Jump to content


Photo

Out Of Place Fossils Falsify Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
561 replies to this topic

#161 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 453 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 10 June 2016 - 04:18 PM

If you go here LINK there is a video.  It has a whole section beginning at 35:00 or so which documents clearly the location of the MM find.  Then at 45:00 or so there is a sequence of photos which show the bones being slowly exposed and removed.  There is no tunnel.  Also NONE of the bones were crushed...which is what would be expected if a tunnel collapsed.  And it would be a ridiculous hypothesis for one to suggest some Indians would have chosen to bury their dead in such a difficult location. The video says that Patton was present however the excavation was performed by the Bureau of Land Management. 

 

I tried the video link but it won't work for me - unsupported audio type or invalid file path is stated.

 

Do you agree that the formation that the bones were found has been mined in the past ? Do you agree that the human bones are not actually found in the same layer as nearby dinosaur bones which are in hard Dakota sandstone ? Why are the human bones tinged green and largely unmineralized while the dinosaur bones haven't turned green and are mineralized ? You say there is no tunnel but how do you know it hasn't collapsed at some point ? If it was mostly unconsolidated sand, which seems to be the case looking at the pictures, then the bones wouldn't necessarily be crushed. There has to be good reasons why all other creationist authors seem to distance themselves from Patton's claims. Like Fox Mulder, you want to believe.



#162 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 10 June 2016 - 05:59 PM

I tried the video link but it won't work for me - unsupported audio type or invalid file path is stated.

It just now worked for me on my smartphone. I previously posted the link from my PC and sometimes the links are messed up by the server here. Let me try another time to post the link for you. If you would do a search for malachite Man video you probably could find it also that way and it may work for you.

http://www.bible.ca/...lachite-man.htm

#163 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 10 June 2016 - 07:36 PM

W>Do you agree that the formation that the bones were found has been mined in the past ?<<

No I don't. What seems to be the truth is that the mining above that site began only in 1930 and before that there are aerial photographs where there was no sign of any digging prior to that. You ask these questions but when I give you an answer, does it affect your thinking at all??? I guess we'll see.

>>Do you agree that the human bones are not actually found in the same layer as nearby dinosaur bones which are in hard Dakota sandstone ? <<

No of course I don't agree that they are not in the same layer as what is considered a dinosaur layer. It is called the Dakota FORMATION. That does not mean every part of the formation is very hard sandstone. But the conventional geologists all would consider this to be not at all a young formation which would be deposited during the time of humans. Now how about that answer... does that affect your thinking at all???


>>Why are the human bones tinged green and largely unmineralized while the dinosaur bones haven't turned green and are mineralized ? <<<

Because that particular location has veins of copper ore which causes the green tinting in some of the bones but not all of them. I don't know if dinosaur bones are even in that same general area but they are found in the same formation which is the formation where Dinosaur National Monument is located. I think you have a misunderstanding about the degree of mineralization of dinosaur bones. There has been a false suggestion for decades that all of the original material in all dinosaurs must be replaced by mineralization. And some bones are like that but many are not. I can show you a video where two evolutionists show some bones of dinosaurs from Madagascar which they said are white and very light just like cow bones found on the surface. And of course Mary Schweitzer shocked the world by showing that her T-rex had very much of the original bio material remaining in it. The Malachite Man fossils are not mineralized because the processes for mineralization were not present in that location 4500 years ago. In other locations in the same Dakota formation there could be large amounts of mineralized water flowing through the sediments and thereby causing mineralization of the dinosaur bones.


>>You say there is no tunnel but how do you know it hasn't collapsed at some point ? <<

I would expect that if there was a 200-foot tunnel from the side large enough for humans to walk in that was made 500 years ago at the time of Indians then that would be evident when you remove the entire side of the hill as was done there. I guess you can imagine lots of things without evidence or them being true, however if you are objective and only want to base your opinion on what the POSITIVE evidence shows then you would say there was never any tunneling. It is unfair to ask me to prove a negative... that there was NO tunnel. The burden of proof falls on you at some point to prove that there WAS a tunnel.

>>If it was mostly unconsolidated sand, which seems to be the case looking at the pictures, then the bones wouldn't necessarily be crushed.<<

This is a fair point and I would agree if all there was was sand around the bones. However as I showed you it is hard rock in some places which encases the bones and molds the rock around the shape of the bone. There were indentations left in the rock after the bones were removed. And besides if the matrix was mostly sand then how in the world do you tunnel through that with a tunnel large enough for humans to walk in unless you used wood shoring ? Honestly Wibble, do any of these facts matter at all to you or are you going to just continue to say that no mammals have been found in layers of the dinosaurs???

>>There has to be good reasons why all other creationist authors seem to distance themselves from Patton's claims. Like Fox Mulder, you want to believe.<<

There you have it! Unless some particular argument is accepted by 100% or even by 50% of all YECs then I am wasting my time to make that argument! By that standard I should just shut up and say nothing and only point to books or articles written by the most famous among us. And then there wouldn't be a forum like this. I have frankly found that those who are the most well-known are the least likely to participate in this type of forum. I suppose both types are important. Of course it seems you have more disdain for the ones who have the most credentials anyway so maybe they would be smart to not engage with someone like you, like I do. They would probably have patience to listen to only a small amount from you before they decided it was not worth their time. They certainly wouldn't waste their time with Kuban who has no higher degree and I don't know about your own credentials but they may not be high enough for someone with a doctorate to want to spend time with you. I am not saying that as an insult because I think you ARE worth spending time with, but they would probably see it differently.

#164 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 453 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 17 June 2016 - 01:40 PM

W>Do you agree that the formation that the bones were found has been mined in the past ?<<

No I don't. What seems to be the truth is that the mining above that site began only in 1930 and before that there are aerial photographs where there was no sign of any digging prior to that. You ask these questions but when I give you an answer, does it affect your thinking at all??? I guess we'll see.


What seems to be the truth ? In other words you don’t know for sure there wasn’t any mining hundreds of years back by indigenous people. I’m not sure if aerial photos taken before 1930 would have the kind of resolution to show signs of digging, do you ? Especially if entrances were from the side of a slope.
 

