I thought I had them at the flood, but...

[Job 33:6]

No I specifically said 30 million and listed a number of animals included in that 30 million. I said this article claims 150 million. But if your going to stretch what I said was a claim to discredit me have at it. I As far as fossils are concerned. I am trying to distinguish between turned to stone fossils verses an actual ivory trade in mammoth tusks and Woolly Rhinoceros horns. Perhaps they might be called fossils but they are not fossils of the type where minerals replace cells. They find some of these with flesh intact and often wolves eat the flesh of mammoths that get eroded out of the permafrost. A flesh covered frozen animal is not what most people consider a fossil.

fos·sil
ˈfäsəl/
noun

1. the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock

Doesn't matter to me, they're still fossils.

And those that are well preserved as I said before, they were clearly not eaten, just frozen and preserved in ice, just like the meat in our freezers that we preserve for weeks or months at a time before eating.

 

[Job 33:6]

https://www.cdm.org/mammothdiscovery/fossilsites.html

Here is a site describing a batch stuck in a pond. It happens.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth_Site,_Hot_Springs

Here is a site claiming to have a large collection of mammoths as well. Where are they found? A sinkhole filled by pleistocene deposits.
"
Based on observations from modern ponds and lakes, it is estimated that this pond slowly infilled with silt over a period of 350–700 years. The presence of worm burrows and mammoth footprints found throughout these sediments, demonstrate that the laminated sediments within this sinkhole accumulated slowly and contemporaneously along with the mammoth remains over a long period of time.[1][2]"

Ok so the mammoths were walking around in this steep sided, wet, laminated pond. Animals were burrowing, life was just as usual. Animals are trapped in the pond, they die, sedimentation covers the body, fossils are formed.

You have your sinkhole, you have mammoths walking around in the sediment within the sinkhole.

The article says that there are also clams and snails in the deposits. Nothing wild like sharks or dinosaurs or Burgess shale animals. No random theropods or nothing that you wouldn't expect in this kind of environment. Just pleistocene megafauna, some worms and some regular everyday invertebrates hanging out at the local pond.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

The mammoths are buried in pleistocene strata which is the time of the ice ages. They're frozen which is why they are so well preserved, just like when you throw meat in a freezer, it lasts a long time.

It's as simple as that. No complicated dust storm flood tropical ice storm nonsense.

They lived in northern latitudes, which is why they're concentrated in northern Russia and Alaska. That's where it's cold. There were multiple ice ages over thousands of years. Mammoths died in their natural cold habitat and they froze there until today.

Simple as that.

So they are not fossils.
Look we cannot have a discussion if you just move all over the place. Yes everyone knows there are millions of bones buried. Where are the millions upon millions of Bison bones laying around the great plains that were slaughtered for target practice? They don't exist. They were eaten by large scavengers or eaten (decomposed by small scavengers) So whatever buried Siberian animals whole also buried bones of millions of animals before they were eaten or decomposed. Some kind of catastrophic event or events. Your like arguing for uniformitarianism here. Totally discredited although vogue among the secularists for hundreds of years.

 

[Job 33:6]

The great planes isn't an equivelant to Siberia during an ice age.

 

[Job 33:6]

Listen, you can't explain how a global flood deposited all the underlying strata and simultaneously metamorphosed rock and somehow froze mammoths all at once. It makes no sense.

Somehow dinosaurs we're building nests and laying eggs in the middle of the mesozoic which is in the middle of the column. Somehow these mammoths were walking around with worms burrowing at their feet in layers deposited later on. This doesn't happen in floods. Animals don't just walk around and lay eggs and hunt one another (there are scavenged whooly mammoth too), all while simultaneously being buried in a flood which is simultaneously metamorphosing rock.

It doesn't make any sense.

The simple answer is that, as my links earlier stated, with respect to the largest fossil collection of mammoths on the planet...they simple got stuck in a pond. Ice preserved animals, mammoths died and were frozen. Some of these frozen mammoths were partially eaten by scavengers. How would a scavenger have the time to roam around and eat during a radical flood? It wouldn't happen.

And I've been repeating these points and you aren't addressing them. Mammoths lived for thousands or perhaps millions of years. And somehow you find it hard to believe that mammoths could die and freeze in the Arctic? You're willing to deny the idea that mommoths might die and freeze in the Arctic over hundreds of thousands or perhaps a few million years. But you don't find anything challenging regarding my points above?

The largest mammoth fossil site, as described in my prior post is in a sinkhole where mammoths were walking around. This isn't instant death. It's a pond serving as a trap.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

The great planes isn't an equivelant to Siberia during an ice age.

