Time sequence of fossil appearance

Then you are not reading the literature and probably only lurking and participating on net boards... ?

Correct.

It may be inadvertant on your part, Peter, but you are setting up a straw man. First of all, the number of species which can co-exist does not depend on the actual number of species (or kinds, even), but on the populations involved. It is individuals which use up parts of the ecosystem and if a population has a limited number of individuals, the load on the system is reduced.

Secondly, most dinosaurs were not the giant monsters of the films, but were rather small -- rabbit to horse size. They also required a different environment, for the most part, than mammals. So they probably would not have overlapped much. That being said, from New Scientist, 19 August, 2000 p. 7

Dinosaurs lived on the brink of extinction long before a cosmic impact wiped them out, say researchers who have had another look at the beasts’ nesting habits. They have found evidence that marsupial predators pushed them to the edge by constantly trying to steal their eggs.
The idea that mammals hunted the dinosaurs to extinction is not new, but few palaeontologists still believe it. Most think that rapid climate change, probably caused by an asteroid, killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

In other words, there is some evidence that mammals and dinos did overlap in some areas ecologically.

Trilobites (of which there were a number of varieties) are considered the index fossil for the Cambrian strata, simply because that is the only place they are found. However, I have wondered sometimes if there isn't a bit of circularity there (although this is off the main subject of your post) -- if a Cambrian layer is identified (when fossiliferous) as having trilobites, and if, when you see a trilobite fossil, you then say, "That means this is Cambrian" -- then where is the outside referencing point? This obviously does not happen all the time, but I suspect it does happen enough of the time so that there is some circularity built into the system of identification of strata.

It would be very, very good if you checked the material out yourself instead of writing vague ideas here. The author was John Woodmorappe. The Bible also says that 'kinds' of land dwellers and birds were on the Ark. That limits the individuals to a few thousand. Not that I, personally, would like to help care for a few thousand animals for a year on a boat, but it is possible!

You seem to be propagating a lot of nonsense here in the name of trying to bash creation science. "Species" is a current taxonomic classification and has nothing to do with the representatives of the originally created kinds that were on the Ark.

Again, suggest you look for the facts before you pass this kind of judgment!

Again, this is simply a result of you reading too much Talk Origins or whatever, I'm afraid, Peter. Would you like to live in a sauna? That is the kind of environment the large dinos required. Yes, I know some were buried by sand. We also know from satellite photos that under these areas there used to be rivers and marshes...

Most humans prefer dryer land and places where the kids can go out to play.

There is quite a bit of activity. I think you do not see it because you are not interested in reading what the creation scientists are working on; you seem much more interested in popping off with little or no information at your disposal on some things.

For instance, the polonium halo research has been picked up by Andrew Snelling and Mark Armitage. I do not think Robert Gentry is even dealing with it anymore, is he? The last I was aware of, he was deep into other areas of physics having to do with cosmology. Yet you are persisting in trying to deal with material that is somewhat old (which is exactly what you were trying to do with Barry) and ignoring the new material. I presume it is because you do not know there is actual work continuing? This post would certainly indicate your ignorance of that.

 

For example, I recently saw some beautiful fossils of something called Ammonites. Apparently these creatures are no longer living, but died out many millions of years ago. If I remember correctly, the same thing is true of trilobites. I believe they lived only at a very early time period. In fact, there are many species that lived only for a time and are extinct, and if they were all living on the earth at once, it seems impossible to imagine that they could successfully live because of the very great competition that would result. Can you imagine all the hundreds of species of dinosaurs trying to live alongside the present species of mammals?

I would think so. But how on Earth would you place all the herbivores we see in the fossil record on the Earth at one time? There is no room. Can we imagine plains with huge herds of therapsids, triceratopsians, sauropods, gazelles, girafes, litopterns, ground sloths,etc, all of which are competing for the same foliage?

Or velociraptors, T-rex, giant predatory birds like ax-beaks, smilodons, dire wolves, mesonychids, etc, all competing for the same prey? The foliage could not possibly support all those herbivores, and the predators could not all fit into the same niches.

But there are minimums for a species to continue on. Someone once observed that an ecosystem can support only so many layers of predation, because of the large numbers of prey necessary to feed each predator. A bird that preyed on eagles, for example, would need a territory so large that finding mates would be very difficult.