>>Do you agree that the human bones are not actually found in the same layer as nearby dinosaur bones which are in hard Dakota sandstone ? <<

No of course I don't agree that they are not in the same layer as what is considered a dinosaur layer. It is called the Dakota FORMATION. That does not mean every part of the formation is very hard sandstone. But the conventional geologists all would consider this to be not at all a young formation which would be deposited during the time of humans. Now how about that answer... does that affect your thinking at all???


It seems that dinosaur (and vertebrates in general) evidence is very rare in the Dakota formation, a handful of Ankylosaur fragments and a few tracks, and most of these are in Kansas not Utah (where malachite man is). What do you think about the probability of a dozen or so humans being buried to form fossils but virtually nothing else ?
 

>>Why are the human bones tinged green and largely unmineralized while the dinosaur bones haven't turned green and are mineralized ? <<<

Because that particular location has veins of copper ore which causes the green tinting in some of the bones but not all of them. I don't know if dinosaur bones are even in that same general area but they are found in the same formation which is the formation where Dinosaur National Monument is located.


Apparently not, the Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic and below the Dakota which is Lower Cretaceous. Here’s a pic of dinosaur bones in the Morrison. Why can’t you find me some human bones in indisputably solid rock like this ?
 

Attached File  dnm-tail-bones.jpg   154.61KB   1 downloads

 

>>You say there is no tunnel but how do you know it hasn't collapsed at some point ? <<

I would expect that if there was a 200-foot tunnel from the side large enough for humans to walk in that was made 500 years ago at the time of Indians then that would be evident when you remove the entire side of the hill as was done there. I guess you can imagine lots of things without evidence or them being true, however if you are objective and only want to base your opinion on what the POSITIVE evidence shows then you would say there was never any tunneling. It is unfair to ask me to prove a negative... that there was NO tunnel. The burden of proof falls on you at some point to prove that there WAS a tunnel.


The fact that a sample from these bones have been carbon dated to the 6th or 7th century AD (which ruins your case by itself), together with charcoal and stone tool evidence suggests that there was a tunnel at that time, probably cut into the side of the hill (how do you know the nearest side access point was 200 feet away ?), rather than vertically down from the top. Indeed, contrary to what you have claimed, an opening near the bones, approx. 60cm wide, was documented, and other workers have noted evidence of tunnels. Have you read this this 1995 paper from the Utah Archaeological Society ? It documents all the info known about the finds including the presence of charcoal deposits which was interpreted as the remains of burned juniper wood torches that were used to light the tunnel. At least one quartzite flake tool was found and evidence of tool marks on rocks. Evidence was consistent with known prehistoric copper mines in south west USA.
 

>>If it was mostly unconsolidated sand, which seems to be the case looking at the pictures, then the bones wouldn't necessarily be crushed.<<

This is a fair point and I would agree if all there was was sand around the bones. However as I showed you it is hard rock in some places which encases the bones and molds the rock around the shape of the bone. There were indentations left in the rock after the bones were removed. And besides if the matrix was mostly sand then how in the world do you tunnel through that with a tunnel large enough for humans to walk in unless you used wood shoring ? Honestly Wibble, do any of these facts matter at all to you or are you going to just continue to say that no mammals have been found in layers of the dinosaurs???


It is not conclusive from the pictures you have shown that there is any hard rock encasing the bones. A physical examination would be necessary. Certainly, the greater part is clearly loose sand. Where is your evidence of indentations left in removed rock ? Out of all the workers who observed the bones in situ, Patton is alone in maintaining that they were set in hard rock rather than sandy material.

 

As for the feasibility of tunneling in sand, well it would be consolidated until it collapsed due to the instability caused by the actions of miners (who would only need a tunnel large enough to crawl through rather than walk into by the way).

And indeed, no modern mammals have been found in dinosaur layers. That is a fact, constantly verified.
 



#165 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 19 June 2016 - 05:20 PM

What seems to be the truth ? In other words you don’t know for sure there wasn’t any mining hundreds of years back by indigenous people. I’m not sure if aerial photos taken before 1930 would have the kind of resolution to show signs of digging, do you ? Especially if entrances were from the side of a slope.
 

 

I don't KNOW FOR SURE?  Of course I cannot show POSITIVE evidence of a NEGATIVE...FOR SURE.  Can you tell me FOR SURE there was no flood of Noah?  No ark?  No of course you can't.  All I can say is that there is no evidence of any past mining before 1930.  It is YOUR burden of proof to show there WAS.  I don't have to prove there was NOT.  I simply can say that if there WAS, then there SHOULD be some evidence of it and there IS NOT.

 

>>It seems that dinosaur (and vertebrates in general) evidence is very rare in the Dakota formation, a handful of Ankylosaur fragments and a few tracks, and most of these are in Kansas not Utah (where malachite man is). What do you think about the probability of a dozen or so humans being buried to form fossils but virtually nothing else ?>>

 

PUH-LEEZE.  What is the point of this even IF your statement is true?  Are you trying to assert that the Dakota formation is where we could rightly expect fully human bones?  Or that the period when the DF was laid down was NOT the age of dinosaurs???  You are being ridiculous.  And I suppose YOU should answer why (as you say here) hardly ANY dino bones have been found in the Dakota Formation?  Is it because no dinos lived at that time?  We should EXPECT that finding bones of large mammals OR dinos is a rare thing...and NOT something we EXPECT to be easily found.  SELDOM finding of mammal OR dino bones proves NOTHING.  Just ONE rightful find of a large mammal is indeed a silver bullet.  And a human bone is a PLATINUM bullet. 
 

>>Apparently not, the Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic and below the Dakota which is Lower Cretaceous.>>

 

That could be...however at wiki, there was this reference:  "Geology of the Quarry: Dakota Sandstone" Dinosaur National Monument, National Park Service.  For whatever reason, the link did not work. 

