Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[Queller]

So, according to your understanding, what does the Gen 1:21 mean? How can you tell God does not make more fishes on the Day 6?

Because in the verse you list, it is plainly stated that God created every creature that lives in water on Day 5. There is no mention of any water-dwelling creature being created on Day 6.

 

[Queller]

All right. I will argue with you. Let's change an example:

I have a farm of 50 male sheep and 50 female sheep. I pick 25 female and put them in a pan. Then I take you to the pan and write down the following on a piece of paper:

"Every sheep is female".

Would you understand what do I mean?

According to you, this would be equal to "all sheep are female", which is obviously wrong.

Or, should I wrote "all sheep are female" on the paper? Of course, both are not clear enough. But which one is less ambiguous?

You are qualifying the statement by taking us to the pen. So the statement "every sheep is female" means exactly the same thing as "all sheep are female".

Stop wasting our time and show us a dictionary that agrees with you. Please.

 

[Queller]

No problem on what you said.

The fact is that there is no qualifier used in Genesis 1.

There most certainly is a qualifier in Genesis 1:21. That qualifier is this "living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it." That qualifies the set.

So, how would one understand it? In deed it could go either way. But that is all I want, which is: there could be another way to see it. I just want the possibility.

And you've created one for yourself be redefining standard English words. We don't have to agree with you however.

What is the difference between these two phrases?

"Every number"

"all numbers"

 

[anyathesword]

What article? You didn't post anything.



If you're talking about this article...

DNA study: Man's best friend may be European in origin

No, it doesn't say that. It suggest that as a possibility, but doesn't state it definitely. You'll also note that there's no question that they came from wolves, even if the sort of wolf they came from is no longer extant. Wolves are still around. Dogs are still around.



So?



They know quite a few things. They're learning more things and gathering more evidence, refining conclusions. Like you were chattering on about before, that's how the method works.

Oh sorry I totally forgot to post the link, excuse me, here it is:
Dogs originated from wolves domesticated in Europe, 19,000-32,000 years ago: researchers | National Post

Yes, but don't you see the kind of words they use? They use appear, explode, gradually, words that don't have evidence, and they use two different words with different meanings in the same time, "gradually" and "appeared".

What I'm saying is whenever they don't know something they use words to explain their story, but when you think about it, dogs can't just appear, and if not then we would have more fossils to show gradual change.

 

[anyathesword]

Because in the verse you list, it is plainly stated that God created every creature that lives in water on Day 5. There is no mention of any water-dwelling creature being created on Day 6.

That's correct, God created animals and humans on the next day.

 

[anyathesword]

There are many problems with this claim. If fossils are due to the flood then we would find all life mixed together. A year long flood does not have enough time to sort the animals, nor for thousands of feet of coral reefs to grow. Nor for shales that are very slowly deposited and show seasonal variation to be laid down.

Anyone who seriously studies geology sooner or later realizes that there was no flood.

In spite of evolutionists’ assumptions to the contrary, the fossil order can be explained in a creationist framework, which actually avoids some of the contradictions of the evolutionary view.3 The ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Gen. 7:11) would logically have buried small seafloor creatures first. Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants. Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground. The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface, where post-Flood erosion would destroy most evidence of their existence. Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure; their floating bodies would have made easy meals for scavenging fish, so would not have fossilized as readily. Most mammal and human fossils are post-Flood.
Refuting Evolution 2 -- chapter 8: Argument: The fossil record supports evolution

 

[Black Akuma]

dogs can't just appear, and if not then we would have more fossils to show gradual change.

No one is saying dogs 'just appeared'. And we do have fossils. And even if we didn't, we'd have DNA evidence.

 

[anyathesword]

No one is saying dogs 'just appeared'. And we do have fossils. And even if we didn't, we'd have DNA evidence.

"The first dogs evolved by associating with hunter-gatherers rather than farmers, since dogs evidently appeared before agriculture did, they said."

