W>>But there is evidence of past mining, as mentioned further down the post. Its like you respond to the first statement in my post in isolation before reading anything else.>>
You are correct that I began replying before reading it all, BUT, there was still nothing SUBSTANTIAL to indicate mining before 1930 at all. Just some very very WEAK claims. Why do YOU think that all those investigations BEFORE 1995 agreed there was NO EVIDENCE OF A TUNNEL? And then the one from 1995 was ONLY a tiny concavity and ONLY based on what the owner RECALLED SEEING? More below.
>>Because humans are unlikely to have been the most abundant or indeed virtually only vertebrate in the region where the Dakota formation was laid so how did come to be preferentially preserved if your idea is true ?>>
Because as we both know large land vertebrates are very rare. Your "virtually only vertebrate" comment is in error if this is true:
"The rocks on the east side of Dinosaur Ridge are part of the Cretaceous Dakota Formation. When Alameda Parkway was being constructed in 1937 to provide access to Red Rocks Park, workers discovered hundreds of dinosaur footprints. These were found to include mostly Iguanodon-like footprints, perhaps from Eolambia. Carnivorous theropod tracks are also present."
Iowa’s oldest Cretaceous sediments, the Dakota Formation, were deposited in ancient river systems (not seas-indy) that drained westward to an interior seaway during the middle part of the Cretaceous period, about 95 to 100 million years ago, a time of global “greenhouse” warming. Floodplains and coastal lowlands were covered with lush subtropical vegetation at that time, providing suitable habitats for dinosaurs. The first dinosaur fossil found in the Dakota Formation, a portion of a leg bone (femur), was collected in 1928 from the Missouri River bluffs near Decatur, Nebraska. This locality lies only about one mile from the Iowa border. Although this fragmentary fossil has not been assigned to a particular dinosaur species, its features are sufficient to identify it as a large ornithopod, a highly successful group of generally bipedal plant-eating dinosaurs. The proportions of this leg bone, when compared with other ornithopods, indicate a dinosaur that was about 32 feet long. This Dakota fossil likely represents an early hadrosaur. Hadrosaurs are a well-known family of “duck-billed” ornithopod dinosaurs that comprise the most abundant and diverse group of Late Cretaceous dinosaurs in North America.
Other dinosaur fossils have been uncovered from the Dakota Formation in nearby northern Kansas, eastern Nebraska, and Minnesota. A family of heavily armored ankylosaurian dinosaurs, the nodosaurids, is represented by partial skeletons of a ten-foot-long creature known as Silvisaurus. Additional hadrosaur bones have been found in Minnesota. Three-toed fossil footprints of ornithopod dinosaurs have been discovered recently in Dakota strata.
The microscopic structure of a petrified dinosaur bone fragment from Guthrie County, Iowa, shows a once-porous network of vascular canals for blood vessels. (Enlarged 3-mm-wide view.) Photo By Brian Witzke
In Iowa, a fragment of fossil bone was found by the author in 1982 in ancient river gravels of the Dakota Formation (not seas-indy) in Guthrie County. The microscopic structure of this fragment (shown above) revealed densely vascularized bone, indistinguishable from that seen in typical dinosaur bone. Although not terribly impressive by itself, the Guthrie County discovery confirms that dinosaur fossils indeed occur in the Dakota Formation of Iowa."
So your suggestion that DF was all invertebrates is just wrong. I know you didn't say ALL, but your idea is absurd...that some hadrosaurs and ankylosaurs (who are VERY short!) would be cruising around in supposed shallow seas far from land...it is just wacky!
W>>Under your Flood model, I would expect a much higher percentage (than what we observe) of vertebrate fossils (0.0125 % and this mostly fish according to ICR, which they bizarrely claim is positive evidence for them), rather than the 95% marine, considering this was a one off event that consumed the planet.>>
The flood model I hold to would have many more invertebrates than vertebrates...because the flows of sediment FULL of marine creatures were moved onto land areas. YOUR model has great difficulty explaining why ANY dinos would be buried in DF.
>>Indy:Most often the bones are in matrix which is fairly easily scraped or brushed away and NOT like very hard sandstone.
W:Have you a source for this 'most often' claim ?
No, I am only basing that on all the videos I have seen of dino bones being extracted. No jackhammers, as I recall had to be used...not most of the time anyway. I have seen a few times where dremel tools were used in a lab...so that would be harder stuff. I just think you are being absurd to dismiss some OOPF bones because the surrounding rock is not hard enough for you. It only has to be hard enough to preclude a mining cave-in or purposeful intrusive burial interpretations. The photos I showed here do that. UNLESS evolution is unfalsifiable...in practical terms. It surely seems to be so for YOU.