 

>>Here’s a pic of dinosaur bones in the Morrison. Why can’t you find me some human bones in indisputably solid rock like this ?
 

attachicon.gifdnm-tail-bones.jpg

>>

 

Because that sort of find is a rare thing even for dinos.  Most often the bones are in matrix which is fairly easily scraped or brushed away and NOT like very hard sandstone.  See below for more.

 

 

>>The fact that a sample from these bones have been carbon dated to the 6th or 7th century AD (which ruins your case by itself), together with charcoal and stone tool evidence suggests that there was a tunnel at that time, probably cut into the side of the hill (how do you know the nearest side access point was 200 feet away ?), rather than vertically down from the top.>>

 

Um...tell me again what YOU say when DINO bones get carbon dates?  It was readily admitted by Patton that the dates were not 4500 years.  He states plainly that it is very likely that water infiltration which caused the mineralization also brought modern carbon.  There was indeed a spring in that hillside.  One date (from UCLA) was 210 years ago.  But of course, the article you cited said it was 1500 years ago.  If they were indeed from 1500 years ago, and procedures were right, and IF there was no modern infiltration, then they should match.  If something DID contaminate some bones to make them "date" as being 210 years ago, then there could easily also been something contaminating them from 4500 to dating as being 1500 years ago.  Also, what is not known is what procedures were done to obtain the dates they DID get.  And it seems that something was quite off since the two C14 dates did not match each other.  Probably the best date would come from the inside of a tooth, but I doubt this was done since back then a larger amount of sample was needed than today. 

 

>>Have you read this this 1995 paper from the Utah Archaeological Society ? >>

 

I had not until today.  Thanks.  It of course was written by someone who would NEVER consider the explanation that they were buried by flood sediments, so all of the interpretation of evidence must be seen in that light.  Even so, there are some problems. 

 

>>Indeed, contrary to what you have claimed, an opening near the bones, approx. 60cm wide, was documented, and other workers have noted evidence of tunnels.>>

 

The "evidence" of a tunnel access ("adit") is very spurious.  It is not showing the OPENING to any tunnel, nor is it showing some long LENGTH.  It is only an area of supposed compacted soil within 5-8 meters from one place where ONE of the skeletons were found.  (They were found spread over about 100ft or so).  This could be a solution cavity which Patton says someone had pointed to...caused by a spring cutting out a small area.  The article confirmed that there was NOT found any horizontal tunneling which was indisputable.  AND it also TOTALLY RULED OUT the idea of any vertical burial shaft.  So you should rule that out too.  AND you need to ask why such supposed evidence of a TINY tunnel was not found at ALL of the sites where bones were found. 

 

Article: "Since prehistoric mines are generally created by pounding the natural matrix and removing the large rocks, we
suggest the compacted concavity we saw in 1995 was indeed the end of an adit prehistoric miners had excavated
into the matrix to obtain the same spherical azurite nuggets being mined today. We believe this compacted
concavity represents the end of a Type I mine adit, as defined by Weigand (1982)."

 

Surely "believing" is tenuous...and instead there should be some easy way to confirm this...by following the supposed "tunnel" further back.  Maybe funds wouldn't allow such, but that sure leaves one to wonder. 

 

>>It documents all the info known about the finds including the presence of charcoal deposits which was interpreted as the remains of burned juniper wood torches that were used to light the tunnel.>>

 

There were no TORCHES found, or even REMAINS of torches....just INTERPRETATION from some charcoal bits.  There was a long (30m) area of charcoal STAINED "floor" that was 15-20cm thick.  This is not what people moving through a mine would produce.  IF the tunnel DID collapse then there would have been INTACT torches and much more mining "stuff", including whatever collection of azurite finds they had made...in little piles beside the bones.  In fact the layer of charcoal may have NO relationship to the bones at all...  "This oval concentration of charcoal was uncovered by bulldozer activity above the level where the human remains were uncovered."  Plus we must consider that if you DID have humans huddling in their cave or whatever home they had when a gigantic wave of sediments moved in to bury them, then there would be some of the residue of their place of abode which also would be washed into the general area of the burial site...including where they made fires and some of their "stuff."  BUT the article says they did NOT find what is normally found in a dwelling site, so this was not (as one man said) just a cave home in the side of a cliff which got buried suddenly when the cliffside fell in on it.  LOTS of home stuff would be found.  The KEY to me is the DISARTICULATION of the bodies...for the most part.  This is totally INEXPLICABLE, so I challenge Wibble to give some explanation for that.  The bodies were NOT found in a flexed body burial position as the article says, other than perhaps one or two (which Patton says WERE articulated)...and even that is belied by the fact that they were so deep and the article says there was NO evidence of any vertical shafts.  Nor were even the lower leg bones found in articulated position with the upper leg bones.  This must be explained.  NEITHER intrusive burial OR mining accident would have disarticulated skeletons!

 

>>At least one quartzite flake tool was found and evidence of tool marks on rocks. Evidence was consistent with known prehistoric copper mines in south west USA.>>>>

This proves they looked HARD to find the standard types of mining tools and ALL THEY FOUND were one or two FLAKES of rock, seen as being a "tool."  Maybe it WAS a tool, but the question is, was this part of the repertoire of tools ones EXPECTS from a mining party...to be found RIGHT BESIDE them?  Not likely.  It could just as well be what someone had on their person as they fled the flood waves. 

 


>>It is not conclusive from the pictures you have shown that there is any hard rock encasing the bones. >>

 

Yeah...not conclusive to YOU.  I have to ask you then to explain why there is a flow of rock which hardened into the shape and size to fit perfectly around the human bone and then just happened to have fallen onto that human leg and then fit the bone precisely after the flesh rotted away (seen in photo below)?  How exactly does that happen???  You can also see in that photo there is a portion of illiac bone that protrudes out of the hard rock...at least someone who is not determined to NOT see that can see it. 

 

>>A physical examination would be necessary. Certainly, the greater part is clearly loose sand. Where is your evidence of indentations left in removed rock ? Out of all the workers who observed the bones in situ, Patton is alone in maintaining that they were set in hard rock rather than sandy material.>>

 

You have seen several times now the hard rock which ENCASED the leg bone and formed a curvature around it (lower left). 

