Where are the Fossilized Remains of Millions of Humans from the Flood?

[6days]

Not quite 6...

One of the problems with your belief system is it seems to deny logic and science. Although there are various ways fossilization can happen, it normally requires rapid burial burial. Marine creatures like whales and jellyfish don't normally hang out in stagnant pools of water.

 

[Kdall]

One of the problems with your belief system is it seems to deny logic and science. Although there are various ways fossilization can happen, it normally requires rapid burial burial. Marine creatures like whales and jellyfish don't normally hang out in stagnant pools of water.

Well, some do. But not normally, no. However, you seem unaware that salt marshes are what is left behind when the sea retreats over the course of millennia. And guess what died and was buried in sediment where what was once ocean is now marsh? That's right, marine creatures

 

[TracerBullet]

False
In a swamp or marsh scavengers and oxygenation would normally rapidly consume and destroy. A whale in a marsh area does not fossilize unless a catastrophic event rapidly buries. A dead fish does not sink to the ocean floor and slowly become covered in sediment.
Fossils provide excellent evidence of the truth of God's Word.

you just love making things up as you go don't you

Fossilization occurs in anoxic (low oxygen) environments such as ... Swamps and marshes. These are low oxygen environments because of the lack of turbulence. The lack of turbulence is a significant factor in the formation of fossils as fast moving waters would lead to a scattering of bones. The high energy water conditions will grind and abrade bones through friction and the turbulent waters would also be oxygen rich leading to the increased decay rate of bones.

Floods are one of the worst environments for fossil formation

 

[6days]

Bodies of people submerged in stagnant swamps or bogs in Denmark and the British Isles thousands of years ago have also been found in remarkably good condition with their soft tissues intact. They were preserved naturally by cold anaerobic environments and by tannins with antibiotic properties released from decaying plants in the swamps. The bodies were essentially tanned like shoe leather. These conditions are hostile for bacteria and other organisms that normally reduce organic matter to basic soil nutrients in a matter of months."

Are you attempting to answer the topic question? *Are you suggesting that more fossilized humans are not found because they didn't hang out in stagnant bogs in Denmark, *that were hostile even to bacteria? *

One of the problems with your belief system is it seems to deny logic and science. Although there are various ways fossilization can happen, it normally requires rapid burial burial. Marine creatures like whales and jellyfish don't normally hang out in stagnant pools of water.

Well, some do. But not normally, no.

Fossilization requires anaerobic conditions. "No" is the correct answer. Marine creatures do not hang out in areas without oxygen. And whales and dolphins that get beached, are destroyed by scavengers and normal decay processes.*

However, you seem unaware that salt marshes are what is left behind when the sea retreats over the course of millennia. And guess what died and was buried in sediment where what was once ocean is now marsh? That's right, marine creature*

You are being silly and making illogical arguments.*
*What happens to a dead fish? Usually it floats on the surface and is eaten by scavengers.

* What happens to a dead jellyfish on the beach? It rots And is gone in days.

* What happens to dead whales?
Destroyed and torn apart by scavengers and then oxydation.

*What happens to dead critters that sink to ocean depths? Even there worms and bacteria destroy.

*What happens to a dead clam in shallow water? The shell opens and eventually disintegrates. *

The fossil record is great evidence for a catastrophic global flood. We find perfectly preserved soft bodied animals. We find evidence of catastrophic burial. We find clams buried alive, turtles 'doing it', fish giving birth or feeding. We find dinosaurs fossilized while fighting. We find pods of whales fossilized in the desert. We find marine creatures on every mountain range. We find fossil graveyards where many creatures are washed together, buried in sediment and fossilized. And we find features in the lowest buried marine creatures that puzzle evolutionists, such as sophisticated vision.

Genesis 6 "So theLord*said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground"

 

[Kdall]

Are you attempting to answer the topic question? *Are you suggesting that more fossilized humans are not found because they didn't hang out in stagnant bogs in Denmark, *that were hostile even to bacteria? *



Fossilization requires anaerobic conditions. "No" is the correct answer. Marine creatures do not hang out in areas without oxygen. And whales and dolphins that get beached, are destroyed by scavengers and normal decay processes.*



You are being silly and making illogical arguments.*
*What happens to a dead fish? Usually it floats on the surface and is eaten by scavengers.

* What happens to a dead jellyfish on the beach? It rots And is gone in days.

* What happens to dead whales?
Destroyed and torn apart by scavengers and then oxydation.