The scientifically observational fact is. Without large catastrophes there are not large bone deposits in the earth. Right now as we speak you cannot go anywhere on the earth and see the burial of bones without catastrophes. Other than a tar pit, or heavily limed body of water. It's just not happening because they are eaten. Especially of the size and magnitude of what happened in the arctic. I guess your just a man of faith and just don't posses the curiosity of a seeker of scientific knowledge.
Sorry, if we cannot get past step one which is the observably massive scale of the catastrophic occurrence\occurrences in the arctic that buried tens of millions of large animals. Then we can't argue about anything else. You can stay back in the of bygone era's of uniformitarianism if you want. To me it's like arguing with a papist or monarchist. Not worth my time.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Listen, you can't explain how a global flood deposited all the underlying strata and simultaneously metamorphosed rock and somehow froze mammoths all at once. It makes no sense.

I said you were right about that. Found info on the best theories out there of how that happened after the flood. But you know it all and don't need to read what your opponents say.

Somehow dinosaurs we're building nests and laying eggs in the middle of the mesozoic which is in the middle of the column. Somehow these mammoths were walking around with worms burrowing at their feet in layers deposited later on. This doesn't happen in floods. Animals don't just walk around and lay eggs and hunt one another (there are scavenged whooly mammoth too), all while simultaneously being buried in a flood which is simultaneously metamorphosing rock.

It doesn't make any sense.

As far a mammoths I said you were right. I'm not arguing about dinosaurs until we get through mammoths.

The simple answer is that, as my links earlier stated, with respect to the largest fossil collection of mammoths on the planet...they simple got stuck in a pond. Ice preserved animals, mammoths died and were frozen. Some of these frozen mammoths were partially eaten by scavengers. How would a scavenger have the time to roam around and eat during a radical flood? It wouldn't happen.

And I've been repeating these points and you aren't addressing them. Mammoths lived for thousands or perhaps millions of years. And somehow you find it hard to believe that mammoths could die and freeze in the Arctic? You're willing to deny the idea that mommoths might die and freeze in the Arctic over hundreds of thousands or perhaps a few million years. But you don't find anything challenging regarding my points above?

The largest mammoth fossil site, as described in my prior post is in a sinkhole where mammoths were walking around. This isn't instant death. It's a pond serving as a trap.

Like I said. type into your search engine. Mammoths buried in dust storms.
Multiple dust\ice (loess) storms of the magnitude to bury whole animals would leave scavengers to eat flesh and scatter bones of those not totally buried and frozen. Bones waiting to be buried by the next loess. And again no. Mammoths falling into ponds and sink holes do not produce the bones of millions of large animals.

 

[Foxfyre]

You say you know science. I say that is your problem. You don't. You have faith in what amounts to political positions propped up by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Because of the internet he raw data is out there for anyone that is willing to really put time and effort into studying it so one can come to their own rational conclusions. Few do though.

I didn't say I know science or that I am a scientist. But I do believe there is room for good science and for good Biblical scholarship to coexist quite nicely together.

 

[Job 33:6]

I said you were right about that. Found info on the best theories out there of how that happened after the flood. But you know it all and don't need to read what your opponents say.


As far a mammoths I said you were right. I'm not arguing about dinosaurs until we get through mammoths.


Like I said. type into your search engine. Mammoths buried in dust storms.
Multiple dust\ice (loess) storms of the magnitude to bury whole animals would leave scavengers to eat flesh and scatter bones of those not totally buried and frozen. Bones waiting to be buried by the next loess. And again no. Mammoths falling into ponds and sink holes do not produce the bones of millions of large animals.

Are you suggesting that all strata that contains whooly mammoths is post flood strata? On what basis do you think flood deposits stopped and non flood deposits began, randomly in the middle of the cenozoic? Or do you think that all cenozoic strata is post flood?

And you said that mammoths falling into sink holes do no produce millions of animals, but mammals falling into sink holes is the case for the largest site of mammoth deposits in the world. Would you rather we looked at a different site? If so, pick one.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Because the fossils got into those rocks not because of a universal flood caused by torrential rains but because of catastrophic seismic shifts in the terrain. In much higher elevations in much older mountains, no sea fossils. A pretty good indication that different parts of the planet have had different experiences at different times.

Since when does an earthquake cause fossils to form. That is a new one. And uh, fossils do not get into rock like they were willing entering something. One can see pics of sea fossils on Mt. Everst. So which elevation that is higher than that do you mean?

 

[Job 33:6]

Since when does an earthquake cause fossils to form. That is a new one. And uh, fossils do not get into rock like they were willing entering something. One can see pics of sea fossils on Mt. Everst. So which elevation that is higher than that do you mean?

Its not earthquakes, its tectonic motion.

