Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[CabVet]

I'm informing you of the flaws in your theory and how much you all have been decieved.

You have yet to inform anybody of a single flaw.

Is God ever wrong?

Is your interpretation of the Bible the same as God? Now that is a statement. Or did God directly tell you these things that you are repeating here?

Now here is something new, why don't we go back to topic? Can you tell us why are there no cows in the Devonian?

 

[Black Akuma]

[qutoe]When we look at the fossil record we can see a general pattern of lifeforms sorted by ecological zonatio[/quote]

No, it's not.

In the lower rocks we find bacteria that lived in the ocean floor, and then benthic communities that lived on the seafloor.

Lots of fish live on the ocean floor. None of them are present in lower strata.

They are not restricted to seafloor ecosystems that would have been buried.

Then why don't we EVER find them in the seafloor? It would be one thing if they occasionally appeared in Devonian strata...but they NEVER do. Never.

You're also ignoring the rather large groups of aquatic reptiles, dozens of which have existed, but are also completely absent from lower strata.

Reptiles and Mammals are like Night and Day in terms of both speed and stamina for running long distances.

Because animals like cows and hippos are well known for their ability to run long distances.

And flying reptiles like pterosaurs are found below mammals because...why?

Flightless birds like ostriches and emus appear after flying birds...why?

You simply accommodated your theory to fit the fossil record and pretend you predicted it./quote]

No, we observe the fossil record and it bears this out.

 

[Black Akuma]

Evolution facts are all over the place and hardly make sense.

It doesn't make sense to you because you, quite frankly, haven't bothered to learn about it. You don't understand how it works and you're not interested in understanding how it works. What do you expect?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Okay, I did not read the whole thread and apologize if this has already been explained, but here you go.

Your points have already been raised and refuted. For example, none of your explanations explain why powerful marine reptiles show up much lower than marine mammals or why birds and pterosaurs show up in the same strata as turtles, sauropods and other similarly slow moving animals.

You are doing the same thing the others did, i.e. presenting a very general trend by talking about very diverse groups as if their constituents are a roughly homogenous mass while ignoring the vast numbers of organisms that don't follow the pattern. As I said earlier in this thread, what you are doing is like trying to argue that all Chinese people live in China by ignoring the millions that don't. The general trend is that Chinese people do live in China, but that doesn't make the argument any more correct.

The fact is that the pattern you're claiming the Flood would have produced doesn't exist.

 

[lifepsyop]

Lots of fish live on the ocean floor. None of them are present in lower strata.

Then this probably reflects something about the nature of those fish. Their mobility and how they would react to an underwater burial event. Do you really think just because you can point out an enigma that it disproves the whole thing? Give me a break.

Things like this pale in comparison to the never-ending list of ad-hoc storytelling coming from Evolutionists trying to explain the record.

Then why don't we EVER find them in the seafloor? It would be one thing if they occasionally appeared in Devonian strata...but they NEVER do. Never.

I just told you. Because whales, seals, etc. are fast animals that swim in deep open water. They are not bound to lower seafloor habitats.

Because animals like cows and hippos are well known for their ability to run long distances.

Yes, they can run quite fast when in danger. Youtube running hippos and you can see for yourself. Elephants and other sluggish looking mammals can run long distances if they have to.

And flying reptiles like pterosaurs are found below mammals because...why?

Flightless birds like ostriches and emus appear after flying birds...why?

It is debatable whether or not pterosaurs were even good fliers or just gliders. The feathered animals we find in the Jurassic/Cretaceous are not regarded as being fully adapted for flight. The more modern birds don't show up till roughly the same time as mammals.

Heavy rainstorms may have had a significant effect on bird flight as well.

Ostriches are fast runners.

Again, just because you can wave your hands and say "What about this?!?!" is of no consequence. The model generally holds up well.

Evolution would be in shambles if you applied the same standards to its explanations of the fossil record. But Evo-believers love to strain at gnats and swallow camels.

No, we observe the fossil record and it bears this out.

That statement makes no sense. The general order of fossils (aquatic creatures on bottom, "age of reptiles", mammals on top) was known before Darwinian evolution. Evolutionists simply accommodated the theory to fit the record.

It was once suggested that mammals evolved from amphibians, and as recently as the 1990's that birds could have evolved from primitive mammals. (Haemotothermia hypothesis) Evolution could have accommodated nearly any ordering of fossils. This is one of the most powerful illusions used on the public to sell Evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you really think just because you can point out an enigma that it disproves the whole thing?

Then what would disprove it?

I just told you. Because whales, seals, etc. are fast animals that swim in deep open water. They are not bound to lower seafloor habitats.

