>But you believe in a global flood and even your model, as I understand it
>would require much of the geological column to be deposited during that
>event. If this is true, then the Coconino is aproximately halfway up the
>geological column which would imply halfway through the flood. If this is
>true, (and tell me which assumption above is wrong), then one cannot treat
>the Coconino lizards in the same fashion one would treat the Galapagos
>marine lizards.
We will deal with the implications for global earth history after we
establish whether the Coconino is marine and the animals were amphibians.
>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. 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?).
>
>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.
>
>Let me ask this. Are you positive it is the SAME animal? Are there
>characteristic marks on the foot which can be used to argue that this was
>one amphibian.
Yes. As certain as one can be of anything in the fossil record. There are
several examples of this.
>OK, lets do it this way. Are there any deposits in the geological column
>that you would say are definitely terrrestrial?
I don't think I am qualified to respond to that. In the part of the column
I have first hand experience with everything is marine. In the sandstone
of the Mesozoic, there seems to be a move towards reinterpreting things as
marine. I know very little about the Cenozoic sedimentary record.