That excuse has no basis in science. It an attempt to create a straw man argument that is not falsifiable. But true scientific investigation demands that something be provable or falsifiable. This claim that tectonic plates placed marine fossils at the peak of Mt.Everest and whales up in the Andes is a straw man argument. you seem to be implying that you don't believe in tectonic movement at all whatsoever, which is a thing some YEC people claim, actually, However, true science does prove the straw man is false. The fossil record is found in sedimentary rock which is formed by the erosive force of water. Evolutionists are forced to assume that whale falls automatically become fossils which is not true science. no one has ever said that any species automatically becomes fossils when they die, this would alter the percentages of fossils, if whale falls were automatically fossils, half of the fucking fossils in the world would be whales Fossilization is very rare and when something dies it just doesn't become a fossil. how rare exactly, YEC puts the date of the creation of the world at young enough that all the fossils we've found would add up to damn near every animal that's ever died, earth being older than YEC date is based on the idea that fossilization is rare, so what's the percentage here, out of every billion animals that die, how many become fossils? All living things that die are subject to natural decay. Fossilization occurs when something living is rapidly buried by the force of water in the sediments of the earth. fossilization can occur without water, otherwise more than half the species we've discovered wouldn't have been discovered, if being buried in water is absolutely necessary for fossilization, than that means there are so much more animals being born without fossilizing than what we've previously calculated, which of course proves YEC wrong just from the sheer number of animals being born placing the age of life on earth older than YEC age Whale falls do not qualify as being rapidly buried in the sediments of the earth. you seem tyo be implying that whales are way the fuck less likely to become fossils than any other animal, which is bullshit science, So evolutionists fail to explain, scientifically, how these whales became fossils in the first place? whales live underwater, so they become fossils in the same way as any other marine animal
When a whale dies it falls to the bottom of the ocean. Scavengers then feast on the whale until even its bones are gone and nothing remains of the whale as this video proves. if the whales were always eaten in this way then there wouldn't be any fucking whale fossils at all whatsoever, if the marine scavengers were created at the same time at the same place as whales, then there'd never be any whale fossils to begin with, the existence of any whale fossils at all whatsoever actually kinda disproves Creationists view of how animals were made
So there are no whale fossils to account for the geological uplift story told by evolutionists and they do not have any valid excuses to reject the Flood. In fact, in the last decade, evolutionists have changed up their K-T event story to include a near global Flood on earth which you can see in some of the more updated documentaries from the earlier part of this century on up. I've watched a few of these documentaries and evolutionists are changing their asteroid theory to accommodate a near global Flood because they know without lots of flood water they cannot explain the fossil record. K-T event being a flood doesn't necessarily alter the date of K-T event, you're still saying humans interacted with dinosaurs and it's still bullshit, we don't know exactly what the K-T event was because there were no humans present to observe it, K-T event could still have been a flood without it being Noah's Flood So their partial acceptance of the Flood is their way of admitting that its true without actually saying it. But the Flood that left a massive extinction record was witnessed by those who survived it, namely Noah and his family. Nowhere in the bible does it mention the former existence of animals that no longer exist, if Noah's flood had killed the dinosaurs there'd be some mention of "this animal doesn't exist anymore" but there isn't anything like that at all anywhere in scripture Had it been caused by an asteroid there is no way Noah could have had time to build such an ark on dry land and prepare to board the ark. if you assume the dinosaurs died out way the fuck before Noah was born, then a flood that drowned the dinosaurs could have been caused by an asteroid hitting the dead-center of an ocean Noah knew the Flood was coming which is how he and his family survived. some Ancient Astronaut Theory says that Noah's flood was caused by an asteroid and that the "deities" knew that this asteroid was coming far enough ahead of time to warn Noah about "the coming flood" because they had calculated ahead of time that the asteroid was going to hit dead-center of an ocean Evolutionists cannot explain that naturally if they exclude God from it. global flood doesn't explain how the whales could have gotten into a spot where they couldn't be eaten by the scavengers, how did whales manage to show up at a place where the scavengers couldn't follow?? flood doesn't explain this But they do know the Flood is true and are accepting a near global Flood. Soon they will break down and accept a global Flood. There is no explaining the fossil record without it. this is assuming that floodwater is necessary for fossilization to occur, which is bullshit science, fossilization can and does happen with out "flood water" such as peat bogs for an example And once you accept the global Flood the date of the earth drastically is reduced from millions of years old to thousands of years old.
Whale falls don't produce fossils.
