'Bird-like' tracks 55 million years pre-birds in this week's Nature

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list _uids=12087401&dopt=Abstract

quote:

---

"Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters"

---

This week's Nature has a paper on bird-like tracks 55 million years pre-birds. Clearly late Triassic.The tracks fulfil 7 out of 7 primary fulfilments for bird tracks. They look like bird footprints and there are lots of them including track ways! No known Triassic organism could have left these tracks. The last line of the paper (from the hardcopy) of course states that there must be a non-bird which leaves tracks like this.In the flood scenario we expect tracks at lower levels than fossils.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-05-2002]

TB,Birds are supposed to have diverged from reptiles in the triassic, it's nice when fossil evidence bears out a prediction Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[QUOTE][b]In the flood scenario we expect tracks at lower levels than fossils.[/QUOTE][/b]Does that mean you predict no bones from the Triassic?(Tracks are fossils)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&l ist _uids=12087401&dopt=Abstract

​

This week's Nature has a paper on bird-like tracks 55 million years pre-birds. Clearly late Triassic.

​

The tracks fulfil 7 out of 7 primary fulfilments for bird tracks. They look like bird footprints and there are lots of them including track ways! No known Triassic organism could have left these tracks. The last line of the paper (from the hardcopy) of course states that there must be a non-bird which leaves tracks like this.

​

In the flood scenario we expect tracks at lower levels than fossils.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-05-2002]

---

JM: But these tracks are found at higher levels than the cyclothems which were supposed to form as the flood raged. Once again, TB shows his naivete on things geological. Your desperate attempts to fit everything into a single flood result in your blindness to all other explanations. You'd have done much better in the 1700's. By the way, are you now redefining a 'fossil'. What is your definition of a 'fossil'?CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 07-05-2002]

"In the flood scenario we expect tracks at lower levels than fossils."
--I'm curious as to your reasoning behind this, exactly. I would be to believe that various tracks would be found in virtually any sediment. However, there of course would be a diversity of mechanisms which would rightly predict that tracks or even specific types of tracks would be found in one area higher or lower than another. The event and its position in the fossil record would have to first be applied.--BTW, sorry about my absence here for the past few days, my parents are seemingly trying to conjure up some weird format for what computers and when these computers will have internet access in my house. I have not had internet access since then and I would predict another episode like this soon. Hopefully we will get this worked out though.... well, whatever.------------------

JoeStandard intros to fossils indicate that impressions are fossils of a type.The cyclothems surges were just a stage of the flood as I 've stated many times!

MarkThese tracks fit 7 out of 7 criteria - these Triassic birds were . . . birds . . in one go. Just another sudden appearance.

TCMy only point was that we systematically expect tracks lower than skeletons due to escape from flood waters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark

​

These tracks fit 7 out of 7 criteria - these Triassic birds were . . . birds . . in one go. Just another sudden appearance.

---

JM: So, sudden creation or extinction? Of course, your conclusion is ludicrous to begin with.
CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 07-07-2002]

We predict almost no bones. However, we suspect that many 'folded in' or 'washed in' fossils are out of seqeunce fossils.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We predict almost no bones. However, we suspect that many 'folded in' or 'washed in' fossils are out of seqeunce fossils.

---

JM: This is false. Creationists have held forth 'the many fossils' as evidence of animals that died in the flood. Or do you mean actual 'bones'? We simply don't see all that many out of sequence fossils. In fact, in a chaotic global flood (where surges are localized), the global flood should produce very little, if any regularity! The regularity observed in the fossil record is exactly what caused the flood geologists of old to abandon the Sumerian epic.CheersJoe Meert

I think you know the answer Joe. Neither of the above!I know you hate what we're doing. I feel the same about those people that pretend the lunar landings were faked. I know how you feel - OK. But I am convincd that the data is scientifically better explained by the flood. We are providing a scenario that is so different that it does mean that every piece of data can be looked at in two ways.

JoeIn context I meant 'we predict almost no bones before tracks'. Of course we predict lots of bones!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark

​

These tracks fit 7 out of 7 criteria - these Triassic birds were . . . birds . . in one go. Just another sudden appearance.

---

Well, their feet were anyhow

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 07-08-2002]