Thats really funny that Signor-Lipps invented that theory. I though some of us here did a couple days ago… It was one of my points that the footprints in the sedimentary layers below Kaibab show that the fossil record does not reflect what is living. There is no animal bones under the Kaibab Layer, but apparently footprints.
I conclude that @Evolution_is_a_Hoax is a hopeless case, and nothing can be accomplished by conversing with him. Anyone else is of course is free to try.
Thats not nice.
Here is how a normal person will see that comment.
I conclude that John Harsh guy is a hopeless case and nothing can be accomplished by conversing with him. If Anyone else wants to try they are free to do so, but clearly he has a problem.
You are case positive of the wrong think.
I am sorry it took you this long to find out.
I did not insist you speak to details that are not there.
I provided an example of something you said did not happen (“No one ever said a Dinosaur bordered the Ark.”).
If you don’t say that there were dinosaurs on the Ark, I won’t demand you defend the idea that there were dinosaurs on the Ark. Not just because it would be abusive, but also because it is dishonest, and because it is counterproductive. I find there is no better way to ensure being rejected than to completely miss the point of the post you’re replying to. I try to leave such tactics to others.
Condescension is a poor tactic when dealing with people who are smarter and more knowledgeable than you.
There are fossils of fish and shells above the KT boundary because fish and marine molluscs did not go extinct during the KT extinction event. The fossils of fish and shells above the KT boundary are fossils of creatures that lived after the KT extinction event.
If you cited your sources it would help.
It would also help if you searched more thoroughly. You might have found this:
Here, we report the discovery of the stratigraphically youngest in situ dinosaur specimen: a ceratopsian brow horn found in a poorly rooted, silty, mudstone floodplain deposit located no more than 13 cm below the palynologically defined boundary.
…and known that your cited source was out of date.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.