Why do we only find fossils?

Yaro, so if we find millions year old parts of dinosaurs according to evo dating does that mean ToE is wrong because it is not possible for parts not to have fossilized during that period.It's a serious question because even though I accept an old earth, I don't find evo explanations of why some parts of dinosaurs are found which are not fossilized, and even some soft parts, to be plausible. The idea that even small amounts of blood say could survive that length of time does not appear to me to be plausible, but then again, I have never really heard or seen any peer-reviewed analysis by evos that explain the issue one way or the other.Furthermore, can you state how long it takes for something to fossilize? My understanding is it can happen as quickly as a few years.

The wikipedia is not a reliable source all the time. I have seen enough of what I consider false claims by evos that eventually were reversed and these dealt with factual claims, such as claiming Pakicetus had webbed feet which wasn't true, that I am not inclined to accept any evo claim by evos not substantiated by non-evos.

How can soft tissue survive millions and millions of years? Are you telling me you honestly don't think that sounds off somehow?As far as the Tar Pits, I have yet to see if the data is even reliable, and frankly it doesn't upset my beliefs if dinosaurs were not there with those other animals.I do think there is evidence dinosaurs lived longer than people think and some have been around in modern times. Wasn't there that species found a few years back that scientists had said had been extinct for 65 million years?

This guy thinks the pits are evidence of a catastrophic flood.The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

http://www.oklahoma.net/~silvrdal/dinosaurs.htmlHate to just do cut and paste, but it appears finding real bone is something that occurs with dinosaurs as well.

It appears identical from what I have read Ned.

Yaro, the simple answer could also be that dinosaurs lived, but not in sufficient numbers and not in that specific locale.It may indicate YECism is wrong, but it doesn't exclude the chance some dinosaurs didn't go extinct.

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

Just answer the question modulous?

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.

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?

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?

Yaro, maybe they weren't there. That has nothing to do with Mod's claims. The reason dinos were not there is they were either declining or extinct, and that is the point, right?But modulous here wants to turn that around, and claims it is reasonable to see whales and their ancestors in abundance all over the world, but not to see the species in between in the same places.So let's use the rationale presented here concerning dinos for whale evolution, and we see no good reason for the in-between forms not to be seen. You can't have it both ways here.

I really cannot understand why intelligent people would not get this. I'll try again very slowly, but without much anticipation that you guys can comprehend any argument not advocating ToE.Dinos were declining and/or extinct. So they wouldn't exist at those locales. Right?What ancestors were abundant at certain locales and so were whales. So the declining argument does not hold true. So as argued with the La Brea tar pits, the absence of a certain species is evidence they did not exist. Right?But oh no, evos cannot argue that, can they? LOL. So which is it? If we don't see the fossils does that mean they weren't there, as the claim is for La Brea tar pits, or it that they just didn't fossilize there OR ANYWHERE FOR THAT MATTER!I can't help it if you guys equate a declining population heading into extinction with an evolving one, supposedly, but I will try.At say point 1 in time and evolutionary development, there is an estimate of X million members of various species. At the same locales, at point 10,000, we see similar large numbers of various members of species evos claim evolved from point 1. There is not a declining number here as with the dino example.But at the same locales, we don't see points 2-999,999.In the dino example, the dinos are either extinct or severely declined in population.