Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[CabVet]

I see it is comedy hour again.

You couldn't be more right!

pretty much, as there is no evidence of humans existing during of that time. I don't think that kind of cow would exist due to natural selection.

 

[CabVet]

Hold on, what exactly kind of cow we are talking about here?

The one with four legs... If you want to be very specific, the scientific name is Bos primigenius.

 

[lifepsyop]

There are many massive bonebeds full of bones that are covered in toothmarks from scavengers as well as shed theropod teeth and bones that show evidence of having been trampled. Wait, did you hear that? That was the sound of your argument flying out the window. Clearly the assertion that rapid burial by a global catastrophe is required for fossils to be preserved is false. The fact that evidence of prolonged exposure, scavenging and trampling is common in the fossil record proves it to be nonsense. Off you go.

Right because natural enemies forced into close proximity with each other, probably needing to climb over each other just to get a breath of air aren't going to touch each other. They will be like little plastic toys and just sit there bobbing around.

 

[CabVet]

If you want to argue about science, then we can do the part A of creationism, which is fully scientific and it does include falsification.

I am anxiously waiting for you to tell us which part of creationism can be falsified.

 

[CabVet]

Right because natural enemies forced into close proximity with each other, probably needing to climb over each other just to get a breath of air aren't going to touch each other. They will be like little plastic toys and just sit there bobbing around.

You should really try to learn what evolution is before trying to debate about it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that science is only a subset of creationism?

It's hard to understand because it isn't true.

 

[46AND2]

Sigh. This is why symbolic argument is always better.

A = science
B = can not be falsified.

Creationism = (A + B)

Clear? That is what I said.

If you want to argue about science, then we can do the part A of creationism, which is fully scientific and it does include falsification.

Science = A + (not)B

Creationism = A - (not)B

Therefore, creationism is less than science.

Unless you'd like to demonstrate why falsification is a negative?

 

[Loudmouth]

Right because natural enemies forced into close proximity with each other, probably needing to climb over each other just to get a breath of air aren't going to touch each other. They will be like little plastic toys and just sit there bobbing around.

How did every species of grass out run so many species of pterosaurs to the high ground?

 

[super animator]

The one with four legs... If you want to be very specific, the scientific name is Bos primigenius.

You mean the Aurochs according to the wiki here? That different from the common find animal that you find in farms. I thought you guys are talking about the domesticated cow.

You guys are confusing me here.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Which tells us that you are damaged beyond hope in a dream world of delusion and ignorance.

That doesn't help.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sigh. This is why symbolic argument is always better.

A = science
B = can not be falsified.

Science = falsifiable
Creationism = unfalsifiable

Creationism =/= Science

Clear?

 

[Loudmouth]

I did not say creationism IS scientific.

Everything of creationism is scientific, except the falsification part,

If it doesn't include falsification, then it isn't scientific.

The scientific method is not a buffet where you can pick and choose what you want. Once you remove falsification it is no longer scientific.

Clear?

The bottom line is that creationism will be claimed to be true no matter what evidence we find. Creationism is a dogma, not a science. It contains dogma, not scientific logic.

 

[super animator]

That doesn't help.

It very hard not to do that, when you're debating with him for years, as your patient had decaying from it.

 

[FredHoyle]

That doesn't help.

Suppose you tell us what will help him because we have run out of ideas?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Suppose you tell us what will help him?

Letting him believe what he wants. Even when people are rude, just remain nice. Don't lower yourself to petty emotions over what a person on this forum thinks. True, many people share those beliefs you don't agree with, but it is better to let them decline naturally than to try to force a change. A belief doesn't last for thousands of years and just end within a couple hundred.

 

[lifepsyop]

Ah, so sloths, slow lorises, koalas etc. etc. are all faster than all dinosaurs? I think not. And those rodents. They outpaced speedsters like Dromiceiomimus, did they? It's almost as if your explanation makes no sense.

It's almost as if you are just waving your hands and throwing out random arguments from incredulity.

Did you notice Sloths and Koalas are arboreal? They navigate these things called trees. Trees are these tall things that stick way up out of the ground.

Smaller rodents have much more of a chance to climb onto floating mats of vegetation.

Dromiceiomimus is found in the late Cretaceous after many mammalian fossils appear.

And still you have no explanation for how not one single angiosperm, the most diverse and common type of plant, appears at the bottom of the rock record with the earliest plants. Not exactly a minor flaw with your deeply flawed model. Don't worry, I'll be happy to keep reminding you of this until you produce an explanation.

Trees and plants float. It's not all that surprising to not see some of them appearing till higher layers. Perhaps most angiosperms were growing at higher elevations pre-flood.

Also, Angiosperms have been found in Triassic rock layers. This is fairly low in the record as far as terrestrial ecosystems go. I don't see you making any compelling argument here.

Hochuli 2013

Here we report on angiosperm-like pollen and Afropollis from the Anisian (Middle Triassic, 247.2–242.0 Ma) of a mid-latitudinal site in Northern Switzerland. The described pollen grains show all the essential features of angiosperm pollen.

 

[lifepsyop]

Please explain how an anklyosaurus, a large, heavy, land-dwelling, herbivorous dinosaur is fundamentally different mobility wise and behavior wise than say, a rhinoceros, a large, heavy, land-dwelling, herbivorous mammal.

Please explain how an anklyosaurus comes into existence by the cobbling together of culled genetic accidents over millions of years.

The superstitious Darwinian mysticism you guys readily swallow is simply amazing. Pseudo-skeptics to the highest degree.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How about radioactive dating of fossils? Radioactive decay of the carbon 14 and uranium within the bodies of all living things would not be impacted by this floating you speak of, thus, when this process was used, people would have realized that those angiosperm and animal fossils of modern animals were older than the sediment layer would suggest.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's almost as if you are just waving your hands and throwing out random arguments from incredulity.

Did you notice Sloths and Koalas are arboreal? They navigate these things called trees. Trees are these tall things that stick way up out of the ground.

Grass is a thing that grows on the ground. It is found above the majority of pterosaur fossils.

Smaller rodents have much more of a chance to climb onto floating mats of vegetation.

We find mammoths in layers above tiny dinosaurs.

Also, you still have not explained the correlation between the isotopes in the rocks above and below the fossils and the fossil species. Why don't we find any mammals in rocks that are dated to the Devonian using radiometric dating? How do you explain this?

How do you explain the correlation between the radiometric dating of fossil species and their chances of surviving after the flood? Why is it that the K/Ar ratios of the rocks around a fossil determine how well that species would survive after the flood? Is it just a coincidence that we don't find any dinosaurs in sediments dating to younger than 65 million years old?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Please explain how an anklyosaurus comes into existence by the cobbling together of culled genetic accidents over millions of years.

The superstitious Darwinian mysticism you guys readily swallow is simply amazing. Pseudo-skeptics to the highest degree.

We aren't false skeptics, that would suggest that we really aren't skeptical, which I can say is not the case.