*What happens to dead critters that sink to ocean depths? Even there worms and bacteria destroy.

*What happens to a dead clam in shallow water? The shell opens and eventually disintegrates. *

The fossil record is great evidence for a catastrophic global flood. We find perfectly preserved soft bodied animals. We find evidence of catastrophic burial. We find clams buried alive, turtles 'doing it', fish giving birth or feeding. We find dinosaurs fossilized while fighting. We find pods of whales fossilized in the desert. We find marine creatures on every mountain range. We find fossil graveyards where many creatures are washed together, buried in sediment and fossilized. And we find features in the lowest buried marine creatures that puzzle evolutionists, such as sophisticated vision.

Genesis 6 "So theLord*said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground"

Short and sweet here:

1. Whales have huge bones in their bodies (in fact, they have hand bones with fingers! Now why would they need fingers inside of their fins? Maybe they had ancestors with working hands/feet? Hmmm....). When the scavengers pick off all the blubber, the skeleton sinks to bottom of the ocean if the body wasn't already beached. The bones would remain in such a scenario, and very likely end up beneath tons of sediment.

2. My quote about the swamps was in response to yours about them not being good places for preservation. I was showing you that they are actually ideal places for that.

3. "Not normally, no" was an answer to your claim that jellyfish and whales don't ever live in swampy areas. In fact, some do. Cetaceans can't stay there forever (except river dolphins), but nevertheless some species frequent fresh and brackish waters.

4. I was the one who pointed out to you that swamps have anaerobic conditions, which are great for preservation. Perhaps you've forgotten, but you very clearly stated that swamps and marshes were bad places for fossilization specifically because of oxygenation. That was incorrect. So your feeble attempt to act like the expert isn't working. All anyone has to do is simply look at the second to last post on the previous page of this thread to see that

5. You seem to think that fossils of whales and other marine creatures found inland are evidence for your mythical flood. No doubt someone has told you this before, but what is now dry land wasn't always so. Almost all of central Texas, for example, was completely submerged under a shallow sea for millions of years. That's why we see so many marine creatures there; creatures that no longer exist today.

6. I wasn't aware that trilobites and prehistoric crustaceans had sophisticated vision. That is what you're suggesting, no? And I think I have the reason why I wasn't aware of that: it's not true.

7. Anywhere you look, the evidence is against you. Pretending that isn't the case doesn't actually change history. What you propose isn't science at all. It requires so much supernatural intervention to support the logical holes in your narrative that by comparison, Greek mythology seems somewhat tame. When you must go to the supernatural well not just once....not just twice.....not just three times.....but OVER and OVER again....then it's nothing close to reasonable to believe. You want God to patch up all of the holes in your hypothesis rather than following the evidence to where it leads

 

[Jose Fly]

So have we resolved the turbulent question? Is the creationist explanation for why there are no human remains mixed in with dinosaur remains because the flood was so violent, or because only humans ran to the mountains, died there, and their bodies stayed there?

 

[Kdall]

So have we resolved the turbulent question? Is the creationist explanation for why there are no human remains mixed in with dinosaur remains because the flood was so violent, or because only humans ran to the mountains, died there, and their bodies stayed there?

Both. It doesn't matter what the truth is when "Goooood" answers any faults in your theories

This sums it up beautifully: http://youtu.be/DI9ImScQGAo

 

[Jose Fly]

Both. It doesn't matter what the truth is when "Goooood" answers any faults in your theories

It is easy, isn't it? Contradiction? God. Can't explain something? God. Data not what you predicted? God.

This sums it up beautifully: http://youtu.be/DI9ImScQGAo

I love that clip! Hilarious. :rotfl:

 

[TracerBullet]

So have we resolved the turbulent question? Is the creationist explanation for why there are no human remains mixed in with dinosaur remains because the flood was so violent, or because only humans ran to the mountains, died there, and their bodies stayed there?

It was very violent...except where it wasn't.

Those fighting dinosaurs 6days mentions mentioned must have been in a really gentle flood area...the flood was so gentle they didn't even notice it and kept on fighting

 

[6days]

wasn't aware that trilobites and prehistoric crustaceans had sophisticated vision. That is what you're suggesting, no? And I think I have the reason why I wasn't aware of that: it's not true.

As I told you a couple days ago...you know lots of things which aren't true.

Trilobites did have sophisticated vision and I suspect most grade 7 students know that. It's been well known for many years.

But even creatures that evolutionists think were earlier had complex sophisticated vision.

