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

Birds and Cretins



One of the creaitionists I have contact with posted this recently;

>Archeopteryx? Steven Jay Gould, himself, said that it is a "curious mosaic"
>that does not count as an intermediary fossil (Paleobiology, 3:147, 1977).
>Another problem: recent discoveries near Post, Texas reveal fossils of birds
>that are (supposedly) 225 million years old... older than Archaeoptyrx. If it
>is truly an intermediate between reptiles and birds - how is it that birds are
>found that are some 75 million years older? Weren't reptiles "in vogue" at
>that time?

Can someone give me the context of the Gould qoute and what he really
meant. Also does anyone know what the supposed 225myr Texas bird fossils
are all about? Is this claim a new creationist lie?

Private e-maal replies might be a good idea so that the good people of the
Dinosaur list don't have to live through another creationist thread.

Thanks,

Shaun



Shaun Cronin                  'The Blues is what exists between a man and a
shaun@wavenet.com              woman.' Son House and John Lee Hooker.