Then why do we find grass above dinosaurs? Why can't we find grass with the earliest land animals? Is grass good at avoiding floods, too?

 

[juvenissun]

Interesting. You are claiming that when the Bible uses the word "every" without a qualifier, we are free to interpret it to mean "not all". This is obviously nonsense and against Proverbs 30:6, but let's examine it for a second. Let's look at other places where "every" shows up in the Bible. In Genesis 7:2 when Noah is directed to take " seven pairs of every kind of clean animal", are we free to interpret that to mean he is being directed to take seven pairs of only some of the clean animals? And in Romans 14:11 where it says "every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God," we are free to interpret that to not mean that all knees will bow? Or in Romans 13:1 where it says "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers", we are free to interpret that as something other than all souls are subject to God? I could go on and on. In all these cases are you really going to maintain that "every" is actually a subset rather than a totality due to the lack of qualifier? I think not. And let's look at one more quote, this one from Genesis 6:17...



Is God only planning to destroy a subset of creatures that breath? Note that the same line also says that all life is to be destroyed. IOW, the bible is using "all" and "every" interchangeably in the same context. That destroys the distinction you are trying to set up right there. If there was really a distinction between those two words, it would be apparent here. Instead they are used to mean exactly the same thing. The Bible itself demonstrates the fictitious nature of your distinction.

Not a bad example. Thank you.
I have reservation on whether this particular "every" should mean "all". It might not be really "all".

 

[juvenissun]

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.

If I am right, then somebody should revise the dictionary.

 

[CabVet]

Things like this pale in comparison to the never-ending list of ad-hoc storytelling coming from Evolutionists trying to explain the record.

Hand waving.

I just told you. Because whales, seals, etc. are fast animals that swim in deep open water. They are not bound to lower seafloor habitats.

What happens to their corpses when they die? Why do we find their fossils together with bottom dwelling animals?

Yes, they can run quite fast when in danger. Youtube running hippos and you can see for yourself. Elephants and other sluggish looking mammals can run long distances if they have to.

What happens when they die? Would they perhaps sink to the bottom and rest together with the bottom animals?

It is debatable whether or not pterosaurs were even good fliers or just gliders. The feathered animals we find in the Jurassic/Cretaceous are not regarded as being fully adapted for flight. The more modern birds don't show up till roughly the same time as mammals.

Which is also at roughly the same time as fruit trees, which were supposed to have been created much earlier.

Heavy rainstorms may have had a significant effect on bird flight as well.

Ostriches are fast runners.

What happens when they die? Are you implying that they ran during the entire Devonian to avoid becoming fossils?

Again, just because you can wave your hands and say "What about this?!?!" is of no consequence. The model generally holds up well.

There is only one person waving hands here.

Evolution would be in shambles if you applied the same standards to its explanations of the fossil record. But Evo-believers love to strain at gnats and swallow camels.

I've said this 100 times, but will say it once more. Whoever can put evolution "in shambles" will win the Nobel prize.

That statement makes no sense. The general order of fossils (aquatic creatures on bottom, "age of reptiles", mammals on top) was known before Darwinian evolution. Evolutionists simply accommodated the theory to fit the record.

You have no idea what you are talking about. DNA (discovered 100 years after Darwin) confirms what we find in the fossil record and what is predicted by evolution.

It was once suggested that mammals evolved from amphibians, and as recently as the 1990's that birds could have evolved from primitive mammals. (Haemotothermia hypothesis) Evolution could have accommodated nearly any ordering of fossils. This is one of the most powerful illusions used on the public to sell Evolution.

Here is something that evolution cannot accommodate: a cow in the Devonian. Is there anything that creationism cannot accommodate?

 

[CabVet]

If I am right, then somebody should revise the dictionary.

Since you are wrong, the dictionary is fine.

 

[Black Akuma]

Their mobility and how they would react to an underwater burial event.

They're not very mobile at all. In fact, most of them can't even survive at higher elevations in the water. The differing pressures cause them to die almost immediately.

Because whales, seals, etc. are fast animals that swim in deep open water. They are not bound to lower seafloor habitats.

Not all of them. Species like the humpback whale and the Pacific Right whale are quite slow, only moving 2 to 4 km/hr.

Also can't help but notice you're ignoring my point about the rather long list of distinct aquatic reptile groups that are never found in lower strata.

It is debatable whether or not pterosaurs were even good fliers or just gliders.

Really? Because I found this paper after a very cursory search.

