Oh my. You claim that there were a limited number of animals on the ark, and that the few onboard evolved into different species. And yet you can't seem to name one set of animals that might have been represented by one common ancestor on the ark. One of the most common illustrations is that a single hordonkey pair could have evolved into separate horse and donkey species. But you don't even accept that. So give me an example of an ancestor you think evolved into more than one species.
Original kinds? I suspect wolves, bears, lions, crows, doves, horses were kinds. Etc etc.
The eohippus, a multi-toed dog-sized browser is found in rocks about 55 million years ago, but then they disappear from the fossil record
The actual time was thousands of years ago. So, if the flood was about 4500 years ago, and the nature change about 4390 years ago, then
this so called
period of 55 million imaginary years you cite was possibly somewhere between 4390-3500 actual years ago.
I see no reason that was not still in the former nature?
. Further up we find the larger Orohippus, with fossils from 52-45 million years ago, and then they disappear. Further up we find fossils of Mesohippus, 37 to 32 million years ago. And so on up through the rocks, the animals get more horse like and bigger as time goes on. Now how do you explain that?
This is all in the same time range. Some animals went extinct in the pot flood world. So?
I understand you will start by compressing every rock that dates from 65 million years ago to about 4000 years ago into a 500 year time span from 4500 to 4000 years ago. That is shear nonsense. For instance, there is about a mile deep of fossil bearing rocks in this geologic age range in North Dakota. How can rock be piling on that fast in that short of time? See
The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota .
Easy! If we shove continents around in days or weeks, or hours, or years...some stuff gets piled up.
Compressing the fossil record does not solve the problem. How is it that the fossils form such a clear sequence?
Because animals lived and died in sequence.
Are you going to claim there was an eohippus-fossilizing nature, followed by a Orohippus-fossilizing nature, followed by a whole sequence of different natures?
At the time these creatures lived and died, and became fossilized, man also was alive. Lions, wolves and etc also.
The creatures you cite simply were able to leave remains while man and most other creatures were not in that nature. Magnetic reversals, drift, radioactive decay..etc. Your time estimates have ALL been based on this nature.