| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
24th September 2003, 04:00 PM
|  | Contributor
65   
| | Join Date: 4th March 2003
Posts: 6,393
Blessings: 117,766 My Mood 
Reps: 19,183,710,574,649,584 (power: 19,183,710,574,664) | | | bump |
27th September 2003, 01:47 PM
| | Contributor
65
| | Join Date: 4th March 2003
Posts: 6,393
Blessings: 117,766 My Mood
Reps: 19,183,710,574,649,584 (power: 19,183,710,574,664) | | | bump attempt |
11th October 2003, 07:23 PM
|  | Be wise and be smart
26   
 | | Join Date: 16th December 2002 Location: University of Rhode Island
Posts: 1,539
Blessings: 265,856
Reps: 3,202,689,982,729,637 (power: 3,202,689,982,740) | | | bump
__________________ "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution." -Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine |
27th October 2003, 08:02 PM
| | Be wise and be smart
26
| | Join Date: 16th December 2002 Location: University of Rhode Island
Posts: 1,539
Blessings: 265,856
Reps: 3,202,689,982,729,637 (power: 3,202,689,982,740) | | | The proudest bump I have ever given
__________________ "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution." -Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine |
31st October 2003, 03:56 AM
| | Be wise and be smart
26
| | Join Date: 16th December 2002 Location: University of Rhode Island
Posts: 1,539
Blessings: 265,856
Reps: 3,202,689,982,729,637 (power: 3,202,689,982,740) | | | Shameless bump
__________________ "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution." -Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine |
2nd November 2003, 04:29 PM
| | Be wise and be smart
26
| | Join Date: 16th December 2002 Location: University of Rhode Island
Posts: 1,539
Blessings: 265,856
Reps: 3,202,689,982,729,637 (power: 3,202,689,982,740) | | | This is fun.
Bump.
__________________ "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution." -Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine |
2nd November 2003, 04:47 PM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 23rd August 2003
Posts: 867
Blessings: 91,232
Reps: 11 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by troodon I'll be bumping this with yet another addition.
In Fossil Butte National Monument (of Wyoming) we find some awesome early Quaternary fossils. Flowering plants (including grasses), diverse species of insect, fish, birds, primitive mammals, and some small reptiles are known from the site.
Does this site represent its own ecosystem wholly separate from the others I've listed? If so then what mechanism kept the other animals I've cited (more advanced mammals and dinosaurs specifically) from moving in? There are no large predators known from this site; a very nice niche for an allosaur or lion or dromaeosaur to take. There are no large herbivores known from this site; a very nice niche for a buffalo or stegosaur or baluchitherium to take over, no? Also, what kept the flowering plants and birds located here from spreading to the Morrison? Where did the grass present in the northern Midwest come from since it isn't located in any of the dinosaur localities I've listed? What kept it from spreading there while the dinosaurs were still around? You see, all of this makes sense from an old earth standpoint; none from a young earth standpoint.
Once again, the fossils represent different biomes and the fauna of a particular area.
If the flood happened today, would you expect to see a tiger buried with a gray squirrel? NOPE.
How about a penguin with a parrot? NOPE
Desert plants with eastern forrest plants? NOPE.
A trilobyte with a bat? NOPE
An alligator with a road runner? NOPE
If the fauna lived in the same biome we find them together.
I thought you already knew that geographical seperation played a role in fossil seperation. |
2nd November 2003, 06:04 PM
| | Be wise and be smart
26
| | Join Date: 16th December 2002 Location: University of Rhode Island
Posts: 1,539
Blessings: 265,856
Reps: 3,202,689,982,729,637 (power: 3,202,689,982,740) | | Originally Posted by Ark Guy Once again, the fossils represent different biomes and the fauna of a particular area.
If the flood happened today, would you expect to see a tiger buried with a gray squirrel? NOPE. Quit using straw men! I am not talking about Indian animals and North American animals. I am talking about Colorado animals and Wyoming animals; North Dakota animals and South Dakota animals; Northern South Dakota animals and Southern South Dakota animals; Western Montana and Eastern Montana animals.