Actually, no. There were many small ones, but the average size was much larger than the average for animals today. And there were entire herds of really big ones. The average size is less important than the total biomass. So, a thousand Protoarcheaopteryx are less significant than a single Triceratops. Suffice to say, that there is insufficient room for the fauna of all these different periods to have lived together.

The evidence is that the mammals during the time of the dinosaurs were small, ratlike animals, probably active at night. Do you have any evidence for anything else? This is hardly "overlapping ecologically".

No, the Cambrian rocks were not defined by the presence of trilobites, although it happens to be true that the trilobites died out in the Cambrian.

My impression is that the total number of species that once lived on the earth far exceeds the number of species that are present now. It seems to me that this strongly supports evolution, rather than creation.

He's right. More to the point, there are far more kinds of larger animal (which require more resources) in the fossil record than exist now. Many times as many, in fact. Yet we see large animals tend to require huge areas of land to support them, and are generally limited by the availability of food.

And there is the additional factor that human fossils are severely restricted to only the last brief interval of earth's history. The finding of human fossils mixed with dinosaur fossils would at once falsify evolution.

Some were found among the fossils of pine forests. Hardly sauna conditions. Others were found in relatively dry areas, with evidence of arid conditions. Moreover, humans by the millions live in tropical forests and coastlands today, under those conditions.

But being buried by a sand dune (protoceratops) is not consistent with marshlands.

 

The finding of human fossils mixed with dinosaur fossils would at once falsify evolution.

Yes, I posed that very question in the thread entitled "T Rex vs Cro Magnon" and to date, the question has not been thoroughly explained to fit a YEC model.

 

I’m fairly new to this board and learning what each person believes so I ask Johnv, where do you stand on this issue of old earth vs a young earth? Young meaning 6,000 +/- a few thousand or an old earth meaning millions and millions of years old.

 

Putting aside the evolution debate, the evidence that the earth is considerably older than 6000 years old is overwhelming. We right here in the southern United States have skeletal remains of contemporary animals that are 20,000 years old or more. We have skeletal remains of modern humans that are almost as old. We have geological structures that are hundreds of thousands of years old. We also have geological structures that are 6000 years old or less, as well as remains of animals and humans that are 6000 years old or less.

 

Johnv

How does science determine the age of these supposed skeletal remains? Could this process be possibly flawed in some way?

How would you explain that the sun is gradually getting smaller? Or the moon is slowly moving away from the earth or our gravitational pull is getting weaker. Of course these aren’t significant enough to affect us, but if the earth were millions or even 20,000 or more years old, at the rate of the mentioned above, shouldn’t we be in trouble? Wouldn’t we be in a population crisis right about now?

 

You better give your evidence and explain how it helps you.

The energy of the sun does not come from gravitational collapse it comes from fusion. We have the neutrino measurements to demonstrate this. And before you come back with missing neutrinos, high energy physics research in the last few years has shown that neutrinos can change between the three flavors of neutrino. The "problem" of not enough neutrinos was because we were only detecting two of the three flavors. The newest observations fit the theory just fine. Besides, if you want to argue gravitational collapse you would have to explain why there were any neutrinos to begin with. In addition, we now have decades of ground based and satellite measurements of the sun that show no change in diameter.

First , a simple explanation of why the moon is moving away. The gravity of the moon, as you know, causes tides. The rotation of the earth pulls on the tides in such a way that the peak of the tide is not in line directly between the center of the earth and the center of the moon. Instead, the peak of the tide is slightly out in fron of the moon. The slight pull of gravity from this water pulls the moon forward providing the energy to boost the moon into a higher orbit and robbing the earth of a bit of rotational energy.

Now, at the rate at which the moon is receding, it still would have been well outside of the Roche limit even 4.5 billion years ago. The Roche limit is the minimum distance from a body that another body can orbit. Inside this limit, tidal forces (the difference in gravitational pull from one end to the other) will destroy any large body. Further, models show that the current configuration of the continents provides a higher tranfer of energy to the moon than what is thought to be the configuration of the continents in the past. And I think you will find that even some of the YECs here will agree that the continents used to be joined differently.

You will have to educate me on the decrease in gravitational pull. I have never run across that before but it sounds interesting.

 

Even though I did not address them, I would love to hear more information on your other topics also. Frankly, I am not sure what you mean entirely.

