Sponge size varies greatly, anywhere from one millimetre in diameter to one metre (about 3 or 4 feet). I don’t know the exact number of cells in either of these cases. Sponges lack tissues, organs, and nervous systems. They do have differentiated cells though, and one of these cells, the choanocyte, closely resembles a unicellular organism called a choanoflagellate. Choanoflagellates are sometimes observed living in colonies, and it is likely that such a colony would have been the transition between unicellular and multicellular organisms.
Okay okay, lets drop the transition thing then, because you know I'm going to keep going until you don't have one and then your going to say it wasn't fossilized lol.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. If all the species we know today were created prior to the flood, it seems logical to me that we should find at least some of them fossilized in the lower layers.
Yet there is not a single fossil of an extant mammal in the same layer as the dinosaurs.
All the species we know today were not created prior to the flood. The different kinds of animals were created prior to the flood. Canines, felines, equines, humans, etc. Perhaps some of these did speciate into many different varieties before the flood, but it dosen't follow that they would have to be the same species as our extant species. They found a badger. This badger could have been different than the badgers we have today. There was only one kind of animal (that the badger belongs to) that got off of the ark. This one kind would have diversified into the species we have today.
Why would it be the case not a single wolf, bear, deer, rabbit, bird, or mouse was buried in the same layer as the dinosaur fossils?
And by the same logic, why is there not a single dinosaur fossil in the upper layers where we begin to see mammals which resemble the ones we know today?
Now do you mean extant species of birds or birds in general? Birds are found buried with dinosaurs. Protoavis, Archaeopteryx, Hesperornis, and I believe some others. I wouldn't expect to find the same species of birds we have today in the fossil record because these diversified from the birds that got off of the ark.
Perhaps these creatures are buried with dinosaurs somewhere and we haven't discovered them yet. More than 90% of the fossils we find are marine organisms.
Or perhaps these creatures just happened to not be buried together.
Or perhaps the body density of reptiles had them settling out in the area where they did.
As long as we're seeing the same kinds, thats okay. I don't see why, in the flood scenario, there would have to be the same species we have today.
The same argument goes for marine dwelling animals. We don’t see modern shellfish buried with the trilobites, and we don’t see trilobites with the modern shellfish. And by modern I mean extant, ie. the same species as the animals alive today. Based on the fossil record, it seems as though the pre-flood animals were entirely different than the present day animals. Does this mean speciation occurred by evolutionary mechanisms? Or did God create more species after the flood?
I wouldn't say entirely different. Maybe not the same species, but the same kinds of animals. If by "evolutionary mechanisms", you mean one kind of animal diversifying into many different species then yes, but one kind of animal would not have become another (ex. canine becoming a feline, equine becoming a bovine, australopithecine becoming a homo, etc.) God did not literally create more species after the flood.
The soil is compressed into rock as the sediment piles up. If the soil was uneven to begin with due to erosion, then the layers will be uneven. We do see uneven layers. I’m not sure if this is what you were getting at though.
The rocks in Wales and Pennsylvania may have the same composition, but I don’t see how that’s evidence for a layer which continues all the way around the Earth and looks the same all the way across.
I guess that answers the soil question. What I mean by erosion is, if a layer is exposed for millions of years, and it rained throughout that time, wouldn't the layer show erosion from the rain over millions of years? As far as I understand, you don't find erosion in between the layers, but a flat even surface.
Well, he did say:"So, what we did was followed this rock layer all around planet earth. ... So this layer actually covers more than 180 degrees of the earth’s surface..."
I'd hope he didn't say that dogmatically and actually made sure this was the very same layer. We'd have to ask John Mackay lol.
And I’m not sure I understand how this type of layer would be consistent with the flood either.
A layer filled with shells and plants covering that much space seems consistent with the flood. Why dosen't it seem consistent with a flood to you? I can understand that this layer would work in your view also, but it also fits the flood scenario in my view.
Certain conditions are needed for rapid sedimentation to occur, and I suspect the type of sediments can tell you a lot. For example, a polystrate fossil surrounded by volcanic layers was obviously the result of frequent volcanic activity. But there are other layers that could not develop quickly, such as types of stone which require pressure to form. I suspect that no polystrate fossils have been found in these layers.
If only we could scan the entire earth, I'd get ya with them polystrates in the stone lol. Thank you for answering the question.
I also haven’t heard of a polystrate fossil spanning layers that dating techniques have estimated to be millions of years apart. I know you probably don’t accept dating techniques as accurate, but my point is that one of these fossils has yet to show any inconsistency with the old earth model.
