[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Dinosaurs, creationists, ...



<<>No sauropod (or dinosaur for that matter) had a flat back. 

     But see Gregory S. Paul's "Fat Ankylosaurs - Really, Really Fat
Ankylosaurs" in _The Dinosaur Report_ (Spring 1995), pages 6 - 7.
     According to Paul (page 6): "The result is a flat-topped body that one
could have lunch on.">>

I stand corrected.  But, however, if it was an Ankylosaur, he was referring
to, I still find it hard to believe that the armor would have slipped his
mind.

<<3) The Zaiyomaru carcass, caught in the net of a Jap trawler (called,
obviously,
the Zaiyomaru) just off New Zealand in 1977, was photographed, sketched and
had
tissue samples taken.>>

The account that I had read said that it was just taken aboard, put on a
hook, and dumped back without taking samples.  In any case, Dr. G. claimed
that it was closer to reptiles than to fish.

<<Firstly, the original argument really falls over when addressing the
marsupial mole which is blind, can only burrow through sand and is only
found down under. Secondly we do have Eocene condrylaths and bats.>>

I stand corrected.  I meant, why where there hardly any placentals?  Dr. G.
also claims that after the flood the Earth was arranged Pangea-like (did
anyone tell them about Rodinia?) and then super-dooper-fast the continents
moved into their present positions and then slowed down.  I am perplexed at
how come mostly marsupials walked to Australia and other mammals didn't.

<<No, but the fossil ones (Obduradon etc) did.>>

But platypus aren't allowed to have teeth according to craetionists!  His
main argument centered around some supposed tenet of evolutionary biology
that says that platypus are only from Australia, which is something that no
one ever has said.

Anyway, sorry 'bout the mistakes and misunderstandings.

Peter Buchholz
Stang1996@aol.com