 

post-1952-0-10157200-1459944907.jpg

 

 

It is obviously not merely mud or sand because it was left after MUCH brushing away of the looser stuff.  You have neglected to comment on this.  I believe this LINK also shows indentations around the bones...however, you must account for the fact that the flesh may have been present when the rock hardened so there is a bit of space or void. 

 

>>As for the feasibility of tunneling in sand, well it would be consolidated until it collapsed due to the instability caused by the actions of miners (who would only need a tunnel large enough to crawl through rather than walk into by the way).>>

 

I defy you to imagine that any mother would allow her infant to go through a mine tunnel while the men and women were CRAWLING 200+ feet from an opening!  And BTW, several WERE females, and one had an infant. 

>>And indeed, no modern mammals have been found in dinosaur layers. That is a fact, constantly verified.>>

 

It seems you moved the goalpost now to make it that it must be in a layer which has LOTS of dino bones, or that the bones must be in very hard rock.  Why do you have to change that now?  AND if your standard is that I must constantly prove negatives (like proving there was NOT a tunnel)...so your theory can survive...then I suppose in your mind, that allows you to keep trying to make the claim that none have been found. 



#166 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 19 June 2016 - 07:40 PM

From Wibble's article:

 

"The literature on prehistoric mines is replete with descriptions of stone tools used to mine the minerals and ores,
and to sharpen tools and artifacts used in mining. For example, in describing a prehistoric salt mine in Arizona,
Cummings (1953:79) said: "Along these channels were found the stone picks and hammers used to secure chunks
of precious salt." Holmes (1919) provides photographs and illustrations of numerous varieties of stone tools used
in prehistoric mines throughout the Americas. Welch and Triadan (1991) describe mauls, diorite flakes and
cryptocrystalline chipped stone debitage in an Arizona turquoise mine. Therefore, we would expect to find stone
tools associated with the Keystone Azurite Mine, if it were indeed a prehistoric mine. When Lin Ottinger screened
the charcoal-stained feature where the human remains were found in 197 1, he found no evidence of stone tools or
chipped stone debitage. However, based on photographs taken by Jean Akens during the 1990 excavations, at least
one large quartzite flake tool was found associated with the human remains."

 

So NONE of the expected tools commonly used for mining were found.  The ONLY "tool" was one or two STONE FLAKES.  And my guess would be that these were dubious, since I'm SURE if I found one clearly embedded in dino strata, Wibble would fuss and whine if I tried to say it was clear evidence of a human living in that era!

 

"While suggestive, we must await the final report on the analysis of the skeletal remains
as well as an interpretation of the context of their discovery to deduce whether the remains were those of miners
caught in a cave-in, or were deliberate flexed inhumations typical of ancestral hebloan practices of the 61h and 71h
centuries A. D."

 

Seems like we are STILL "awaiting" for that final report!



#167 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 20 June 2016 - 11:29 AM

I wrote: >Article: "Since prehistoric mines are generally created by pounding the natural matrix and removing the large rocks, we
suggest the compacted concavity we saw in 1995 was indeed the end of an adit prehistoric miners had excavated
into the matrix to obtain the same spherical azurite nuggets being mined today. We believe this compacted
concavity represents the end of a Type I mine adit, as defined by Weigand (1982)."

Surely "believing" is tenuous...and instead there should be some easy way to confirm this...by following the supposed "tunnel" further back. Maybe funds wouldn't allow such, but that sure leaves one to wonder. <<

I noticed that this tiny concavity they reported was not found until 1995 after there had been many prior excavations of the bones. If this tunnel was so evident I have to wonder why that took so long! And why was it that no one else recognized it to be a tunnel when everyone was so desirous to find one?

#168 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 21 June 2016 - 12:55 PM

If someone would like to read the original scientific reporting about this:

 

post-1952-0-86766000-1463860914.jpg

 

...it is found here:

 

https://archive.org/...ge/223/mode/1up

 

I have recent photos of this slab and it MIGHT be available for close up microphotography.  BTW, the illustration here matches PERFECTLY with the photo I have, except that the front part of the right foot now has been cracked and may have been restored.   As I have said, the tracks are not the most important item.  It is the geometric shape which appears to NOT be carved, but rather to have been scrawled with a stick while the limestone sediments were still soft.  This would have the potential BY ITSELF to falsify evolution. 



#169 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 21 June 2016 - 01:01 PM

Wibble, would you agree that the photo in #165 certainly SEEMS to show bones protruding out of a hard rock...rather than sand?  If you look at the ribs (top right) or the illiac (lower right) or the leg bone (lower left) they ALL seem to be encased in hard rock.  I KNOW you can't be 100% sure, but doesn't it LOOK like that to you?

 

I will mention one point that may at first seem problematical for me...that is that the rock appears to have hardened surrounding BONES and not FLESH.  This means I think that softer parts of the body must have either decayed or liquified due to pressure...or possibly the rock took a while to lithify.  EVEN IF there were merely human BONES (not body parts) that were captured by the flow of sediment, that would also falsify evolution. 



#170 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 453 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 21 June 2016 - 04:12 PM

I don't KNOW FOR SURE?  Of course I cannot show POSITIVE evidence of a NEGATIVE...FOR SURE.  Can you tell me FOR SURE there was no flood of Noah?  No ark?  No of course you can't.  All I can say is that there is no evidence of any past mining before 1930.  It is YOUR burden of proof to show there WAS.  I don't have to prove there was NOT.  I simply can say that if there WAS, then there SHOULD be some evidence of it and there IS NOT.


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.
 

>>It seems that dinosaur (and vertebrates in general) evidence is very rare in the Dakota formation, a handful of Ankylosaur fragments and a few tracks, and most of these are in Kansas not Utah (where malachite man is). What do you think about the probability of a dozen or so humans being buried to form fossils but virtually nothing else ?>>
 
PUH-LEEZE.  What is the point of this even IF your statement is true?


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 ?
 

