Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,910 Year: 4,167/9,624 Month: 1,038/974 Week: 365/286 Day: 8/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do we only find fossils?
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3991
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 46 of 136 (258440)
11-10-2005 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
11-09-2005 8:22 PM


proof-proof mind
randman writes:
I am not inclined to accept any evo claim by evos not substantiated by non-evos.
That'll work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 8:22 PM randman has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 47 of 136 (258444)
11-10-2005 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by randman
11-10-2005 1:30 AM


randman switcharound
the simple answer could also be that dinosaurs lived, but not in sufficient numbers and not in that specific locale.
I'm sure you were denying this kind of argument had any merit when asking why we don't see certain whale fossils at certain locales...
I know that has a great potential to swing this off topic so let's not go down that that route. But as Yaro said, Dinos seem to be relatively well represented in that locale, but not in the tar pits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 11-10-2005 1:30 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 11-10-2005 11:58 AM Modulous has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 48 of 136 (258459)
11-10-2005 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous
11-10-2005 11:10 AM


Re: randman switcharound
Hmmm....so are you claiming that if we don't see whales at locations, then they didn't exist during that era?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2005 11:10 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Yaro, posted 11-10-2005 12:04 PM randman has replied
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2005 12:05 PM randman has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6526 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 49 of 136 (258461)
11-10-2005 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
11-10-2005 11:58 AM


Re: randman switcharound
No, his point was that you used a similar argument to one that was posed to you back in the whale thread. Please lets not go down that road here!
You said something along the lines of "Maybe there just weren't dinos around in that area."
Back in the whale thread you were told that fosilization was a matter of habitat. If there weren't very many of a given type of creature in an area, we shouldn't expect a significant amount of fossils.
You dismissed that argument.
Though, I still fail to see how any of the two aproaches are relevant to this thread since we know that:
a) dinosaurs were common in th american southwest.
b) no dinos, or any species from the dino era (bugs, mammals, amphibians, etc.) are represented in the tarpits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 11-10-2005 11:58 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 11-10-2005 12:09 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 50 of 136 (258462)
11-10-2005 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
11-10-2005 11:58 AM


Re: randman switcharound
Hmmm....so are you claiming that if we don't see whales at locations, then they didn't exist during that era?
I believe that was the crux of your argument. Ours was, to paraphrase your Message 33:
paraphrasing randman writes:
the simple answer could also be whale transitionals lived, but not in sufficient numbers and not in that specific locale.
Hence why I said what I just said in Message 47

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 11-10-2005 11:58 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 11-10-2005 12:08 PM Modulous has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18349
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 51 of 136 (258464)
11-10-2005 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Whirlwind
11-10-2005 10:03 AM


Re: Something wrong here...
Hi, Whirwind...you are off topic for THIS thread, but there are other threads talking about Ark stuff.... (Where did they put the two termites, BTW?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Whirlwind, posted 11-10-2005 10:03 AM Whirlwind has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 52 of 136 (258465)
11-10-2005 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Modulous
11-10-2005 12:05 PM


Re: randman switcharound
Just answer the question modulous?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2005 12:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2005 12:19 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 53 of 136 (258466)
11-10-2005 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Yaro
11-10-2005 12:04 PM


Re: randman switcharound
Is he willing to take a stand or not?
Seems like he wants to have it both ways here, and somehow accusses me of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Yaro, posted 11-10-2005 12:04 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6526 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 54 of 136 (258467)
11-10-2005 12:18 PM


So, YECism may be wrong.
I think La Brea is definative proof that the YEC view on things is pretty much flawed. Two things are easely proven using La Brea as an example:
1) The earth is far older than 6,000 years.
2) The biodiversety of earth has changed thrughout the millenia.
Point number 2 is intriguing, because it also acts as proof for evolution (or at least leaves a very big unanswerd question for the creationist). Where did all these strange creatures go, and where did they come from?
After all, we can safely say dinos weren't arround to get stuck in the pit. Further, we can also say that the critters in the pit weren't arround when dinos were around.
The later point (2) needs to be elaborated a bit here:
1) Dino fossil beds contain no post ice-age fauna 'intermingled' with pre ice-age fauna. Likewise, post ice-age La Brea, shows that no dinos are intermingled with post ice-age mammals.
2) Since La Brea is a near perfect cross section of a functioning ancient eccosystem, how can we see any of these creatures fitting in a nich with dinosaurs?
That is to say, how are ancient bison going to compete for grazing land with herds of tricerotops? There simply isn't enugh room for all of these creatures, they can't all be filling the same niches.
It is impossible to imagine a time where such vast numbers of mega-fauna (dinos and ancient mammals) were roaming the earth together with the animals of today, and somehow surviving along side each other with out eating themselves out of house and home.
Conclusion:
This suggests evolution to me. However, the creationist would have much trouble addressing te 2 points above which can be safely infered by examining La Brea.
ABE: I ment tricerotops not stegosaurus.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 12:49 PM

