Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As I said before most stuff before the flood was eaten or reused by the life around and could not have become a fossil. It took a major catastrophe to create the fossil record.
But this doesnt explain the plant succession. Why the appearance of vascular plants prior to seeded plants, and why not until later, are the flowering plants present?
Mammalian fossils pre date a number of reptiles in the fossil succession. Mammal fossils pre date the cretaceous, which was in the age of reptiles. Were these mammals not warm blooded enough?
Answers in Genesis has a good overview of this question
The Origin of Plants
Basically marine plants are lower that the land based flowering kind cause they were the first to succumb to the flood waters. But these layers are not evidence of evolution because they are all mixed up and many of those in the lower layers are still around. The article says it better.
The fossil sequence can seem quite random hence the OP. But this article gave a summary of different creationists approaches to why the fossil succession ended up the way it did:
"
Creationists, including myself,1 have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession. These include such mechanisms as the sorting of organisms during the Flood, differential escape of organisms during the same, ecological zonation of life-forms in the antediluvian world (such that different life-forms in different strata reflect the serial burial of ecological life-zones during the Flood), and TABs (Tectonically-Associated Biological Provinces—wherein different life forms occur in successive horizons of rock as a reflection of successive crustal downwarp of different life-bearing biogeographic communities).
All of these mechanisms do away with the notion that horizons of fossils demand successive passages of time during which the organisms lived. In other words, they allow for there to have been only one set of mutually-contemporaneous living things on a young earth, instead of a repetitive replacement of living things over vast periods of time. Most of the earth’s sedimentary record is viewed as being deposited by the Noachian Deluge, and not over successive depositional events in analogues of modern sedimentary environments on an evolving earth."
The fossil record - creation.com
Ocean currents are not erosive in the sense that they erode away dense metamorphosed rock such as...quartzite. Certainly not in a year at least.
The point is that, something should be evident in the earth to support your statement that the oceans of the deep are what metamorphosed local rocks. But when asked about it, there is nothing to say.
Your answers are insufficient. You suggested that cold blooded animals had a harder time escaping the flood. When told that warm blooded animals fossilized earlier than cold blooded, you have no response.
Are you suggesting that mega sloths simply out ran birds to escape the flood waters? But then ultimately could not run fast enough and were fossilized?
Seeded plants pre date flowering plants, yet seeded plants are not all aquatic. vascular plants are not all aquatic either, yet they predate seeded plants.
Your explanation is insufficient to explain why this is the case.
If it were really as simple as aquatic plants coming first, then aquatic vascular plants would all predate terrestrial vascular plants, but this isn't the case.
Superheated waters travelling at hundreds of miles an hour loaded with grit meeting still hot metamorphosed rocks disturbed, uplifted and tossed around by major convective processes in Earth’s mantle. Any thing is possible in such circumstances and in a short space of time. I am sure there is some kind of study on rapid erosion of metamorphosed rocks out there.
I guess ill move on from the conversation.
This isn't some hollywood movie where 1000 degree acid waters were flying around at hundreds of miles per hour. If there were really 1000 degree acid waters blasting away mountains, it is quite amazing soft bodied fossils can be found at all, or any fossils for than matter. There just isnt evidence for this physics defying, chemistry defying, geology defying claim. And this idea that mountains are just being annihilated, but Noah's wooden boat was fine, just doesn't add up.
If this were really what the flood were like, the rock succession itself would not exist as it does.
The fossil sequence can seem quite random hence the OP. But this article gave a summary of different creationists approaches to why the fossil succession ended up the way it did:
"
Creationists, including myself,1 have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession. These include such mechanisms as the sorting of organisms during the Flood, differential escape of organisms during the same, ecological zonation of life-forms in the antediluvian world (such that different life-forms in different strata reflect the serial burial of ecological life-zones during the Flood), and TABs (Tectonically-Associated Biological Provinces—wherein different life forms occur in successive horizons of rock as a reflection of successive crustal downwarp of different life-bearing biogeographic communities).
All of these mechanisms do away with the notion that horizons of fossils demand successive passages of time during which the organisms lived. In other words, they allow for there to have been only one set of mutually-contemporaneous living things on a young earth, instead of a repetitive replacement of living things over vast periods of time. Most of the earth’s sedimentary record is viewed as being deposited by the Noachian Deluge, and not over successive depositional events in analogues of modern sedimentary environments on an evolving earth."
The fossil record - creation.com
Lets be honest, you have to admit that this just doesn't make any sense. Entire mountains eroded away, but flowering plants were holding on to dear life, and somehow managed to outlast all animals of the mesozoic and paleozoic preceding them? I mean come on...none of this makes any sense.
Since it is an unanalogous and supernatural event we have no way of knowing. .
All of that assumes a uniformitarian principle and requires and assumes a very long time for these things to happen. If I agree with all the facts you raise but just place them in a vastly accelerated and far messier catastrophist model we have a world in which the flood is the only explanation for the graveyards in the rocks beneath our feet.
You have no secured audit trail of the evidence, you have no eye witnesses to the events you describe, there are no repeatable experiments you can perform to demonstrate the correctness of abiogenetic, macroevolutionary history. You preach the evolutionary story with an unsubstantiated certainty on the basis of what is a reductive, materialist, naturalistic methodology. A methodology that cannot demonstrate the truth of its sermon to us all. That said thanks for an interesting conversation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?