Wibble: Again, geographical separation does not explain the pattern in the fossil record for you. Dinosaurs and human fossils are not "separated by 10,000 miles" as you speculated in another post recently
No you haven't understood what I meant. I meant that dinosaurs at the time of the antediluvian pangea, might have been a long distance away from humans. You do realise that now the continents are not one super continent I presume? So then surely you must understand that I speak laterally about one land mass, not vertical positions in the placement of the rocks now. So i was speaking of the placement of living things while not buried, not dead, buried things, as they are placed NOW.
You're not thinking it through. Yes there may be a physical distance now between lower rocks and higher rocks, which is small but obviously where those organisms lived at the time there may have been distance. Basically the marine forms buried close now to the higher layers would have been taken there by the water. Obviously a more modern flood model shows it's not the simplistic bath-tub type flood that evolutionists sometimes envision, but very convoluted with many phases and types of hydraulic action.
Wibble: It is ridiculous to suggest (under your model) that somehow all modern animals never shared the same space with dinosaurs but conveniently, non modern, extinct mammals did.
But why on earth would I claim that? You do love your strawmans don't you?
The words, "modern" and, "non-modern" here, are used as question-begging-epithets, because you would call a jellyfish "non-modern" not because of evolution theory saying it is, but because recently they found jellyfish in much, much older layers. So if you find a "modern" form in an older layer, you will then call it, "non-modern".
So how can I win, if it's heads it's evolution, if it's tails it's evolution.
There are, "modern" forms found with dinosaurs, like birds, mammals. There are modern forms such as dragonflies. But you would reply to that by saying, "they're ancient because they are found in ancient rock." Exactly, it's a catch 22, if I say you can't find them in modern rock you will say it's because they didn't exist (arguing from silence fallacy) and if I say "there are modern forms with dinos" you will say, "they're ancient".
But if they become ancient if they are found in older layers, how can I satisfy your request? So then qualify modern forms for me. Do you mean something that exists now? Because I can show you many things that exist now that are buried either in the same layer as dinos or close.
Wibble: Once the dinosaurs disappeared at the K-T boundary, mammals rapidly diversified to fill the vacated niches, that's what the fossil record shows.
You're free to believe that happened. Me personally, I think what lived in the antediluvian world is explainable because of the time organisms have had to radiate since then.
You can't think in modern terms, a lot of the fossils we find are unknown, extinct and sometimes bizarre creatures, that we never knew existed. I believe in the past it was the opposite of today, the ratio of kinds/species would have been drastically different. Think of the pre-flood pangea-continent as a very large zoo, where God has created an unimaginable variety of creatures, limitless. They have no reason to migrate, they are basically in the same zone they were created to exist in. Now then, today we have a lot, lot, lot, lot less of them, but what we do have is many more species, "of" what we do have.
So now 1 kind may have an average of 50 species but THEN there may have been maybe only 3 species to a kind, on average. This would explain why the fossils are so rich in providing new forms. You forget that the dinosaurs themselves, all of them, are now extinct. The world that was then, under the flood model, was tremendously different to the world now.