Encyclopædia Britannica claims the earliest known rodents come from the upper Paleocene (supposedly about 57 million years ago) of North America, yet it admits these animals ‘had already acquired all of the diagnostic features of the order.’ In other words, these ‘early’ animals were easily recognizable as rodents.
As I forgot her credit on the previous one, here it is:
Today I am not delving into any further articles, just into (at least mainly) that one paragraph.
If the claim is “the earliest rodents are from Upper Palaeocene” that reads as (I suppose the info is already outdated) “we have found more recent rodents in [making example up] Miocene and Oligocene, but no older rodents in Cretaceous or Jurassic”.
I am not sure there have been no rodents found in Cretaceous since that article was written, but the point is that if Palaeocene, Miocene, Oligocene, on the one hand, and Cretaceous, Jurassic on the other hand are not ordered on a time scale, the real reading is of course “we have found rodents in some types of fossil biotopes, but not in others.”
Rats are on the evolutionist view an indicator of age Palaeocene to “later” biotopes. Triceratops of Cretaceous or perhaps “earlier back to” Jurassic biotopes.
If Rats and Triceratops were ever to be found together (perhaps it has happened since article of Enc. Brit. was written), a palaeontologist who believes that Palaeocene, Cretaceous, and the rest of them, are time periods, would have three choices:
1) Rodents being older than thought. Like from Cretaceous on. (I think this might be what has taken place after such or roughly similar finds, so that “small mammals” – that could mean rodents – have now been documented “since” the Cretaceous).
2) Triceratops hanging on longer than thought. Logically this would be as possible, but palaeontologists would be wary of this kind of thing. Pal Ul Don is supposed to be Edgar Rice Burrough’s SciFi/Fantasy land, not sth one could really come across. Cryptozoologists would not be against this for this reason, but they are hardly ever asked on their opinion when it comes to geochronology.
3) Misplaced fossils. A Classic. Find a hammer deep down incrusted in coal that is supposed to be from Carboniferous or sth, and oh boy, are they eager to say “it must have fallen down from miners later on”. Even if that is either:
a) problematic in explanation for the incrusting which would have been abnormally fast, if fossilisation and such like processes take as long as they claim, OR
b) problematic in proving of the long ages of other things, if incrusting and suchlike processes take as short as the “misplaced coal miner’s hammer” theory would have it.
The fourth choice – which they systematically avoid – is saying that Palaeocene and Cretaceous were never different time periods anyway. Because if all the fossil Lagerstätten from all these “time labels” are simultaneous, oh boy are we back at solid proof for Noah’s Flood.
Actually, I am delving into another paragraph of that essay of hers:
Comprising 50% of all mammal species, rodents should be prolific in the fossil record, and evolutionists should expect to find numerous examples of transitional species. …
Did you just hear that?
Comprising 50% of all mammal species, rodents … OK, rodents are among only themselves, 50% of all mammalian species? But how many different kinds are rodents? Here we have a situation which gives added feasibility to Noah’s Ark. How many pairs of rodents were there on board? Half the number of the mammals on board, or far fewer? Rodents are pretty unique among mammals when it comes to speciation through varied chromosome numbers. I hold – against P. Z. Myers – that even they can only vary it downwards. But this is one key to understanding how Noah’s Ark could float and was not a crowded prison train or slaughterhouse train or slave ship leaving half the inmates dead before arrival.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
On this video, Kent Hovind spends much time talking on how sorting happened in the flood:
The irony is he cites a man who said fossils aren’t that much sorted. Precisely what I was saying here./HGL
Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6YqEgSIZW to access the cached copy of this page