anthrosciguy

Just as with various types of animals which didn't exist before a certain time, new types of plants have developed at various times in the past. For instance, there was a time that flowers didn't exist. It's not only not absurd, it's eminently sensible. It's true that most people don't think about these things, but that's why they call it learning.

Peez

Learning does seem to frighten some people, but in fact ignorance is much more dangerous.

Peez

anthrosciguy

Less fun than learning too, as being around any kid who hasn't yet had the joy of learning drawn out of them will atttest.

Dust

Ignorance comes from those who think they know everything there is to know about something.

Such is the appearant case with the subject of grass and when it existed.

I do not ingore the evidence that we have, but there is no reason to conclude that, that is when it came into existence.

When someone presents such evidence as Sevn did, THAT is what is ignorant. A true scientist negates the possibility of nothing.

There all kinds of cases where some scientist THOUGHT something, that turned out to be false. Many thought that life took billions of years to evolve after water. They thought that for a long time. But then found that they were wrong.

To assume, that the earliest evidence of grass is when grass came into existence...is ignorance. Yes, ignorance is much more dangerous.

You guys can keep living in your little closed-minded world all you want.

Roland98

Moderator note:

If this thread is just going to be an exchange of

"you're ignorant"

"No, you're ignorant"

"No, you're ignorant"

it's going to be shut down in short order.

Roland98
E/C moderator

Coragyps

I don't think that's at all the case here. No one has indicated that "they know everything there is to know about" when grasses first arose. However, paleo folks have spent many years looking at fossil pollen in many places. Pollen from grasses is almost anywhere you look from the Eocene up to the present, and has yet to be found, even once, from the Triassic or any rock older than that. Dig back to the Permian, and you won't find any more traces of any angiosperm at all. You'll find lots of other sorts of plant remains from those times - seed ferns and other extinct green things - but no grass, and no grass pollen.

Feel free to reject the findings of the last 150 years if you wish, Dust. But please don't dismiss them all becaue you "can't believe that!"

Madkins007

True. I was looking at it behaviorally. Oxen and similar animals are grazers, eating grasses, forbs, and other relatively low-lying plants. On the other hand, Behemoth probably cannot be an elephant since elephants are grazers AND browsers (eating twigs, leaves, and other parts of woody vegetation).

We do not KNOW what sauropods ate, but most guesses include some form of browsing. (ie- "It had blunt pencil-like teeth, arrayed like a garden rake; these were useful for stripping and gathering foliage." (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...tosaurus.shtml))

Madkins007

I continue to have a hard time with the idea that Behemoth could be a hippo. Other than the constant references to water and strength, not much else sounds very hippo'ish. We do not discuss piercing the noses of hippos, but we do pierce oxen and water buffalo. Hippos also don't spend much time in shallows (where lotus, reeds, and marshy areas are)- "Hippos need water deep enough to cover them, within commuting distance of pasture. They must submerge because their thin, naked skin is vulnerable to overheating and dehydration. They avoid rapids, preferring gently sloping, firm bottom where herds can rest half-submerged and calves can nurse without swimming" (http://www.nature-wildlife.com/hipptxt.htm).

I say this knowing full well that many scholars, including Jewish scholars, believe that a hippo is the best fit for the animal. Ah well, possibly! I enjoy discussing it, but certainly would not fight anyone over this issue!