The order of fossils in the geological column

[lasthero]

Tree in Mangrove swamp. Doing just fine in submerged water. The white cedar, eastern hemlock, loblolly pine, black spruce, red maple, elm, pin oak, and birch also live in that swamp, in watery conditions. (Trees like water you know.)

Trees like SOME water. Not being submerged in it for ridiculous amounts of time. Floods, even normal, every day floods, can be devastating to plant life.

Trees also like sunlight. Which you don't get under miles of water. Light can only penetrate, about, 200 meters in water, then it gets cut off. There's a reason you don't find any plants below a certain area in the ocean.

Also, there's this thing called water pressure.

 

[Armoured]

Tree in Mangrove swamp. Doing just fine in submerged water. The white cedar, eastern hemlock, loblolly pine, black spruce, red maple, elm, pin oak, and birch also live in that swamp, in watery conditions.

Many of the trees regrew from seeds. Noah waited weeks after the flood waters receded and until trees started growing again. Did you not read the scripture link I gave you?

I did read the scripture. I just don't believe it can possibly be accurate.

Yes, some trees do survive in swampy conditions. But even mangroves can't survive prolonged total immersion. I have no problem with the idea of seed germinating after a flood. But a few weeks is not going to provide enough food for a koala. They eat 500gms of leaves a day. Where are they going to get that off newly germinated saplings?

 

[EternalDragon]

I did read the scripture. I just don't believe it can possibly be accurate.

Yes, some trees do survive in swampy conditions. But even mangroves can't survive prolonged total immersion. I have no problem with the idea of seed germinating after a flood. But a few weeks is not going to provide enough food for a koala. They eat 500gms of leaves a day. Where are they going to get that off newly germinated saplings?

A pound of leaves is not that much and like I said, they don't need to eat it every day if they can eat other types of leaves, store food in pouches and digest the food slowly.

It is about time that you realize nature and animals can do and survive some pretty amazing things. Scientists are amazed all the time about stuff like that, for obvious reasons that are based on their incorrect presuppositions.

 

[Armoured]

A pound of leaves is not that much and like I said, they don't need to eat it every day if they can eat other types of leaves, store food in pouches and digest the food slowly.

It is about time that you realize nature and animals can do and survive some pretty amazing things. Scientists are amazed all the time about stuff like that, for obvious reasons that are based on their incorrect presuppositions.

I'm still waiting for a citation that says a single meal will last a koala 200 hours... especially a presumably hiking koala.

No, 500gms isn't a particularly heavy weight. Do you have any idea how many leaves it is though? Any idea how long it would take tiny week old saplings to grow that much foliage?

 

[lasthero]

Scientists are amazed all the time about stuff like that, for obvious reasons that are based on their incorrect presuppositions.

Such as?

 

[AV1611VET]

Such as?

Such as how Thalidomide put the "mutant" in "mutant copy errors."

 

[EternalDragon]

I'm still waiting for a citation that says a single meal will last a koala 200 hours... especially a presumably hiking koala.

No, 500gms isn't a particularly heavy weight. Do you have any idea how many leaves it is though? Any idea how long it would take tiny week old saplings to grow that much foliage?

Do you know that they don't have to eat that much if eating other leaves and vegetation?

 

[Armoured]

Do you know that they don't have to eat that much if eating other leaves and vegetation?

I really think you're overplaying the "other vegetation" bit. The source said they will occasionally eat other things for variety, not that they can live on it. However, my same objection applies either way 500gms of eucalyptus leaves or pine needles. Either way, that's a lot of leaves, and you're not going to find that much foliage on week old saplings. Whatever species of plant they may be.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's the lamest excuse I have ever heard. MODERN language uses the terms portholes, hatches, and decks. There is no reason that the KJV translators had to use those terms.

They would have if they were describing a boat.

BTW, an ARK, when used in terms of water, is a boat. See Exodus 2:3

"And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink."

Notice that she didn't put the 'ark' into the river but in the reeds near the shore. It is astounding that so many believe that Pharaohs' daughter saw Moses 'floating by in a small boat' and rescued him.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Perhaps you can quote the verse that says the water took 40 days to reach the ark?

Sure. Gen 7:17,

"And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth."

The Bible does not, in any way, shape, or form, describe a slow moving flood. I'm not sure that a slow moving flood is even possible. Once water escapes whatever is serving as its boundary, it tends to find its level pretty quickly.

Once again you are thinking tsunami. Would a tsunami take forty days to reach the ark?

And before you try and claim it again, the tides are not floods.

They are if they keep coming in.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The image I posted WAS of a large box and said that was wrong.

That image was clearly a ship.

Unfortunately that stipulation is impossible both from a Biblical standpoint and a scientific one.

You haven't shown me that you can properly interpret scripture i.e. your misunderstanding of Exodus 2:3.

ETA: Are you ever going to answer my question about why the global span of the flood should not be considered poetic language?

While the story contains some poetic language it is far too detailed to be considered mere allegory. That the ark floated above the mountains of Ararat for six months indicates a global flood.

 

[Queller]

It's called feet.



I'd also hazard a guess that they followed the trees they like to eat from and settled in Australia eventually.

Eucalyptus can grow in other areas. But I suppose since it isn't there now, you suspect it has never been there.

From YOUR source

"Because they get so little energy from their diet, koalas must limit their energy use and sleep 20 hours a day; only 4 minutes a day are spent in active movement."

 

[dad]

I did read the scripture. I just don't believe it can possibly be accurate.

I did read your post. I just don't believe it can possibly be accurate.

 

[Queller]

Tree in Mangrove swamp. Doing just fine in submerged water. The white cedar, eastern hemlock, loblolly pine, black spruce, red maple, elm, pin oak, and birch also live in that swamp, in watery conditions. (Trees like water you know.)

Many of the trees regrew from seeds. Noah waited weeks after the flood waters receded and until trees started growing again. Did you not read the scripture link I gave you?

Umm, what? The entire tree in that photo isn't submerged for 300+ days, is it?

 

[dad]

Again, hadn't there just been a world wide flood? How many trees do you think were left standing?

Since Noah sent out a bird and there was no trees, none. A week later...trees. Fast growth in former nature.

 

[lasthero]

From YOUR source

"Because they get so little energy from their diet, koalas must limit their energy use and sleep 20 hours a day; only 4 minutes a day are spent in active movement."

But don't you know? You're talking about present koalas. In the past, they could have been as fast as cheetahs! You weren't there, how do you know? Huh?

 

[dad]

Not to mention a distinct lack of fossil eucalypts anywhere other than Australia...

NO problem there either, the fast adapting and evolving in the former nature means that they could adapt to what was there!

 

[lasthero]

Since Noah sent out a bird and there was no trees, none.

Within the context of the story, that the bird came back didn't mean there were no trees on the entire planet. It's not like birds have mystical tree-finding abilities.

 

[dad]

Within the context of the story, that the bird came back didn't mean there were no trees on the entire planet. It's not like birds have mystical tree-finding abilities.

If there was a tree, and Noah sent out a bird to find plants, it would find it. There was none. A week later, there was. If we assume that the continental separation was later, then the area that is now where the ark landed, could have been easy flying range to Israel. The olive leaf may have been from the Mount of Olives!

 

[Queller]

They would have if they were describing a boat.

Why would they have? Because you said so?

"And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink."

Notice that she didn't put the 'ark' into the river but in the reeds near the shore. It is astounding that so many believe that Pharaohs' daughter saw Moses 'floating by in a small boat' and rescued him.

It's still in the water, isn't it?

So what would this Ark building have looked like anyway? According to the Bible it was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. How would it look different from this;

?

Please be specific.