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

[USincognito]

That's an interesting point of view... What about the marine and terrestrial vertebrates? Any dominant pattern there for conditions that enabled fossilization?

I mentioned some of them. We have terrestrial vertebrates in eolian deposits which cannot be explained by the Flood.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003101821100407X
We have aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates in anoxic environments.
The Evolutionary Secrets Within the Messel PIt | Travel | Smithsonian
We have fossil beds that form in swampy river deltas that wouldn't exist during the Flood.
https://www.eas.ualberta.ca/catuneanu/files/Papers_PDF files/2005_Catuneanu el al_Karoo_JAES.pdf
And as far as large marine vertebrates, never, not once are placoderms found in the same strata as marine reptiles or cetaceans. Never, not once are marine reptiles found in the same strata as placoderms or cetaceans. And never, not once are cetaceans found in the same strata as placoderms or marine reptiles.
Ichthyosaurs | ONE
Chilean desert yields trove of whale fossils : News blog

{snip NdGT's paraphrase of Sagan's Star Stuff quote.

I don't see anything in there about "belief" or "happy accidents".

Straight from your own high priest.... so please tell me again how none of you believe that you came from stardust....

1. I don't have a high priest so please stop lying about me so I don't have to report you for flaming.
2. Now you're changing your verbiage. Nothing in NdGT or Sagan's quotes say anything about belief or happy accidents turning stardust in to people. As I said, "No one here "believes" any such thing."
3. That the elements that make up the earth and life on it, including humans, are produced in stars has been understood for quite a long time now.

You do believe that... you just hate it being brought up by someone you want to target as having a foolish worldview.

Again, you might want to stop talking about me and actually discuss the topic.

Big cats in the Americas and Eurasia/Africa have been geographically separated for "millions of years" yet can still produce viable offspring. Other similarly split mammal groups can do the same if I recall.

Good call. I guess we'd need to consult a geneticist for those cases where that's true.

It is incredibly weird that in one case, these distantly separated animals seem virtually unphased by millions of years of varying selection pressures (to the point where they can still produce healthy young with each other), whereas in comparable timeframes (a few million years), a wolf-like creature can wander too far into the shallows and end up turning into whale. It's an utterly goofy view of nature.

Not every lineage has the same mutation rate and most modern cats have evolved in the last 1,000,000 years. They also have evidence historical hybridization after speciation which would facilitate interbreeding later in time.
Phylogenomic evidence for ancient hybridization in the genomes of living cats (Felidae)

Why do evolutionists pretend that mutations are forward-thinking and that natural selection is a magical creative force?

Reflecting my verbiage back at me is a very childish thing to do. I would prefer to have an adult conversation free of flaming and such tactics. Also no science advocate "pretends" any such things. None of us who understand even the basics of genetics as they relate to evolution know that mutations simply happen and they are selected for or not. Cetaceans could just as easily have had mutations that led to them being aquatic like polar bears or amphibiously marine like pinnipeds.

Almost like the whale was designed based off of a mammal body plan? Weird.

Apart for the "designed" weasel word, exactly. Their genomes, their movement, the presence of hind limb buds in utero all attest strongly to they being evolved from terrestrial mammals.

 

[Job 33:6]

I mentioned some of them. We have terrestrial vertebrates in eolian deposits which cannot be explained by the Flood.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003101821100407X
We have aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates in anoxic environments.
The Evolutionary Secrets Within the Messel PIt | Travel | Smithsonian
We have fossil beds that form in swampy river deltas that wouldn't exist during the Flood.
https://www.eas.ualberta.ca/catuneanu/files/Papers_PDF files/2005_Catuneanu el al_Karoo_JAES.pdf
And as far as large marine vertebrates, never, not once are placoderms found in the same strata as marine reptiles or cetaceans. Never, not once are marine reptiles found in the same strata as placoderms or cetaceans. And never, not once are cetaceans found in the same strata as placoderms or marine reptiles.
Ichthyosaurs | ONE
Chilean desert yields trove of whale fossils : News blog




I don't see anything in there about "belief" or "happy accidents".



1. I don't have a high priest so please stop lying about me so I don't have to report you for flaming.
2. Now you're changing your verbiage. Nothing in NdGT or Sagan's quotes say anything about belief or happy accidents turning stardust in to people. As I said, "No one here "believes" any such thing."
3. That the elements that make up the earth and life on it, including humans, are produced in stars has been understood for quite a long time now.



Again, you might want to stop talking about me and actually discuss the topic.



Good call. I guess we'd need to consult a geneticist for those cases where that's true.