"Supposed" sketetal remains? What else could they be? From southern California, they get some excellent specimens from the tar pits for one. I am sure someone could clue you in on various ways dates are determined but since you make the charge please tell what mistakes you think are made in dating methods and how to correct for them.

Since these two claims above are on topic, they are the most interesting to the thread.

What above would have caused problems 20,000 years ago and how? What above would have caused problems 10,000,000 years ago and how?

Again, what reason would we have to be in a population crisis now? Please lay out in terms of infant mortality, life expectancy, birth rates, effects of improving medicine and hygiene, and so forth why we woul have a problem. It would help to have estimates of the population at various times in history, especially at your initial conditions and the first part of the history, say the first 25%. And how the model compares to actual estimates of the population at different times.

 

UTEOTW

Not to start an argument, but if one is an “old earth” believer, one has to discredit some of the Bible. Either science isn’t telling the public all the small details or the Bible isn’t that reliable. I think I will go with science is withholding a few small details that will discredit their “theories.”

Am I being lied to when they “creation scientist” say that the earth isn’t no more than 6,000 yrs old? The flood was approximately 4,400 yrs ago and Adam lived to be 900+ yrs old. Was the Bible misinterpreted? Either the earth was around for thousands or millions of years before Adam was created, which contradicts Genesis. Or there is a huge gap in the genealogy of the Genesis account from Adam to the flood to our present age. Somewhere someone’s got it wrong. My money is on science as the deceiver to discredit the Bible. I’m really shocked that a Christian would believe it.

I wasn’t aware of any evidence found that suggested the earth is more than 6,000 yrs old. No archeologist find has ever dated beyond 6,000 yrs that I’m aware of.

Since signing up on this board either there are a few sneaky atheists on this board or there are a few of the “born-again” Christians who used to believe in evolution and it’s difficult for them to completely surrender their faith that God actually created this earth and all it’s inhabitants without the need of evolution, but like some science, I’m sure I’m wrong.

[ May 07, 2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: john6:63 ]

 

Or you could look at some parts of the bible as metaphor. BTW-science isn't comprised of similar minded individuals who are all going toward some dastardly anti-christian purpose. Scientists are interpreting what they see around them, and they actually *depend* on other scientists being as open about there research as possible-that's how science is done actually. Other scientists work hard to validate theories, no offense but you sound as though you are working some conspiracy theory angle that just isn't there.

Yes.

Why would science be a 'deceiver'? When scientists do lie about there findings it's revealed rather quickly-as with the scientists involved with 'cold fusion'. The people who reveal it are, you guessed it, other scientists.

 

Congrats Meatros, I’ve seen the light…the whole book of genesis is just a “metaphor!!” Man, that Holy Sprit sure is tricky…huh?

Give me a break!

 

Some responses:

Galatian – We have no idea of the numbers in the early populations, therefore there is no need to try to ‘imagine’ anything in terms of foliage, animals eating it, etc. In addition, I am aware – as I am sure you also are – that in our attempt to identify fossils, we may well be identifying juveniles and adults as different species, or even males and females as different species. So I’m not too prone to the idea of trying to guess for you how many of what could have lived when in whatever kind of conditions.

Secondly, you mentioned necessary minimums for populations for survival as a population (or species). We all tend to think in terms of ‘now’, with the genetic restrictions and problems that need to be dealt with today. We need to remember that when God created the various kinds, there were no mutations hindering any of the original populations, and therefore there would not have been a necessary minimum for some time. We also need to remember there was no predation, at least among land animals and birds, before the Deluge.

Regarding the size you claim for the average dinosaur, do you have a reference for that, please? Everything I have read up until now, from both sides of the fence mentions a much smaller average size than you seem to indicate. Thank you. I would also ask you where you reference your comment “there were entire herds of really big ones.”

About trilobites – aside from your word play on the issue, trilobites are the index fossil for the Cambrian strata. Thus, when a trilobite fossil is found, the presumption is that the strata being seen is Cambrian. And yes, there is a degree of circularity there.

Lastly, the violent storms which would have occurred during the catastrophes which spanned from the Deluge to Peleg and beyond would have been more than enough to inundate previously marshy areas with many feet of wind-blown sand. The fact is that we DO see river-beds and such under the sands in the northern African desert right now. And we do have evidence of sudden catastrophes which do not go along with the slow and gradual accumulation of changes for given areas.