Are you trying to assert that the Dakota formation is where we could rightly expect fully human bones?  Or that the period when the DF was laid down was NOT the age of dinosaurs???

 

Nope (to both questions)

 

You are being ridiculous.  And I suppose YOU should answer why (as you say here) hardly ANY dino bones have been found in the Dakota Formation?  Is it because no dinos lived at that time?

 

No, it's probably because its mainly a shallow marine deposit, dinosaurs were land dwelling.

 

We should EXPECT that finding bones of large mammals OR dinos is a rare thing...and NOT something we EXPECT to be easily found.  SELDOM finding of mammal OR dino bones proves NOTHING.


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. On the other hand, considering that long term deposition of sediment over large areas is much more likely in the marine environment then surely that has to favour the secular model, where fossilisation of terrestrial life is far less likely.
 

Just ONE rightful find of a large mammal is indeed a silver bullet.  And a human bone is a PLATINUM bullet.


It would be if a genuine one existed. 
 

>>Here’s a pic of dinosaur bones in the Morrison. Why can’t you find me some human bones in indisputably solid rock like this ?
 
attachicon.gifdnm-tail-bones.jpg

>>
 
Because that sort of find is a rare thing even for dinos.  Most often the bones are in matrix which is fairly easily scraped or brushed away and NOT like very hard sandstone.


Have you a source for this 'most often' claim ?
 

>>The fact that a sample from these bones have been carbon dated to the 6th or 7th century AD (which ruins your case by itself), together with charcoal and stone tool evidence suggests that there was a tunnel at that time, probably cut into the side of the hill (how do you know the nearest side access point was 200 feet away ?), rather than vertically down from the top.>>
 
Um...tell me again what YOU say when DINO bones get carbon dates?


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 ?
 

It was readily admitted by Patton that the dates were not 4500 years.  He states plainly that it is very likely that water infiltration which caused the mineralization also brought modern carbon.  There was indeed a spring in that hillside.  One date (from UCLA) was 210 years ago.  But of course, the article you cited said it was 1500 years ago.  If they were indeed from 1500 years ago, and procedures were right, and IF there was no modern infiltration, then they should match.


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 ?

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 ? 
 

>>Have you read this this 1995 paper from the Utah Archaeological Society ? >>
 
I had not until today.  Thanks.  It of course was written by someone who would NEVER consider the explanation that they were buried by flood sediments, so all of the interpretation of evidence must be seen in that light.  Even so, there are some problems.


Here's some more from the article, pg 8.

In summary, from 1971 through 1995, different individuals have seen or noted a natural cave, crevice, or concavity with charcoal rich deposits in the area where the human remains and azurite nuggets occur in the Keystone mine. When these observations are coupled with the literature on prehistoric mines, it is obvious that at least one prehistoric adit was present in the Keytone Azurite Mine. Given the existing ground surface and topography, we believe the prehistoric adit was essentially horizontal, cut in at a slight slope from the side of the original hillside, rather than a vertical tunnel or shaft from the top of the hill “…… “we believe the burned sticks, charcoal pieces, as well as ash and charcoal – stained matrix observed by multiple individuals from 1971 to the present mark the floor of the prehistoric adit or tunnel. The charcoal stains, plus the charcoal pieces and ash are remnants of prehistoric torches used to light the mine interior an possibly to heat the mine matrix to help loosen and break up the large rocks.”

Photodocumentation and observations of the 1990 excavation by Moab Archaeological Society members make it clear there were courses of fist sized rocks dry laid in alignments in associated with some of the human remains. Field notes reference charcoal stained rocks aligned in a three metre long arc paralleling one set of human remains and the ash stained area….some of the rocks were piled on top of each other, while others were in alignment along the burials and outlining the ash and charcoal stained area.

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 ?
 

Article: "Since prehistoric mines are generally created by pounding the natural matrix and removing the large rocks, we
suggest the compacted concavity we saw in 1995 was indeed the end of an adit prehistoric miners had excavated
into the matrix to obtain the same spherical azurite nuggets being mined today. We believe this compacted
concavity represents the end of a Type I mine adit, as defined by Weigand (1982)."
 
Surely "believing" is tenuous...and instead there should be some easy way to confirm this...by following the supposed "tunnel" further back.  Maybe funds wouldn't allow such, but that sure leaves one to wonder.


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. The original tunnel dug by the miners could easily have all filled in with sand and spall in the intervening centuries ( I read Utah gets moderate earthquakes occasionally) plus the bulldozers from the recent mining activity could have obliterated any remaining sections before they were noticed. 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 to the presence of a 60cm wide horizontal tunnel during his work.
 

The KEY to me is the DISARTICULATION of the bodies...for the most part.  This is totally INEXPLICABLE, so I challenge Wibble to give some explanation for that.


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.

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.
 

>>It is not conclusive from the pictures you have shown that there is any hard rock encasing the bones. >>
 
Yeah...not conclusive to YOU.  I have to ask you then to explain why there is a flow of rock which hardened into the shape and size to fit perfectly around the human bone and then just happened to have fallen onto that human leg and then fit the bone precisely after the flesh rotted away (seen in photo below)?  How exactly does that happen???  You can also see in that photo there is a portion of illiac bone that protrudes out of the hard rock...at least someone who is not determined to NOT see that can see it.


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. 
 

You have seen several times now the hard rock which ENCASED the leg bone and formed a curvature around it (lower left). 
 
post-1952-0-10157200-1459944907.jpg


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.
 

>>As for the feasibility of tunneling in sand, well it would be consolidated until it collapsed due to the instability caused by the actions of miners (who would only need a tunnel large enough to crawl through rather than walk into by the way).>>
 
I defy you to imagine that any mother would allow her infant to go through a mine tunnel while the men and women were CRAWLING 200+ feet from an opening!  And BTW, several WERE females, and one had an infant.


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.
 

>>And indeed, no modern mammals have been found in dinosaur layers. That is a fact, constantly verified.>>
 
It seems you moved the goalpost now to make it that it must be in a layer which has LOTS of dino bones, or that the bones must be in very hard rock.