Not every lineage has the same mutation rate and most modern cats have evolved in the last 1,000,000 years. They also have evidence historical hybridization after speciation which would facilitate interbreeding later in time.
Phylogenomic evidence for ancient hybridization in the genomes of living cats (Felidae)



Reflecting my verbiage back at me is a very childish thing to do. I would have an adult conversation free of flaming and such tactics. Also no science advocate "pretends" any such things. None of us who understand even the basics of genetics as they relate to evolution know that mutations simply happen and they are selected for or not. Cetaceans could just as easily have had mutations that led to them being aquatic like polar bears or amphibiously marine like pinnipeds.



Apart for the "designed" weasel word, exactly. Their genomes, their movement, the presence of hind limb buds in utero all attest strongly to they being evolved from terrestrial mammals.

I suspect that's more false information in there. @lifepsyop what cats can produce viable offspring that have been geographically separated for millions of years? Maybe within a genus, but I doubt there is such a thing as say, a lynx and a tiger or lion hybrid that produces fertile offspring. And even the oldest of cats are relatively young, so time wouldn't be a major factor for most cats of a particular genus. Cats being from the eocene and forward. go figure their fossils actually predate the end of the flood...I guess some cats just missed the ark.

 

[USincognito]

Yea I remember back several years ago when the "scientists"...

It will be easier to take the conversation seriously if scare quotes are refrained from.

...were laughing at dinosaur preservation claims, claiming that it had to be foreign bacteria that contaminated the fossils, because nobody in their right mind believes protein can last for 70 million years.

There were some that were skeptical and your recollection of the early days after the recovery definitely sound tainted by Creationist sources rather than the actual scientists involved. Dr. Schweitzer and her Jack Horner had this exchange.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...e-paleontologist-stares-down-critics-her-hunt
>> She confided in a fellow graduate student, who spread the news. Horner caught wind and called Schweitzer in. "They are in the right place to be red blood cells," she recalls telling him. "But they can't be red blood cells. We all know that."

Horner stared at the slide himself for 5 to 10 minutes. "Prove to me they're not," he said. <<

But when the alternative is questioning your religion of deep-time.... then, well, proteins can last a billion years if you need them to. Reason be damned.

Calling the science supporting deep time "religion" is not conducive to an adult conversation. Calling it "my religion" is flaming. But from the above link:

After the talk, Schweitzer went up to Horner to ask whether she could audit his class.

"Hi Jack, I'm Mary," Schweitzer recalls telling him. "I'm a young Earth creationist. I'm going to show you that you are wrong about evolution."

"Hi Mary, I'm Jack. I'm an atheist," he told her. Then he agreed to let her sit in on the course.

Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."

She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says.​

 

[USincognito]

I suspect that's more false information in there. @lifepsyop what cats can produce viable offspring that have been geographically separated for millions of years? Maybe within a genus, but I doubt there is such a thing as say, a lynx and a tiger or lion hybrid that produces fertile offspring. And even the oldest of cats are relatively young, so time wouldn't be a major factor for most cats of a particular genus. Cats being from the eocene and forward. go figure their fossils actually predate the end of the flood...I guess some cats just missed the ark.

I looked up Felidae hybrids. The only documented one I found of wildly divergent genera in large cats was a genus Panthera/genus Puma hybrid called a Pumalepard. It does seem that most smaller cat species even up to the carcal and serval can interbreed with domestic cats.
Felid hybrid - Wikipedia

Interestingly, there is zero evidence of lynx/bobcat hybridization with domestic cats.

 

[Job 33:6]

I looked up Felidae hybrids. The only documented one I found of wildly divergent genera in large cats was a genus Panthera/genus Puma hybrid called a Pumalepard. It does seem that most smaller cat species even up to the carcal and serval can interbreed with domestic cats.
Felid hybrid - Wikipedia

Interestingly, there is zero evidence of lynx/bobcat hybridization with domestic cats.

Was the puma panther hybrid fertile?

 

[Job 33:6]

Google says pumapurds (puma leopard hybrids ) tend toward dwarfism.

 

[lifepsyop]

I mentioned some of them. We have terrestrial vertebrates in eolian deposits which cannot be explained by the Flood.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003101821100407X

Who said it's eolian and why can't the flood accomodate eolian deposits? The flood model is arguably just as much about tectonic activity as it is about inundations of water.

(Assuming they're actualy eolian and not just interpreted to be.)

We have aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates in anoxic environments.
The Evolutionary Secrets Within the Messel PIt | Travel | Smithsonian

Am I supposed to have a problem with anoxic environments?

also from your link:

"At some point around 50 million years ago, underground water came into contact with a vein of molten rock. High-pressure steam erupted, forming a crater with steep sides. As water seeped in, it created a lake shaped more like a drinking glass than a soup bowl. Any animal that fell in sank quickly to the bottom. Still, that alone doesn’t explain why so many land mammals—not to mention birds, bats and insects—perished here. One theory is...."

