Posted on 01/22/2014 12:45:10 PM PST by fishtank
Evolutionists divided over coexistence of placental mammals and dinosaurs
by David Catchpoole
Published: 21 January 2014 (GMT+10)
If you can remember being taught as ‘fact’ that only small, ‘primitive’ mammals were around at the demise of the dinosaurs (supposedly 65 million years ago), because placental mammals1 didn’t evolve until afterwards, you’re not alone. There are many people who remember that. In fact, many textbooks still teach it.
However, if you’re aware that for some years now the evolutionary fraternity has shifted the existence of ‘modern’ mammals to overlap that of dinosaurs, then we would say that you are actually more evolution-savvy than some of today’s ‘authorities’ on evolution! We can point to a recent (January 2014) Nature News item, written by senior reporter Ewen Callaway, as an example of this.2
Its headline reads: “Debate over which mammals roamed with the dinosaurs: Genetic tree challenges fossil-based conclusion that placental mammals emerged only after mass extinction.”
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Yep, and straight from the beauty parlor.
Some years ago, maybe as long as twenty or thirty, I read that some paleontologists believe that mammals existed before the dinosaurs, but mostly lost out in the competition.
.........................The honest scientists are no longer denying that placentals and dinos co-existed.............
I sure wish that all these “honest scientists” would get off this Globull Warming garbage, and get back to the past when the mammals had to back away from the foul smelling CO2 emitted when the dino’s roared.
Disproving evolution is one thing.
Pointing out that there’s never been a shred of evidence pointing to one species of animal turning into another species of animal is something different.
In other words, no frog became a lizard, and no lizard a bird, no bird a pig, no pig a monkey, and no monkey a man.
So, this bit doesn’t disprove evolution, but it does knock a couple of more pins from underneath it.
Evolution: There is no scientific consensus so Evolution Theory can't be true.
It amazes me that people buy into this crap.
It's cleverly constructed to fool those who don't know the subject well or don't read that carefully. For example, he starts off with "If you can remember being taught as ‘fact’ that only small, ‘primitive’ mammals were around at the demise of the dinosaurs....However, if you’re aware that for some years now the evolutionary fraternity has shifted the existence of ‘modern’ mammals to overlap that of dinosaurs...." That leaves the impression that large, present-day mammals existed at the same time as dinosaurs, which no scientist is claiming.
He says himself later that Mesozoic rocks contain "creatures that ;look like' squirrels, hedgehogs, shrews, beavers and primates." That's pretty small.
Don’t be insulting. What is the significance of this observation?
Mammal-like reptiles - Dimetrodon, Cynodonts.
Hardly. The evidence is circumstantial but so very powerful that it is difficult to refute.
One would hardly believe India was once attached to Africa - but geological evidence indicates it was. The same with biological evolution.
Evolution or Creative Biology?
>> So, this bit doesn’t disprove evolution,
And what’s to say “history” isn’t being altered and not necessarily by virtue of discovery of the previously undiscovered, but through the appearance of discovery of things that didn’t exist beforehand, or through ‘evolving’ scientific insight that realizes now what it could not earlier.
I was specifically referring to the rubbish on the linked website. I don’t doubt that the folks who buy into this are good, well meaning people, but my goodness, the logical leaps and faulty reasoning are appalling. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
“The evidence is circumstantial but so very powerful that it is difficult to refute.”
I’ve seen a mountain of evidence in support of adaptation, but exactly zero evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to support evolution.
Me too.
Donate to the Institute for Creation Research for more great scientific finds like this.
And what about Dino from the Flintstones? ;p
You used a lot of words to state the definition of ‘science’.
We use observation to expand and challenge what we thought we knew before.
Evolution, eventually, will occupy the same historical space as phrenology does today. They used to study the bumps on one’s head to determine personality and other traits. There’s about as much science to substantiate evolution as their is phrenology, or for that matter AGM (anthropomorphic global warming).
Science is a wide, shallow pond, with some very deep holes in it. We know a lot about a very limited number of things, and not much about anything else. As you can imagine, if the topic is about war, then we know quite a bit.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and the locations of these deep holes of knowledge at the bottom of the shallow pond are tightly correlated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.