No I haven't. Although I agree that such a find would be far superior to what you're pushing here which has so much doubt attached to it that even creationist organisations don't want to use it.



#171 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 June 2016 - 02:41 PM

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."

 

And:

http://www.iihr.uiow...osaurs-in-iowa/

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
mine."

 

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. 



#172 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 June 2016 - 03:33 PM

https://en.wikipedia...urita_Formation

 

The formation overlies the Cedar Mountain Formation, and underlies the Mancos Shale formation, thus occupying the position of sedimentary strata that have historically been called the Dakota Formation. That term is no longer used for Cretaceous strata that were deposited on the western side of the Cretaceous Seaway. In most areas, the Naturita Formation is composed of a lower unit of conglomeratic sandstone, a middle part of lignitic mudstones and coal, and fine- to medium-grained sandstones in the upper part.

 

Fossils from the Naturita include dinosaur bone fragments of ceratopsians, a possible primitive tyrannosaurid, nodosaurid ankylosaurs, and a brachiosaurid sauropod.

 

 

Plenty of dino bones! 



#173 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 June 2016 - 06:06 PM

W>>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 may have some doubt about that.  It of course is NOT AT ALL outside what you see as POSSIBLE if there is a LOCAL flood, which you say is the cause of much if not MOST of all the dino fossil burials...RIGHT?  Why are THOSE not always strewn far far apart?  The bones sometimes ARE found fairly close by but they are NOT always articulated.  The flood rips their bodies apart sometimes.  That makes sense. 

 

But what does NOT make any sense is YOUR explanation for MM...suggesting a mine collapse or intentional burial is the cause.  Those would ALWAYS involve articulation or at least very close interment of intact bodies.  Would you be willing to admit here NOW that your theory is refuted because of the large amount of disarticulation?  You may think there must be some OTHER cause besides a great flood...but will you agree that what you have said cannot be right?  If you won't, then explain why disarticulation fits your idea.  Don't just say why you think it doesn't fit with MINE.  Tell me how it DOES fit with YOURS.



#174 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 June 2016 - 02:13 PM

SO WHAT ABOUT LAETOLI???

 

You ev's have NOTHING to say in answer to the very simple point...that we were RUSED for the last 43 years about the type of foot that Lucy (a. afarensis) had!  We know NOW that the foot of that creature could NOT have made the Laetoli tracks and the only OTHER known creature which COULD have...is a human.  That totally RUINS the whole human evolution tale we've been told. 

 

Why is that not conclusive?  And HOW LONG will it take to have all those PHONEY FEET on all the Lucy statues changed???  And I wonder what will be said about Lucy in high school and college textbooks for the NEXT HUNDRED YEARS???  They will NEVER retract what they said about Lucy...not until they have lined up whatever the NEXT "missing link" will be used to prop up evolution.  That's how the rigged system works, I guess.



#175 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 453 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 23 June 2016 - 04:04 PM

W>>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 may have some doubt about that.  It of course is NOT AT ALL outside what you see as POSSIBLE if there is a LOCAL flood, which you say is the cause of much if not MOST of all the dino fossil burials...RIGHT?  Why are THOSE not always strewn far far apart?  The bones sometimes ARE found fairly close by but they are NOT always articulated.  The flood rips their bodies apart sometimes.  That makes sense.


This is irrelevant to the point. A local flood doesn't have to be violent to cover a dinosaur carcass with sediment. You are saying the Flood must have violently torn the bodies apart. This infers immensely strong and turbulent currents which is hardly going to deposit 10 humans just in this small area. If there are this many at just this location then there should be buried human bones being uncovered all over the place. 
 

But what does NOT make any sense is YOUR explanation for MM...suggesting a mine collapse or intentional burial is the cause.  Those would ALWAYS involve articulation or at least very close interment of intact bodies.  Would you be willing to admit here NOW that your theory is refuted because of the large amount of disarticulation?  You may think there must be some OTHER cause besides a great flood...but will you agree that what you have said cannot be right?  If you won't, then explain why disarticulation fits your idea.  Don't just say why you think it doesn't fit with MINE.  Tell me how it DOES fit with YOURS.


If you read the timeline of discoveries at the top of the MAS article it tells you that in 1971, Jack Marwitt (Field Director of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Survey) visited the site after being contacted by the initial discoverer, Lin Ottinger. Quoting from the article (bold mine):

The human remains were obviously not part of the surrounding rock but were situated in unconsolidated sand and rock spalls in an area heavily disturbed by bulldozing activity from previous mining. Photographs of Marwitt’s 1971 excavations confirm that any stratigraphic context for the human remains had been cut away by bulldozing before he arrived on site.”

Moving on to 1990, the new owner of the mine discovered several human crania while mining for azurite. These were 20m east of the 1971 loci. (so it appears skulls have actually been found, I missed that when I first read it). Excavations undertaken by the Moab Archaeological Society continued which uncovered further sets of human remains. It then says a group of creationists visited the site in late 1995 (I presume this included Don Patton) who discovered several skeletal fragments in loose unconsolidated fill about 15m north of the 1971 discoveries.

Now, considering that the bones were only uncovered due to bulldozing activity, is it beyond possibility in your mind that some of the skeletons were disassociated exactly because of this ?

Also, is it beyond your imagination that tunnels could not have naturally filled in over the centuries ? You made an earlier mention about groundwater, do you not suppose this could have aided infilling, especially after heavy rains, causing sandy material to slump in ?

 

It is a known fact that Pueblan Indians did mine for azurite in other areas of the Southwest. The skeletons are buried in a formation containing this mineral. Evidence of prehistoric mining activity has been reported for this particular site. The bones have been dated to a period when it is known that these activities were being undertaken in the region. Everyone apart from Patton reports the bones were entirely in unconsolidated sand and spall. All the major creationist organisations seem to concede these are intrusive burials.

 

Yet despite all that, you seem impervious to any doubt that these humans were contemporary with dinosaurs....



