Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[Loudmouth]

Hello person, Also we forgot to mention that all fossils in this world have NOT been discovered yet!

Each new fossil found actually keeps changing the Theory of Evolution!!

Yes, each new fossil tells us more about the history of evolution. Each new fossil is also a stark reminder of how poorly creationism explains the data.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, each new fossil tells us more about the history of evolution. Each new fossil is also a stark reminder of how poorly creationism explains the data.

She is not going to be convinced, but I do wonder why she seems to think she can convince us she is right. Especially since she doesn't really try to be respectful, although there are definitely worse people on here.

 

[lifepsyop]

Anya, you are referring to is Differential escape, one of three different, well-known YEC arguments against the fossil record, the other two being Ecological Zonation and Hydrological Sorting.

I've already dealt with Ecological Zonation

What you are describing is Differential Escape. It fails to explain the fossil record as we see it.

Here's just one reason:

"Fossils are not sorted according to their ability to escape rising floodwaters. If they were, we would expect to see slow-moving species like sloths and tortoises and every low-elevation plant at the bottom of the fossil record, while fast-moving species, such as velociraptors, pterosaurs, and giant dragonflies, would be at the top. But this is nothing like what we actually observe; in many cases we find just the opposite. For example, in undisturbed strata there has not been a single sloth fossil found below even the highest velociraptor remains, and flowering plants do not appear in the fossil record until after winged insects and reptiles."

You didn't "deal" with anything. Just hand-waving. These are YEC puzzles. The Evolution model has plenty of puzzles.

We don't find whales with plesiosaurs. So what? There may be several different factors concerning the behavior and physiology of those extinct aquatic reptiles that differentiate them from mammals.

The same goes for dinosaurs being separate from mammals in general. So what? They may have occupied significantly different habitats. Some dinosaurs may be very fast moving but have significantly lower stamina than mammals, not to mention intelligence. Crocodiles/Alligators can movevery fast for a short distance, yet will tire easily.

Mammals are substantially different than reptiles in almost every regard. Try and grasp that.

Evolution doesn't explain anything about mammals or dinosaurs. Why do the big sauropods suddenly appear all over the world in the Mesozoic? Oh they just do. Why do dinosaurs go extinct at the K/T? Oh they just do. Why do most modern mammal body plans suddenly appear at the Paleocene/Eocene with virtually no record of any ancestral transitional forms? Oh they just do. Why does an 'advanced' semi-aquatic mammal, essentially a mix between a platypus and a beaver (Castorocauda) appear in the middle of the Jurassic 100 million years before evolutionists thought aquatically adapted mammals "evolved" ? Oh it just does. Why is there a 15 million year gap of tetrapod/lobe-finned fish as soon 'Stega crawled up on land? And on the other side of "Romer's Gap", essentially modern reptiles are running around? Oh there just is. Why is the fossil record virtually devoid of any Evolution? Uh, Punctuated Equilibrium, yea... we predicted it all along.

[Insert ad-hoc evolutionary storytelling ad infinitum]

Saying that a type of animal "evolved" or "went extinct" at a certain period as an explanation for its fossil record is no more an explanation than anything else.

If you actually study paleontology and biogeography literature there are innumerable puzzles and enigmas with Evolutionary explanations.

I will keep repeating this: if you turned even a percentage of these critical standards to Evolution, your theory would be left in shambles. You will strain at any gnat when it comes to YEC, but swallow any camel when it comes to Evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nothing suggests the earth is young, creationism vs evolution not even a factor in that. Besides, why do you care that other people have different views? It doesn't hurt you, and even if you think that it can hurt us to not believe the bible word for word, that isn't what we think, and chances are we are never going to think that way.

 

[Black Akuma]

We don't find whales with plesiosaurs. So what? There may be several different factors concerning the behavior and physiology of those extinct aquatic reptiles that differentiate them from mammals.

What would make them completely avoid each other? And we're not talking about just one or two specimens - there are dozens of marine reptiles and dozens of marine mammals. They're never found together. Ever.

You're the one handwaving.

I will keep repeating this: if you turned even a percentage of these critical standards to Evolution, your theory would be left in shambles. You will strain at any gnat when it comes to YEC, but swallow any camel when it comes to Evolution.

Every theory has unanswered questions, but the difference is that our model is consistent with the evidence on the whole. Yours is not. It has problems at every single level.

 

[Loudmouth]

We don't find whales with plesiosaurs. So what? There may be several different factors concerning the behavior and physiology of those extinct aquatic reptiles that differentiate them from mammals.

The one factor being that they were separated by millions of years.

The same goes for dinosaurs being separate from mammals in general. So what?

