Does the Eocene-Oligocene Transition show Life after the Global Flood?

[Job 33:6]

And I certainly didn't claim otherwise.
You seem to be an honest debater so far... so try and resist the urge to swing at obvious strawmen.

What I said was that most modern mammals suddenly appear near the Eocene-Oligocene boundary.

And in the OP I even offered a reason for why "ancient" mammals are some of the last creatures to appear before that E-O boundary.

See my post about the horses. You're not responding to post number 8, the figure with the horses and you're not describing lithology of the oligocene, you're talking about the pleistocene.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I actually addressed this already in the OP, but let me turn this back on you for a second since it will be fun...

"This is why we don't find an ecosystem of "modern" mammals (or humans) buried in rock layers directly below the post-flood layers where those same types of animals were repopulating the earth."

They are not found in the rock layers directly above the 'post-flood' layers either.

Assuming the evolutionary timeline is true, there's evidence of human burial going back 100,000 years.
We're talking billions of humans living and dying on the earth since then.
Where are all the graves?
Where are all the people?

Preservation and fossilization does not happen 100% of the time.

 

[Job 33:6]

You can't say that the oligocene is unique then start talking about the pleistocene

 

[Job 33:6]

LOL

You're assuming millions of years as a main argument in a debate over the very existence of those millions of years.

You guys do this all the time and don't even realize it. It's fascinating.

It doesn't matter if the rock is a billion years old or formed yesterday, you're talking about the wrong strata.

It's like saying new York City is unique then turning and randomly talking about Tokyo.

 

[essentialsaltes]

LOL

You're assuming millions of years as a main argument in a debate over the very existence of those millions of years.

We're trying to make sure we're talking about the same rocks. You say the oligocene is post-Flood. Here are some oligocene mammals of Asia. There is no "ecosystem of "modern" mammals (or humans)" there.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're assuming millions of years as a main argument in a debate over the very existence of those millions of years.

Evolutionists assume the universe came into existence in 13,700,000,000 BC.

 

[Aman777]

(Point of clarification : In my answer I reject, without the need of justification, the convention of a global flood).

Point of clarification: As Adam's firmament sank in Lake Van, Turkey some 11,000 years ago, his entire world suffered a global flood. IOW, it was NOT the present 3rd rock from the Sun that was totally destroyed, but instead Adam's world. You are confused because you have rejected God's Truth of the flood in Genesis.

 

[46AND2]

LOL

You're assuming millions of years as a main argument in a debate over the very existence of those millions of years.

You guys do this all the time and don't even realize it. It's fascinating.

We don't have to assume millions of years, we measure it.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't have to assume millions of years, we measure it.

On paper, of course.

 

[lifepsyop]

"This is why we don't find an ecosystem of "modern" mammals (or humans) buried in rock layers directly below the post-flood layers where those same types of animals were repopulating the earth."

They are not found in the rock layers directly above the 'post-flood' layers either.

Is there a particular reason they should be? Or are you just making an observation?

I would assume it has something to do with post-flood human migratory patterns versus animals. I could imagine an entire cultural and spiritual ethos centered around the region of the Ark's final resting place, and the safety from cataclysm that it offered.

In Genesis we also read that the post-Flood humans tended to gather together in one place. And then only later on had to be separated and spread across the world.

Based on those passages we could actually make a prediction that post-Flood animals would have migrated to distant regions (and thus be the first casualties of those regional post-Flood catastrophes) long before humans ventured to the same areas. Humans, constraining themselves to a relatively small area, would have been less likely to wander into these hazardous zones, and significantly less chance of dying en masse. (Assuming the very first area humans lived in wasn't a ticking time-bomb)


As an interesting sidenote, there isn't anything in Evolution theory predicting humans should only be found at the top most layers. Humans could just as easily have been accommodated in layers down to or contemporaneous with the primate-like forms they are said to descend from. (Similarly to how the fish-tetrapod, or dinosaur-bird fossil chronologies are dealt with, with assumed ghost lineages) So let's not pretend it's some kind of prediction that humans would be the last to evolve and thus only found in the uppermost rock layers.

(If an evolutionist is actually able to grasp this point, they might understand just how ad-hoc their theory actually is, but it may be a painful realization.)

Preservation and fossilization does not happen 100% of the time.

Oh come on, that's a dodge.

Again, we're talking billions of people. Where the hell are their burial sites? Researchers should be practically tripping over them.

(And sorry but even within your timeline, we're only talking about the last 10,000 - 90,000 years. No mystical millions of years for the imagination to run wild. )

I've never seen an evolutionist able to explain the incredible absence of human graves.

