Dinosaur footprints destroy flood geology.

[ChordatesLegacy]

The dinos did not live with these other creatures. It was a unclean fauna dominance while after the flood it was a clean mammal fauna dominance.
I don't want to find mix of these creatures. its impossible by this creationists concept of biogeography.

Again Rob your magical mystical biblical unclean mammal empty world is wrong.

There were many mammals extant during the Jurassic and Cretaceous, here are a few.


The new Jurassic mammal had strong limb bones, likely for digging, and could feed on insects and plants. Here it's portrayed as foraging among ginkgo leaves and the scattered shells of arthropods on the shore of a shallow freshwater lake. Credit: Mark A. Klingler, Carnegie Museum of Natural History

LINK

Large mammals once dined on dinosaurs

When the dinosaurs ruled the world, the mammals hid in the shadows, daring to grow no bigger than shrew-like insectivores that hunted at night. Or so we thought.
Two stunning new fossils from China have overturned this preconception. Not only did large mammals live alongside their giant reptilian cousins, but some were big and bold enough to go dinosaur hunting.
Named Repenomamus giganticus and Repenomamus robustus, the sturdily built mammals lived in China about 130 million years ago, around 65 million years before we thought their kind inherited the Earth. At 1 metre long, R. giganticus was big enough to hunt small dinosaurs, and a newly discovered fossil of its smaller cousin, R. robustus, died with its belly full of young dinosaur.

LINK

Model of R. giganticus, an extinct badger-sized mammal

The skeleton of the dog-sized mammal R. giganticus. Chinese Academy of Sciences

It’s not often your right ROB, but you’re wrong again.

 

[RobertByers]

Chordateslegacy
Funny thing.
I always thought your title was a spunky comment on your geology interest and confidence in its conclusions of old age earth.
I thought your title meant "Cor dates legacy" like ice core dating processes.
Later I realized it was some critter.
anyways

I know there were creatures called mammals. I don't accept the concept of mammals actually in classification. only kinds then species etc.
Its fine that little things were dodging dinos.
I only don't want mammals of size or style as we now understand it.
I have pondered if some dinos were actually mammalized after the flood. you know the creatures that are mammal -reptiles they talk about. It always comes down to ear bones.
Yes I see the clean/unclean biblical account as the post flood prompt to a mammalian dominance. A striking change in the world that they admit and explain from rocks from the sky. They have too explain the great sudden extinction.
No horses and t-rex though. Impossible.

 

[Chalnoth]

Since apparently ChordatesLegacy isn't around any more to reply, I'll do my best.

Chordateslegacy
Funny thing.
I always thought your title was a spunky comment on your geology interest and confidence in its conclusions of old age earth.
I thought your title meant "Cor dates legacy" like ice core dating processes.
Later I realized it was some critter.
anyways

I know there were creatures called mammals. I don't accept the concept of mammals actually in classification. only kinds then species etc.
Its fine that little things were dodging dinos.
I only don't want mammals of size or style as we now understand it.
I have pondered if some dinos were actually mammalized after the flood. you know the creatures that are mammal -reptiles they talk about. It always comes down to ear bones.
Yes I see the clean/unclean biblical account as the post flood prompt to a mammalian dominance. A striking change in the world that they admit and explain from rocks from the sky. They have too explain the great sudden extinction.
No horses and t-rex though. Impossible.

Your post here isn't coherent. What are you trying to say?

But even though it lacks coherence, it also strays from the facts dramatically. The way that we classify mammals in the fossil record is largely through their teeth and ears. We do this because when we look at modern-day mammals, they all share certain structures in their teeth and ears. And yes, this includes us.

These features are entirely lacking in dinosaurs. And yet there were mammals around at that time. Dinosaurs also have a number of their own unique features that we lack. Mammals, then, simply cannot have come from dinosaurs. The only modern survivors of dinosaurs are birds.

As for the flood/disaster idea, I ask you respond to Naroia's thread.

 

[Shadrach76]

I know there were creatures called mammals. I don't accept the concept of mammals actually in classification. only kinds then species etc.

what are the different kinds of animals?
where do humans fit in the kind classification?
what do you do with animals like the platypus or other aussie marsupials?