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 55 of 136 (258468)
11-10-2005 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by randman
11-10-2005 12:08 PM


Re: randman switcharound
I'm sorry, my Message 50 was terribly obfuscated. If you aren't able to untangle the webs of wit and powerful rhetoric, let me help you:
are you claiming that if we don't see whales at locations, then they didn't exist during that era?
No - that's a closer description of what you were trying to claim.


I hope you aren't trying to take up the next 10 pages of this thread with this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 11-10-2005 12:08 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 11-10-2005 12:33 PM Modulous has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 56 of 136 (258470)
11-10-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Modulous
11-10-2005 12:19 PM


Re: randman switcharound
You are trying to have it both ways here, and that's wrong Modulous. Take a stand, please.
Btw, I guess it went right over your head the fact that in the whale examples we were discussing creatures presently in abundance whereas with the dinos we were theorizing if any species could have survived.
But it seems you have to people spell out the very obvious. We had an abundance of A (Basilosaurus for example) and then an abundance of, say, Z, but we see nothing of the species in between.
With dinos, we don't see an abundance of Z.
I can only hope you are able to grasp the difference. Can you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2005 12:19 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2005 12:40 PM randman has replied
 Message 67 by Omnivorous, posted 11-10-2005 1:48 PM randman has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 57 of 136 (258473)
11-10-2005 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
11-10-2005 12:33 PM


Re: randman switcharound
You are trying to have it both ways here, and that's wrong Modulous. Take a stand, please.
I answered your question,
randman's question writes:
so are you claiming that if we don't see whales at locations, then they didn't exist during that era?
with an obvious 'No' in Message 50 and a direct, blatant and explicit 'No' in Message 55. How am I not taking a stand, randman?
Btw, I guess it went right over your head the fact that in the whale examples we were discussing creatures presently in abundance whereas with the dinos we were theorizing if any species could have survived.
But it seems you have to people spell out the very obvious. We had an abundance of A (Basilosaurus for example) and then an abundance of, say, Z, but we see nothing of the species in between.
With dinos, we don't see an abundance of Z.
I can only hope you are able to grasp the difference. Can you?
Not at all, I agree that the two situations are different. In the whale scenario we do not know if our inbetween species existed in that locale or if they existed in significant numbers. In the dino example we know that dinos existed at that locale and in significant numbers. Entirely different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 11-10-2005 12:33 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 11-10-2005 12:43 PM Modulous has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 58 of 136 (258476)
11-10-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Modulous
11-10-2005 12:40 PM


Re: randman switcharound
In the dino example we know that dinos existed at that locale and in significant numbers.
What a mass of confused thinking! So dinos existed during the time of the La Brea tar pits, but we just cannot find their bones, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2005 12:40 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Yaro, posted 11-10-2005 12:46 PM randman has replied
 Message 60 by jar, posted 11-10-2005 12:48 PM randman has not replied
 Message 63 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2005 1:12 PM randman has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6526 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 59 of 136 (258480)
11-10-2005 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
11-10-2005 12:43 PM


Re: randman switcharound
What a mass of confused thinking! So dinos existed during the time of the La Brea tar pits, but we just cannot find their bones, eh?
Not at the time of La Brea, before La Brea. The Southwestern US is full of dino fossils. Why don't the dinos show up in the pit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 11-10-2005 12:43 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 11-10-2005 12:51 PM Yaro has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 60 of 136 (258484)
11-10-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
11-10-2005 12:43 PM


randman and misrepresentation: again!!!!!
So dinos existed during the time of the La Brea tar pits, but we just cannot find their bones, eh?
Please point out where he said that dinos existed at the time that the La Brea tar pit existed.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 11-10-2005 12:43 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024