Why do we only find fossils?

Hey Ned, I've been pokeing around and turned up some interesting things.This are roman skeletos unearthed in an english settlment:http://www.lincsheritage.org/vt/ancaster/ancast2.html
http://www.lincsheritage.org/vt/ancaster/ancast1.htmlmain site: http://www.lincsheritage.org/vt/ancaster/c12.htmlthese skeletons are from AD 315 or so and are quite well preserved as you can see.Some skeletons circa 1235 AD were also unearthed elsewhere in england. They were very well preserved and I belive were ultimetly burried elsewhere in a christian cermony. BBC NEWS | UK | England | Medieval skeletons uncovered Here are some viking remains:BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: Viking Dig ReportsAs you can see from all of these examples, these bones are pretty recognizable as bone. Some are very well preserved such as the roman skeleton. Would it not be concivable then to say at least some dinos should be cropping up in the same condition?

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.

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: 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: 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

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?

Ok, I agree to some extent. But then you must adress the 2 points I made in this post Message 54.Namely the points concerning biodiversity of mega-fauna.The problem for your position is where are all these creatures comming from?This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 12:59 PM

I have made some very important points: Message 54They are relevant to this conversation and I belive randman should adress those.

The Ashfall beds in Nebraska preserves a Micoene eccosystem under a huge bed of ash layed down by an ancient erupting volcano (a la pompeii):Ashfall Fossil Beds - WikipediaGuess what? No dinosaurs!Account SuspendedThe area is roughly 500 square miles with over 200 fossil sites abundant with the flora and fauna from 10 million years ago! Yet not a single dino.Where did they all go?This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 03:40 PM

Nice dodge, but the point still stands. Please answer Message 54There is alot you MUST account for enlight of this clinching evidence that the world is more than 6000 years old and that biology on earth goes thrugh drastic changes.

Solnhofen Limestone - WikipediaThe solhofen limestone are most famous for archyopterix, however it is important to note that it is a huge Lagersttten (fossil repository). It used to be an anceient lagoon where things died and were fossilized into limestone due to silt build up.Over 600 specieas have been identified from this late Jurassic site, many small dinosaurs, extinct insects, fish, and other things. However not a single mammal of any kind.The Solnhofen Limestone of Germany
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/...ofen/Solnhofen_Lagerstatt.htmThis message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 03:36 PM

Mod,I appreciate the discussion you are having, but it seems this is gonna turn into anothe whale thread, and I really would rather keep the heat up on randman to adress the issues raised by the fact of La Brea.This is giving him an out to do a little symantic dance and it could easaly eat the 300 post limit. Hows about it?

I understand and I am not saying you are a YEC. But, you are anti-evolution, so you must account for a whole bunch of problems now:1) Where did all the animals go?2) Where are all the new species comming from?3) If all species coexisted at some time, how on earth did they survive without eating each other out of house and home? Im granting you that evolution never happend. It didn't happen, I conceed.Now explain how you account for the diversity in the fossil record. It is if you dispute evolution. Less you wanna say god snaps his fingers and introduces a new species every 100k years or so.They gotta be comming from somewhere because clearly:1) They never coexisted.2) They COULDN'T have coexisted. The ecosystem wouldn't take the abuse.Agreed?This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 03:52 PM

That's incorrect. Ancient bison and Triceretops shared the same ecological nich. They roamed in large herds grazing on grasslands along with many other generations of sauropode that also filled the same niche.The way a Niche works is that only a few creatures get to fill it and compete for resources. You can't have dozens of dozens of species in the same area eating the same thing as all the other creatures do. You would have total breakdown.Check out Australia and the introduction of Rabits:
Rabbits in Australia - WikipediaWhen Rabbits were introduced to australia they totaly f*ked up the ecology:

quote:

---

The effect on the ecology of Australia was devastating. One eighth of all mammalian species in Australia are now extinct (rabbits are the most significant known factor), and the loss of plant species is unknown even at this time.

​

Huge areas of land in Australia have been cleared by tractors pulling chains in order to prepare the land for agricultural purposes. The rabbits easily thrived on the cleared land, and their population boomed.

​

Rabbits are also responsible for serious erosion problems as they eat native plants which would have retained soil. Some of this erosion may also be the result of settlers clearing much of Australia's land for farming and housing.

---

You can't just make a blanket statement that they "could all just live together", when all the evidence is that they couldn't. Ecosystems are very fragile and anything like the mass mingling of creatures you are suggesting would quickly upset it. This is irrelivant to the conversation as I have already conceeded to you that the ToE is a load of horse crap. Agreed, sure. No, I conseeded ToE. It's not part of the discussion. How else did they get there since we both agree that ToE didn't happen, and that new creatures are definetly comming about.your maxim: "if we don't see it in the fossil record at a given time, it probably wasn't there."So whats your alternative solution to this problem?This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 04:15 PM

No, I am saying that Bison, triceretops, predecessors of triceretops, etc. All roamed the North american grassland. If they coexistd. All those species had to compeat for resources on the grassland.ABE: also keep in mind that there were similar numbers of bison and triceretops. So we are talking MASSIVE populations of grazers. If rabbits can erode australia, immagine what hords of giant grass eaters would do.You can apply similar scenarious to the other species you mentioned. And do read the article on australia and rabbits as it is highly relevant.Anyway, I thought we agreed that there were differenet groups of animals at different times. That was the "maxim" So lets adress the rest of my previous post.ABE: Explain what kind of ID, cuz there must have been new species comming into existance at different points in time as old species died off. If this is the case, what mechanism introduces the new species?This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 04:26 PMThis message has been edited by Yaro, 11-10-2005 04:28 PM

Alright, fair enugh.Although I ment it as a general example of how fragile ecosystems are and how easy they can be destabalized.If your gonna say all the animals coexisted at one point you are going to have to expline how HUGE groups of bison and HUGE groups of triceretops didn't eat the landscape dry.I mean, we are talking about a hebivore army here. Overgrazing happens all the time on farms, were talking overgrazing on a world wide scale here.I think you see where I'm going with this. It's clearly an impossibilty that all those crits coexisted. Randman has accepted that point, so I would like to move the discussion on as to what mechanisim brings about new critters every few thousand years or so.

*bump*