>>Has a dino bone ever been tested properly and found to have a consistent carbon date from multiple tests ? Or is the result just background noise because there's no C14 left ?>>
Yes, many times. In most cases the testing had to be done by YE's, and usually by virtually tricking some lab. But there is a GOOD one done by Swedish ev's, reported in PLOS where a mosasaur was CAREFULLY cleaned and prepared...and they were hoping to get ZERO C14...to prove that the soft tissue they reported could NOT be from modern bacterial sources. THEY GOT A WHOPPING 4.6%...equating to a date of 24,600 years. OF COURSE they claimed THAT had to be from contamination but they gave no good way to explain that. Besides, they also tested for bacterial DNA and did NOT get the amount that corresponded to that large amount of carbon. I am on a radio program discussing this just after it hit the literature...here: rsr.org/mosasaur
>>No because the 210 year old date relates to the earlier find ('Moab man') found in the 1970s. The 1500 yr old date is for 'malachite man' found in a different part of the site. Surely you knew that ?>>
No. So you think then the best explanation is NOT contamination, and then there were TWO mining accidents?...and one was in 1800? Why is it you only accept possible C14 contamination when it HELPS your position? BTW, the source for that date identifies it as being A WOMAN. So you must say a woman was crawling DEEP in a TINY mine tunnel! LINK p. 62
>>Regarding contamination from infiltrated water, I very much doubt that could significantly affect the carbon isotope ratio in the organic remains tested. Where's the new carbon coming from, dissolved CO2 ?>>
There is KNOWN movement of water through that sediment (else there would be no formation of malachite or mineralization). A spring was identified. Organisms are in water and water would flow downward. I have NO idea what procedures were done to clean the bones...and I DO know that a "good" date would have been a young one so once they got a young one, that's when they would stop...the opposite of when they date dino bones. I tell ya what...if they drilled into a tooth to the tooth pulp, and THEN got a young date using AMS, I'd probably accept that. Would YOU accept the date from inside a dino tooth??? Or would you do the usual crawfishing? BTW, one expert in Indian bones (mentioned on Patton's video) determined that there was no collagen in the bones and that would be a rare thing if they were indeed only 210 or even 1500 years old.
>>The authors interpret these rock alignments as being placed by the miners so that they were out of the way and to stabilise the sides of the adit. This in combination with the wood and charcoal artifacts described above they say is compelling evidence of mining activity. I would agree, of course you will side with the single dissenter, Patton, but I don’t see why a flood would happen to place these evidences next to the human remains, do you ?>>
I agree. So IF indeed they were well-documented (mapped...in an orderly position following a clear line) I would see this as good evidence for you. They weren't.
>>My impression from the article was that the concavity represented the terminal end of the tunnel, not the start, so there would be no further tunnel.>>
Of course not...no FURTHER tunnel. BUT THERE SHOULD BE PLENTY OF TUNNEL UP TO THAT POINT! And you ignore that ALL the researchers (ev's included) until 1995 saw NO sign of a tunnel. Here is their quote:
"When we visited the Keystone Mine in June of 1995, the mine owner, Mr. William Harrison, showed us the end
of a small adit or tunnel he believed was about 5-8 m north of the location where the skeletal remains were
recovered in 1990. He stated he had not dug the adit. Based on the similarities of this feature with those tunnels,
shafts and adits described in the literature on prehistoric mines, we believe this feature represents the end of a small
circular prehistoric mine adit, approximately 60 cm in diameter, located on a vertical face of the present azurite
Did you read about the qualifications of the "we" for that 1995 group? Not so great! It was the land owner and the two authors (Nancy J. Coulam, National Park Service, 2282 South West Resource Blvd, Moab, Utah 84532 Alan R. Schroedl, P-I11 Associates, Inc., 2759 South 300 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115) who have no impressive credentials to make judgements at all. He lists no degrees after his name where I found it online. I was told Schroedl was given this assignment as a part of his graduate work toward a masters...that's all. He was (acc. to Patton) given the task to do a "hit job" on MM and that's what he did! Of course if he HAD seen good evidence of the bones being buried when the sediments were laid he would have kept his mouth shut or he would NOT have finished his degree (if he DID) nor gotten any work in his field! Nevermind that his conclusion was OPPOSED to the real experts who worked at the site. And where are any PHOTOS of this supposed concavity? All we have is owner's WORD that it was seen, and ONLY at ONE small part of a 100 ft. site. AND this was a VERTICAL FACE only...just a vertical surface they THINK was the end of a tunnel which had a concave shape to it...and THIS was ONLY based on the RECOLLECTION of the owner! Yet you treat it as gospel truth! Oh wait...bad metaphor since the gospel is NOT truth to you!