What fossil evidence would falsify creationism?

Evolution doesn't explain anything about mammals or dinosaurs.

Evolution does explain why you don't find modern mammals in the same sediments as dinosaurs. Or did you miss that?

 

[Queller]

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

Your question makes it sound like you have never even attempted to investigate Young Earth Creation theories.

Here's the thing, if the Bible did not contain an account of a catastrophic global flood, then you would have a point. However it does contain this account, and the Bible also says this flood killed all life that lived on land and breathed through its nostrils.

When we look at the fossil record we can see a general pattern of lifeforms sorted by ecological zonation, in the order in which they were buried by erosion and sedimentation processes caused by the flood.

In the lower rocks we find bacteria that lived in the ocean floor, and then benthic communities that lived on the seafloor. Next swimming creatures that lived in more shallow habitats. Then we find amphibious creatures, aquatic reptiles, and other reptilian animals known for living in swampy lowlands.

No we do not necessarily expect to find whales and other aquatic mammals. If you look at these animals, they are both very fast swimmers, and comfortable in deep open waters. They are not restricted to seafloor ecosystems that would have been buried. In fact, most of these aquatic mammals would be expected to be found in the upper most layers when the floodwaters receded and left them stranded on dry land. (which is why we find whale fossil graveyards in the middle of a Chiliean desert)

For the same reason you don't find whales and seals in the lower rocks, is also why you don't find the big mackerel sharks in the fossil record till way up in the Cretaceous. Yet some little shallow-living sharks appear way down in the Silurian.

Next factor we take into account is animal mobility. (otherwise known as Differential Escape) Reptiles and Mammals are like Night and Day in terms of both speed and stamina for running long distances. If floodwaters were gradually rising, rivers overflowing, basins flooding, mammals would be expected to retreat to higher ground seeking shelter. Animals that could cling to the tops of trees (like Sloths) would also have an advantage. (of course that's not to say some reptiles would not already be at higher ground to begin with)

So, back to your original question. Why do we not find cows in the Devonian? The Devonian shows evidence of aquatic/amphibious ecosystems. A cow, like all bovids at this time would be both miles inland and probably thousands of feet higher in elevation retreating from flooding rivers. (interestingly one of the last bovids to show up in the record is the Mountain Goat) That is why, from a flood model perspective, we do not expect to find cows (or any land mammals) in the lower rock layers.

Of course the model is not perfect and has its own puzzles. But it generally holds up quite well.

You really should have read the thread before posting this.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7799202-4/#post64875775

Ecological Zonation is not compatible with the fossil record.

For example, dolphins, whales, sea turtles share the same Ecological Zone/specific environment (salt water oceans) as plesiosaurs, pliosaurs, and archelons. However, they are NEVER found together in the same layer of sediment.

Another example, elephants, buffalo, and sheep share the same ecological zones (grasslands and woodlands) as Brachiosaurs, Anklyosaurs, and Wannanosaurs. Yet they are NEVER found together in the the same layer of sediment.

Finally, sparrows and finches share the same ecological zones (the air) as pteranadons and pterodactyls yet are NEVER found in the same layer of sediment.

Ecological Zonation

Differential Escape also fails to explain the fossil record.

Here's one reason;

"Fossils are not sorted according to their ability to escape rising floodwaters. If they were, we would expect to see slow-moving species like sloths and tortoises and every low-elevation plant at the bottom of the fossil record, while fast-moving species, such as velociraptors, pterosaurs, and giant dragonflies, would be at the top. But this is nothing like what we actually observe; in many cases we find just the opposite. For example, in undisturbed strata there has not been a single sloth fossil found below even the highest velociraptor remains, and flowering plants do not appear in the fossil record until after winged insects and reptiles."

Differential Escape

And if you want to talk about Hydrological Sorting, I have one phrase for you "sink like a stone".

Hydrological Sorting

Why do mammals generally only appear in the upper layers from an Evolutionist's perspective? You have no answer, except for ad-hoc storytelling. Evolution does not predict mammals will evolve ever. You simply accommodated your theory to fit the fossil record and pretend you predicted it.

Do you not think what you did above is "ad hoc storytelling"? At least evolution's "stories" have the evidence to back it up.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How about the fact that all of these living creatures couldn't have even fit on earth at the same time. Creationism, by its nature, means that all creatures that ever existed had to have coexisted, at least briefly. Considering the fact that over 99% of species are currently extinct, and in most cases you need a minimum of 50 individuals to have just barely enough genetic diversity to establish a population. The sheer mass of all of the species would not have fit on earth. Especially when you consider the plants and the animals. The earth is a finite area, and it is crowded enough as it is with the species that are alive right now. If you combined that with the multitude of animals that existed in the past, it just doesn't work.