Something I posted previous...
The fossil record is often baffling to evolutionists. One such example is that sophisticated eye designs are found out of sequence according to standard evolutionary thinking and dating. (Although ToE is flexible and accommodates improbable, unlikely / counter intuitive evidence).*

We have long known that trilobites had one of the most sophisticated and complex eye designs of any creature; but now we see something even more amazing. Giant shrimp about 3' long (1 meter) are dated at 515 myo by evolutionists. (Anomalocarus). These shrimp like creatures dated at more than a half billion years have eyes that contain about 16,000 hexagonal 'lenses'. This is somewhat similar to house flies which have 3,000 and dragonflies with 28,000.*

Dr John Patterson wrote:*
The latest find shows*sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye*Nature#480 p237-240*
Also;;*
Canberra Times Dec7/11*

Notice what he is really saying.....*THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED.*

Evolutionists often refuse the explanation that best fits the evidence... intelligent design indicates an Intelligent Designer. As an example of this blind faith......*


Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences#90 wrote:*
...arthropod eye evolution has remained controversial, because one of two seemingly unlikely evolutionary histories must be true. Either compound eyes with detailed similarities evolved multiple times in different arthropod groups....or, compound eyes have been been lost in a seemingly inordinate number of arthropod lineages.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104792

 

[Kdall]

It was very violent...except where it wasn't.

Those fighting dinosaurs 6days mentions mentioned must have been in a really gentle flood area...the flood was so gentle they didn't even notice it and kept on fighting

lol that's what I thought when I read it

 

[Kdall]

As I told you a couple days ago...you know lots of things which aren't true.

Trilobites did have sophisticated vision and I suspect most grade 7 students know that. It's been well known for many years.

But even creatures that evolutionists think were earlier had complex sophisticated vision.

Something I posted previous...
The fossil record is often baffling to evolutionists. One such example is that sophisticated eye designs are found out of sequence according to standard evolutionary thinking and dating. (Although ToE is flexible and accommodates improbable, unlikely / counter intuitive evidence).*

We have long known that trilobites had one of the most sophisticated and complex eye designs of any creature; but now we see something even more amazing. Giant shrimp about 3' long (1 meter) are dated at 515 myo by evolutionists. (Anomalocarus). These shrimp like creatures dated at more than a half billion years have eyes that contain about 16,000 hexagonal 'lenses'. This is somewhat similar to house flies which have 3,000 and dragonflies with 28,000.*

Dr John Patterson wrote:*
The latest find shows*sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye*Nature#480 p237-240*
Also;;*
Canberra Times Dec7/11*

Notice what he is really saying.....*THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED.*

Evolutionists often refuse the explanation that best fits the evidence... intelligent design indicates an Intelligent Designer. As an example of this blind faith......*


Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences#90 wrote:*
...arthropod eye evolution has remained controversial, because one of two seemingly unlikely evolutionary histories must be true. Either compound eyes with detailed similarities evolved multiple times in different arthropod groups....or, compound eyes have been been lost in a seemingly inordinate number of arthropod lineages.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104792

I'm sorry, but dragonfly eyes don't get a pass as 'sophisticated' when we've been discussing the "irreducible complexity" of the human eye for the last two days. Trilobite eyes are invertebrate eyes. Nothing more. And you know that. Color me shocked that you won't admit it

 

[6days]

Whales have huge bones in their bodies (in fact, they have hand bones with fingers!

You know lots of things which aren't true. I could call my finger a femur but it wouldn't change what it really is.*

Now why would they need fingers inside of their fins? Maybe they had ancestors with working hands/feet?

Nope.... God created whales before He created land animals. See Gen. 1

Hmmm....). When the scavengers pick off all the blubber, the skeleton sinks to bottom of the ocean if the body wasn't already beached. The bones would remain in such a scenario, and very likely end up beneath tons of sediment.

Another belief not supported by facts and contradicted by evidence.

2. My quote about the swamps was in response to yours about them not being good places for preservation. I was showing you that they are actually ideal places for that.

Nope... you are fabricating.
This is what I said..."False
In a swamp or marsh scavengers and oxygenation would normally rapidly consume and destroy. A whale in a marsh area does not fossilize unless a catastrophic event rapidly buries. A dead fish does not sink to the ocean floor and slowly become covered in sediment.*
Fossils provide excellent evidence of the truth of God's Word."

