Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[EternalDragon]

What, specifically have you read on the subject, ED? What actual research on this have you done?

Can I trust the interwebs? I am sure some of what is said below is true to the evidence they have and some probably isn't.

Tectonics and paleoclimate

Significant changes in the world's geography took place during the Devonian. During this period, the world's land was collected into two supercontinents, Gondwana and Euramerica. These vast landmasses lay relatively near each other in a single hemisphere, while a vast ocean covered the rest of the globe. These supercontinents were surrounded on all sides by subduction zones. With the development of the subduction zone between Gondwana and Euramerica, a major collision was set in motion that would bring the two together to form the single world-continent Pangea in the Permian.

In addition to global patterns of change, many important regional activities also occurred. The continents of North America and Europe collided, resulting in massive granite intrusions and the raising of the Appalachian Mountains of eastern North America. Vigorous erosion of these newly uplifted mountains yielded great volumes of sediment, which were deposited in vast lowlands and shallow seas nearby.

Extensive reef building, producing some of the world's largest reef complexes, proceeded as stromatoporoids and corals appeared in increasing numbers. These were built in the equatorial seas between the continents. Large shallow seas in North America, central Asia, and Australia became basins in which great quantities of rock salt, gypsum, and other minerals precipitated.

Near the end of the Devonian, a mass extinction event occurred. Glaciation and the lowering of the global sea level may have triggered this crisis, since the evidence suggests warm water marine species were most affected. Meteorite impacts have also been blamed for the mass extinction, or changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is even conceivable that it was the evolution and spread of forests and the first plants with complex root systems that may have altered the global climate. Whatever the cause, it was about this time that the first vertebrates moved onto the land.

The Devonian Period

 

[Black Akuma]

I am sure some of what is said below is true to the evidence they have and some probably isn't.

Why don't you go on, say, Google Scholar and actually look some of this stuff up? The research is out there, but expecting a single article to go into that level of detail for every single point is a bit ridiculous. There's a reason why places like Wikipedia link and list their sources so you can check them out.

Imagine if, during a research paper, instead of sourcing your points, you had to stop and explain, in detail, the research behind it. Like, in a paper about ancient Chinese culture, you couldn't just explain how agriculture developed in fuedal China, you had to go into the history of study on it, competing theories about, the complete archaeological history - pretty much writing a paper within a paper.

 

[juvenissun]

Death is the end for everything including us, you can believe whatever you like but believing something changes nothing.

Yes, it changes things dramatically.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Can I trust the interwebs? I am sure some of what is said below is true to the evidence they have and some probably isn't.

It's bizarre to argue that the Devonian period is just one environment. Devonian-age strata contain a range of environments. In any case, that doesn't help your position at all. If the Devonian was merely an environment then we should expect to all the organisms that inhabited that environment. So why no mammal? Mammals inhabit the land, sea, lakes, air, underground etc so there is no reason that they aren't found in the Devonian.

You are avoiding answering this question in two threads now. Why no cows in the Devonian?

 

[juvenissun]

It's bizarre to argue that the Devonian period is just one environment. Devonian-age strata contain a range of environments. In any case, that doesn't help your position at all. If the Devonian was merely an environment then we should expect to all the organisms that inhabited that environment. So why no mammal? Mammals inhabit the land, sea, lakes, air, underground etc so there is no reason that they aren't found in the Devonian.

You are avoiding answering this question in two threads now. Why no cows in the Devonian?

Because cow was not created yet.

 

[Queller]

Scientists little made up story of what they think the Devonian period looked like.

The Devonian PERIOD. right? Not the Devonian environment? What leads you to believe it was made up?

 

[EternalDragon]

The Devonian PERIOD. right? Not the Devonian environment? What leads you to believe it was made up?

They weren't there. I doubt it can be observed from a few fossil sites.

 

[Black Akuma]

They weren't there. I doubt it can be observed from a few fossil sites.

It's not just 'a few fossil sites'. There are hundreds of these fossils found all over the world. The Hunsruck Slates in Germany alone are about 150 km long and yield about 300 Devonian species. Not just 300 fossils - 300 distinct species.

 

[46AND2]

Second, they aren't found in that strata because they were up on land and buried later in higher strata when they died. (During the flood).

Why no dolphins, then?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

They weren't there. I doubt it can be observed from a few fossil sites.

Nice argument from incredulity. Not a real argument, as I'm sure you're aware. In actuality the geologists who identify paleoenvironments do so by identifying a range of diagnostic features. They look at things like fossil assemblage, sediment size, sorting, composition, sedimentary structures etc. It's not the superficial process you seem to imagine.

