I think you are obfuscating, and rabbit trailing… in order to miss the main relevant point. No fossils does not mean absence of the species or genera.
But we DO have fossils … up to 65 millions of years ago. So the only “puzzle” is why don’t we have more recent fossils?
I’m sure you will remember your favorite answer to other questions: “too small a population in order to have any fossils”. Great answer… when it is true.
I say there have been too few of these fish to have fossils in the last 65 million years.
YOU say there have been too few of the Cows and Elephants 4000 years ago (as well as ANY OTHER LARGE MAMMAL!) and that’s why we don’t have Cow and Elephant bones mixed up with dinosaurs.
So which is more believable? My explanation for a few fish? Or YOURS? … that somehow Cows, Elephants and Whales SUDDENLY BECAME POPULOUS enough that they left fossils from 4000 years ago … JUST WHEN Dinosaurs died out?
And why DID Dinosaurs die out? It was just 4000 years ago, right? Since Noah’s flood? Why would WHALES survive Noah’s flood … but NOT A SINGLE MARINE DINOSAUR?
John, your scenario is just too complicated and contrived to make any sense.
George
1 Like
Where did I say this? You are extrapolating and putting words in my mouth (post?). I said nothing about too few of anything. Only thing I said was that absence of fossils does not prove absence of species. You are working only in the paradigm that fossils were laid down slowly over eons of time. Or that fossils would all be expected to be found in the same layers of sediment, regardless of species, size, genera, and type. A fish that was found with the dinosaurs, has not been found since, was declared extinct(like the dinosaurs), and found to still be alive today. This would be at least one example that might call into question the extinction of the dinosaurs on the basis of absence of fossils. In other words, even though dinosaurs appear to be extinct today, except for closely related other reptiles such as crocodiles and alligators, yet they may have been alive long past the supposed dates attributed to the sedimentary layers in which the last fossils have been found. We just do not know. Just like we didn’t know about the coelacanth. Clearly.
You are correct. My apologies. I was getting our conversation confused with a very similar conversation with someone else.
But I figure eventually you will come to saying the same thing.
If the earth is less than 6,000 years old:
- Dinosaurs either went extinct because of the Flood – or sometime after the flood.
- Why would marine dinosaurs all die, while Whales (marine mammals) did not?
- Why would elephant skeletons only show up ABOVE dinosaur skeletons? Certainly Elephants existed just as long (if not longer) as Dinosaurs - - if the earth is less than 6,000 years old.
- Yes, some fish seem to have become rare … this is far easier to explain than the idea that Elephants were able to tread water better than marine Dinosaurs.
George
You know, I don’t have all the details of an alternate theory in my mind. Especially where the presumed location of all the fossils are. There are many, many mammal fossils in conjunction with dinosaur fossils. But finding fossils together does not give evidence of them living together in the same habitat, especially if they were all washed into place or herded into place by rising flood waters. We tend to find reptiles in warm climates and warm waters, not in cold waters, but we don’t know for sure what the temperatures of the flood waters were… maybe they were both hot and cold, with dramatic differences in time and place. It seems to me entirely feasible that it simply would have been difficult for these large reptiles to survive such dramatic changes in environment, and so yes, they would have not treaded water so long, not because it was wet, but because of the temperature changes. Apparently their bone density is also different and their fat deposits are also less, and so they would not have lasted as long. Yet we find many mammal fossils in the same layers as dino fossils, and of course many fish fossils and clam fossils throughout the world in the strangest and highest places. And we would not expect fish to have trouble “treading water” as you say. Yet, for millions of years, no fossil coelecanth, no fossil large marine reptile(dinosaur), and no fossil large mammal. In one case, we know the species existed during the fossil-less period. In the other cases, we just assume they were absent.
Because geologists seem so fixated on dinosaurs, compared to mammal fossils, we seem to know a lot less about mammal fossils in general. I don’t know if this impacts our understanding of relative placement of these fossils.
It is clear that fossils are not formed under slow gradual conditions, but under conditions of violent upheaval, quick burial by large amounts of sediment.
Even jellyfish, with no bones at all, and bacteria, have been found fossilized. So given violent causes with sudden burial predominate, then a solution for why large marine reptiles would have been captured by the violence, while large mammals were not captured, would need to be sought. Yet many small mammals are buried in layers along with what evolutionary theory postulates as “early” dinosaurs. Why are so many live clams buried and fossilized, why do we find fish swallowing fish being fossilized, and why are 90% of the fossils we find consisting of sea creatures?
Hi John. You may be completely right, but could also be wrong. There are more rodents than elephants. The possibility that a rodent mutates into a new type animal is larger than an elephant becoming something else. Becoming bigger is easier than becoming something different.
That dinosaurs became exceptionally large, might be caused by expansion of our Earth. Earth was smaller, turned faster and had a lower gravity in the past.
And sometimes BIG animals evolve into SMALLER ones (like at least one strain of wooly mammoth that lived on an island with limited food supplies.
The definition of what is DIFFERENT is somewhat arbitrary - - which is why I tend to avoid this kind of discussion. Crocodiles of today look VERY much like crocodiles of millions of years ago. But if we were to put them together, would they understand each other’s behavior? Maybe.
But would their mating produce fertile offspring? This I highly doubt. Genetic drift goes on, in a random walk, all the time. KEEPING the gene pool of any population from changing is virtually impossible - - because environmental and competitive factors constantly change … and even when they don’t… DNA still mutates at a slow “tick tock”.
George
1 Like
Homo floresiensis
1 Like
Peaches from 2.5 million years ago.
5300 year old stomach bacteria. Before or after flood?
1 Like
Hi Patric, those bacteria date back from before the flood.
My estimate of the last flood is somewhere 12,000 to 15,000 BD.
If you have access to date of Greenland ice cores then you can date the Flood your self: look for a sudden drop of temperature that needed some 30 years or more to recover to the original temperature, combined with a sudden increase of volcanic dust during at least one year.
Good luck, Jan
The Bible tells us when the Flood happened.
World historical records and geology tells us that the Flood did NOT happen then.
Below is a rather detailed cross-referencing of Bible texts and global dates… I’m still looking for my application of this chronology to the Egyptian dynasties… most revealing…
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.