Tiktaalik ha ha

[Black Akuma]

I mean, look at the link. Just look at it.

Introduction to the Tetrapoda

It clearly says 'Introduction to the Tetrapoda'. Does it say 'Introduction to the EARLY Tetropoda'? No? Then why would you expect it to be talking about only that?

 

[Queller]

Actually mammals did appear towards the end of the Devonian. That is what it says on a couple links I clicked on. Frogs, fish, mammals. Then later come the dinosaurs in the Triassic and Jurassic.

How do we determine the difference between the Devonian, Triassic, and Jurassic environments? Why are they sometimes on top of one another?

The more I look at it, the more it looks like the result of a flood.

Could you explain how a Flood deposits a thickness of several miles of fine-grained sediments first, and then places boulder-laden conglomerates on top? Think about the expression "to sink like a stone".

Really I think the whole supposed geological record is a house of cards.

The YEC explanation of the geological record, yes.

 

[Queller]

I simply called tetrapods mammals, which they are.

Not all tetrapods are mammals. Did you seriously not understand that? Mammalian tetrapods did not exist in the Devonian.

 

[Queller]

I mean, look at the link. Just look at it.

Introduction to the Tetrapoda

It clearly says 'Introduction to the Tetrapoda'. Does it say 'Introduction to the EARLY Tetropoda'? No? Then why would you expect it to be talking about only that?

There's even a nice link at the bottom going to "Fossil Record" where we find this gem;

"Tetrapods are a name that we have given to anything with four feet (tetra=four, pod=feet). Therefore all land dwelling vertebrates can be considered tetrapods. However, when discussing the EARLY tetrapods, we are usually discussing very primitive groups that have none of the specializations of their living descendants: amphibians, mammals, and reptiles (including birds)"

Seriously ED, you just looked at the pictures on the front page of the site and didn't bother to investigate at all, didn't you?

 

[EternalDragon]

I mean, look at the link. Just look at it.

Introduction to the Tetrapoda

It clearly says 'Introduction to the Tetrapoda'. Does it say 'Introduction to the EARLY Tetropoda'? No? Then why would you expect it to be talking about only that?

This all stems back to my original quote which was this:

"Actually mammals did appear towards the end of the Devonian. That is what it says on a couple links I clicked on. Frogs, fish, mammals. Then later come the dinosaurs in the Triassic and Jurassic."

I mean, like 2-3 pages of posts all because of a misplaced word? And a link clearly showing mammals? My third sentence does say frogs, fish, mammals and then later came the dinosaurs....in the very next geological layers.

What if I had said animals appeared at the end of the Devonian?

You guys seem way too sensitive.

 

[CabVet]

This all stems back to my original quote which was this:

"Actually mammals did appear towards the end of the Devonian. That is what it says on a couple links I clicked on. Frogs, fish, mammals. Then later come the dinosaurs in the Triassic and Jurassic."

I mean, like 2-3 pages of posts all because of a misplaced word? And a link clearly showing mammals? My third sentence does say frogs, fish, mammals and then later came the dinosaurs....in the very next geological layers.

What if I had said animals appeared at the end of the Devonian?

You guys seem way too sensitive.

What a deflection, this is not a misplaced word. Tetrapods are not mammals. Mammals did not appear in the Devonian. You are absolutely wrong, and instead of admitting that you are wrong you are just digging a deeper hole. That's one thing I've noticed about creationists, they very rarely admit that they are wrong.

 

[EternalDragon]

There's even a nice link at the bottom going to "Fossil Record" where we find this gem;

"Tetrapods are a name that we have given to anything with four feet (tetra=four, pod=feet). Therefore all land dwelling vertebrates can be considered tetrapods. However, when discussing the EARLY tetrapods, we are usually discussing very primitive groups that have none of the specializations of their living descendants: amphibians, mammals, and reptiles (including birds)"

Seriously ED, you just looked at the pictures on the front page of the site and didn't bother to investigate at all, didn't you?

No, I did not continuously click on every link I saw. But recent discoveries do not paint all tetrapods from the Devonian as that primitive.

 

[Queller]

This all stems back to my original quote which was this:

"Actually mammals did appear towards the end of the Devonian. That is what it says on a couple links I clicked on. Frogs, fish, mammals. Then later come the dinosaurs in the Triassic and Jurassic."

Thank you proving everyone's point. You DID say mammals appeared at the end of the Devonian. THEY DIDN'T. Mammals didn't appear until the late Triassic.

I mean, like 2-3 pages of posts all because of a misplaced word? And a link clearly showing mammals? My third sentence does say frogs, fish, mammals and then later came the dinosaurs....in the very next geological layers.

When you're in a hole the best advice is to stop digging. Don't compound your mistake by saying that dinosaurs came after mammals.

 

[Black Akuma]

But recent discoveries do not paint all tetrapods from the Devonian as that primitive.

This is typically the part where you link to something that supports your assertion.

And whatever it is, I guarantee you it's not a mammal. Or a frog. Or a bird.

 

[Queller]

No, I did not continuously click on every link I saw. But recent discoveries do not paint all tetrapods from the Devonian as that primitive.

