6days
New member
Yep..... Unless they are rapidly covered in sediment protecting it from oxidation and scavengers.Silent Hunter said:Really? All of them without exception? No possible way for it to happen?6days said:Scavengers, bacteria and oxidation destroy beached whales.
Your inability to refute the statement is noted.Silent Hunter said:You've got not even wrong down to a, ahem, science.6days said:Special conditions must exist for something to become fossilized. And we seldom if ever find something in ocean sediment that is in the process of being fossilized. Yet, throughout the world we have some areas where sea creatures have been almost perfectly preserved in fossil form, including soft tissue.
Naturally. It's because you are unwilling to follow the evidence....unwilling to allow a Divine foot in the door.Silent Hunter said:I think you're mistaken
Ha..... It is funny the things evolutionists will say in order to reject the evidence.Silent Hunter said:The tissue isn't still soft, it is simply fossilized in such a way that the tissue pattern is apparent.
You have been answered many times. The consistent world pattern is evidence of the global flood.Silent Hunter said:No way it could have happened except in th type of flood you favor? Right?6days said:(quoting a secular journal)
"My initial hypothesis was validated by a consistent and worldwide pattern." And this pattern included "rapid entombment of soft-bodied organisms in sediments" . .He also assumes the conditions that must have existed in a "global ocean". The author also says a cause would be "rapid entombment" by "bottom-flowing density currents."
So you agree it fits the evidence of the global flood model...and all we need to do now is agree on dating fossils. See.... It wasn't so hard.Silent Hunter said:Yeah, except ....6days said:So... your answer is a large flood... that rapidlyburies and preseves them in sediment? That is the short version of the global flood model. Its the evidence we see around the world.
Nope... You don't understand evidence. (and, I think you meant 50 million.).Silent Hunter said:the evidence suggests the event that buried the turtles happened 500,000,000 years ago. Please reconcile that with a supposed global flood that you say happened 4,500 years ago that buried the turtles.
Hunter.....perhaps no one has ever seen you posting in TOL. But, we believe you do..... There is evidence.Silent Hunter said:....no one has ever seen a catastrophic flood? Who, besides the mythical Noah, saw the global flood you claim?
Ha... You made me laugh out loud. The evidence is consistent with the global flood model. It is you who keeps making goofy, non scientific suggestions. (Beached whales do not turn into fossils)Silent Hunter said:You are so afraid to shatter your carefully constructed little fantasy you can't bring yourself to look at any evidence that is contradictory.
Yup..... That's what Stripe and I have been saying all along.Silent Hunter said:....It is a possibly explanationThe global flood model is the best explanation for the evidence.
Perhaps review what the OP says...
Observations
1. A catastrophic event (flood) must have rapidly buried these turtles in sediment before they had a chance to cease and desist.
2. Fossilization happened rapidly. They are extremely well preserved.
3. Thousands of exquisitely preserved fossils are in the same area including "insects and feathers (birds) that still have hints of their original colors.”
4. The turtles are very similar to turtles that exist today, (the Carettochelys insculpta) although the fossilized ones are much larger.
The observations are all expected within the creation / flood model. God's Word is absolute truth, and the world around us supports His Word.