Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Marine reptiles didn’t die out when they were supposed to … or something …

Denyse O'Leary
January 9, 2012
extinction, News
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From “German marine reptile find rewrites fossil record” (BBC News, January 5, 2012), we learn:

German experts have found a new species of prehistoric marine giant from a time when most of that family of reptiles were thought to have died out.

The rare ichthyosaur find from the Braunschweig area, northern Germany, is 130 million years old, dating from the Lower Cretaceous era.

Most ichthyosaur fossils date from the Jurassic era, millions of years before.

Well, either life is wrong or the theory is wrong.

There. Glad that’s settled.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
There is no evidence the impact was relevant. its just a guess based on wrong ideas about geology. All these impacts probably hit at the same time soon after creation. They simply need a impact to explain the k-t extinctions. It was always an unlikely and science fiction like idea.Robert Byers
January 11, 2012
January
01
Jan
11
11
2012
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
Sorry to press you, but do you then accept that the date of the impact event that led to the k-t boundary is determined by biblical dates?Bydand
January 11, 2012
January
01
Jan
11
11
2012
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
The rare ichthyosaur find from the Braunschweig area, northern Germany, is 130 million years old, dating from the Lower Cretaceous era.
Most ichthyosaur fossils date from the Jurassic era, millions of years before.
I guess I'm dense because I'm not seeing the issue here. "Most" ichthyosaurs date from the Jurassic, but not "all" do. A quick Googling of "ichthyosaur" reveals that: "Ichthyosaurs swam in the Mesozoic ocean when dinosaurs walked on land. To be precise, they appeared slightly earlier than dinosaurs (250 million years ago versus 230 ma) and disappeared again earlier (90 ma versus 65 ma)." - http://ichthyosaur.org/ So, given that 130 ma falls between 250 ma - 90 ma, I don't see where the issue is in life or the theory or with the BBC report on the find. Any elaboration would be most appreciated.Doveton
January 11, 2012
January
01
Jan
11
11
2012
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
The flood date is settled by biblical dates. Yes the k-t line is seen by many YEC people, not all, as the flood line. That is that all fossils below the line are collections from the single year of the flood. Those above from minor post flood events. In all these matters the geology is leading by the nose biological conclusions and criticisms of conclusions. This is a great flaw in reasoning on these matters. Biology can not be proven by geology even if true. One can't claim biological conclusions are scientific if one must falsify first the geological presumptions. In the future I predict this will be seen as one reason why evolution stick around so along. The evidence for evolution is tooooo much geological evidence.Robert Byers
January 10, 2012
January
01
Jan
10
10
2012
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
For clarity, Mr Byers.. Are you then saying that the K-T boundary represents the preflood/post-flood boundary? And would that not mean that the actual date of the flood can be pretty accurately established?Bydand
January 10, 2012
January
01
Jan
10
10
2012
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
The error is the geology. All fossils below the k-t line are from the year of the biblical flood. therefore anything found below the line can be found in any strata. Biology theories faith should not be based on geology theories anyways. its a great flaw of investigation and makes falsifying the biology ideas impossible unless the geology ideas are falsified first which means the biology ideas not being falsifiieable are not scientific ideas. A line of reasoning from YEC. Why am i wrong evolutionists (and ID friends)?Robert Byers
January 10, 2012
January
01
Jan
10
10
2012
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply