How did 75 whales end up in the desert?
Just interesting news:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063973/Whales-desert-Prehi...
Views: 212
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Richard K on -
Evidence of the Flood all over the world, but the mystery is so much more fun. And it gets people deeper into the lie with their bogus research.
I would think that the first question the article should've put forth is, "How were they 'fossilized' in the desert sands?"
I guess now we just automatically believe that fossils magically happen over millions of years... :)
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Byers on
-
This is ordinary but welcome news for this creationist.
Always one finds marine creatures piled up near the coasts.
This was from post flood actions.
The continents dropped and sent surging waters over the coasts fossilizing anything in the way.
likewise volcanoes exploded everywhere. This a few centuries after the flood.
Marine mammals are only post flood.
This was very common in the fossil record from these geological layers.
-
Permalink Reply by Ralph Thurlow on
-
This sounds like this story.
http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/11/20/creation/desert-...
Apparently the secular media 'forgot' to mention how elevated these bones were - apparently 13,000ft!
-
Permalink Reply by Adam J. Benton on -
Well it appear that different hypotheses of how the whales would got there predict different disturbances in the ground, which they're now checking for.
So whilst this is intriguing, I'll wait for the results before concluding anything.
-
Permalink Reply by David Thomas Posey on -
Why are the marine mammals only post flood? Because you say they are. Never mind the fact that fossil record contains marine mammals. Never mind the ramifications of the size flood you are talking about besides the Noahic flood. Never mind the fact that marine mammals are completely different from land animals.
Here's what I still can't figure out. You are very strong in your belief that reproductive details (egg vs. live young, pouches, milk production, etc.) are insgnificant compared to morphology, e.g. marsupial mice are the same as placentals. The primary difference between marine mammals and other marine animals is the reproductive system. The main similarity between marine mammals and land mammals is, likewise, the reproductive system. So, why do you insist on emphasizing morphology on land but reproductive details in the water?
Robert Byers said:This is ordinary but welcome news for this creationist.
Always one finds marine creatures piled up near the coasts.
This was from post flood actions.
The continents dropped and sent surging waters over the coasts fossilizing anything in the way.
likewise volcanoes exploded everywhere. This a few centuries after the flood.
Marine mammals are only post flood.
This was very common in the fossil record from these geological layers.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Byers on
-
David Thomas Posey said:Why are the marine mammals only post flood? Because you say they are. Never mind the fact that fossil record contains marine mammals. Never mind the ramifications of the size flood you are talking about besides the Noahic flood. Never mind the fact that marine mammals are completely different from land animals.
Here's what I still can't figure out. You are very strong in your belief that reproductive details (egg vs. live young, pouches, milk production, etc.) are insgnificant compared to morphology, e.g. marsupial mice are the same as placentals. The primary difference between marine mammals and other marine animals is the reproductive system. The main similarity between marine mammals and land mammals is, likewise, the reproductive system. So, why do you insist on emphasizing morphology on land but reproductive details in the water?
Robert Byers said:This is ordinary but welcome news for this creationist.
Always one finds marine creatures piled up near the coasts.
This was from post flood actions.
The continents dropped and sent surging waters over the coasts fossilizing anything in the way.
likewise volcanoes exploded everywhere. This a few centuries after the flood.
Marine mammals are only post flood.
This was very common in the fossil record from these geological layers.
Fossils of marine mammals are only about the k-t line. This is the flood line.
There are no fossils of marine creatures below the line.
They never swam with monsters that were all killed and fossilized by the great flood. Save the pairs that god saved himself.
The great thing about marine mammals is that they breath air. Unlike sea creatures.
Then they have the personality of land creatures, reproductive details , and vestigial bones showing a former life.
Reproductive details are trivial in defining creatures as the marsupial/placental case should hint at.
However morphology of marine mammals does insist they are related to land creatures.
Its a hint also they milk unlike sea creatures.
Yet it does make a point right back.
If reproductive details of marine mammals is not a clue to their land origin then why should any creationist say marsupials are different creatures then placentals? Despite looking the same in so many examples!
Two way street.
However marine mammals teach that there are just kinds in biology and like features are just fdor like needs.
so these creatures first lived on the land with like needs as other kinds.
They surely would not need to breath air if they were originally sea creatures from the creation week. They instead would have like assets for like needs as other kinds in the seas.
After the flood the seas were uniquely empty. no more of those famous monsters. Some ark creatures filled the earth , as commanded, by filling niches in the water.
Creationism has been wrong to deny leggy whales.
Their moving into water is not from evolution and is just a special case.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Byers on
-
AIG had a good thing on these whales.
I was afraid they were going to say they were killed during the great flood but instead they nailed it saying it was from post flood actions on earth.
This YEC says the k-t line is in fact just the flood line.
Not the ice age etc.
Yes it demands mechanisms for great earth happenings after the flood however it fits.It also would help get rid of the impossible concept of creatures running up hill to avoid the flood.
this is only invoked because "mammals' are found on top of dinos.
If the k-t line is the flood line then theres no need for well heeled critters.
Impossible anyways as evidenced by the sequence in the fossil record.
These whales were swamped or dragged up by rising mountains in South america. or the whole continent rose while other places sunk on earth a few centuries after the flood.
-
Permalink Reply by Adam J. Benton on
-
If the K-T boundary is the flood, then does that mean that for those events which occurred after the K-T boundary that are typically explained by the flood you accept the secular explanations for. I.e. a canyon with a K-T boundary was formed with the flood, whereas one without (thus after) was gradually eroded by a river etc.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Byers on
-
The k-t boundary to me is defined by the fossil life in it and some observation of the types of rock.
Above the line the rock should be less powerfully made. So more volcanic and weaker sedimentary rock relative to events.
If any structure is above the line then it was from actions after the flood.
Yes canyons/rivers. No problem however as later actions could do great things in creating canyons within days or hours.
-
Permalink Reply by Adam J. Benton on
-
Firstly, if you're going to be using a definition different to that which everyone else is using (the K-T boundary is a stratigraphic formation) then you really shouldn't be using the word. It just confuses things. If its the extinction towards the end of the Mesozoic you're referring too, call it something like that, such as "K-T extinction" etc.
Secondly could you clarify how you believe post-K-T extinction structures were formed? And what differences would you expect to find between them?
Finally, do you view other post K-T events as having explanations more akin to gradualism than traditional creationism. For example, the formation of the great rift valley by gradual plate tectonics, or that post K-T animals could theoretically macroevolve.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Byers on
-
Adam J. Benton said:Firstly, if you're going to be using a definition different to that which everyone else is using (the K-T boundary is a stratigraphic formation) then you really shouldn't be using the word. It just confuses things. If its the extinction towards the end of the Mesozoic you're referring too, call it something like that, such as "K-T extinction" etc.
Secondly could you clarify how you believe post-K-T extinction structures were formed? And what differences would you expect to find between them?
Finally, do you view other post K-T events as having explanations more akin to gradualism than traditional creationism. For example, the formation of the great rift valley by gradual plate tectonics, or that post K-T animals could theoretically macroevolve.
The k-t line works. It should be understood it separates a great division of fossil life preserved in stone etc.
If I understand you YES post flood(above the k-t line) fossilization or geology would happen in quick events.
I have concluded from my study that a few centuries after the flood there was a major event on earth.
I think that a great shift in the continents happened or rather they dropped here or raised there.
This changed the planet by flooding connections and probably was the cause of the ice age.
-
Permalink Reply by Adam J. Benton on
-
The k-t line works. It should be understood it separates a great division of fossil life preserved in stone etc.
But from what I understand it is actually a stratigraphic layer, not an extinction, thus can occur without the extinction you base your definition. There may be a place, for example, that wasn't inhabited prior to the formation of the K-T boundary, thus there will be a K-T boundary there but no fossil division. What would you say there? Can you use the K-T boundary itself as a mark of the flood, or must the fossils be there too?
I have concluded from my study that a few centuries after the flood there was a major event on earth.
And what event was this?
As a follow up, how can you tell the difference between a formation caused by the flood and one caused by this event? If you lack the necessary fossils to identify when the K-T event occurred at a particular location, could you tell whether it was caused by your event or the flood based upon the geography alone?
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by