3. "Not normally, no" was an answer to your claim that jellyfish and whales don't ever live in swampy areas. In fact, some do. Cetaceans can't stay there forever (except river dolphins), but nevertheless some species frequent fresh and brackish waters.*

They might frequent oxygenated areas. What I said was*res anaerobic conditions. "Marine creatures do not hang out in areas without oxygen. And whales and dolphins that get beached, are destroyed by scavengers and normal decay processes."

4. I was the one who pointed out to you that swamps have anaerobic conditions, which are great for preservation.

True ... quite likely why 'Ida' was so perfectly preserved. But Ida was not a marine animal. Fish dolphins whales etc do not usually hang out in swamps with oxygen.

5. You seem to think that fossils of whales and other marine creatures found inland are evidence for your mythical flood.

No... not my flood... God's flood.*

No doubt someone has told you this before, but what is now dry land wasn't always so. Almost all of central Texas, for example, was completely submerged under a shallow sea for millions of years. That's why we see so many marine creatures there; creatures that no longer exist today.*

I assume you believe all the earth has been under water at various times... we know that's true because we find marine creatures on every mountain range in the world. The difference is that I believe it was all at the same time like God tells us in the Bible.

7. Anywhere you look, the evidence is against you.

Evolutionists think that of course but we actually have the evidence of God's Word supported by archaeology, genetics, *geology, biology, logic, paleontology and more.



*

 

[6days]

I'm sorry, but dragonfly eyes don't get a pass as 'sophisticated' when we've been discussing the "irreducible complexity" of the human eye for the last two days. Trilobite eyes are invertebrate eyes. Nothing more. And you know that. Color me shocked that you won't admit it

Ha... no your lack of interest in science that contradicts your beliefs does not surprise. However I do find it interesting that the scientists who made the discovery were surprised

 

[Kdall]

You know lots of things which aren't true. I could call my finger a femur but it wouldn't change what it really is.*

So do you think whales don't have skeletal digits?

Nope.... God created whales before He created land animals. See Gen. 1

Where's the science on that? Keep in mind that the Bible isn't a science book.

Nope... you are fabricating.
This is what I said..."False
In a swamp or marsh scavengers and oxygenation would normally rapidly consume and destroy. A whale in a marsh area does not fossilize unless a catastrophic event rapidly buries. A dead fish does not sink to the ocean floor and slowly become covered in sediment.*
Fossils provide excellent evidence of the truth of God's Word.

Literally exactly what I said you said.

They might frequent oxygenated areas. What I said was*res anaerobic conditions. "Marine creatures do not hang out in areas without oxygen. And whales and dolphins that get beached, are destroyed by scavengers and normal decay processes."

True ... quite likely why 'Ida' was so perfectly preserved. But Ida was not a marine animal. Fish dolphins whales etc do not usually hang out in swamps with oxygen.

Guess that comment about swamps being marine leftovers from the past went right over that clever little head of yours

No... not my flood... God's flood.*

I assume you believe all the earth has been under water at various times... we know that's true because we find marine creatures on every mountain range in the world. The difference is that I believe it was all at the same time like God tells us in the Bible.

You don't know how mountains are formed, clearly

Evolutionists think that of course but we actually have the evidence of God's Word supported by archaeology, genetics, *geology, biology, logic, paleontology and more.

Yep, because it's logical to dismiss a natural explanation supported by evidence and endorsed by the scientific community in favor of one with no evidence and that has to fill in its multiple gaps with the supernatural trump card of "Goddidit." Got me there

 

[Kdall]

Ha... no your lack of interest in science that contradicts your beliefs does not surprise. However I do find it interesting that the scientists who made the discovery were surprised

I've asked you this many a time, but you always shy away from answering. What is the highest level of education that you took a course in biology or genetics? Or hell, let's throw in geology, archaeology, and paleontology too. Any of those


My response to your other post is here:

You know lots of things which aren't true. I could call my finger a femur but it wouldn't change what it really is.*

So do you think whales don't have skeletal digits?

Nope.... God created whales before He created land animals. See Gen. 1

Where's the science on that? You know, since your argument is so logical and supported by clear evidence. Keep in mind that the Bible isn't a science book.

Nope... you are fabricating.
This is what I said..."False
In a swamp or marsh scavengers and oxygenation would normally rapidly consume and destroy. A whale in a marsh area does not fossilize unless a catastrophic event rapidly buries. A dead fish does not sink to the ocean floor and slowly become covered in sediment.*
Fossils provide excellent evidence of the truth of God's Word.

Literally exactly what I said you said.