 

[lifepsyop]

We're trying to make sure we're talking about the same rocks. You say the oligocene is post-Flood. Here are some oligocene mammals of Asia. There is no "ecosystem of "modern" mammals (or humans)" there.

Uh I never said anything about humans being there. Nor do I expect them to be there.

Here, we can go back to the literature. What do you think is being expressed here?

"It is interesting that in groups as diverse as foramnifera, primates, whales, and birds, the Oligocene saw the diversification of recognizably modern taxa, whereas most of the Eocene forms are from prehistoric now-extinct groups."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285634246_The_Eocene-Oligocene_Transition

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is there a particular reason they should be? Or are you just making an observation?

Just figuring out exactly how strange your scenario is.

Based on those passages we could actually make a prediction that post-Flood animals would have migrated to distant regions (and thus be the first casualties of those regional post-Flood catastrophes) long before humans ventured to the same areas.

So, the Cookeroos hopped to Australia (leaving no traces behind) and rapidly diverged into modern kangaroos by the time the aborigines arrive? And similarly for American mammals, European mammals, African mammals...
All of these no longer extant species sped off to their various continents and then evolved rapidly into their modern descendants, so that the people of the New World would have llamas and guanacos and vicunas to domesticate instead of the Poebrotheriums that Noah had on the ark?

As an interesting sidenote, there isn't anything in Evolution theory predicting humans should only be found at the top most layers.

Turning this on its head, your theory does predict (or require) that humans existed during the Oligocene. So finding one of those early descendants of Noah would be a big feather in your cap.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Uh I never said anything about humans being there. Nor do I expect them to be there.

Was Noah a person? Did his life straddle that transition?

'It is at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary, or EOB, (at about 34 million years ago in the Evolution model) where we see a shift from past global catastrophe to an unfolding of what are now "modern" ecosystems. This phenomena may record the earth being repopulated by land animals migrating from the Ark'

The Ark was crewed by people, right?

 

[Job 33:6]

Turning this on its head, your theory does predict (or require) that humans existed during the Oligocene. So finding one of those early descendants of Noah would be a big feather in your cap.

I am beginning to suspect (well actually I began suspecting this earlier today with the whole Pleistocene reference) that, he isn't aware of the magnitude of strata that exists beyond the eocene and between the eocene and modern day holocene strata. Which is probably why he has not responded to my post #8.

But it is true that one would expect to find human fossils in strata, after the flood. As this is the time in which Noah and his later descendants ruled along side the animals of the ark and their descendants. And oddly enough humans didnt evolve at all after the oligocene (according to young earth views, because noah was a regular man like the rest of us) but...all other diversification did occur

Indeed, proto horses and proto elephants existed before the eocene-oligocene boundary, such as miohippus and paleomastodon.

Which really doesnt make any sense.

But again, who is really surprised that these ideas do not make sense? Surely we all knew that it was coming.

 

[USincognito]

Oh come on, that's a dodge.

Again, we're talking billions of people. Where the hell are their burial sites? Researchers should be practically tripping over them.

(And sorry but even within your timeline, we're only talking about the last 10,000 - 90,000 years. No mystical millions of years for the imagination to run wild. )

I've never seen an evolutionist able to explain the incredible absence of human graves.

American bison.
Passenger pigeon.
Zebras and wildebeasts on the African Great Migration.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I am beginning to suspect ...

But again, who is really surprised that these ideas do not make sense? Surely we all knew that it was coming.

Yeah, when the confusion became apparent, I was hoping for an Emily Litella moment, but no such luck.

 

[Job 33:6]

Probably major earth-moving catastrophes that would make Mt. St. Helens or the recent earthquake-tsunami in Japan look like a pin-prick in comparison.

Remember that the earth would have been settling from a global catastrophe that totally rearranged its lithosphere in the course of months, not to mention left giant bodies of water all over the place with potentially unstable barriers.

For example:

"As the depth of the water in Lake Missoula increased, the pressure at the bottom of the ice dam increased enough to lower the freezing point of water below the temperature of the ice forming the dam. This allowed liquid water to seep into minuscule cracks present in the ice dam. Over a period of time, the friction from water flowing through these cracks generated enough heat to melt the ice walls and enlarge the cracks. This allowed more water to flow through the cracks, generating more heat, allowing even more water to flow through the cracks. This feedback cycle eventually weakened the ice dam so much that it could no longer support the pressure of the water behind it, and it failed catastrophically."