I only don't want mammals of size or style as we now understand it.

you want to make up your own classification of animals so they fit the bible? thats not how science works.

I have pondered if some dinos were actually mammalized after the flood.

i pondered if unicorns had saddles and golden stirups and were actually made of magical kool-aid.

you know the creatures that are mammal -reptiles they talk about.

they who?
are you going to use the findings of actual scientists and apply it to your own cause? if so you cant cherry pick this stuff to fit your needs. show your work.

Yes I see the clean/unclean biblical account as the post flood prompt to a mammalian dominance.

when were dinosaurs declared unclean? what makes them unclean? why were the clean mamals not saved?

A striking change in the world that they admit and explain from rocks from the sky. They have too explain the great sudden extinction.
No horses and t-rex though. Impossible.

they who?
are you talking about asteroid strikes on earth? we can see the craters today. we can see the layer of iridium around the entire planet (the K-T boundary) as a marker of a global event from an asteroid strike on earth.
where is your global marker from the flood?

 

[RobertByers]

Since apparently ChordatesLegacy isn't around any more to reply, I'll do my best.

Your post here isn't coherent. What are you trying to say?

But even though it lacks coherence, it also strays from the facts dramatically. The way that we classify mammals in the fossil record is largely through their teeth and ears. We do this because when we look at modern-day mammals, they all share certain structures in their teeth and ears. And yes, this includes us.

These features are entirely lacking in dinosaurs. And yet there were mammals around at that time. Dinosaurs also have a number of their own unique features that we lack. Mammals, then, simply cannot have come from dinosaurs. The only modern survivors of dinosaurs are birds.

As for the flood/disaster idea, I ask you respond to Naroia's thread.

I know how they classify. They are wrong. There are no mammals but just kinds of creatures which have the same things for the same needs.
Ears etc is a terrible way to look at relationships in biology.
The whole creature should be compared and not minor details.

 

[RobertByers]

Shadrack 76
I wrote an essay called "Post flood marsupial migration explained" by Robert Byers. Just google.
It answers your points there about marsupials etc.

 

[Chalnoth]

I know how they classify. They are wrong. There are no mammals but just kinds of creatures which have the same things for the same needs.
Ears etc is a terrible way to look at relationships in biology.
The whole creature should be compared and not minor details.

You do realize, I hope, that the classification "mammal" was around for about a hundred years before Darwin published On the Origin of Species?

It is relatively easy to define a mammal as any animal with fur. It also turns out that all such animals alive today also have mammary glands and particular structures in their teeth and ears. So it is only natural to make use of those structures that are best preserved to classify fossils (the teeth and ear bones). Why are you so resistant to this?

 

[Shadrach76]

Why are you so resistant to this?

because if he doesnt change the way animals are classified, it makes the flood story in the bible wrong (impossible). it shows another flaw in the book that he uses to prove his beliefs are perfect and the author of that book is without flaw.

if he were to accept the truth, his religious world would collapse and he cant deal with that.

 

[RobertByers]

You do realize, I hope, that the classification "mammal" was around for about a hundred years before Darwin published On the Origin of Species?

It is relatively easy to define a mammal as any animal with fur. It also turns out that all such animals alive today also have mammary glands and particular structures in their teeth and ears. So it is only natural to make use of those structures that are best preserved to classify fossils (the teeth and ear bones). Why are you so resistant to this?

The bible says there are kinds and doesn't say that these bigger classification exist. Therefore what is their basis. Your telling me creatures of different unrelated biological kinds are RELATED because of fur and glands? This is just a coincedence that these creatures need these things. there is no reason to see these details as relevant to heritage.
It was a silly idea of past centuries.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

The bible says there are kinds and doesn't say that these bigger classification exist. Therefore what is their basis. Your telling me creatures of different unrelated biological kinds are RELATED because of fur and glands? This is just a coincedence that these creatures need these things. there is no reason to see these details as relevant to heritage.
It was a silly idea of past centuries.

Now all you have to do is define "kind".

 

[AV1611VET]

Now all you have to do is define "kind".