They might frequent oxygenated areas. What I said was*res anaerobic conditions. "Marine creatures do not hang out in areas without oxygen. And whales and dolphins that get beached, are destroyed by scavengers and normal decay processes."

True ... quite likely why 'Ida' was so perfectly preserved. But Ida was not a marine animal. Fish dolphins whales etc do not usually hang out in swamps with oxygen.

Guess that comment about swamps being marine leftovers from the past went right over that clever little head of yours

No... not my flood... God's flood.*

I assume you believe all the earth has been under water at various times... we know that's true because we find marine creatures on every mountain range in the world. The difference is that I believe it was all at the same time like God tells us in the Bible.

You don't know how mountains are formed, clearly

Evolutionists think that of course but we actually have the evidence of God's Word supported by archaeology, genetics, *geology, biology, logic, paleontology and more.

Yep, because it's logical to dismiss a natural explanation supported by evidence and endorsed by the scientific community in favor of one with no evidence and that has to fill in its multiple gaps with the supernatural trump card of "Goddidit." Got me there

 

[6days]

So do you think whales don't have skeletal digits?

Many creatures from salamanders to bats to whales have finger like digits. That is evidence for our common Designer...the Creator God of the Bible.

Keep in mind that the Bible isn't a science book.

The Bible is God's Word containing poetry, history, philosophy, 'erotica', prophecy and more. His Word is absolute truth in all matters it touches on...including science.

You don't know how mountains are formed, clearly

Because I said that there are marine fossils on all mountain ranges?
That fact is consistent both with God's Word and science..
We know from God's Word that all the mountains that existed at that time were covered in water. All flesh, and even the earth itself was destroyed.
How does science explain fossils on the mountains?
Answer: Ancient sea beds rose.

How does God's Word explain fossils on the mountains?
Answer: Psalm 104:8,9
"Mountains rose and valleys sank to the levels you decreed.
Then you set a firm boundary for the seas, so they would never again cover the earth."

 

[Jonahdog]

Many creatures from salamanders to bats to whales have finger like digits. That is evidence for our common Designer...the Creator God of the Bible.

The Bible is God's Word containing poetry, history, philosophy, 'erotica', prophecy and more. His Word is absolute truth in all matters it touches on...including science.

Because I said that there are marine fossils on all mountain ranges?
That fact is consistent both with God's Word and science..
We know from God's Word that all the mountains that existed at that time were covered in water. All flesh, and even the earth itself was destroyed.
How does science explain fossils on the mountains?
Answer: Ancient sea beds rose.

How does God's Word explain fossils on the mountains?
Answer: Psalm 104:8,9
"Mountains rose and valleys sank to the levels you decreed.
Then you set a firm boundary for the seas, so they would never again cover the earth."

And those mountains rose when? about 4000 years ago? And how quickly?

 

[Interplanner]

People between creation and the flood would not have been able to pass on information about places they had never been to. The description of the flood is that of a fairly disruptive event, but I don't know that the Psalm was about that or earlier.

We don't know how much time the earth spent as 'formless and void'--which should be read from the view of a human on the surface, not an omniscient POV.

We also don't know if the 'earth was divided in those days' of 10:25 was social or geologic.

 

[The Barbarian]

Kdall writes:

You don't know how mountains are formed, clearly

Because I said that there are marine fossils on all mountain ranges?

Because you don't know that there aren't marine fossils on all mountain ranges. The Cascades, for example, weren't made by uplifting continental shelf. They are volcanic. And so no fossils.

Because you don't know that mountains don't just have marine fossils on them; they are often made of marine fossils. Limestone mountains are composed of the fossils of marine organisms. How did ocean bottom get up there? The process is still going on.

The Himalayas, for example, are still rising as India moves north against the Asian plate. The former continental shelves were pushed upward as the collision proceeded and the mountains formed of the former coastal shelves.

This is what he meant when he pointed out your ignorance.

That fact is consistent both with God's Word and science..

You've demonstrated that you understand neither of those.

We know from God's Word that all the mountains that existed at that time were covered in water.

Sorry, God doesn't say that the entire Earth was covered. He says that the "land" (eretz) was covered. "Eretz" is the word used to describe the historic area of Israel.

How does science explain fossils on the mountains?
Answer: Ancient sea beds rose.

And not only do we have abundant evidence for that on mountains, we are able to observe the process continuing today.

How does God's Word explain fossils on the mountains?

It doesn't. You've just re-interpreted scripture to fit your own desires.