#176 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 24 June 2016 - 12:57 PM

W>>This is irrelevant to the point. A local flood doesn't have to be violent to cover a dinosaur carcass with sediment. >>

You miss the point. I didn't SAY all local floods are violent. BUT SOME ARE because some dinos are disarticulated. Yet, in a violent flow, you can sometimes find the other parts nearby...or you can find a group interred together with bodies either intact or jumbled up.

>>You are saying the Flood must have violently torn the bodies apart.>>

Nope. It might (in some locales) or might not, depending on how forceful that sediment flow is. Or if the flow is relatively slow (non-violent) but keeps moving after the body is covered (ripping it apart). But I AM saying that a mine collapse or burial by humans would NOT be expected to rip apart bodies. Do you agree? (Don't dodge again please).

>>If there are this many at just this location then there should be buried human bones being uncovered all over the place.>>

It could have been a small group huddled inside a home or atop a hill who got trapped, surrounded by the sediments. This would probably be a common thing but not universal of course. Given how few large vertebrate fossils there are, it is not too surprising we also have few humans. How many T-rex bodies are there? 30? (My guess).

>>Now, considering that the bones were only uncovered due to bulldozing activity, is it beyond possibility in your mind that some of the skeletons were disassociated exactly because of this ?>>

I would grant you this point if the fossil discoveries were done by sifting through a pile of rubble from mining operations. However, if you look at Patton's video, you can see that there were pockets in the side of the hill where a set of DISARTICULATED bones were found. Those locations were undisturbed by the bulldozer...or seem to be. I believe that Patton could address this question. IMO it is very relevant and if you were to be convinced that a bulldozer did NOT spread out the bones of victims, I believe you have no leg to stand on. The mine collapse or intentional burial idea does not fit with disarticulated bones. ONLY if a bulldozer moved around the body parts, would you have any explanation. Can you think of any OTHER?

>>Also, is it beyond your imagination that tunnels could not have naturally filled in over the centuries ? You made an earlier mention about groundwater, do you not suppose this could have aided infilling, especially after heavy rains, causing sandy material to slump in ?>>

I suppose a geologist (Patton is one) would have to tell us if you could distinguish infilled material (200 years or 1500 years ago) from what was deposited (supposedly) 100 million years ago. I would expect you could. The first investigators in 1971, 1990, 1991 all said there was NO SIGN of any tunnel. If your idea is valid, I think someone would have suggested that then.

>>It is a known fact that Pueblan Indians did mine for azurite in other areas of the Southwest. The skeletons are buried in a formation containing this mineral. Evidence of prehistoric mining activity has been reported for this particular site.>>

Not sure you can assert that. In fact your article REFUTES that pretty plainly. "While prehistoric mines have not been reported from Utah (Malouf 1950), prehistoric mines are well-known from the rest of the Southwest and northern Mexico, and in fact, from throughout the Americas"

As I reread the article, it seemed quite clear that the LAST TIME a bulldozer was on the site was 1970 or so...just before the first discoveries. BUT SINCE THEN all of the work done at the site involved only hand tools and they were definitely on the lookout for more human remains. AND in 1990, 1991 and 1995, the work done was in "archaeologist mode" involving BLM scientists who would be careful to not use heavy equipment.

Although you are not religious, you sure seem to religiously observe the Passover...regarding several of the points I've made. WHAT ABOUT ANY REAL MINING TOOLS? WHAT ABOUT ENTACT TORCHES? WHAT ABOUT THEIR (SUPPOSED) COLLECTED AZURITE IN PILES BESIDE EACH BODY? WHY WERE FEMALES AND AN INFANT FOUND? WHY WAS EVERYONE SO CONVINCED THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF TUNNELS UNTIL 1995? (AND ONLY "FOUND" BY THE AUTHORS, NOT THE BLM PEOPLE). AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IF INDEED NO BULLDOZER WAS NEAR SOME OF THE REMAINS, WHY ARE THEY DISARTICULATED???

ALSO, WHY DID YOU IGNORE MY ANSWER TO YOUR C14 QUESTION...RE. THE MOSASAUR?

#177 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 24 June 2016 - 01:14 PM

If you look at the leg bones here  LINk 

 

malachite-man-1990-leg-knee.jpg

 

it is VERY clear that if the body was intact, there should have been hip bones, a spine, arms and a skull right there, deeper inside the sediment bank.  Due to the implied position of the rest of the body, there is no way those would have been scraped away by any bulldozer activity in 1971.  It ALL should have still been right there!   If you go HERE and view starting at 46:37 you can see this one being exhumed carefully by a BLM scientist.  The body is disarticulated, but you can see that it is in a position which would preclude the disarticulation being caused by any heavy equipment.

 

You can also clearly see the very UNdisturbed nature of the wall of sediments deposited just around the bones.  LOOK AT IT. 



#178 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 453 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 24 June 2016 - 05:09 PM

>> You are saying the Flood must have violently torn the bodies apart.>>

Nope. It might (in some locales) or might not, depending on how forceful that sediment flow is. Or if the flow is relatively slow (non-violent) but keeps moving after the body is covered (ripping it apart).


I’m not understanding how you think a slow flood separates body parts and deposits the pieces a few metres apart.
 

But I AM saying that a mine collapse or burial by humans would NOT be expected to rip apart bodies. Do you agree?


Yes I agree with a mine collapse (and have never said otherwise), and also for burial unless there was some unknown reason it was done that way.
 

>> If there are this many at just this location then there should be buried human bones being uncovered all over the place.>>

It could have been a small group huddled inside a home or atop a hill who got trapped, surrounded by the sediments. This would probably be a common thing but not universal of course. Given how few large vertebrate fossils there are, it is not too surprising we also have few humans. How many T-rex bodies are there? 30? (My guess).


About 50 according to Wiki, none complete. This is the stark difference between your story and secular view. There are few large vertebrate fossils because it takes extraordinary circumstances and luck to get a successful fossilisation. The animal needs to fall in a lake or happen to be near a river in flood to have a chance of burial by sediment. And then survive erosion or tectonic processes through geological time. With your view almost every animal got buried by sediment, and very recently. There should be hoodles of vertebrate fossils turning up in sedimentary rock in your world.
 