It's just funny to me. I wonder if you guys can even separate facts from your own interpretations any more, you so casually lump them together.

We have fossil beds that form in swampy river deltas that wouldn't exist during the Flood.
https://www.eas.ualberta.ca/catuneanu/files/Papers_PDF files/2005_Catuneanu el al_Karoo_JAES.pdf

You really aren't big on arguments are you....

And don't think I'm going to do your work for you and parse out fact from interpretation within the articles you're linking. That's your job. Then you present the evidence and arguments and we can all see how convincing it is.

More likely than not, we're going to find that the "evidence" that these layers represented long ages is little more than an interpretation following the assumption of that very thing.

And as far as large marine vertebrates, never, not once are placoderms found in the same strata as marine reptiles or cetaceans. Never, not once are marine reptiles found in the same strata as placoderms or cetaceans. And never, not once are cetaceans found in the same strata as placoderms or marine reptiles.
Ichthyosaurs | ONE

Almost like those populations lived in different ecological zones or had different geographical distributions?

By the way, evolution theory predicts neither of those patterns. If icthoysaurs were found with cetaceans you would simply assume they survived the Cretaceous extinction, possibly due to their aquatic habitat. Similarly for placoderms. You'd just assume some lineages survived. Don't pretend your theory is less ad hoc than mine.

Chilean desert yields trove of whale fossils : News blog

"The site is remarkable for the concentration and quality of specimens, and for their diversity, says team member Nicholas Pyenson, curator of fossil marine mammals at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC. The fossils include adult and juvenile baleen whales, a walrus-whale, an extinct species of sperm whale, and possibly a seal or sealion."

Sounds sudden and catastrophic, as usual.

Wasn't even the baleen structures preserved on those whale fossils? I believe at one of those whale graveyard sites, they're found at quite varied heights within those rock layers.

3. That the elements that make up the earth and life on it, including humans, are produced in stars has been understood for quite a long time now.

lol, you can't even figure out where the earth's oceans came from, but you know humans are derived from space dust billions of years ago. This is comedy.

Reflecting my verbiage back at me is a very childish thing to do. I would prefer to have an adult conversation free of flaming and such tactics.

You just tried to make a distinction between scientists and creationists, as if there are no creationist scientists. Don't pretend you're interested in an adult conversation.


Apart for the "designed" weasel word, exactly. Their genomes, their movement, the presence of hind limb buds in utero all attest strongly to they being evolved from terrestrial mammals.

As if "Natural selection did it" isn't a weasely explanation?

 

[Job 33:6]

For the post above, yes you should have an issue with anoxic environments, particularly in the case of anoxic environments interbedded with oxidized environments such as the example given in my signature of interbedding of new Yorks devonian strata.

There is no physically possible way that a flood can account for the presence of such features.

Old Earth Geology

 

[lifepsyop]

For the post above, yes you should have an issue with anoxic environments, particularly in the case of anoxic environments interbedded with oxidized environments such as the example given in my signature of interbedding of new Yorks devonian strata.

There is no physically possible way that a flood can account for the presence of such features.

Old Earth Geology

I read your post. I appreciate the effor but you didn't even try and explain how rapid deposition of those features would be impossible. And you strangely seem to suggest that an orogeny event is an exclusively deep-time or uniformitarian interpretation.

 

[Job 33:6]

I read your post. I appreciate the effor but you didn't even try and explain how rapid deposition of those features would be impossible. And you strangely seem to suggest that an orogeny event is an exclusively deep-time or uniformitarian interpretation.

It's impossible for a number of reasons. For one, a single flood could not deposit inter-fingered beds of differing lithology such as those described in my post( including the anoxic beds). If you think they could, feel free to explain how. There is just no logical explanation for how flood waters would create such a thing.

Maybe if there were many floods over a long period of time...but young earth explanations typically involve just one flood over perhaps just 100 years in time. How for example, would the environment fluctuate back and forth in it's amount of oxygen? And in that process, how would it deposit cyclothems within? And beyond that, there is also an overturned angular unconformity within that very strata.

A flood creating something so complex is simply impossible as far as we know according to modern physics.

 

[Job 33:6]

Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon)

See post #53, 54 and 55.

There are also locations in which compressional and extensional forces have acted at different points in time. Of course certain types of faults such as propogating faults, which of course can only form in lithified, hardened rock.

So if you have fualts and overturned bedding in the silurian, then more in the ordovician and further more in the Jurassic and missippian, this tells us that rocks had time to harden in all of these periods and more.

Which is how we know that such features did not form within 100 years. Unless of course physics was defied and rock layers hardened instantaneously with deposition. But of course this kind of scenario is a head scratcher along with ideas of how concurrent regional metamorphosis occurred and on top of that you have things like dinosaur nests with eggs and complex animal burrow systems and foot tracks right in the middle of it all. As if life was just living casually while instantaneous regional metamorphosis occurred around it.


