Whale Fossils Discovered High Up In Andes Mountains

Its interesting that not only have marine fossils been discovered at the peaks of all mountains in the world, but also how large whale fossils been discovered high up in the Andes mountains.

This subject is twofold because first there is the major problem of explaining fossilization without a cause if one wants to go with the poor uplift excuse. Then, perhaps, the other problem is explaining why a whale didn't move during an uplift and got stuck during the rising up of the uplift and then became a fossil?

So atheists, have at it.

sfs said:

It's interesting because it illustrates how rapidly (in geological terms) the Andes rose, but not for any other obvious reason

Click to expand...

So rapidly it caught up whales while rising

sfs said:

I don't know what this sentence is supposed to mean. Whales are fossilized when their bones fall to the sea floor and are covered by sediment.

The whale died, was buried in sediment, and long afterward (in whale terms) the sea floor rose. What's supposed to be the problem?

Click to expand...

When a whale dies it does not become a fossil as special conditions are required before fossilization occurs. Consider the proof in the video below.


The dead whale in the video will be eaten by all the deep sea creatures until all that remains are its bones. The whale will not just become a fossil. When creatures die they decay away and this is how it works in nature. Again, fossilization doesn't occur when a creature dies. The fossil record in sedimentary rock was the result of a rapid burial process and not just the result of a natural death.

But, if the whale was rapidly buried due to the erosive force of water and landmass collapsing and being covered with water, while whales being caught in the catastrophe along with other forms of marine life we see in the mass fossil record.

If fossilization is so common, whether it be on land or in sea, then why aren't we finding loads of fossils from, say, 1850? Why not an entire fossil bed of whales from 1776? Why do all scientists date these fossils from ancient times? I haven't seen anything documented from any scientist revealing fossil beds of modern whales that died a natural death. Nay, these whales are eaten until they are gone--even the bones themselves are fed on! Just watch any deep sea nature program where dead whales are featured. Fossilization does not occur every time a whale dies. If that were the case then we'd have so many fossils it would be no big deal to us and nobody would be talking about it.

Anyone who rejects the Flood of Noah is automatically catapulted to the fallacious and absurd notion that firestorms somehow cause sedimentary rock. For the atheist is held down to his belief that a large asteroid hit the earth causing dinosaurs to die off.

Hum? May I ask: if indeed birds are feathered dinosaurs as so commonly taught by evolutionists today, and these birds evolved from dinosaurs, then these birds were alive during the age of the dinosaurs, right? So how can feathered birds survive the alleged K-T Event? Not possible. Not possible at all. Nothing would have lived in reality. All life would have been wiped out. But on the Darwinian timeline, not only does life supposedly survive, but it soon evolves into much more complex species of life. Yet this asteroid would have caused a firestorm which would have circled the earth and destroyed all life! First there is the impact itself which immediately kills everything in the impact region. This impact has temperatures which exceed a nuclear missile. The impact does two things: secondly, a nuclear strength firestorm circles the earth. Third, at impact, molted rock is flung up into the atmosphere and returns to earth in the form of a burning acid rain. All plant life dies. Nothing can withstand the heat. Fourth, a noxious cloud covers the earth. Any feathered bird that somehow managed to escape the firestorm and falling molted rock, now suffers from a noxious cloud which will effortlessly kill all remaining birds on earth.

Also! <---yeah, I put an exclaim after also--all water on earth would be gone. Evolutionists have a hard enough time trying to explain the origin of water, and now they have to explain how water survived a global firestorm that would have....I'm trying to think of the word to use here....I'll just say hyper-evaporated the water which would have included clouds, polar regions, and seas. So the earth is without water so how is there going to be a fossil record of any former life in sedimentary rock? Firestorms don't even cause sedimentary rock! The rapid erosive force of water causes sedimentary rock. But this K-T Event you desire is a scientific absurdity and many evolutionists know this and are slowly trying to abandon this popular THEORY due to the problem of the fossilization process not having a sound explanation. The video below gives us people today a good look at what would happen if a large asteroid hit the earth today. Watch the video made by evolutionists and ask yourself what would live? Also observe at the end of the water there is no water left. That is accurate.


So back to whales. We know or should know by now that sedimentary rock is formed by water. We know a firestorm didn't cause land life to become fossils so that rules out firestorms as being an acceptable explanation. The Flood of Noah would have caused a mass fossil record on land and in the seas. The Flood would have caused landmass to collapse and become large ocean basins. The fossilization process would be in hyper-overdrive as life is rapidly buried in the sediments of the earth. Since all ancient antiquity records this Flood, and sedimentary rock agrees with ancient antiquity, it is clear to the intuitive mind that the Flood explains the entire fossil record.

So the reasonable explanation as to why whale fossils are found at the peak of the Andes mountains is that they were rapidly buried there during the Flood of Noah. I see no explanation better than that.

DaveDavids said:

There's the points about specious reasoning brought up by other posters, but there's also the fact there's no ancient literature depicting a literal ancient worldwide flood

None whatsoever

There is, however, an overwhelming abundance of literature , pre-Biblical, that use the terms " flood / deluge " to refer to various astronomical events like new moons and eclipses, as well as " High Priests " and their office/s

There's also the rather obvious fact that the flood narrative in the Bible is based on the same astronomy knowledge of the earlier priests, but since hardly anybody actually studies the literature containing mathematical astronomy of the Mesopotamian priesthoods, it's a topic that seems out of reach for most

Click to expand...

And you know all this how? The internet? I own all these ancient accounts and all the ones that have all or most of the story still in tact say it was a global Flood! And the dating of these documents is irrelevant since the Biblical account is the only ark that will survive the deluge and keep afloat. We know the deluge happened. Therefore the true account is gonna hold water. As for the rest of your assumptions, well...you assume many things as most atheists do without ever actually reading these ancient accounts which sternly disagree with atheists.

Do Christians disagree with Jesus...the word made flesh?


Matthew 24:37-39 King James Version (KJV)
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

So many atheists writing "Christian" on their profile and then denying Christ at the very mention of the Flood.

Hank77 said:

Not one person who has posted is an atheists. As you were told, atheists are Not allowed to post in this sub-forum, it's for Christians only.

Click to expand...

In that case the Flood is not up for debate. The Flood was agreed upon by all Nicene scholars as well as Ante-Nicene fathers and up to our present day modern scholars. Since Jesus Christ said the Flood happened then debating the Flood on this topic is a violation of this forum.

Matthew 24:37-39 King James Version (KJV)
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

If you don't agree with what Jesus says here than you don't agree with Jesus at all. Again, many atheists like to write "Christian" on their profile so they can come here and preach atheism. But it don't work because Jesus is the word made flesh and what He says is the last and final word.

Therefore the Flood is a fact.