What discovery shows mammals living in the Devonian?

 

[Black Akuma]

You guys seem way too sensitive.

It ticks me off. You want to know why?

You're frequently lambaste people who talk about the Bible and have a poor understanding of it. And you know what? I don't blame you for that. People shouldn't talk about things they know little to nothing about.

So it mystifies me that you have that attitude, yet still feel the need to talk about things that you clearly, unquestionable, undoubtedly do not understand.

This is basic stuff. Even if you don't agree with it, you should have picked it up by simple repetition by now. It's painfully clear that you don't understand anything that you're talking about here, and that you're just making this stuff up as you go. You don't have models, or any consistency in your process. It's just whatever you think supports your stance at the moment, even if it really doesn't.

You're your own worst enemy.

 

[Black Akuma]

What if I had said animals appeared at the end of the Devonian?

You'd still be wrong. Fish are animals. The things that came before fish were animals.

 

[EternalDragon]

What a deflection, this is not a misplaced word. Tetrapods are not mammals. Mammals did not appear in the Devonian. You are absolutely wrong, and instead of admitting that you are wrong you are just digging a deeper hole. That's one thing I've noticed about creationists, they very rarely admit that they are wrong.

I'll admit I was wrong in not following the correct classifications of life. It was a slip of a word and I even said in the third sentence, "frogs, fish, mammals and then dinosaurs".

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I did not continuously click on every link I saw. But recent discoveries do not paint all tetrapods from the Devonian as that primitive.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that some animals are "more evolved" than others.

When a paleontologist says that an animal is "primitive" he or she is only comparing certain physical elements that that creature has to later ones.

 

[CabVet]

I'll admit I was wrong in not following the correct classifications of life. It was a slip of a word and I even said in the third sentence, "frogs, fish, mammals and then dinosaurs".

And you would be wrong again, the correct order is: fish, frogs, dinosaurs and then mammals. But thanks for admitting.

Now, was creation week before or after the Devonian?

 

[EternalDragon]

It ticks me off. You want to know why?

You're frequently lambaste people who talk about the Bible and have a poor understanding of it. And you know what? I don't blame you for that. People shouldn't talk about things they know little to nothing about.

So it mystifies me that you have that attitude, yet still feel the need to talk about things that you clearly, unquestionable, undoubtedly do not understand.

This is basic stuff. Even if you don't agree with it, you should have picked it up by simple repetition by now. It's painfully clear that you don't understand anything that you're talking about here, and that you're just making this stuff up as you go. You don't have models, or any consistency in your process. It's just whatever you think supports your stance at the moment, even if it really doesn't.

You're your own worst enemy.

Yet here we are on a Christian forum, not an evolution forum. You may have a point if it were the reverse.

I use one word out of place and suddenly I don't understand anything. What ticks me off is that almost every non-Christian posting here waits for a Christian to slip up and then jumps all over them, attacking the person for a minor slight rather than addressing the real issues.

I don't "lambaste" anyone like this and ask them to admit their mistake or ridicule them. I simply correct them and move on. So we should just move on now.

 

[EternalDragon]

And you would be wrong again, the correct order is: fish, frogs, dinosaurs and then mammals. But thanks for admitting.

Now, was creation week before or after the Devonian?

Before

 

[CabVet]

Yet here we are on a Christian forum, not an evolution forum. You may have a point if it were the reverse.

I use one word out of place and suddenly I don't understand anything. What ticks me off is that almost every non-Christian posting here waits for a Christian to slip up and then jumps all over them, attacking the person for a minor slight rather than addressing the real issues.

Oh, come on, you didn't "use a word out of place", you claimed (and defended the claim) that mammals appeared in the Devonian. In Biblical terms, that would be like saying that Noah was the son of Moses.

I don't "lambaste" anyone like this and ask them to admit their mistake or ridicule them. I simply correct them and move on. So we should just move on now.

And everyone would have moved on if you had admitted your mistake readily instead of making it worse by saying that tetrapods are mammals.

 

[CabVet]

Before

So why aren't there cows (or any other mammals) in Devonian strata anywhere in the world?

 

[Black Akuma]

Yet here we are on a Christian forum, not an evolution forum

To be more specific, you're on the Creation and Evolution section of Christian forums. So it might behoove you to actually know the basics of evolution before pontificating about it.

I use one word out of place and suddenly I don't understand anything.

It wouldn't have been such a big deal if you'd admitted your mistake from the outset instead of digging yourself deeper into the hole. You exacerbated it.

attacking the person for a minor slight rather than addressing the real issues.

Coming from you - a person who repeatedly IGNORES points and skips over issues constantly, outright abandoning topics, even ones that you start yourself - that's rich. That's so rich it's fattening.

So we should just move on now.

Okay.

You're claiming that Denovian is actually an environment. Can you explain, then why we don't find anything like whales, dolphins, manatees, pleisiosaurs...really, no aquatic animals besides fish at all...in this environment? Not to mention plant life?

And while you're at it, can you explain why we don't find any of these Denovian fish in the earliest layers? Why are the oldest fossils, deepest fossils we find always microscopic, simple organism?