Missoula Floods - Wikipedia

One more thing about this response and I'll try to be nice here. Let's say hypothetically there was a super volvano that erupted and deposited tens of thousands of feet of strata across the globe. If this were true, then all of said strata, should consist of volvanic Ash and breccia. Mt St Helens for example, it's deposits consists of things like cooled pyroclastic flows, hard angled fragmented minerals which indicate events of high energy. Cooled magma and Ash. These are features of a volcanic eruption.

So if a giant version of this happened, it would be very apparent to us. And we can find regular sized volcanoes in the cenozoic. We can find regular sized rivers and flood waters in the cenozoic. But no evidence of any supersized volcanoes that would blanket the earth in tens of thousands of feet of strata. Even if we considered supervolcanoes, supervolcanoes produce lava and igneous rocks and igneous features. So volcanoes would not be responsible for any sedimentary and metamorphic rocks that we see.

Regarding smaller scale catastrophic floods, of course we do have evidence for large floods from collapsing and melting ice dams, as you pointed out with respect to the pleistocene. But the vast majority of cenozoic strata contains complex feautes that cannot be formed by floods. For example, laminated lacustrine beds or cyclothems cannot physically form under conditions provided by chaotic flood waters. What we see in majority, are deposits that give the appearance of non chaotic deposition. Same with things like desiccation cracks (mud cracks from drying soil), you just cant produce these features in flood environments and especially not if they're cyclical in their presence.

 

[lifepsyop]

So, the Cookeroos hopped to Australia (leaving no traces behind) and rapidly diverged into modern kangaroos by the time the aborigines arrive?

Cookeroos and Kangaroos appear in Australia at roughly the same time - Late Oligocene.

And similarly for American mammals, European mammals, African mammals...
All of these no longer extant species sped off to their various continents and then evolved rapidly into their modern descendants, so that the people of the New World would have llamas and guanacos and vicunas to domesticate instead of the Poebrotheriums that Noah had on the ark?

Camelid - Wikipedia
Camelid remains are found all across North and South America, Asia, and Africa. I don't know what your argument is.

Turning this on its head, your theory does predict (or require) that humans existed during the Oligocene.

And I gave reasons why I would not expect to find humans mixed in with the initial waves of animal migrations. Genesis actually depicts this. Animals are released from the ark to multiply and fill the Earth. Humans are supposed to do the same thing but instead they disobey God and cluster together (Tower of Babel narrative). God gets [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed that Humans are not spreading out, so He confuses their languages and scatters them across the world.

By the way, your theory predicts the existence of billions of creatures for which there is no evidence.

Just like your theory predicts the existence of countless billions human burial sites which are mysteriously absent from the earth. (Still waiting for an explanation for that.)

Like most evolutionists, you really don't seem to have a problem with the abscence of evidence. Just saying.

And I'm still waiting for your interpretation of the literature:

"It is interesting that in groups as diverse as foramnifera, primates, whales, and birds, the Oligocene saw the diversification of recognizably modern taxa, whereas most of the Eocene forms are from prehistoric now-extinct groups."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285634246_The_Eocene-Oligocene_Transition

 

[USincognito]

Just like your theory predicts the existence of countless billions human burial sites which are mysteriously absent from the earth. (Still waiting for an explanation for that.)

You have been provided one.

American bison.
Passenger pigeon.
Zebras and wildebeasts on the African Great Migration.

 

[USincognito]

Does the Eocene-Oligocene Transition mark the end of the global flood?

No, because the Flood didn't happen.

-------------------------------------------
How does a Flood explain subaerial igneous deposits?
How does a Flood address all the heat that would be produced by the formation of limestone?
How does the Flood explain trace fossils?
How does the Flood explain faunal succession?
How does the Flood explain 60,000 varve layers in Lake Suigetsu and hundreds of thousands of layers in ice cores?
How does the Flood explain glacial erosion and deposits?
How does Flood explain eolian deposits and paleosols?
How does the Flood explain meanders like Horseshoe bend?
How does the Flood explain the different states of erosion exhibited by different mountain ranges?
How does the Flood explain batholiths?
Why did RATE admit there was 500,000,000 years worth of radioactive decay in the geological record?
---------------------------------------------
There's around 1.2x10^8 cubic miles of limestone in the Earth's Crust According to a paper by Poldervaart (1955), calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram (Weast, 1974, p. D 63). Using Stefan-Boltzmann Black Body Radiation Model, compressing down all this limestone formation into the last 10,000 years would release 5.308x10^23 of BTU, which is nearly 1.5 times the amount of energy the Sun radiates in one second, setting fire to the planet. The earth would not have an atmosphere..
------------------------------------------