You mentioned mount everest for example. is part of the himilayas which are growing several inches every year. The mountains are lifting into the atmostphere little by little by little. And those rocks at one time were actually under water. But they keep lifting up higher and higher year after year after year. And so what was once underwater at a lower elevation, has lifted into the sky.

And this is observable.

So the sea shells are in marine rock that originated from the sea. But there are also terrestrial rocks in the himilayas that were not underwater and do not have sea shells, and there are volcanic rocks that have things like pillow lava in them as well. Pillow lava forms when magma pours out and cools quickly underwater. Right, so we have pillow lava in these mountains as well further showing us that the rock was originally underwater. And not only that but we have ophiolites which encompass those pillow lava structures as well, in these same mountains, these ophiolites consist of a specific sequence of strata that forms at rift zones. Which tells us that this essentially what has happened is, strata has formed with the cooling of magma pouring out of a rift zone. Intrusive igneous rocks along with these magmatic structures has been thrusted overtop of sedimentary structures and into the atmosphere. Sort of like this stratigraphic column depicted below (click the reply button to see the column).

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/ophiolites

So, to turn back to the original question of why shells are in the himilayas, its because they originally were underwater, died, sank and were burried and fossilized. The subcontinent of India disconnected from africa and drifted northeast into eurasia, then collided with china. And with that India and China smashed into eachother, lifting the himilayas and the shellfish beds into the sky. And the mountains are still rising today, so its not over, its ongoing. And every year, those sea shell fossil get pushed higher and higher and higher.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

I'm a young earth creationist since a few months ago but today after doing further research on the geologic column it would appear I have met my match. Creationists have tried to explain how the flood could have separated neatly all the fossils consistently across the world between each layer of the geologic column, but it seems the geologic column actually does support an old earth theory because of this, especially since it separates both plants and animals of the same species correctly within each layer.

I thought I had escaped the science of macro evolution through Noah and the flood but now I am back at square one unsure of the age of the earth and whether the creation story is really just a myth. It's really terrible for me because creationism really strengthened my faith in the bible and I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the gospel of Jesus either but I guess I just got my hopes up.

I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.

Remember my posts about coal having every conceivable fossils in them sometimes miles underground? ALL COAL is mostly plant material. IT WAS ALL buried by something, it's world wide and so obviously the flood. Most of the reports of this are older because mining is not done by hand to much in the west so there is not the amount of observation today as there was in yesteryear. But the reports from yesteryear are world wide by scientific organizations of the day. That did not stop modern politically driven scientists from poo pooing all of the older scientific reports as if they were hoaxes.

Here though we have a 2009 report done by the Smithsonian that explores a coal mine and calls it the "greatest fossil wilderness in the wold." Treats it as a newly discovered phenomenon. Please read it, its easy but I'd like you to notice how many times they mention a peat bog but don't really sight any peat in this coal. Not that there is not it's just what they sight are plants and bugs and 120 foot tall trees. Yep just like all the old poo poo'd scientific reports. The reason the say peat bog, peat bog, peat bog, is because for the last few decades we have had to suffer their pathetic lies that the worlds coal beds are peat bogs and that is how the 100 of thousands of square miles of coal came about. When we creationists knew for a fact they were not peat bogs but buried forests. So they are trying to save face for decades of lies taught in K-12 and the university level by calling it a peat bog at the same time calling it a tropical forest and then adding to it all the lie that a giant earthquake must have made the forest sink hundreds of feat and then get buried by 230 feet of sand. Of course they are treating this as a new discovery that is unique of which it is obviously not. Pretty much the same thing in all kinds of coal fields.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-worlds-largest-fossil-wilderness-30745943/

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Are you suggesting that all strata that contains whooly mammoths is post flood strata? On what basis do you think flood deposits stopped and non flood deposits began, randomly in the middle of the cenozoic? Or do you think that all cenozoic strata is post flood?

And you said that mammoths falling into sink holes do no produce millions of animals, but mammals falling into sink holes is the case for the largest site of mammoth deposits in the world. Would you rather we looked at a different site? If so, pick one.

Well you would have to have been bothered enough to look at a few articles on the search string I gave you to see what the scientific conjecture is on how. As far as your belief that Mammoth Hot springs is the largest deposit of mammoth bones in the world. That is laughable. You could search that too. Your still laboring under the complete false impression that there are not tens of millions of large animals from the time period buried all over the arctic down to the great plains. Truck loads in the 100's of tons many times over have been excavated from various sites alll over the arctic and below in the last century. A little digging on your part would confirm that but your bias seems to have quite a grip on your intellect.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well you would have to have been bothered enough to look at a few articles on the search string I gave you to see what the scientific conjecture is on how. As far as your belief that Mammoth Hot springs is the largest deposit of mammoth bones in the world. That is laughable. You could search that too. Your still laboring under the complete false impression that there are not tens of millions of large animals from the time period buried all over the arctic down to the great plains. Truck loads in the 100's of tons many times over have been excavated from various sites alll over the arctic and below in the last century. A little digging on your part would confirm that but your bias seems to have quite a grip on your intellect.

