Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8947 total)
41 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,995 Year: 21,031/19,786 Month: 1,428/2,023 Week: 379/557 Day: 72/47 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is it ALL mammals above the dinosaurs?
Faith
Member
Posts: 33739
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1 of 2 (865892)
11-01-2019 11:18 PM


Message 1 on the Mammals Rebound thread is a discussion of new mammal fossil finds in Colorado. Message 3 has a video about it, showing how it was discovered that these fossils were encased in concretions of the mineral apatite, explaining why it took them so long to find them.

Since that's a Links and Information thread there isn't supposed to be any debate there, so I'm bringing it over here.

I really have only one point to make: Why are there ONLY mammals in that find? It's very clear it's all in a certain layer of dirt, composition not specified as far as I recall, above layers of dinosaur finds, so of course it's all explained as the "recovery" of life after the meteor strike that supposedly killed all the dinosaurs.

Of course I attribute it all to the worldwide Flood of Noah, and I get asked how the Flood could have sorted the different creatures as we see everywhere. Why is this particular layer yielding pretty much nothing but mammal fossils?

So what I'm asking is why nothing but mammals? Why not just as many fossils of all the creatures found beneath the dinosaurs? Did they all die in the supposed KT extinction? And if they did why did mammals recover and none of the rest of them?

See, it's hard to explain how the Flood would have sorted the animals as we find them, but it's just as hard to explain why each "time period" should be characterized by one particular kind of fossil. If new creatures evolved from the kind in the layer below it, those same creatures wouldn't just disappear, they should appear in roughlyh the same numbers they are found in their own time period, shouldn't they? There shouldn't really be any sorting at all as we find it, on the ToE/OE models, all those from lower/earlier layers should appear in those above in no less numbers, or at least in abundance: there's no reason for them not to be in the layers above just because other creatures evolved from them. In fact all of those "before" the dinosaurs should appear in the layers with the dinosaur fossils, all of them. Why aren't they there? If the KT event killed the dinosaurs surely it would have killed all the other creatures that preceded them and their fossils should be found in great numbers WITH the dinosaur fossils.

And this mammal find is very striking: looks like ALL mammals. I can't explain how the Flood did that, but neither is it explainable how the ToE/OE theory accounts for it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3908
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 2 (865894)
11-02-2019 12:44 AM


Thread Copied to Biological Evolution Forum
Thread copied to the Why is it ALL mammals above the dinosaurs? thread in the Biological Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019