 

[EternalDragon]

She is not going to be convinced, but I do wonder why she seems to think she can convince us she is right. Especially since she doesn't really try to be respectful, although there are definitely worse people on here.

Isn't it the evolutionists that are invited here, that are the ones trying to convince someone of something or that a Christian's belief is a myth and fairy tale? That the born again Christians are the ones giving answers according to God's word?

 

[CabVet]

How about the fact that all of these living creatures couldn't have even fit on earth at the same time. Creationism, by its nature, means that all creatures that ever existed had to have coexisted, at least briefly. Considering the fact that over 99% of species are currently extinct, and in most cases you need a minimum of 50 individuals to have just barely enough genetic diversity to establish a population. The sheer mass of all of the species would not have fit on earth. Especially when you consider the plants and the animals. The earth is a finite area, and it is crowded enough as it is with the species that are alive right now. If you combined that with the multitude of animals that existed in the past, it just doesn't work.

That is an excellent argument that I never made myself. There is no possible way that the earth could support every organism that ever lived at the same time.

 

[Black Akuma]

Isn't it the evolutionists that are invited here, that are the ones trying to convince someone of something or that a Christian's belief is a myth and fairy tale? That the born again Christians are the ones giving answers according to God's word?

Speaking for myself, no one invited me here. I wa lurking and got tired of reading your unabated nonsense.

 

[Queller]

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.

Crabs, lobsters, starfish and sea grass all live at the bottom of the sea as well but we never find them with trilobites.

Again, just because you can wave your hands and say "What about this?!?!" is of no consequence.

You do understand that this is EXACTLY what you are doing regarding the theory of evolution.

The model generally holds up well.

No it doesn't. Not even remotely. Especially in the face of a theory that better explains the evidence.

 

[Queller]

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

Don't worry, you are wrong.

 

[lifepsyop]

What fossil evidence would falsify creationism?

Evidence of Evolution. Still waiting...

Evolution does explain why you don't find modern mammals in the same sediments as dinosaurs. Or did you miss that?

Nope, it doesn't. Evolution just accommodated the data. Paleontologists discovered a pattern of mammals being found in uppermost layers decades before Darwinian Evolution came along.

If modern mammals appeared in the early Mesozoic, evolutionists would have just built the theory up around that.

Evolution does not even predict that mammals will evolve at all, much less when mammals will evolve. Your jello theory could accommodate near limitless arrangements of data.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is an excellent argument that I never made myself. There is no possible way that the earth could support every organism that ever lived at the same time.

There isn't even enough space on earth for them to all physically be there at the same time, it would be species on top of species, with those in the bottom layer crushed under the weight. All plants would be crushed, everything would suffocate. Nothing on this planet would be alive if such a thing had happened.

 

[CabVet]

Evidence of Evolution. Still waiting...

Denial, beautiful to see it in action.

Here, I give you... Evidence:

Now go ahead and deny it.

 

[bhsmte]

Evidence of Evolution. Still waiting...



Nope, it doesn't. Evolution just accommodated the data. Paleontologists discovered a pattern of mammals being found in uppermost layers decades before Darwinian Evolution came along.

If modern mammals appeared in the early Mesozoic, evolutionists would have just built the theory up around that.

Evolution does not even predict that mammals will evolve at all, much less when mammals will evolve. Your jello theory could accommodate near limitless arrangements of data.

Still waiting????

Seek and you shall find!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Denial, beautiful to see it in action.

No, it is annoying.

 

[bhsmte]

No, it is annoying.

Most of these folks, will deny any and all evidence no matter how powerful, at least publicly on this board and will never admit they are wrong.

Once your realize this reality, you will get past the annoyance and appreciate the entertainment value.

 

[Queller]

Your argument fails. If you compare aquatic reptiles and aquatic mammals they are actually quite different in their mobility capabilities.

Can you give an example supported by evidence?

Mammals generally have much more speed and stamina.

Based on what?

On top of that there is also an argument for differential escape and animal intelligence.

Differential escape does not explain the fossil record.

Already explained. Some slow-moving reptiles would already be living at higher elevations.

Why would they be living everywhere?

Nobody knows how well pterosaurs could fly. Birds are found in the upper layers. You're making no argument here, just waving your hands.

The breeze coming off your waving hands is hard to ignore.

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.

Flood geology is nothing but enigmas. Every explanation you have given is contradicted by the fossil record.

The gaps in Evolution's model are outrageous.

How so?

And Evolution is such a flexible theory that it could have accommodated many different fossil patterns.

Name one.