Whether it's the largest fossil bed or not really is irrelevant. It is a significant place of mammoth deposits none the less.

Do you have an alternate fossil site in mind? Or not?

Also, care to respond to my previous question? You seemed to accept that these mammoths lived, died and were frozen in ice, independent of any global flood. So do you believe cenozoic deposits are all post flood?

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Whether it's the largest fossil bed or not really is irrelevant. It is a significant place of mammoth deposits none the less.
Do you have an alternate fossil site in mind? Or not?

There were lots of them in the search string I suggested.

Also, care to respond to my previous question? You seemed to accept that these mammoths lived, died and were frozen in ice, independent of any global flood. So do you believe cenozoic deposits are all post flood?

No I do not believe all Cenozoic deposits are all post flood. You stated something about sediment layers under the muck. I was not sure so I looked around and found that all the sediment layers laid down by the flood were under the muck by finding articles on the particular substance the vast majority of these animals are buried in which is called loess. It is a combination of different kinds of wind blown dust and ice that buried these animals. Sedimentary deposits are different.

 

[Job 33:6]

There were lots of them in the search string I suggested.


No I do not believe all Cenozoic deposits are all post flood. You stated something about sediment layers under the muck. I was not sure so I looked around and found that all the sediment layers laid down by the flood were under the muck by finding articles on the particular substance the vast majority of these animals are buried in which is called loess. It is a combination of different kinds of wind blown dust and ice that buried these animals. Sedimentary deposits are different.

Are you capable of naming one in particular?

So if not all cenozoic layers are post flood, as you believe, at what point do you start calling one layer flood derived and one not flood derived?

Is "the sediment layers under the muck" the best description of flood strata that you have?

 

[Job 33:6]

Remember my posts about coal having every conceivable fossils in them sometimes miles underground?

Also, this just isn't true. You won't find say, dinosaurs in Carboniferous coal beds. You won't find sharks, you won't find Burgess shale fauna, you won't find any fossil of any Cambrian or ordovician or even any silurian fossil that predates peats and or swamplands. This includes ordovician cephalopods, various early paleozoic trilobites, early ordovician or silurian fish etc. You also won't find things like cenozoic fauna within mesozoic coal beds, not mesozoic fauna in cenozoic coal beds etc.

Any large sea dwelling fauna will not be found in coal beds. You won't find things like whales in coal beds.you wont find mesozoic aquatic reptiles etc.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Also, this just isn't true. You won't find say, dinosaurs in Carboniferous coal beds. You won't find sharks, you won't find Burgess shale fauna, you won't find any fossil of any Cambrian or ordovician or even any silurian fossil that predates peats and or swamplands. This includes ordovician cephalopods, various early paleozoic trilobites, early ordovician or silurian fish etc. You also won't find things like cenozoic fauna within mesozoic coal beds, not mesozoic fauna in cenozoic coal beds etc.

Any large sea dwelling fauna will not be found in coal beds. You won't find things like whales in coal beds.you wont find mesozoic aquatic reptiles etc.

You don’t know what you will find because government funded academic science has hitherto refused to explore commercial coal beds. They decided coal beds were nothing but peat beds decades ago despite previous generations of scientists discoveries and taught a few generations about their “settled science” concerning coal beds.

Your just playing games to keep everyone’s eyes off the elephant in the room. That millions of square miles of coal beds are plant life that consist of amoung other things forests buried under flood sediment in some places miles deep.

And no you would be hard pressed to find a shark or whale in a tropical forest But you might find an elephant in the room if you look hard enough.

 

[Job 33:6]

You said

"Remember my posts about coal having every conceivable fossils in them sometimes miles underground?"

Im just informing you that this is not true. And i gave plenty of examples:

"Also, this just isn't true. You won't find say, dinosaurs in Carboniferous coal beds. You won't find sharks, you won't find Burgess shale fauna, you won't find any fossil of any Cambrian or ordovician or even any silurian fossil that predates peats and or swamplands. This includes ordovician cephalopods, various early paleozoic trilobites, early ordovician or silurian fish etc. You also won't find things like cenozoic fauna within mesozoic coal beds, not mesozoic fauna in cenozoic coal beds etc.

Any large sea dwelling fauna will not be found in coal beds. You won't find things like whales in coal beds.you wont find mesozoic aquatic reptiles etc."

If you have a problem with it, then show any of the above.

 

[Job 33:6]

Indeed, i can conceive of many fossils, probably hundreds if i cared to spend the time, that are not found in coal beds