Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[lifepsyop]

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

We find plenty of arthropod / crustacean "living fossils" in the lower rock records. Virtually unchanged for 300-500 "million years". This is expected under YEC and runs completely counter to Evolutionary predictions.

If a certain creature is missing it could just be because that species did not happen to be fossilized or that we just have not yet found that fossil. Ya know, the explanation Evolutionists invoke on a constant basis?

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

No, because I have to face the reality that they are the same species as me.

 

[Black Akuma]

Why would they be living everywhere?

Because reptiles love high, cold elevations.

Oh.

Wait.

THEY DON'T.

 

[CabVet]

We find plenty of arthropod / crustacean "living fossils" in the lower rock records. Virtually unchanged for 300-500 "million years". This is expected under YEC and runs completely counter to Evolutionary predictions.

Nothing is expected under YEC. YEC is not a scientific hypothesis.

If a certain creature is missing it could just be because that species did not happen to be fossilized or that we just have not yet found that fossil. Ya know, the explanation Evolutionists invoke on a constant basis?

Yeah, and that would work for certain species, but that's not what we are talking about and you know it. We are talking about entire groups. So, feel free to replace my original question about cows with: why are there no mammals in the Devonian?

 

[Queller]

And? It may have something to do with their behavior, or specific habitat.

This is a textbook example of hand-waving an explanation away.

The Devonian rocks are where we see a great number of land plants appearing,

and not a single flowering plant among them, despite them all sharing the same ecosystems as non-flowering plants.

about the same time as the amphibian animal ecosystems. This is what the Flood model would expect, a general ordering of fossils by ecosystem.

You do realize that there are multiple ecosystems represented in the Devonian right?

There may be some property of flowering plants that explain their order of appearance.

Sure, they could uproot themselves and run while the non-flowering plants couldn't.

It's not like Evolution explains the origin of any of these things. Are you really suggesting an enigma warrants dismissal of a theory? Evolution would be left in the dust a century ago if you held such standards to it.

Completely untrue. Either you're totally ignorant, or totally bluffing.

Why don't you explain why he is wrong instead of just being insulting?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Especially considering the fact that mammals fossilize just fine when the creatures actually exist. Anyone notice how no creationists even acknowledged the fact that all those creatures would not physically be able to live on earth at the same time?

 

[Black Akuma]

We find plenty of arthropod / crustacean "living fossils" in the lower rock records. Virtually unchanged for 300-500 "million years". This is expected under YEC and runs completely counter to Evolutionary predictions.

If a certain creature is missing it could just be because that species did not happen to be fossilized or that we just have not yet found that fossil. Ya know, the explanation Evolutionists invoke on a constant basis?

If it were just one or two creatures, you'd have a point.

It's not. Whole orders are missing. Hundreds or specimens the are never found together, even though they live in similar habitats.

 

[lifepsyop]

Based on what?

Based on what? Are you kidding me? I actually have to explain the mobility differences between mammals and reptiles to you?

I already explained two alternate hypotheses that Evolutionists were prepared to pursue. 1) Birds could have evolved from a proto-mammal instead of dinosaurs. 2) Mammals could have evolved from amphibians instead of reptiles.

And any of these animals could have been said to evolve earlier if that is what the fossil record had begun to reveal in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Evolution would have accommodated nearly anything and constructed the modern theory around that data. It doesn't predict when reptiles or mammals are going to evolve, and phylogeny does not identify actual ancestors. Just accommodates with storytelling.

 

[CabVet]

The Devonian rocks are where we see a great number of land plants appearing, about the same time as the amphibian animal ecosystems. This is what the Flood model would expect, a general ordering of fossils by ecosystem.

No, the flood model predicts fruit trees, as very specifically mentioned here:

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Those are supposed to be the first organisms ever created, yet they appear much later in the fossil record.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Based on what? Are you kidding me? I actually have to explain the mobility differences between mammals and reptiles to you?

I already explained two alternate hypotheses that Evolutionists were prepared to pursue. 1) Birds could have evolved from a proto-mammal instead of dinosaurs. 2) Mammals could have evolved from amphibians instead of reptiles.