You are using a strawman in order to warrant dismissal. You are using a strawman so that you do not have to think. This many completely different "biomes" would not be able to exist in such close proximity to one another.
I have given you examples of fossil beds showing at least 9 completely different ecosystems all present in the mid-West. Many of these ecosystems include predators (which bone analysis shows to have been endothermic) breaching 40 feet in length and herbivores over 80 feet in length; not the types of things which would occupy small territories.
Among my examples are 2 in Arizona (one is aquatic, feel like explaining that one?), 2 in Alberta (one is aquatic and in the middle of the Rockies, feel like explaining that one?), 2 in Colorado (one has flowering plants, the other don't), one in Kansas (aquatic, feel like explaining that one?), one in Kentucky (aquatic, feel like explaining that one?), 2 in Montana, and 3 in Wyoming. Each example has (very large) fauna completely different from all the others and shows no signs of any of the fauna we see today.
So tell me, why didn't flowering plants live in central Colorado? Why didn't birds live there either? or in Arizona? How did Kansas, Kentucky, parts of Arizona, and the Canadian rockies get all these marine organisms? How did a whole population of 80-90 foot sauropods exist only in central Colorado with nothing but tough, non-flowering vegatation to live on? Why didn't Dromaeosaurs (raptors) invade all these mammal-only zones that they surrounded? How would 2 populations of Tyrannosaurs have been able to coexist no where but Eastern Montana while 3 populations of Allosaurs lived no where but in Colorado while a 3rd Tyrannosaur population lived no where but in Western Montana and in Alberta? All the while with smaller predators competing with them? Your "biome" theory does not make sense and the only way you can defend it is with the strawman examples you display below. How about a penguin with a parrot? NOPE
These do not live in the same climate zones. Strawman; NEXT Desert plants with eastern forrest plants? NOPE.
These do not live in the same climate zones. Strawman; NEXT A trilobyte with a bat? NOPE
These don't even live in the same environment. Strawman; NEXT An alligator with a road runner? NOPE
These do not live in the same state. Strawman; DONE
Also, with regards to the alligator/road runner strawman, analysis of the plant fossils in most of these locations show that the environments were very similar. The dinosaurian ones were dominated by cycads (wonder where they all went) and ferns with some flowering plants in a few of the beds. The mammal ones are the dominated mostly by flowering plants with almost no hint of ferns or cycads. If the faunas are so similar what kept different dinosaurs from going to the other dino "biomes"? What kept different mammals from going to the other mammal "biomes"? What kept those birds from living in Arizona and Colorado again? If the fauna lived in the same biome we find them together.
The spaces that these "biomes" exist in are not large enough to supply food for all the animals. Also, where did all this sediment come from that immediately buried all these animals in their "biomes"? How was the Grand Canyon carved if it was buried in sediment? Why weren't birds living in Colorado again? I thought you already knew that geographical seperation played a role in fossil seperation.
Yes, big oceans and enormous differences in climate do play roles in creating different ecosystems. This situation does not exist in any of my examples; that's why I picked them. That's why all the bone beds I selected almost all are within, at the very most, 400 miles of another; normally within a 100 or so. 
__________________ "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution." -Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
Last edited by troodon; 2nd November 2003 at 06:08 PM.
|
2nd November 2003, 07:30 PM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 23rd August 2003
Posts: 867
Blessings: 91,232
Reps: 11 (power: 0) | | | troodon:
I have given you examples of fossil beds showing at least 9 completely different ecosystems all present in the mid-West. Many of these ecosystems include predators (which bone analysis shows to have been endothermic) breaching 40 feet in length and herbivores over 80 feet in length; not the types of things which would occupy small territories
so what?
How would that hurt the flood model? |
2nd November 2003, 08:19 PM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 23rd August 2003
Posts: 867
Blessings: 91,232
Reps: 11 (power: 0) | | | BUMP | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