I agree that polystrate fossils could be consistent with the old earth model, but you shouldn't trust the dating techniques either when there are loads of examples where they have been inconsistent. How would you know your getting the right date?
I’m actually from Alberta. I used to go hiking in Dinosaur Provincial Park as a kid. You don’t need to upload the video, I’m not doubting the credibility of the find.
lol Thats cool and weird, but thank you.
But I’m fairly certain however similar the skull may have looked, the animal was not an alligator... at least not any species of alligator alive today.
Its no big deal for me about the species. It was a member of the crocodilia kind though. How come it looked so similar though? Why didn't it grow feathers or undergo a drastic change? Just evolutionary stasis? Why exactly does this stasis happen?
More than one type of pterosaur has been found though, and some are more primitive looking than others.
What exactly makes them "more primitive looking"?
Whether the primitive ones were ancestral to the later ones is impossible to know from fossils alone. Not having a clear “missing link” doesn’t bother me at all, given how unlikely fossilization is in the first place. It could have easily been the case that not a single flying dinosaur was ever fossilized, and we would never even know of their existence. We’re lucky to have any.
Its just that, you never find a creature fossilized with half-a-wing or half-a-feather. Its just weird that they'd all be fossilized after they grew the ability to fly.
Back to the flood theory though, why would the flying dinos end up stuck in the lower layers with the large, land dwelling ones?
I'm not sure, but this seems to be the general area where most flying creatures are found. Perhaps they were in some kind of place where there were lots of trees. I have no idea, just guesses.
Mammals and dinosaurs living together is one thing, but do we ever see extant mammals with these fossils?
We should see the same kinds of mammals we have today. It dosen't have to be the same species.
According to creationism (and please correct me if I’m wrong here), God created all life within the same week. While microevolution can occur between kinds, macroevolution is not accepted as a real process.
A giant, dinosaur eating badger is definitely not an animal we have around today.
Correct and we do have badgers today though. Maybe not the same species as the one that was found, but that does not effect the flood model negatively.
As for the dinosaur and human tracks: how do we know these tracks belong to a dinosaur?
As far as I know, no evolutionary scientist disputes the fact that these are dinosaur footprints. What other creature could have made them? I mean, that was an interesting point you brought up, but I think they are dinosaurs. They cut out some of these footprints and set them up under dinosaur skeletons in museums.
So the flood was a gradual process, with periods of heavy rain and water coming out of the ground followed by periods of sunshine? This is not a model I’m familiar with, and doesn’t seem consistent with the Biblical version I know.
I can't speak on the uniformity of the rain and water coming out of the ground. I meant the way the sediment was being deposited. The sun should have still been there, except at night. Perhaps there were clouds, but I'd imagine that there would have been points that the clouds weren't blocking the sun.
He was put in jail because there are laws against selling archaeological discoveries in Peru. He then admitted they were fakes, and it says he was not punished.
Okay, thanks. I thought the order was, he says they're fake, dosen't get arrested, takes that back, and then gets arrested, and is there today, but I'm not positive about the whole story, so I'll take your word for it. Even still, there are thousands of these stones and the man said that only some were fake. The real ones can be recognized by patina in the grooves of the drawings. This patina puts the date at a minimum of 200 years old.
Dermal plates/spines were found much earlier than 1990, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that year from.
I have yet to see a non-creationist source documenting legitimate stones with dinosaur carvings. I would like to see at least one evolutionist or non-biased (neither creationist nor evolutionist) source, such as a news site or a archaeology journal. Journals often do publish articles with results that are unexpected or unexplained by the theory of evolution, so it’s not as though evolutionists would try to avoid the subject of these stones if there are in fact authentic ones out there.
I don't mean Stegosaur type spines."Recent discovery of fossilized sauropod (diplodocid) skin impressions reveals a significantly different appearance for these dinosaurs. The fossilized skin demonstrates that a median row of [dermal] spines were present . . . Some are quite narrow, and others are broader and more conical."
- Czerkas, Stephen. New Look For Sauropod Dinosaurs. (Geology: 12/1992, V. 20), p. 1068.
Sauropods on the Ica stones have this "median row of spines". Here are some pictures:
I have not seen a non-creationist source documenting these stones. Charles Hapgood, who I believe is not a creationist, did a report on the dinosaur clay figurines found in Acambaro, Mexico. You should check that out.