And any of these animals could have been said to evolve earlier if that is what the fossil record had begun to reveal in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Evolution would have accommodated nearly anything and constructed the modern theory around that data. It doesn't predict when reptiles or mammals are going to evolve, and phylogeny does not identify actual ancestors. Just accommodates with storytelling.

All animals that have ever existed on earth would not be capable of fitting on earth if they all existed, even briefly, at the same time. The physical planet isn't big enough. There would be mountains of plants and animals crushing each other from the weight.

 

[Queller]

The Bible is never wrong.

Matthew 5:18 New International Version (for you to understand better)

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Same verse but in the King James Version:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

In the Hebrew language a jot is the smallest letter, just like a dot.

This verse is saying that not one little dot, not one letter, not one word will disappear UNTIL EVERYTHING IS accomplished!! And that of course is after the earth and heaven will disappear (Révélations)

Do you get the powerful thing that Jesus just said right there? That's pretty powerful if you ask me.

If what you say is true, then why are we no longer bound by the law to not eat shellfish, wear clothes of two different fabrics, and all the other laws?

 

[lifepsyop]

If it were just one or two creatures, you'd have a point.

It's not. Whole orders are missing. Hundreds or specimens the are never found together, even though they live in similar habitats.

And the population levels of those creatures that we see today could have been much lower at the time of the flood.

And if any or all of those specimens were found in the lower rocks, you would just say they "evolved" and remained in stasis for ~500 million years like you do everything else. It's not like any of this is evidence for Evolution.

 

[Queller]

Uh huh, cuz water just shakes and stirs everything up into a big jumbled mess right? Kind of like a cartoon?

Youtube this: Drama in the Rocks part 4/4

Moving water is a mechanical sorting mechanism. Hydrology experiments actually show how water forms distinct horizontal strata like we see all over the Earth today. A global flood would not just jumble things around willy-nilly like you imagine.

Really? Every other flood that has been studied does exactly that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Acknowledge the statement that all creatures that ever existed, even if it were just 1 of each species, would not have been able to physically fit on earth! Earth isn't big enough.

 

[lifepsyop]

All animals that have ever existed on earth would not be capable of fitting on earth if they all existed, even briefly, at the same time. The physical planet isn't big enough. There would be mountains of plants and animals crushing each other from the weight.

That has to be the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Congratulations.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And the population levels of those creatures that we see today could have been much lower at the time of the flood.

And if any or all of those specimens were found in the lower rocks, you would just say they "evolved" and remained in stasis for ~500 million years like you do everything else. It's not like any of this is evidence for Evolution.

Even if it were just 1 of each species that ever existed, the earth is not physically big enough for them all to exist at the same time.

 

[Queller]

And here come the conspiracy theories.

Not to mention that Werner is a retired medical doctor with no training in paleontology or geology.

 

[Queller]

Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, Living Fossils, reveals that fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with dinosaurs, yet museums do not display these fossils, thus keeping this information from the public. By keeping this information hidden, children and adults are indoctrinated with the false idea that animals changed over time (since the time of the dinosaurs), and that evolution is true.
Modern birds with dinosaurs

If these fossils are hidden and never seen, how does Werner know about them?

 

[CabVet]

And the population levels of those creatures that we see today could have been much lower at the time of the flood.

And if any or all of those specimens were found in the lower rocks, you would just say they "evolved" and remained in stasis for ~500 million years like you do everything else. It's not like any of this is evidence for Evolution.

Here, I will tell you something that would falsify evolution: a mammal in the Devonian. Now your turn, tell me what would falsify creationism.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That has to be the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Congratulations.

Why is that ridiculous? We are running out of space right now, with just the currently living species. More than 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. To have all of these creatures exist at the same time would be worse than suddenly multiplying the human population by 100 without any warning or time to adjust. It doesn't matter how limitless heaven and hell supposedly are, last time I checked, earth was a finite size, and there are no suggestions made by the bible that the size of the earth as a whole has ever been changed. Plus, there is not enough water on earth for a flood of the level of The Great Flood to have occurred, and even if there was, there wouldn't to have been any place for that water to go, the world would still be flooded.