YECs and dinosaurs

[Calum]

I'll bet all the old-earthers on this forum have heard of YECs ideas about how dinosaurs would have lived with humans.
If there are any serious YECs here, would it be possible to answer these questions?

1) why are dinosaurs not found in the same layers as humans?
2) why are some dinosaurs found unique to certain eras and not found anywhere else?
3) how would humans have interacted with dinosaurs?
4) is there any paleontological evidence that would support the notion humans walked with dinosaurs?
5) how would you avoid overpopulation? Even having early cretaceous dinosaurs mingling with late cretaceous dinosaurs would be sufficient to cause ecological meltdown.
6) how did dinosaurs go extinct, and why did mammals survive?
7) what was the point of having them in the ark anyway, if they all were to die off so quickly afterward?

For everyone in general: just for fun, what's your favourite dinosaur or extinct animal?

[RickD]

I'll bet all the old-earthers on this forum have heard of YECs ideas about how dinosaurs would have lived with humans.
If there are any serious YECs here, would it be possible to answer these questions?

1) why are dinosaurs not found in the same layers as humans?
2) why are some dinosaurs found unique to certain eras and not found anywhere else?
3) how would humans have interacted with dinosaurs?
4) is there any paleontological evidence that would support the notion humans walked with dinosaurs?
5) how would you avoid overpopulation? Even having early cretaceous dinosaurs mingling with late cretaceous dinosaurs would be sufficient to cause ecological meltdown.
6) how did dinosaurs go extinct, and why did mammals survive?
7) what was the point of having them in the ark anyway, if they all were to die off so quickly afterward?

For everyone in general: just for fun, what's your favourite dinosaur or extinct animal?

Calum, I believe AnswersinGenesis has the answers to all those questions. If my awful memory serves me right, I believe I've seen answers to all of them, except maybe the overpopulation question.

[jlay]

I'll bet all the old-earthers on this forum have heard of YECs ideas about how dinosaurs would have lived with humans.
If there are any serious YECs here, would it be possible to answer these questions?

1) why are dinosaurs not found in the same layers as humans? There are a myriad of extinct and extant creatures that are not found in the same layers.
2) why are some dinosaurs found unique to certain eras and not found anywhere else? Elaborate
3) how would humans have interacted with dinosaurs? Put saddles on them and rode em. Kidding. That is like asking, how would humans and crocodiles interact. 4) is there any paleontological evidence that would support the notion humans walked with dinosaurs? Not that I'm aware of.
5) how would you avoid overpopulation? Even having early cretaceous dinosaurs mingling with late cretaceous dinosaurs would be sufficient to cause ecological meltdown. Maybe you just answered your extinction question.
6) how did dinosaurs go extinct, and why did mammals survive? Why is this a YEC question?
7) what was the point of having them in the ark anyway, if they all were to die off so quickly afterward? Who says they weren't extinct before the ark?

For everyone in general: just for fun, what's your favourite dinosaur or extinct animal? The Coelacanth. Whoops.

[Calum]

I'll bet all the old-earthers on this forum have heard of YECs ideas about how dinosaurs would have lived with humans.
If there are any serious YECs here, would it be possible to answer these questions?

1) why are dinosaurs not found in the same layers as humans? There are a myriad of extinct and extant creatures that are not found in the same layers.
2) why are some dinosaurs found unique to certain eras and not found anywhere else? Elaborate
3) how would humans have interacted with dinosaurs? Put saddles on them and rode em. Kidding. That is like asking, how would humans and crocodiles interact. 4) is there any paleontological evidence that would support the notion humans walked with dinosaurs? Not that I'm aware of.
5) how would you avoid overpopulation? Even having early cretaceous dinosaurs mingling with late cretaceous dinosaurs would be sufficient to cause ecological meltdown. Maybe you just answered your extinction question.
6) how did dinosaurs go extinct, and why did mammals survive? Why is this a YEC question?
7) what was the point of having them in the ark anyway, if they all were to die off so quickly afterward? Who says they weren't extinct before the ark?

For everyone in general: just for fun, what's your favourite dinosaur or extinct animal? The Coelacanth. Whoops.

1) There are a myriad of extinct and extant creatures that are not found in the same layers.
Such as...?

2) My point is: how do you explain faunal succession.

3) Put saddles on them and rode em. Kidding. That is like asking, how would humans and crocodiles interact.
Not exactly, as dinosaurs occupied virtually every ecological niche taken up by mammals (and some birds) imaginable. They would have had to interact on frequent levels. The small epidexipteryx, which would have made a good caged pet, or those pesky brachiosaur herds, which kept trodding through your fields. Then there were those terribly annoying velociraptors and troodon, which would keep killing all your herds of protoceratops.

5) Maybe you just answered your extinction question.
So apparently, dinosaurs went extinct after the Flood because God created too many 'kinds' for the earth to support?
You're kidding, right?

6) Why is this a YEC question?
You need an explanation for why all those millions of prehistoric animals died off. How on Earth would the mammals have outcompeted the dinosaurs?

7) Who says they weren't extinct before the ark?
Don't you guys argue that the fossil record was layed down during the Flood?

The Coelacanth. Whoops.
??why?

[sandy_mcd]

The Coelacanth. Whoops.
??why?

1) Scientists say things evolve, that is, they change; the coelacanth is little changed.
2) Scientists said the coelacanth was extinct; it is not.
QED Darwinism refuted.

[Calum]

The Coelacanth. Whoops.
??why?

