6000 years?

[Boris Norris]

I don't think so.

New Clues to the First Life on Earth – Researchers Uncover 3.42 Billion-Year-Old Microbial Mysteries

The research team has discovered complex microbial communities in ecosystems dating back over 3 billion years. Microorganisms are believed to be Earth's earliest life forms, with evidence embedded in rocks that are 3.5 billion years old. These rocks contain geochemical and morphological markers, li

scitechdaily.com

 

[Tripoli]

I don't think so.

New Clues to the First Life on Earth – Researchers Uncover 3.42 Billion-Year-Old Microbial Mysteries

The research team has discovered complex microbial communities in ecosystems dating back over 3 billion years. Microorganisms are believed to be Earth's earliest life forms, with evidence embedded in rocks that are 3.5 billion years old. These rocks contain geochemical and morphological markers, li

scitechdaily.com

Yea, so?

 

[mark francis]

I don't think so.

New Clues to the First Life on Earth – Researchers Uncover 3.42 Billion-Year-Old Microbial Mysteries

The research team has discovered complex microbial communities in ecosystems dating back over 3 billion years. Microorganisms are believed to be Earth's earliest life forms, with evidence embedded in rocks that are 3.5 billion years old. These rocks contain geochemical and morphological markers, li

scitechdaily.com

There is far too little sediment on the sea floor for the earth to be millions of years old. Furthermore, the thin layers of mud on the sea floor is further evidence that fossils were not formed on sea floors but in rapid sediment deposits resulting from massive flooding.

 

[Tripoli]

There is far too little sediment on the sea floor for the earth to be millions of years old. Furthermore, the thin layers of mud on the sea floor is further evidence that fossils were not formed on sea floors but in rapid sediment deposits resulting from massive flooding.

Yea, but only if you choose to look at the Pacific mid ocean ridge where the seafloor is literally growing by the second

 

[mark francis]

Yea, but only if you choose to look at the Pacific mid ocean ridge where the seafloor is literally growing by the second

Large mammal fossils were not formed in either deep or shallow sea slow sedimentation.

 

[Tripoli]

Large mammal fossils were not formed in either deep or shallow sea slow sedimentation.

Not at the mid ocean ridge they weren't or aren't

 

[Boris Norris]

There is far too little sediment on the sea floor for the earth to be millions of years old. Furthermore, the thin layers of mud on the sea floor is further evidence that fossils were not formed on sea floors but in rapid sediment deposits resulting from massive flooding.

So your now an expert on sediment quantities?
Noah's flood??? You idiot.

 

[mark francis]

Not at the mid ocean ridge they weren't or aren't

How were mammoth fossils preserved? No by slow sedimentation in either deep or shallow water, but by rapid burial by massive amounts of sedimentary deposits in very short time periods.

 

[Boris Norris]

How were mammoth fossils preserved? No by slow sedimentation in either deep or shallow water, but by rapid burial by massive amounts of sedimentary deposits in very short time periods.

How can you possibly know that? It's highly unlikely they were found in the ocean floor considering they were land animals.
Do you know what tectonic plates are?

 

[Tripoli]

How were mammoth fossils preserved? No by slow sedimentation in either deep or shallow water, but by rapid burial by massive amounts of sedimentary deposits in very short time periods.

Not at the bottom of the ocean, most were frozen in permafrost on land

 

[mark francis]

How can you possibly know that? It's highly unlikely they were found in the ocean floor considering they were land animals.
Do you know what tectonic plates are?

Bodies decay after they die. For example, mammoths that were perfectly preserved with undigested food still in their mouths and stomachs were not preserved by slow sedimentary deposits.

 

[Tripoli]

Bodies decay after they die. For example, mammoths that were perfectly preserved with undigested food still in their mouths and stomachs were not preserved by slow sedimentary deposits.

So what is your theory?

 

[Boris Norris]

Bodies decay after they die. For example, mammoths that were perfectly preserved with undigested food still in their mouths and stomachs were not preserved by slow sedimentary deposits.

So you're an expert on that as well or is that what your religion tells you to say?
Here's a bit about frozen in Siberia. That would explain the preserved contents. Can you provide the alternative detail to this.

The appearance and behaviour of this species are among the best studied of any prehistoric animal because of the discovery of frozen carcasses in Siberia and North America, as well as skeletons, teeth, stomach contents, dung, and depiction from life in prehistoric cave paintings.

 

[mark francis]

So what is your theory?

Catastrophic deep flooding.

 

[mark francis]

So you're an expert on that as well or is that what your religion tells you to say?
Here's a bit about frozen in Siberia. That would explain the preserved contents. Can you provide the alternative detail to this.

The dilemma facing Bible deniers is that a mammoth preserved by freezing for thousands of years must have been frozen very rapidly and very deeply for its slowly cooling warm insides not to have decayed and destroyed the undigested assortment of a wide variety of green vegetation the mammoth was feeding on. And how did its environment change from summer to winter so rapidly and then remain winter permanently afterward for thousands of years?