None of it makes any sense.

Then beyond that, after it is all said and done you have rivers eroding through thousands of feet of solid Rock.

And somehow this is supposed to have happened in 100 years?

 

[USincognito]

It's impossible for a number of reasons. For one, a single flood could not deposit inter-fingered beds of differing lithology such as those described in my post( including the anoxic beds). If you think they could, feel free to explain how. There is just no logical explanation for how flood waters would create such a thing.

I posted a list of things that the Flood simply does not explain along with a calculation of the heat put off by the formation of the earth's limestone back on page 2. For some reason those problems for the Flood were ignored.
-------------------------------------------
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..

 

[Job 33:6]

Yeah, the horse shoe bend thing has left me scratching my head as well. Either the river flows fast and erodes a linear path, or it flows slowly and meanders. You just can't have it both ways. And with faults described above...we know the strata was hardened prior to erosion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your questions are faulty.

Let's take the first one:

How does a Flood explain subaerial igneous deposits?

Which came first, the Flood or the subaerial igneous deposits?

If the Flood came first, then I assume this is how the Flood would explain it:

"What are subaerial igneous deposits?"

 

[lifepsyop]

It's impossible for a number of reasons. For one, a single flood could not deposit inter-fingered beds of differing lithology such as those described in my post( including the anoxic beds). If you think they could, feel free to explain how. There is just no logical explanation for how flood waters would create such a thing.

Maybe if there were many floods over a long period of time...but young earth explanations typically involve just one flood over perhaps just 100 years in time. How for example, would the environment fluctuate back and forth in it's amount of oxygen? And in that process, how would it deposit cyclothems within? And beyond that, there is also an overturned angular unconformity within that very strata.

A flood creating something so complex is simply impossible as far as we know according to modern physics.

Are you under the impression that a global catastrophic tectonic event would not be complex in its effects?

 

[lifepsyop]

I posted a list of things that the Flood simply does not explain along with a calculation of the heat put off by the formation of the earth's limestone back on page 2. For some reason those problems for the Flood were ignored.
-------------------------------------------
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..

This is the evolutionist's version of the Gish Gallop.

 

[USincognito]

This is the evolutionist's version of the Gish Gallop.

Pick one.

 

[Job 33:6]

Are you under the impression that a global catastrophic tectonic event would not be complex in its effects?

This isn't a response.

Nowhere in this post is an attempt to address the above.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pick one.

I did just that.

Let's take the first one:

Care to address it?

 

[lifepsyop]

"A flood creating something so complex is simply impossible...."

This says a lot about where you're coming from. The more I study the flood, the more I begin to understand just how complex it was.

Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon)

See post #53, 54 and 55.

Image B is interesting. Presumably those tilted rock layers are varying in degrees of hardness. Do you think it's weird that millions of years of gradual erosion appears to have sheered through all of them equally? You'd think the softer layers would have been eroded away much faster.

Of course a rapid and extremely forceful event might be much less picky and sheer them all off at an equal height. Just a thought.

There are also locations in which compressional and extensional forces have acted at different points in time. Of course certain types of faults such as propogating faults, which of course can only form in lithified, hardened rock.

So if you have fualts and overturned bedding in the silurian, then more in the ordovician and further more in the Jurassic and missippian, this tells us that rocks had time to harden in all of these periods and more.

Which is how we know that such features did not form within 100 years.

How long does it take rock layers to harden in your estimation?
And also, semi-hardened rock layers can't be split apart?

Unless of course physics was defied and rock layers hardened instantaneously with deposition.

Who believes they hardened instantaneously?

But of course this kind of scenario is a head scratcher along with ideas of how concurrent regional metamorphosis occurred

You mean rock layers heating up from a whole lot of force? What about that is a head-scratcher? If anything it leans towards catastrophic interpretation.

and on top of that you have things like dinosaur nests with eggs and complex animal burrow systems and foot tracks right in the middle of it all. As if life was just living casually while instantaneous regional metamorphosis occurred around it.

What are these magical laws that prevent dinosaurs from walking around and giving birth during the flood? There could have been all kinds of biological activity on temporarily exposed land masses.

And speaking of animal burrows, from what I gather there is much, much less of it than you would expect if these layers truly represted long-age ecosystems. However, if bioturbation occurred in temporary pulses between stages of inundation, it might explain the pattern better.

None of it makes any sense.

Probably because you're critiquing a cartoonish, simplistic view of the flood.

Then beyond that, after it is all said and done you have rivers eroding through thousands of feet of solid Rock. And somehow this is supposed to have happened in 100 years?

What exactly are you referring to here?