So you think your god gave the sun, moon and stars as a gift to human nations 70 million years before any human nations existed.
Or did your god give them as a gift to the Triceratops clans?
Also, Earth’s rotation didn’t just slow during the late Cretaceous, it’s been slowing continuously for aeons - and it was closer to 23 hours than 24 hours during the Cretaceous.
Once more you pick an arbitrary event (not really an event at all, just a point in a continuum) to fit your time scheme, and an arbitrary translation, which nobody else uses. You distort both science and scripture. Thanks, Procrustes.
It’s true for many taxa, including birds and mammals. But why pick that diversification event rather than another?
That’s nothing more than a minimum. We have no real clue what the actual number was.
Yes, and they were successful before too. This is another arbitrary choice to fit your scenario.
It is not. What textbook?
Sure. Anything can mean anything if you squint hard enough.
Of course. But you picked your meaning to match the sequence, not the sequence to match the meaning. And even there you’re wrong. You don’t pick teleosts to represent fish, since teleosts originated long before the K/T. You pick some other time in a long period of teleost evolution. And why should teleosts alone represent fish anyway? Again, you’re distorting both text and science to fit.
We can do without the condescension, but I’m willing to ignore your last paragraph if you stop.
Humans can entrain to a 23.5 hour circadian cycle, so I’ll go with the 23.5.
Don’t lose the point that Genesis 1 is history and not science. It describes increasing habitability for humans. So, yes, the Late Cretaceous was mildly favorable for mammal evolution and the post-K-Pg even more so.
The study doesn’t say we couldn’t also acclimatise to a 23.4 hour cycle, it just says that 23.5 is possible. If we could tolerate a 23 hour cycle, would you say day 4 began tens of millions of years earlier than the late Cretaceous?
The point is that it’s neither.
In what way was the post-K/T more favorable for mammal evolution than the Late Cretaceous, or the Permian for that matter?
You repeat yourself, but you don’t provide any evidence for your point. Why do you say that it is not a purported history of God creating the Earth?
Evidenced by more and bigger mammals.
Yes. To be consistent, that would have to be considered. Do you know of any studies that address that?
That word “purported” is new, and it quite changes the subject.
More and bigger translates to more favorable?
IIRC various studies have shown that humans deprived of day/night influences typically adopt a 25-hour day. Perhaps day 4 will begin 100,000,000 years from now.
A bit late, but I didn’t see you come in … Welcome to Peaceful Science, @Skovand 
You are not wrong. A shrub is a kind of fruit-bearing (berries, typically) woody angiosperm that is not a tree. So one could legitimately distinguish fruit-bushes from fruit-trees. Is that your point?
However: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/9/eaar8568
Previous studies indicate that angiosperm trees were present by the Cenomanian, but this discovery demonstrates that angiosperm trees approaching 2 m in diameter were part of the forest canopies across southern North America by the Turonian (~92 million years ago), nearly 15 million years earlier than previously thought.
I am under the impression that angiosperm tree = fruit tree. So I think I have a robust case for fruit trees preceding the K-Pg by a significant margin.
I don’t believe that the Bible teaches fixity of species and I recognize that these early fruit trees went through a lot of adaptation by the time God created human beings.
I think the point is that not all woody angiosperms bear fruit so you can’t assume that a tree bore fruit just because it is described as a woody angiosperm. To use another example, bears are mammals but not all mammals are bears.
This is straight from wikipedia. By definition, woody angiosperms bear fruit.
Flowering plant
Temporal range: Late Valanginian – present, 134–0 Ma
The flowering plants, also known as Angiospermae or Magnoliophyta are the most diverse group of land plants.
Like gymnosperms, angiosperms are seed-producing plants. They are distinguished from gymnosperms by characteristics including flowers, endosperm within their seeds, and the production of fruits that contain the seeds. Etymologically, angiosperm means a plant that produces seeds within an enclosure; in other words, a fruiting plant. The term comes from the Greek words angeion (“case” or “casing”) and sperma (“seed”).
The ancestors of flowering plants diverged from the common ancestor of all living gymnosperms during the Carboniferous, over 300 million years ago, with the earliest record of angiosperm pollen appearing around 134 million years ago. The first remains of flowering plants are known from ~125 million years ago. They diversified extensively during the Early Cretaceous, became widespread by 120 million years ago, and replaced conifers as the dominant trees from 60 to 100 million years ago.
Have you ever eaten sunflower fruit?
Usually you don’t eat the fruit, just the seed.
No, that’s nothing at all like my point, and I have trouble believing that you ever seriously supposed it might be. My point is very simple: “fruit tree” has a clear meaning, and it refers to a tree having a fleshy fruit with high sugar content that people eat. Oaks are angiosperm trees, but they aren’t fruit trees. Maples are angiosperm trees, but they aren’t fruit trees. And so on. Nobody, ever, has called them fruit trees. Fruit trees are not just trees that have fruits (in the botanical meaning of the term), and the bible certainly doesn’t use the term in its botanical meaning. Please stop now before you embarrass yourself further.
John, the Bible does not use the word “fruit tree”. It uses the word Hebrew word “perı̂y”, which is translated “fruit” in many cases in the Old Testament, including “fruit of thy womb”, meaning a child, and “fruit of thy cattle”, meaning animal offspring. The word is no more specific than to identifying produce, and in the case of Genesis 1, produce containing seeds within it. That is essentially the botanical definition of fruit.
Acorn - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia “The acorn is the fruit of the oak tree.”
An acorn actually is a fruit, botanically speaking. The trees God created did not produce fruit for human consumption only, but also for the animals. So, there are animals of various kinds that will eat the fruit of trees of all kinds, even those that humans don’t consume.
I am supposing now that you don’t actually have any serious point to make at all.
Does your question have a point?
God created plants on Day 3, that does not mean plants stopped growing on Day 4.
So on Day 4, the Earth had a day-night cycle that humans could in theory entrain to, and you are saying that we are covered for the next 100,000,000 years. So, what is your point? Why would Day 4 begin later, if it already started working for us in the past?