To Johnv – you were given an answer regarding human fossils not being with the dinosaur fossils in the other thread. When you say it was not ‘thoroughly explained,’ I’m sorry. Please keep in mind that we do not have many fossils of large mammals or other large animals of any kind! So, with the few that we have, we do not see nearly everything we would like to see, including more evidence of the ecosystems in which the various populations lived. Most of what we see in museums and such are artists’ imaginations. However, there is the fact that the large dinosaurs, if they were cold-blooded, would have HAD to live in very warm areas and, given their size, would very likely have been swamp and water grazers, as this is where many plants can grow the fastest and also where that large a body mass can get extra support from the water. We do find this proximity to water regarding the Behemoth in Job, which is interesting.

To Peter101 – The biblical kinds are the original populations of created animals and plants. One way of trying to identify kinds today is via hybridization. Since zebras and horses can mate and have viable offspring, then yes, they are part of one kind. Nor do you have to take my word for anything. I would not expect that at all. So I suggest you ask anyone you like who deals with reptiles about the amount of external heat required for a cold-blooded animal of any given size. My information came from Dr. Elaine Kennedy, expert on dinosaurs, at Geoscience Research Institute ( http://www.grisda.org/about.htm )during a lunch Barry and I had with her and some others about two years ago. She has done quite a bit of field work herself, and was quite interested in some of Barry’s work, as she felt it might offer the environment she was sure these early large dinosaurs would have needed.

Regarding Gentry’s work, your criticisms aside, he was considered the world’s leading authority on radiohalos before it was discovered he was a creationist! That discovery, of course, invalidated all his brain cells and his work….
As far as Andrew Snelling is concerned, he is a personal friend and one of the people I hold in very high regard, both as a Christian and as a geologist. I know him, I know his work, and I know his attitude regarding his work. He is competent, professional, cautious, and humble. So the fact that you do not find him ‘credible’ only tells me you are ignorant of both the man and his work.

To UTEOTW – I remember reviewing a paper on the animals and the tar pits a few years ago, and there is some pretty good evidence that the tar pits were not ‘stumbled into’ by various animals. The remains are fragmented and mixed. “This chaotic intermingling of damaged and broken fossils seemed to suggest that some monstrous catastrophe had overtaken these creatures of the remote past.” Pit 16, when excavated, yielded a rich supply of animal remains, including dire wolves, saber-tooth cats, coyotes, camels, bison, horses, and even the bulky mastodon. However, this pit was only four feet wide! The animals remains at the bottom dated at about 38,000 years old. Those closer to the top dated at 13,500 years old. That’s about 25,000 years that the tar pit did not solidify, or crust over to the extent that animals would be able to walk over it safely? Hard to imagine….
It is also interesting to note that there are no soft body parts of the animals in the pits. The actual evidence at La Brea and other tar pits is more in line with a sudden catastrophe than slow entrapment over many years.

To John6:63 – The early church, Josephus, the Apostles and the Lord Himself all referenced the Greek Alexandrian Septuagint. Here you will find that the age of the earth today would be closer to 8000 than 6000 years old . Just a point of relative trivia for you.

 

UTEOTW

I almost took you up on the population model, but I thought surely if this person has truly surrendered his life to Christ and believed God raised Him from the dead, then why should I present a population model to show what the population would be if there was no flood.

But surely you believe in the flood? The population as it stands today is right were it needs to be since the flood some 4400 yrs ago. So since you’re a Baptist Christian, I believe we can both agree that there was indeed a flood.

 

you were given an answer regarding human fossils not being with the dinosaur fossils in the other thread.
I'd like to know where that is.

Please keep in mind that we do not have many fossils of large mammals or other large animals of any kind! So, with the few that we have, we do not see nearly everything we would like to see, including more evidence of the ecosystems in which the various populations lived.

Some prehistoric animals are rare finds. Others, otoh, are abundant.

Most of what we see in museums and such are artists’ imaginations.

To a point. The artist renderings are based on hypotheses. But thanks to our engineering technology and computer simulations, we've been able to examine skeletal structures from fossils to more accurately represent them. A good example is the famous T Rex. In the early 20th century, T Rex was often depicted as standing upright like a kangaroo, with its tail dragging on the grouns behing it. We now know that T Rex, as well as just about all the bipedal sauria, would have walked with their head staright ahead of them, and their tail straight out behind them, their weight being evenly dispersed, like a seesaw (the pelvis being the centerpoint of gravity).

