
commonly washed down rivers and into
bays and estuaries; storm tides will strand
marine creatures inland.

What is most important though-and please
make an effort here- is that evidence "consistent
with" is not proof.

Your suspect is a tall black man. The victim
said it was a tall black man did it!

So far, we have consistent evidence.

Now, as it turns out later, the tall black man
is a bank president who was at a meeting
in St. Louis when the purse snatching was
in N. Omaha.

So the "consistent evidence" on one detail is
not merely insufficient, but the theory that he
did it is disproved. Impossible.

In the case of "flood" there is a huge abundance
of such disproof, but the existence of polar
ice deeply predating any possible flood is
disproof of any hypothesis that land / sea
creature fossilized near eachother "leans
toward " flood.

Of more interest here is why you persist in
your belief in "flood" and seek out things that
you think might lean somewhere. (Without
of course, studying the relevant facts to see if
it even is consistent with your hypothesis)

Why must you try to bring in more
"evidence" ( look! Our suspect wears glasses!
So did the perp!!) when the hypothesis has
been irrefutably disproved?

So, could you maybe explain what is really
going on with your endless effort to salvage
the flood hypothesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

 

[sooda]

'fully formed" is a nonsensical term and horse evolution is very well understood. We can go over that if you like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the actual explanation is the Noah epoch

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.

 

[Audie]

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)

Skipping your "fully formed" creo-canard that you could
not explain what it supposedly means...

What of species known only from one partial specimen?
That is all that was created, a hip bone and three teeth?

No mommy and daddy either?

You say "most", but, what of those ( like horses btw) that
do show a long history with dramatic changes?

But never mind. That is evolution, not flood.
Your flood is disproved.
Now what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

 

[sooda]

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.

I am pretty much stumped. I don't see how anyone gets out of the 7th grade and still believes in Noah's flood.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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)

By all means, show us a tyrannosaurus fossil found with a horse. Or even modern bees, spiders or ants.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

 

[Erebus]

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?

 

[sooda]

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?

FLOOD in Norse Mythology
norse-mythology.cba.pl/page,109,flood.html
FLOOD FLOOD At the time of creation in Norse mythology, the giant ymir was killed by the gods. His spurting blood created a flood.

All the giants were drowned except bergelmir and his wife, who created a new race of giants. Oceans, seas, and lakes were formed from Ymir's blood.