<<I know Patton says that one dozer driver testifies he didn't see a tunnel but it's quite plausible he could have been oblivious>>
Don't MISREPRESENT the facts, Wibble! They ALL said there was no evidence of a tunnel...until 1995 when ONLY THE OWNER THOUGHT he saw a tiny concave vertical surface! It is YOUR pals who are "oblivious" to the facts.
>>I don't know, and I do wonder where the skulls are, which appear to be missing ? The bulldozing may have some part to play.>>
There was at least one skull...probably many. Maybe you'd have to ask why Smithsonian won't let anyone see them now! This LINK has a pic of a jawbone. And your suggestion that they were intact until a bulldozer broke up bodies is absurd. You can clearly see the process of exhuming two body sites in Patton's video. The heads were already gone. As I have said to you...the disarticulation of the bodies is IN NO WAY consistent with either of your "recent" explanations. Even YOUR OWN sources say that there were only two bodies which were intact. There were a total of ten individuals found. I suppose somewhere there MAY be a listing of all the skulls. I don't recall seeing any photos of any cranial bones. YOU need to answer: WHY?
>>I don't see how a flood violent enough to disarticulate bodies explains it either. Such a flood wouldn't deposit the remains in such a small area.>>
You can't say that. You have this very myopic view for what the flood process could be and then if facts don't fit THAT, then you decide ANY flood scenario must be wrong. Your comment wants us to focus on why they aren't spread out MORE. BUT you just want to distract from the fact that they SHOULD all be NOT SPREAD OUT AT ALL. What is your explanation? The bulldozer canard won't fly! (Har har...that is a bit of a pun since a "canard" is indeed part of what helps a JET PLANE to fly!...but NOT bulldozers!)
>>You keep saying hard rock, how do you know by looking at that picture ? On the right hand side the harder looking material looks like a thin veneer with crumbly material underneath.>>
I guess the reason, BESIDES how it appears very different than the more crumbly stuff that is obvious in the picture, is that there were sequential photos shown in Patton's video of a similar set of bones being removed...and that, along with common sense, says that if it WERE softer stuff like sand, then it would NOT have been left in place when they took a photo of what the bones looked like. I would of course LIKE to have been present to test the hardness myself. Patton WAS there, and he does NOT say it was all soft and sand-like. Some parts were, but other parts were not...it seems. How's this? Would you be satisfied if I asked Patton to tell me (if he remembers) if any parts of the bones had hard rock encasing (or partly) them? IF you were convinced of that, would you give up your evolution?
>>You've admitted before the rock doesn't encase the bone, as evidenced by the shadow beneath. Again, you cannot tell how solid any rock is from this photo.>>
I think the part on the right IS encased fully, with a part of the illiac (center right) and ribs (upper right) protruding out. The leg bone on the left is partially encased. It is likely not SUPER hard stone, but it is definitely lithified. EITHER WAY, that disproves the cave-in idea...or purposeful burial. I defy you to say that there is not contouring of that rock to form around the shape of that leg bone! Do you deny that? Even IF it is only partial, then that is all she wrote for your interpretation.
>>I've asked you before, how do you know it was 200 ft ? And I've only ever seen your assertion that there were females and an infant.>>
In Patton's video, he shows aerial photos of the site, with outlines for the 1971 work and the 1930 original mining. There is a road that was cut into the hillside then, which is 200 ft away. That is diagrammed in the video and Patton gives the distance to the road cut...which of course would have been a MINIMUM distance for the side of a hill prior to the road being built. I suppose there could have been a diagonal shaft, but that would have had to have penetrated two very hard sandstone layers. Tunneling horizontally could have avoided that...but it would have had to have been over 200 ft if it began at the depth the bones were. It is absurd to think 6 men, 3 women and an infant would have put their lives at such risk, crawling through a TINY tunnel which then conveniently DISAPPEARS. WHY NO REAL MINING TOOLS? Where are the "stone picks and hammers...and mauls" which your article said were the common mining tools? WHY NO ENTACT TORCHES??? The burden of proof SHIFTS to you, if you are going to assert there really was a mining tunnel.
BTW Wibble, since you obviously get all your stuff from Kuban's webpage, or maybe from Kuban himself, why don't you just have HIM do the argumentation? I think I get it why he won't speak out here. He's had his nose bloodied by me a few times already in various forums, and he probably wants you to stand in for him for a while here.