Sordes pilosus and the nature of the pterosaur flight apparatus

And it says this:

IT is now generally accepted that pterosaurs, Mesozoic reptiles, were true fliers, but the nature of their flight apparatus is still much disputed. Evidence has been presented in favour of bird-like reconstructions with narrow, stiff wings free of the legs1–6 and bat-like reconstructions with extensive wings incorporating both fore and hind limbs7–10, but the Solnhofen Limestone pterosaurs, upon which these models are based, are not sufficiently well preserved to resolve these conflicting interpretations. Here we present a new model, founded on Sordes pilosus from the Jurassic of middle Asia (ref. 11, and N.N.B. and D.M.U., manuscript submitted), in which exceptionally well preserved wing membranes show that the hind limbs of pterosaurs were intimately involved in the flight apparatus; connected externally to the main wing membrane and internally by a uropatagium, controlled by the fifth toe. Sordes also reveals that, uniquely among flying vertebrates, pterosaurs had a structurally non-homogenous flight surface with a stiffened outer half and a softer, more extensible inner region

Ostriches are fast runners.

Kiwis. Dodos weren't. Many flightless birds aren't...yet they still appear higher than flying birds.

The model generally holds up well.

How can you say that when even you accept the glaring inconsistencies?

The general order of fossils (aquatic creatures on bottom, "age of reptiles", mammals on top) was known before Darwinian evolution.

And evolution explained it perfectly.

It was once suggested that mammals evolved from amphibians, and as recently as the 1990's that birds could have evolved from primitive mammals.

I would love for you to demonstrate that either of these were ever widely accepted by the scientific community.

 

[juvenissun]

To you, it doesn't. You have already stated that no matter what the observation is, you will claim that it is consistent with Genesis. If this isn't the caes, then please tell us what would falsify creationism.

I surely have not said that.

 

[CabVet]

I surely have not said that.

Yes, you did. Do you want me to paste the exact sentence?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

. The model generally holds up well.

Why write anything besides this? This is what you believe and you aren't going to let mere facts get in your way. The model does not generally hold up at all. Large, mobile animals like Anomalocaris appear in the same strata as their benthic or sessile contemporaries. Powerful swimmers like marine reptiles show up before marine mammals. Turtles and birds appear in the same strata. Large, slow-moving dinosaurs appear in the same strata as small nimble ones. And so on and so on. Again, you are trying to support your imaginary pattern by portraying various groups as homogenous when in fact they are widely variable in size, niche and habit. The variability of the groups you list means that your pattern doesn't actually exist anywhere except as a vaguely-defined fantasy in your head.

 

[lifepsyop]

Your points have already been raised and refuted.

I doubt it.

For example, none of your explanations explain why powerful marine reptiles show up much lower than marine mammals

Your argument fails. If you compare aquatic reptiles and aquatic mammals they are actually quite different in their mobility capabilities. Mammals generally have much more speed and stamina. On top of that there is also an argument for differential escape and animal intelligence.

or why birds and pterosaurs show up in the same strata as turtles, sauropods and other similarly slow moving animals.

Already explained. Some slow-moving reptiles would already be living at higher elevations. Nobody knows how well pterosaurs could fly. Birds are found in the upper layers. You're making no argument here, just waving your hands.

Again, enigmas are expected within a model of chaotic events. But the general patterns holds up well. It actually explains the fossil record better than Evolution.

The gaps in Evolution's model are outrageous. And Evolution is such a flexible theory that it could have accommodated many different fossil patterns.

 

[juvenissun]

How can it be scientific when creationism is not falsifiable?

It works before it is falsified.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, you did. Do you want me to paste the exact sentence?

Please do.

 

[Black Akuma]

Nobody knows how well pterosaurs could fly.

We do, actually. There's a wealth of research on the subject, and the general consensus is that yes, they could, and could fly quite well.

http://www.palass-pubs.org/palaeontology/pdf/Vol28/Pages 413-433.pdf

From damselflies to pterosaurs: how burst and sustainable flight performance scale with size | Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology

ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PTEROSAURS AND THEIR MANNER OF FLIGHT, WITH NOTES ON VORTEX WAKES - PENNYCUICK - 2008 - Biological Reviews - Wiley Online Library

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1582/119.short

Neuroanatomy of flying reptiles and implications for flight, posture and behaviour : Abstract : Nature

Would you like more?

 

[lifepsyop]

Why write anything besides this? This is what you believe and you aren't going to let mere facts get in your way. The model does not generally hold up at all. Large, mobile animals like Anomalocaris appear in the same strata as their benthic or sessile contemporaries.

Anomalocaris is believed to have been a bottom feeder. It is right where we would expect it to be.

 

[CabVet]

Please do.

If you cannot falsify something with observation, then:

It can not be falsified.