Robert Byers writes:
Peter writes:
Is the clean referring to the 'kosher' animals? Or did that get defined later on?
If it IS as the above then there are mammals on the unclean list (pigs, bats, ... probably some more).
Your post suggest you are happy with the fossil record as a source of chronology of species, in which case why are there no human remains alongside dinos if they co-existed? Some dinos were about man-sized so hydro-dynamic sorting won't wash there.
Nothing to do with kosher.
The fossil record simply indicates the creatures living at the time that area with its sediment/life within was fossilized.
The areas that have fossils need only be seen as special segments of the world at that time. so just the wilderness areas and not close to humans. likewise the humans lived in areas overcome and changed by the sediment loads or separation of the continents.
I never expect or want to find humans living with these great assemblages of creatures. Dino fossils are from the wilderness areas on the old earth.
For the record i don't accept there are dinos. Rather there are just kinds and some kinds had like features. they just define the creatures by the few like features. Just as their are no such groups as mammals or reptiles.
Dino, mammal, reptile ... they are just conveniences so that we all understand what we are talking about.
Genetic research is indeed finding areas where supposed relationships may not be as expected (although I always though hippos looked more like whales with legs than anything else ... but that's just me).
Wilderness areas???:
Given the size and supposed strenght of the kinds formerly known as dinosaurs I would find it highly unlikely that man would not have found a way to tame and harness them.
In which case we might expect some artifact of man within the same strata as the kinds formerly known as dinos.