Organization of Fossils

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

bump

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

bump attempt

 

[troodon]

bump

 

[troodon]

The proudest bump I have ever given

 

[troodon]

Shameless bump

 

[troodon]

This is fun.

Bump.

 

[Ark Guy]

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.

 

[troodon]

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.

 

[Ark Guy]

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?

 

[Ark Guy]

BUMP

 

[troodon]

so what?
How would that hurt the flood model?

As I said in my post (the majority of which you seem to be ignoring) the sizes of your proposed "biomes" are not large enough to supply food for so many populations of such enormous animals. Elephants (a rediculously smaller animal) have individual territories encompassing hundreds of square kilometers (source) and that is in heavily vegetated South-East Asia where they normally eat energy rich food; not the dull plant fodder that dinosaurs were obviously forced to eat.

BUMP

You may ignore all the evidence but you YECs sure have a sense of humor.

 

[Ark Guy]

As I said in my post (the majority of which you seem to be ignoring) the sizes of your proposed "biomes" are not large enough to supply food for so many populations of such enormous animals. Elephants (a rediculously smaller animal) have individual territories encompassing hundreds of square kilometers (source) and that is in heavily vegetated South-East Asia where they normally eat energy rich food; not the dull plant fodder that dinosaurs were obviously forced to eat.


.

Perhaps you could present a reference to back up your statement.

Of course you do realize that your argument is a double edged sword.

Think about it. The fossil record YEC or evolutionism both represent a biome. Not enough food in one also means not enough food in the other model.

I think you should rethink your last statement.

 

[TAYLOR C]

Troodon,
New member here. Ark Guy's "biomes" are not disproven (or proven) by your comments on the close vicinity of the fossil sites. The link you provided on the elephants told of a 300-400 km squared area. That is "only" 115-155 miles squared. After a quick read of the sites you listed, I could not find any area distance greater than this.
Also, your statement regarding the paleoenvironment not having enough quality vegetation to support the sauropods may be true or not. For example, we know that Siberia does not (theoretically) currently have enough vegetation to support the thousands (millions?) of mammoths that once live there, but this does not change the fact that paleontologist know they indeed did live there. This same situation could possibly apply to the sauropods.
I know, I know. I didn't answer your question regarding the flood having enough hydraulic force to create the Grand Canyon but yet allow the biomes to remain unaffected in terms of cross fossilization. The reason for this. I don't know yet. I will continue to research this and see if I can come up with a science based theory.
On a side note, I'd like to say how great I think it is that we came come together to discuss topics like this. It's what makes the world truly interesting.
Taylor

 

[troodon]

Excuse my tardiness; I grow tired of talking to walls

Perhaps you could present a reference to back up your statement.

Incase you didn't notice, the "source" is a link to my reference.

Of course you do realize that your argument is a double edged sword.

Think about it. The fossil record YEC or evolutionism both represent a biome. Not enough food in one also means not enough food in the other model.

Only if you do not understand an old earth in at all. The animals found in the respective bone beds were not restricted to that area. Tyrannosaurus roamed throughout North America, but was only fossilized in Montana and Canada. 60 million years earlier Allosaurus lived throughout North America but was only fossilized in Wyoming, the Dakotas, Canada, and Colorado. The North American continent is plenty of room for these species to exist at separate times; it is not enough room for them all to exist at the same time in distinct little colonies.

"Use your head boy!"
-Archemedes, "The Sword and the Stone"

I think you should rethink your last statement.

I should rethink it because you refuse to try and understand it? I should rethink it because you prefer to live in a world where you are forced to believe in God. I think not my poor little brother in Christ.

New member here

Welcome!

Ark Guy's "biomes" are not disproven (or proven) by your comments on the close vicinity of the fossil sites. The link you provided on the elephants told of a 300-400 km squared area. That is "only" 115-155 miles squared. After a quick read of the sites you listed, I could not find any area distance greater than this.

True, but you do not seem to be understanding the types of animals that are located in these fossil beds. The Morrison has in it at least 5 different species of enormous sauropods, each larger than 60 feet in length. These would take much more food than any living elephant (especially since elephants have the privilage of being able to eat fruit). This isn't even including all the 20-30 foot stegosaurs that are found there as well. In some of the other bone beds are 50 foot hadrosaurs, 60 foot sauropods, plus all of the carnivores I have mentioned. The elephant example was designed to show our friend Ark Guy that even animals as small as elephants require huge amounts of space in order to live.

Also, your statement regarding the paleoenvironment not having enough quality vegetation to support the sauropods may be true or not.

No flowering plants (aka: fruit producing) are known from pre-Cretaceous rocks or coprolites. Ferns, mosses, and pines are known very well but flowering plants are completely absent; it is a virtual fact that sauropods did not have these to live on.

Also, your statement regarding the paleoenvironment not having enough quality vegetation to support the sauropods may be true or not.

That is an excellent example, but no paleontologist says that mammoths are restricted to a 500 square mile chunk of land in which they must have lived. Mammoths could roam as far as they needed to find whatever food they needed in their arctic tundra (which isn't quite as void of vegetation as you might think) whereas YECs (you among them?) claim that these sauropods had to exist in their own little "biome" and thus could not wander far for food.

know, I know. I didn't answer your question regarding the flood having enough hydraulic force to create the Grand Canyon but yet allow the biomes to remain unaffected in terms of cross fossilization. The reason for this. I don't know yet. I will continue to research this and see if I can come up with a science based theory.

I eagerly await it

On a side note, I'd like to say how great I think it is that we came come together to discuss topics like this. It's what makes the world truly interesting

Indeed

 

[troodon]

**bump**

 

[troodon]

**bump**

 

[troodon]

**bump**

 

[troodon]

**bump**

 

[TasManOfGod]

I notice that in the "anti creationist" post concerning the dinosaur footprints, it was conveniently omitted to mention the human footprints found inside them.

A huge emphasis is placed on the fact that often plants are not found with animal fossils which somehow indicates no world flood. Little imagination surely suggests that flood and massive upheavel would not necessarilly deposit topsoils and plantlife animal bird and marine life in the same place as as their original habitat/location

 

[gluadys]

I notice that in the "anti creationist" post concerning the dinosaur footprints, it was conveniently omitted to mention the human footprints found inside them.

A huge emphasis is placed on the fact that often plants are not found with animal fossils which somehow indicates no world flood. Little imagination surely suggests that flood and massive upheavel would not necessarilly deposit topsoils and plantlife animal bird and marine life in the same place as as their original habitat/location

You misunderstand. It is not that plant fossils do not accompany animal fossils. They do. But certain plants are associated with specific animal fossils and not with others. And they are also associated with specific sections of the geologic column and not others.

So, for example, one will often find grasses associated with fossils of post-Creteaceous mammals. But one does not ever find them associated with dinosaurs.

One finds the seeds and other remains of flowering plants only from the Cretaceous on---never with Triassic or Jurassic remains.

It is quite impossible to explain the distribution of fossils and their mutual associations with each other and with specific strata as a consequence of a global flood. Nothing in paleontology or geology fits with evidence of such a deluge.