However, there is the fact that the large dinosaurs, if they were cold-blooded, would have HAD to live in very warm areas and, given their size, would very likely have been swamp and water grazers, as this is where many plants can grow the fastest and also where that large a body mass can get extra support from the water.

Except that most probably weren't coldblooded, but warm blooded. This was confirmed by a recent find of hemoglobin remnants that were found. The hemoglobin resembled that of a bird (supporting long held theory that birds are related to dinosaurs). Also, fossilized tracks that have been found don't depict slow-moving cold blooded animals, but warm-blooded fast-moving animals.

This is supported by the fact that paleobotany fossils are those of conifer forests and similar environments that we attribute to warm blooded animals, not cold blooded ones. You generally don't find fossils of swampland near dinosaurs, you often find fossils of mediterranean plants, sich as those environments of the cost of the southwestern united states.

We do find this proximity to water regarding the Behemoth in Job, which is interesting.

Except that Job's "behemoth" is not a dinosaur, it's a hippopotamous, according to the OT in Hebrew.

 

Actually, we do. When we find millions upon millions of individuals in the fossil record, in the same strata, there is no question that they were numerous. When we find mile-deep accumulation of the shells of tiny marine invertebrates, it becomes clear that they could not have all lived at the same time. The sea would have been a paste, rather than water. It is not hard realize that vast areas of the earth have been deserts, since this is preserved in the rocks. These would have not supported large numbers of animals.

It turns out that juveniles and females have to eat, just like males. That won't work, either.

As you know, that's perfectly acceptable as a religious belief, but if you want to present it as a scientific theory, you'll need evidence. Tell us about it.

From the very lowest strata, we have evidence of predation. So that won't work, either.

Yep...

But that is not how the Cambrian strata was defined when it was first investigated by geologists. It's true that the trilobites lived in the Cambrian, but that's not the same thing as saying we define Cambrian as rock containing trilobites.

Since all we know about trilobites indicates that they existed in the Cambrian, and only during that time, we take that as a fact. But that's not how the Cambrian rocks are defined. We know that the great pyramids are found only in Egypt, but Egypt is not defined as "where the great pyramids are", even if that is true. We can be where there are no pyramids, and we are still in Egypt.

Doesn't seem to be.

Would it have been violent enough to stir up shallow water with many delicate layers of silt with fossils in them? If so, why do we see those? This seems impossible.

 

john6:63

Please be careful here. We are all Christians that post here. We all believe the Bible. We all believe that Jesus died to pay for each of our sins.

Your questioning of the salvation of those that accept the evidence of an old earth is intolerable. I am deeply offended that you would say such a thing because we disagree on the meaning of some particular pieces of scripture. Disagreeing with you does not make me an atheist.

You must accept that we can accept this evidence without contradicting our faith in God. You can disagree with the evidence and you can stick to your interpretation of Genesis but understand that I will not accept you questioning my faith. You do not have to agree, and the discussion can be very interesting and informing when done with respect. Though I disagree with you I respect your beliefs and do not question your faith because of our differences on this. You do not have to agree. I do not expect you to agree. I do expect respect and you, sir, have not shown respect to those with whom you are in disagreement.

You had said there would be a population problem. I was asking for why there would be a population problem. Instead of telling me how you come to the conclusion that there would be a population problem you attack my character and faith. Have you no sense of decency than to attack a fellow Christian.

If you are going to disagree I ask that you make well thought out statements supported by evidence. That kind of exchange can be enlightening and fun. If you use the shotgun approach (throwing out a lot of charges and not supporting any of them) I will ask you to show me how you got there. You have already made a lot a statements but refuse to back them up with support and instead make personal attacks on those with whom you disagree. This is an evidence based debate. You will find great disagrement here over the interpretation of scripture related to creation and pointing this out usually does not make a lot of headway in either direction with this group. (Yes, you will find old earthers using verses in their favor, too.) You must be able to make solid claims and back them up with facts.

To answer your question. A flood, yes. A worldwide flood, I honestly do not know. So far, the evidence seems lacking but I have not really looked into it very much. While I have no problem with theistic evolution I do think that the reading of the flood sounds more like a historical narrative than allegory. Whether it was worldwide, I don't know. When I have been presented with evidence of how it would have happened and the results you would see today I find it unconvincing. But, like I said, I have not really checked into it very well.