"Over a very long time in this human environment, wolves gradually turned into the first dogs."
Dogs originated from wolves domesticated in Europe, 19,000-32,000 years ago: researchers | National Post

Yes of course there are fossils of dogs and of wolves.

 

[Black Akuma]

would logically have buried small seafloor creatures first.

But that's not what's buried first.

The deepest organism in the geologic column are actually small, microscopic organisms. That's it. They appear long before anything you would call fish do, and they appear for quite a while.

Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants.

But that's not what we find. For instance, plants like grasses are, today, found all over the land and sea. But in the geologic column, they don't appear in the bottom layers. They only show up later on.

Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground.

If that's true, why do flightless birds appear AFTER flying birds? Why don't we find pterosaurs on the upper layers, along with the birds?

Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure

So humans would have outlasted animals like pliesiosaurs or dolphins, even outlasted flying animals like pterosaurs?

Floods are quite deadly - even a modern, normal flood is quite capable of killing people, and we have systems today that can predict when they're about to occur. You're talking about a flood that was orders of magnitude more destructive, more powerful, faster and deadlier than anything we've ever experienced, and on an ancient civilization, nonetheless. They're dead. Humans simply do not do that well in a flood.

But you enjoy your little fantasy world.

 

[Black Akuma]

"The first dogs evolved by associating with hunter-gatherers rather than farmers, since dogs evidently appeared before agriculture did, they said."

"Over a very long time in this human environment, wolves gradually turned into the first dogs."
Dogs originated from wolves domesticated in Europe, 19,000-32,000 years ago: researchers | National Post

Yes of course there are fossils of dogs and of wolves.

What about the word choice is so perplexing to you?

 

[FredHoyle]

What about the word choice is so perplexing to you?

They are not the words creationists would use, creationism is so very very sad.

Most Americans do not really care about their fellow Americans do they?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

In spite of evolutionists’ assumptions to the contrary, the fossil order can be explained in a creationist framework, which actually avoids some of the contradictions of the evolutionary view.3 The ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Gen. 7:11) would logically have buried small seafloor creatures first. Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants. Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground. The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface, where post-Flood erosion would destroy most evidence of their existence. Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure; their floating bodies would have made easy meals for scavenging fish, so would not have fossilized as readily. Most mammal and human fossils are post-Flood.
Refuting Evolution 2 -- chapter 8: Argument: The fossil record supports evolution

I was waiting for you to try this. Oh Anya, it's almost cute the way you present these well-worn creationist PRATTS with such naive confidence as if we hadn't seen and refuted them dozens of times before.

Your vague ideas about differential escape abilities isn't born out by the fossil record either. Let's examine a few examples.

The ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Gen. 7:11) would logically have buried small seafloor creatures first

So we should only be finding small, seafloor (benthic) animals in the lower layers like the Cambrian? What about anamolocarids? Some species were 2 metres long! Then in the Silurian (still near the bottom of the Paleozoic) you have giant scorpions like Brontoscorpio and giant 2 metre long eurypterids. In other words, there are very large, mobile animals appearing at the bottom of the fossil record and not only the small benthic creatures you say should be there.

Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants.

So why do flowering plants only show up long after lycopods and ferns and conifers? Flowering plants live in the water, in the coastal lowlands and in mountains, yet they don't appear until about halfway through the fossil record. Again the pattern you claim exists doesn't actually appear in the fossil record.

Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground. The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface,

So turtles, being rather slow, show up right at the bottom of the fossil record, right? Wrong. They show up about halfway through. And slow moving animals like sauropod dinosaurs also show up relatively high in section. And why do fast, agile little dinosaurs like Coelophysis appear in the record before sauropods? Would they not have been better able to escape as well? And what else do we find with sauropods? Birds and pterosaurs. These flying animals were as incapable of escaping the flood as lumbering sauropods? Unlikely.

I could go on and on and on. The differential escape hypothesis is pleasing to the uninformed, but it only works if one makes sweeping generalizations with no real knowledge of the fossil record. Even minor familiarity with the fossil record shows that the pattern you claim should have been produced by the Flood doesn't actually exist. This is a big problem for you.

