Comments on: The deluge and the ark

By: Michael P

Michael P — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:53:40 +0000

These explanations are all very interesting, but they are based on the Assumption that scientists have accurately dated the rocks that these fossils come from! Unfortunately the various radiometric methods have all proven to be highly inaccurate, as any honest scientist will admit. So all we are left with is elegantly phrased guesswork and imaginative scenarios presented as scientific fact.
Not very convincing.

By: chrispaulin

chrispaulin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:25:36 +0000

One of the problems with the fossil record in New Zealand is that much of the land was formed from sediments that had accumulated offshore between the east of Antarctica and the west of Australia were squeezed together by several tectonic plates. They were consolidated and pressured into huge folds and uplifted and formed a New Zealand microcontinent. Hence, most fossil deposits in New Zealand are of marine origin, which is what makes the St Bathan’s freshwater/terrestrial deposit so important. Jurassic dinosaur fossils found in New Zealand indicate affinities with Australia and Antarctica.

By: Cathy

Cathy — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:51:24 +0000

Really enjoying the diversity of postings lately. Archaeology and plants are some of my fav subjects. Just had a question though about the breakup of Gondwana. You state in the post that:

“There are many different species in the St Bathans fossil deposit – about 24 species of birds, as well as plants, insects, and freshwater fish. There is no evidence that these species lived in Australia at the time…”

I’ve looked at different theorised animations of the Gondwana breakup, and they seem to show what looks like the South Island, closer to Antarctica than Australia. Here is one example:

http://kartoweb.itc.nl/gondwana/gondwana_gif.html

If the SI of New Zealand was closer to Antarctica, should we compare its fossils to Australian species?

Thanks again for a great post! Looking forward to more.

Cathy