And you seem to be avoiding addressing the point that even if the Devonian did represent a certain environment rather than a time period, it doesn't explain away the absence of all the animals that should be there. So? Why aren't there any aquatic mammals or marine reptiles of any sort all mixed in with those fish? How many times do you plan to duck this question?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Because cow was not created yet.

You understand that cow can be replaced with almost any animal, right? You know there were fish, so according to Genesis 1:21 God should also at this time have created "the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind." So where exactly are all those sea creatures that were created with the fish? Where are the dolphins and the whales and the seals and the otters and the manatees and the dugongs and the ichthyosaurs and the plesiosaurs and the mosasaurs (etc. etc. etc.)?

It seems like they would be included under the category of every living thing in the water. So why don't they appear in the Devonian, Juve?

 

[juvenissun]

You understand that cow can be replaced with almost any animal, right? You know there were fish, so according to Genesis 1:21 God should also at this time have created "the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind." So where exactly are all those sea creatures that were created with the fish? Where are the dolphins and the whales and the seals and the otters and the manatees and the dugongs and the ichthyosaurs and the plesiosaurs and the mosasaurs (etc. etc. etc.)?

It seems like they would be included under the category of every living thing in the water. So why don't they appear in the Devonian, Juve?

Good question. I don't know (for now).

However, it is true that marine fossils were deposited earlier than terrestrial fossils. So, my problem is not a serious one after all.

Besides, how would Moses know that marine life appeared (was made) earlier than terrestrial life? Was he just lucky on the guess?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good question. I don't know (for now).

However, it is true that marine fossils were deposited earlier than terrestrial fossils. So, my problem is not a serious one after all.

Besides, how would Moses know that marine life appeared (was made) earlier than terrestrial life? Was he just lucky on the guess?

That is not entirely correct. Fish appear before land animals in the fossil record, of course. But yes, Moses was lucky. He was wrong on other aspects. If I recall correctly he was terribly wrong about flowering plants.

And of course there are so many different individual beliefs in creationism it is hard to know where you are coming from. If you go by literal days the fossil record blows that away in no time.

E.D. is a literalist and even believes the Noah's Ark myth of a global flood.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Good question. I don't know (for now).

However, it is true that marine fossils were deposited earlier than terrestrial fossils. So, my problem is not a serious one after all.

Besides, how would Moses know that marine life appeared (was made) earlier than terrestrial life? Was he just lucky on the guess?

When you say "for now" that implies that you may eventually have an answer. Do you actually think you will come up with a reason for why the alleged order of creation to no degree conforms to the fossil record or are is it one of those things that you "plan" to get to? Although I am pleased that you were willing to admit that you had no answer instead of avoiding the point or making up nonsense.


the problem remains that the fossil record as a whole doesn't conform to the Bible. The whole thing is a big "I don't know (for now)" for your belief. It doesn't correspond to the order of creation and it certainly doesn't correspond to what we should see if everything were killed by a single relatively short event.

 

[EternalDragon]

That is not entirely correct. Fish appear before land animals in the fossil record, of course. But yes, Moses was lucky. He was wrong on other aspects. If I recall correctly he was terribly wrong about flowering plants.

And of course there are so many different individual beliefs in creationism it is hard to know where you are coming from. If you go by literal days the fossil record blows that away in no time.

E.D. is a literalist and even believes the Noah's Ark myth of a global flood.

That is because you are trying to put creation week into a little box that fits with the fossil record, which was after a global flood buried everything. Of course it doesn't match.

Noah was not giving an account of the fossil record. Plus the fact that no one even knows what the world looked like then. Scientists do have bits and pieces. Like the fact that the continents were closer to one land mass at one time.

 

[Black Akuma]

which was after a global flood buried everything.

The problem is that the fossil record doesn't look like it was all made in a global flood. It looks like it was slowly developed over a long period of time. An extremely long period of time.

Like the fact that the continents were closer to one land mass at one time

Not just one time, multiple times.

 

[Jro]

Like the fact that the continents were closer to one land mass at one time.

Wouldn't this imply an even greater admixture of species in the fossil record, nevermind extant life?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

That is because you are trying to put creation week into a little box that fits with the fossil record, which was after a global flood buried everything. Of course it doesn't match.

In other words you're acknowledging that the fossil record doesn't fit with the description of Creation. Good. Let's move on. But be careful, Ed. This is the point that caused you to disappear from your own Fig Wasp thread. Are you prepared yet to support the assertion that the fossil record fits with what should be expected if it were entirely deposited by a single event over a relatively short period?

 

[EternalDragon]

E.D. is a literalist and even believes the Noah's Ark myth of a global flood.

I'm a Christian. Jesus believed in and taught from Moses' writings, which includes Genesis and the record of Noah's flood. Why wouldn't I believe it?

 

[Black Akuma]

There are plenty of Christians who don't think Jesus took it as literal history. Are they not Christians?