 

[bhsmte]

Some do lie or make up stories. I don't make fun of YOU, that is the difference. But whatever, foo

There are some on this board who have to ignore reality everyday, and that must be hard tedious work after a while.

You never answered my questions from post #622 from yesterday. Still waiting.

 

[stevevw]

Very very few. I can think of only two examples.

Meanwhile there have been thousands of fraudulent Christians. Form small scale grifters to David Koresh and Bob Jones. If you want to use frauds as evidence of a false belief then Christianity loses big time. It is not a wise course to take.

David koresh and bod Jones and any other nutter like that are not Christians. Just because they say they believe in God doesn't mean they are Christians. In fact didn't koresh think he was Christ. Anyone can claim to be anything but it doesn't mean they are. Frank Abagnale Jr from the famous movie catch me if you can pretended to be a doctor and a Air line pilot and got away with it for a while but he was no more a pilot then you or I. A christian is exactly what it says Christ - ian. Christ like.

 

[bhsmte]

David koresh and bod Jones and any other nutter like that are not Christians. Just because they say they believe in God doesn't mean they are Christians. In fact didn't koresh think he was Christ. Anyone can claim to be anything but it doesn't mean they are. Frank Abagnale Jr from the famous movie catch me if you can pretended to be a doctor and a Air line pilot and got away with it for a while but he was no more a pilot then you or I. A christian is exactly what it says Christ - ian. Christ like.

The no true scotsman thing doesn't fly, when you want to divorce yourself from the bad element.

Face it, there are some who abuse the concept of christianity and they harm others. There are bad christians and good christians, just as there are bad atheists and good atheists.

 

[stevevw]

I was waiting for you to try this. Oh Anya, it's almost cute the way you present these well-worn creationist PRATTS with such naive confidence as if we hadn't seen and refuted them dozens of times before.

Your vague ideas about differential escape abilities isn't born out by the fossil record either. Let's examine a few examples.



So we should only be finding small, seafloor (benthic) animals in the lower layers like the Cambrian? What about anamolocarids? Some species were 2 metres long! Then in the Silurian (still near the bottom of the Paleozoic) you have giant scorpions like Brontoscorpio and giant 2 metre long eurypterids. In other words, there are very large, mobile animals appearing at the bottom of the fossil record and not only the small benthic creatures you say should be there.



So why do flowering plants only show up long after lycopods and ferns and conifers? Flowering plants live in the water, in the coastal lowlands and in mountains, yet they don't appear until about halfway through the fossil record. Again the pattern you claim exists doesn't actually appear in the fossil record.



So turtles, being rather slow, show up right at the bottom of the fossil record, right? Wrong. They show up about halfway through. And slow moving animals like sauropod dinosaurs also show up relatively high in section. And why do fast, agile little dinosaurs like Coelophysis appear in the record before sauropods? Would they not have been better able to escape as well? And what else do we find with sauropods? Birds and pterosaurs. These flying animals were as incapable of escaping the flood as lumbering sauropods? Unlikely.

I could go on and on and on. The differential escape hypothesis is pleasing to the uninformed, but it only works if one makes sweeping generalizations with no real knowledge of the fossil record. Even minor familiarity with the fossil record shows that the pattern you claim should have been produced by the Flood doesn't actually exist. This is a big problem for you.

Generally though if you look at the fossil record you have the bottom dwellers at the lower parts of the record. Then you get the free swimming ones like the fish and other sea creatures. Then comes the mammals and birds. So a flood could produce the same thing. the bottom dwellers would be in place because generally they are not free swimming and are at the bottom of the sea. The fish would have been next as they were already in the waters and some well below the surface. Then the mammals as they were land creatures and then the birds that would have been affected last as they were in the air. Makes just as much sense as evolutions fossil record. Consider to that they have found creatures that they say should not be in certain layers and also small lighter shell creatures on top of the highest mountains and well in land. This shows that some could have been mixed up as well from the torrents of the flood which can explain the anomalies that the fossil record can show. Makes sense to me.