1) Scientists say things evolve, that is, they change; the coelacanth is little changed.
2) Scientists said the coelacanth was extinct; it is not.
QED Darwinism refuted.

lol...
I've met many YECs who insist that living fossils such as the Tuatara, Coelacanth, Laotian rock rat, Wollemi pine, Opossum, Cockroach, and Horseshoe crabs somehow disprove an old earth, because these things couldn't possibly have survived all these millions of years unchanged. An animal doesn't HAVE to evolve if it's already perfectly comfortable in its environment. Among millions of species, at least some would stay the same.

[adocus]

The Coelacanth. Whoops.
??why?

1) Scientists say things evolve, that is, they change; the coelacanth is little changed.
2) Scientists said the coelacanth was extinct; it is not.
QED Darwinism refuted.

Scientists never said "the coelacanth" was extinct. What they said was that the lineage - the whole order of the Coelacanthiformes - was unknown after the mid-Cretaceous. Which was certainly the truth, up until Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer found one on the dock in South Africa, and recognized it as something quite unusual - a lobed-fin fish unknown to science as a living animal, but well known from the fossil record.

And, just to close the loop on your other incorrect claim, the coelacanth is different that its older relatives - enough so that it gets its own genus and species, apart from the others. There are at least 30 genera and 100 species of coelacaths known, and they are quite variable, a great deal of change has taken place in that lineage.

Evolution confirmed, once again.

[sandy_mcd]

Scientists never said "the coelacanth" was extinct.

They didn't? See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v1 ... 3455a0.pdf

Nature 143, 455-456 (18 March 1939) | doi:10.1038/143455a0

A Living Fish of Mesozoic Type

J. L. B. SMITH

Ex Africa semper aliquid novi. It is my privilege to announce the discovery of a Crossopterygian fish of a type believed to have become extinct by the close of the Mesozoic period. ... It was obvious from the sketch and notes that the fish was of a type believed long extinct.

[adocus]

Sandy, your nice quote mining actually worked against you this time, since the quotation supports my contention, rather than yours. Smith never said "the coelacanth" was extinct, he was speaking of the lineage - the type, as he called it - by which he meant the rhipidistean crossopterygians, one order of which is the coelacanths. As I had explained.

And you seemed to have just ignored the part about the large degree of morphological change through time in the Coelacanthiformes - that is, evolution took place through millions of years. Or was that just too inconvenient a truth for you?

Adocus

[sandy_mcd]

Sandy, your nice quote mining actually worked against you this time, since the quotation supports my contention, rather than yours. Smith never said "the coelacanth" was extinct, he was speaking of the lineage - the type, as he called it - by which he meant the rhipidistean crossopterygians, one order of which is the coelacanths. As I had explained.

No, acodus wrote that it was unknown, not extinct, by which i assumed that there was some distinction between the two words.
But to write that scientists did not specifically say that the coelacanth was extinct but that an entire lineage (including the coelacanth) was extinct is the type of argument i would expect from a politician not a scientist.

[adocus]

Sandy, please don't waste my time with your word games. The lineage of coelacanths was unknown after the mid-Cretaceous, therefore, it was assumed to have gone extinct. The lineage, not "the" coelacanth. Once Latimera had been discovered and described, the lineage was known from the Recent, and it therefore was no longer extinct. Our knowledge changed, not the facts about the existence of coelacanths. Latimera had always been here (in the modern fauna), we just didn't know it.

Now that we know that coelacanths are living today, and we have a fossil or fossils of fishes from the same lineage from the Mid Cretaceous, what about the intervening 100 million years? Coelacanths are unknown for all that time. Were they extinct?

They now constitute what we call a "ghost lineage". We know they existed - the fossil ones have a modern decendant; the modern one has a fossil ancestor. So there have to have been coelacanths in between. We just don't have any fossils. Someday we might, or perhaps we never will. To paraphrase Steven Hawking, it's coelacanths all the way down!

Adocus

[sandy_mcd]

The lineage of coelacanths was unknown after the mid-Cretaceous, therefore, it was assumed to have gone extinct. The lineage, not "the" coelacanth.

Oh, i get it, a case of special creation. I didn't realize you were one of those.

to paraphrase Steven Hawking, it's coelacanths all the way down!

Thanks for proving it. Why bring up Hawking's name? He didn't originate the turtle story (and never claimed to).

I surrender; you are indeed the master of word games.

[adocus]

Hawking is the man who most popularized it in recent times. I'm well aware that he did not originate it; I never said he did. You do like to put words in other people's mouths, don't you, Sandy?

You won't get away with that in this case.

But nice try, anyway.

[sandy_mcd]

"to paraphrase hawking" I'm well aware that he did not originate it; I never said he did. You do like to put words in other people's mouths, don't you, Sandy?

If adocus didn't want people to think hawking said it (and adding the name hawking adds nothing to the argument) why include it as an apparent attribution? Uh, who's putting words in other people's mouths?

By the way, why has adocus never explained the alleged quote-mining? There are hundreds if not thousands of scientific sources which refer to the coelacanth as belonging to what had been thought to be extinct.

[KBCid]

Interesting find;
An Ancient Killer Coelacanth from Canada
...Coelacanths are lobe-finned fishes (technically termed sarcopterygians) that straddle the evolutionary boundary between most bony fishes and four-legged land animals (tetrapods). This is based on many characteristics shared by the two groups, such as thick robust limbs, specialised skull features, and a hinged braincase...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162441.htm

They are still trying to pawn of the old concept that fish adapted to dry land and became tetrapods. Imagination is a wonderful thing except when its portrayed as science.