>We will deal with the implications for global earth history after we
>establish whether the Coconino is marine and the animals were amphibians.
I just ran into this as I finish Lockley and Hunt's book. He points out
that marine sediments rarely have tracks in them.
"Tracks of aquatic animals are generally rare, compared with their
terestrial contemporaries." Dinosaur Tracks p. 235
>
>>Lockley and Hunt claim that they are mammal-like reptiles (which fits the
>>term 'lizard' better than it would an amphibian). See page 40 of Dinosaur
>>Tracks. It would seem that on this we are at a standoff. As Lockley and
>>Hunt note, "the notion of an arid desert crawling with amphibians is
>>contradictory, to say the least;..." p. 40 Course you would say that the
>>concept of a lizard walking under water is ridiculous, and I would agree.
>>But what ever they were, you are not answering the thrust of the argument
>>here. Since I know that you believe in a Global flood, the trackmakers, in
>>your world view, would have had about 6 months of swimming. What did they
>eat?
>
>Not in my world view. If they were amphibians, that's what amphibians do,
>so no prob. If as you seem to be maintaining (remember Lockley is not the
>most objective source for information, since he is committed to a desert
>environment (Don't forget the worm tubes). On the other hand, Brand was
>committed to seeing if there was another model that fit the data better,
>not to any particular model.
I am not sure I can buy this. Doesn't Brand also have a theology requiring
a global flood? If he does, then the same thing can be said of him that you
say of Lockley. Don't get me wrong, I think Brand did some marvelous
hypothesizing and experiments to try to support his hypothesis. I am not
sure that I can agree that the preponderance of the evidence supports an
aquatic environment.
> He found one, but is not philosophically
>committed to it (read his book.)) they were reptiles, if they were not
>marine reptiles(and how would you determine that?), they merely came from
>somewhere else that was still dry, so no prob. (How was that for a
>sentence?).
>
I have read his articles (at your previous suggestions years ago) but I
din't know he had a book. What is the title?
>>
>>Am I to presume that this means that you will categorically state that the
>>Coconino was NOT deposited by the flood?
>>
>>That of course is rhetorical because I know you do believe in a global
>>flood. Knowing that, it seem less than useful to try to mentally isolate
>>the Coconino from your preferred view of world history.
>
>Yes, it is rhetorical, but we can deal with that after we resolve the issue
>between us about the depositional environment. Then we can argue to the point.
No, I am trying to get to the issue not of depositional environment, but of
tracks in general and their distribution throughout the geologic column and
the implications of that to the global flood. Until I read Brand's book and
am convinced by his data, I think we are at a stalemate on the environmental
issue. Besides the entire point of my initial post was that if the
sediments are deposited in a global flood in a one year or so time frame,
there should not be time for the billions of tracks we find in the fossil
record to have been made. And what was made should be at the bottom and the
very top of the geologic column.
But let me ask you this. If every layer could be shown to be marine in
origin, i.e. that there were no terrestrial beds, how would you explain the
distribution of fossil tracks of terrestrial animals which occur from at
least the Pennsylvanian through to the present?
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm