Question for the creationists: 
Question 1: “Why are there NO fossil records of dogs , which are older than 15000 years” (Link to Scientific Study)
Question 2: “Why there are no “cave paintings” of dogs, which are older than 15000 years?
We have thousands of cave paintings of animals which are up to 40,000 years old (link). But the oldest paintings of dogs are only 8,000 years old (link). Why?
Question 3: Why are there No fossil records of cows, which are older than 8000 years?
The aurochs are an extinct species of large wild cattle that inhabited Asia, Europe, and North Africa.  The modern cows descended from them through the process of evolution? And it happened only 8000 ybp (years before present) in the Indus Valley?
There are tons of fossils of Aurochs, but no fossil of any cow that is more than 8000 ybp.  
There are many cave paintings who have these Aurochs, but none of the cave paintings (older than 8000 years) all over the world has any cow.  Here is one from cave painting of Indian Aurochs from Bhimbetka rock shelters

Answer from the Creationists:

Normally, creationists run away from answering it. Nevertheless, few Muslim creationists came up with this answer:
Not finding dogs/cows fossils doesn't mean there isn't. Maybe we just didn't find them yet
Here you can see the Double Standards of the Christians/Muslims.
On the one hand, they ask the scientists to bring the fossils of all the “transitional missing links” (which are millions of years old). Scientists tell them that the process of becoming fossils is very difficult, and conditions were not ideal all over the world for that, and also, we are not finished with digging the fossils all over the world. Nevertheless, creationists don't accept this reasoning.
But on the other hand, when Creationists themselves are unable to provide a single fossil (or cave paintings) of dogs/cows, which is only 8000 to 15000 years old, then they come up with the excuse that we have not dig them up yet.
Double Standards of Creationists are at their best in this case.