QV please.

 

[[serious]]

QV please.

Actually, what we are asking for is a method of determining what present day creatures go in which "kind" and what those "kinds" are. If we are trying to define the created kinds and the only definition you can give us is "the kinds that were created" all you've done is make a circular definition.

Now, you did say that you think domestic animals were of a different kind than carnivorous animals, but at what point do we draw the line? Are all ungulates the "domestic kind"? are carnivorous ungulates part of the "carnivore" kind despite their similarities to hoofed animals? What about herbavores that appear to be closely related to carnivores?

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, what we are asking for is a method of determining what present day creatures go in which "kind" and what those "kinds" are. If we are trying to define the created kinds and the only definition you can give us is "the kinds that were created" all you've done is make a circular definition.

Now, you did say that you think domestic animals were of a different kind than carnivorous animals, but at what point do we draw the line? Are all ungulates the "domestic kind"? are carnivorous ungulates part of the "carnivore" kind despite their similarities to hoofed animals? What about herbavores that appear to be closely related to carnivores?

Sorry, Serious --- I can't help you with this. Taxonomy is not my thing. If you want to take an animal today --- say, a Cocker Spaniel --- and reverse engineer it clear back to the Garden of Eden, where the animals at the top of the taxa existed, I say: GOOD LUCK. Somewhere on your way back, the trail will evidentally run dry. The only thing that can be traced back to the Garden taxonomically, would be mankind.

 

[Chalnoth]

The bible says there are kinds and doesn't say that these bigger classification exist.

Just because the Bible doesn't say something doesn't mean it isn't true. The Bible doesn't say our Sun is a star, for instance, or that the Earth travels around it.

Therefore what is their basis. Your telling me creatures of different unrelated biological kinds are RELATED because of fur and glands? This is just a coincedence that these creatures need these things. there is no reason to see these details as relevant to heritage.
It was a silly idea of past centuries.

No, what I'm saying is that the classification of mammals existed quite a while before people believed that these animals were related by descent.

And you honestly think it's just coincidence that every animal that has fur also has mammary glands, and only animals with fur do? You honestly think it's coincidence that these animals also always have particular bones in their ears, and particular sorts of teeth? That these features are found in no other animals alive today? Do you not think that the fact that these features always come together needs explaining?

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry, Serious --- I can't help you with this. Taxonomy is not my thing. If you want to take an animal today --- say, a Cocker Spaniel --- and reverse engineer it clear back to the Garden of Eden, where the animals at the top of the taxa existed, I say: GOOD LUCK. Somewhere on your way back, the trail will evidentally run dry. The only thing that can be traced back to the Garden taxonomically, would be mankind.

You are right AV, we can follow the trail back until it runs dry, but the top of all the taxa turns out to be the single celled archaea.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are right AV, we can follow the trail back until it runs dry, but the top of all the taxa turns out to be the single celled archaea.

Does it now? I think there's this little thing called "missing links"; and if not, then I assume you're telling me that you have at least one representative of every single sub-sub-sub species from Cocker Spaniel all the way back to this archaea [whatever that is]? Just out of curiosity, what is the Cocker Spaniel's immediate predecessor?

 

[Chalnoth]

Does it now? I think there's this little thing called "missing links"; and if not, then I assume you're telling me that you have at least one representative of every single sub-sub-sub species from Cocker Spaniel all the way back to this archaea [whatever that is]? Just out of curiosity, what is the Cocker Spaniel's immediate predecessor?

Well, if you ignore the other domestic dog variants that came before, the closest relative to the domestic dog is the gray wolf. You'd have to look at the history of the Cocker Spaniel breed itself to see where it came from among older domestic dogs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, if you ignore the other domestic dog variants that came before, the closest relative to the domestic dog is the gray wolf. You'd have to look at the history of the Cocker Spaniel breed itself to see where it came from among older domestic dogs.

Okay, thanks, Chalnoth.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

QV please.

QV please.

 

[AV1611VET]

QV please.

Let me repeat:

Somewhere on your way back, the trail will evidentally run dry. The only thing that can be traced back to the Garden taxonomically, would be mankind.