 

[Black Akuma]

Then you get the free swimming ones like the fish and other sea creatures.

Many sea creatures are missing at that level. No plesiosaurs. No itchyosaurs. No aquatic reptiles of any kind, even though they appear quite often in higher strata.

No whales. No dolphins. No walruses. No otters. No aquatic mammals of any kind.

And then we get into the plant life - sea grasses today are quite common, but not present in the lower strata. In fact, plants in general are a major problem for this line of reasoning - why do flowering plants only appear higher up? Did they outrun the other plants?

. Then the mammals as they were land creatures and then the birds that would have been affected last as they were in the air.

Not all mammals are land creatures and not all birds can fly.

Makes just as much sense as evolutions fossil record.

Not really.

. Consider to that they have found creatures that they say should not be in certain layers and also small lighter shell creatures on top of the highest mountains and well in land.

This is easily explainable. Not all mountains were always mountains. They started low, millions of years ago, and many of them were in marine environments. Animals die. They fossilize. Over time the mountains rise and bring the fossils with them. Simple.

Makes sense to me.

Of course it does. To geologists - or just about anyone with a working knowledge of the subject - it doesn't.

 

[Black Akuma]

Generally though if you look at the fossil record you have the bottom dwellers at the lower parts of the record.

And one more thing.

As I said before, the lowest level are not just 'bottom dwellers. The oldest fossils we find, far below anything you would ever call a 'fish', are simple, microscopic organisms, and they appear for quite a while before fish finally show up.

Today the ocean-bottom is dominated by all sorts of fishes and marine life. That's not what we find in the bottom of the fossil record.

 

[anyathesword]

I was waiting for you to try this. Oh Anya, it's almost cute the way you present these well-worn creationist PRATTS with such naive confidence as if we hadn't seen and refuted them dozens of times before.

Your vague ideas about differential escape abilities isn't born out by the fossil record either. Let's examine a few examples.



So we should only be finding small, seafloor (benthic) animals in the lower layers like the Cambrian? What about anamolocarids? Some species were 2 metres long! Then in the Silurian (still near the bottom of the Paleozoic) you have giant scorpions like Brontoscorpio and giant 2 metre long eurypterids. In other words, there are very large, mobile animals appearing at the bottom of the fossil record and not only the small benthic creatures you say should be there.



So why do flowering plants only show up long after lycopods and ferns and conifers? Flowering plants live in the water, in the coastal lowlands and in mountains, yet they don't appear until about halfway through the fossil record. Again the pattern you claim exists doesn't actually appear in the fossil record.



So turtles, being rather slow, show up right at the bottom of the fossil record, right? Wrong. They show up about halfway through. And slow moving animals like sauropod dinosaurs also show up relatively high in section. And why do fast, agile little dinosaurs like Coelophysis appear in the record before sauropods? Would they not have been better able to escape as well? And what else do we find with sauropods? Birds and pterosaurs. These flying animals were as incapable of escaping the flood as lumbering sauropods? Unlikely.

I could go on and on and on. The differential escape hypothesis is pleasing to the uninformed, but it only works if one makes sweeping generalizations with no real knowledge of the fossil record. Even minor familiarity with the fossil record shows that the pattern you claim should have been produced by the Flood doesn't actually exist. This is a big problem for you.

Why don't we take the fossil record and the geological column in another thread?

There is no problem for me don't you worry. Do you know what scientists do when they find a fossil NOT in their supposed period? And living fossils found with dinasours is very interesting for us to discuss.

We will find out in the new thread..

 

[FredHoyle]

Makes sense to me.

If the flood makes sense to you then you are in desperate need of help, if you thought about it without your religious blinkers on for two minutes you would soon realise it.
Everyone outside of your religious circle knows that the WW flood is a complete impossibility.