>> Now, considering that the bones were only uncovered due to bulldozing activity, is it beyond possibility in your mind that some of the skeletons were disassociated exactly because of this ?>>

I would grant you this point if the fossil discoveries were done by sifting through a pile of rubble from mining operations. However, if you look at Patton's video, you can see that there were pockets in the side of the hill where a set of DISARTICULATED bones were found. Those locations were undisturbed by the bulldozer...or seem to be. I believe that Patton could address this question. IMO it is very relevant and if you were to be convinced that a bulldozer did NOT spread out the bones of victims, I believe you have no leg to stand on. The mine collapse or intentional burial idea does not fit with disarticulated bones. ONLY if a bulldozer moved around the body parts, would you have any explanation. Can you think of any OTHER


Unless they were purposely buried that way, which seems unlikely then no.
 

>> Also, is it beyond your imagination that tunnels could not have naturally filled in over the centuries ? You made an earlier mention about groundwater, do you not suppose this could have aided infilling, especially after heavy rains, causing sandy material to slump in ?>>

I suppose a geologist (Patton is one) would have to tell us if you could distinguish infilled material (200 years or 1500 years ago) from what was deposited (supposedly) 100 million years ago. I would expect you could. The first investigators in 1971, 1990, 1991 all said there was NO SIGN of any tunnel. If your idea is valid, I think someone would have suggested that then.


I’m not sure you could class Patton as a geologist nor would I trust his judgement to be honest or impartial. Rumour has it he bought his Phd from Queensland Christian University that was granted a provisional license to issue them, which was then rescinded. Apparently all he had to do was write a report and got the diploma in the post.
 

>> It is a known fact that Puebloan Indians did mine for azurite in other areas of the Southwest. The skeletons are buried in a formation containing this mineral. Evidence of prehistoric mining activity has been reported for this particular site.>>

Not sure you can assert that. In fact your article REFUTES that pretty plainly. "While prehistoric mines have not been reported from Utah (Malouf 1950), prehistoric mines are well-known from the rest of the Southwest and northern Mexico, and in fact, from throughout the Americas"


Yeah, definite mines in the region as I said. For the Keystone mine there is limited tool evidence but lots of charcoal remains attributed to torch use. And the MAB article says that different workers have reported evidence of tunnels.
 

As I reread the article, it seemed quite clear that the LAST TIME a bulldozer was on the site was 1970 or so...just before the first discoveries. BUT SINCE THEN all of the work done at the site involved only hand tools and they were definitely on the lookout for more human remains. AND in 1990, 1991 and 1995, the work done was in "archaeologist mode" involving BLM scientists who would be careful to not use heavy equipment.


There was a bulldozer onsite in the 1990’s when Patton was there
 

Although you are not religious, you sure seem to religiously observe the Passover...regarding several of the points I've made. WHAT ABOUT ANY REAL MINING TOOLS? WHAT ABOUT ENTACT TORCHES? WHAT ABOUT THEIR (SUPPOSED) COLLECTED AZURITE IN PILES BESIDE EACH BODY? WHY WERE FEMALES AND AN INFANT FOUND? WHY WAS EVERYONE SO CONVINCED THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF TUNNELS UNTIL 1995? (AND ONLY "FOUND" BY THE AUTHORS, NOT THE BLM PEOPLE). AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IF INDEED NO BULLDOZER WAS NEAR SOME OF THE REMAINS, WHY ARE THEY DISARTICULATED???


Why couldn’t a female be involved ? (if indeed there was a female – still not seen confirmation of this). And you keep dodging giving the evidence I keep requesting that there was an infant, you keep asserting it.
 

ALSO, WHY DID YOU IGNORE MY ANSWER TO YOUR C14 QUESTION...RE. THE MOSASAUR?


Because I don’t have to answer every comment in your long winded posts. The authors in the PLOS1 paper you refer to say the 24,000 BP date is likely due to bacterial contamination near the outer surface of the bone. Indeed, the PCR they undertook did in fact amplify bacterial DNA, as well as human and lagomorph (rabbit, attributed to animal glue painted on to the bone at some point). So there was clearly contamination with modern carbon.

 

If you look at the leg bones here  LINk 
 
 
it is VERY clear that if the body was intact, there should have been hip bones, a spine, arms and a skull right there, deeper inside the sediment bank.  Due to the implied position of the rest of the body, there is no way those would have been scraped away by any bulldozer activity in 1971.  It ALL should have still been right there!   If you go HERE and view starting at 46:37 you can see this one being exhumed carefully by a BLM scientist.  The body is disarticulated, but you can see that it is in a position which would preclude the disarticulation being caused by any heavy equipment.
 
You can also clearly see the very UNdisturbed nature of the wall of sediments deposited just around the bones.  LOOK AT IT.


I'll reserve judgement till I see the video. As I said before it doesn't work for me, I've tried on two devices now.



#179 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 25 June 2016 - 09:45 AM

W>> As I said before it doesn't work for me, I've tried on two devices now.<<

It is possible that the site here is producing a bad link. The primary site is Bible.CA and then you must go down to find the link for Evolution vs 6 day creation, and there is a link for online seminar videos and then one of those is for Malachite Man.

#180 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 25 June 2016 - 10:48 AM

W>>
I’m not understanding how you think a slow flood separates body parts and deposits the pieces a few metres apart. <<

I suppose it would be dependent on how far the sediment flow transported the body. If it was a relatively short distance then you might see a body remain intact. If it was a very long distance the body could be strewn over a mile or so. And somewhere in between the two could result in some bodies intact and some that are ripped apart with a group of bodies remaining in relatively close proximity.

>> There should be hoodles of vertebrate fossils turning up in sedimentary rock in your world.<<

Do the math. If there are sediments covering the surface area of the Earth at a depth of one mile, and suppose you had maybe 10 million humans, if that. And then figure what percentage of that amount of cubic miles of material has been exposed, maybe it would not be surprising how few humans or dinosaurs have been found. It is also very possible that not every large animal would have remained identifiable and the processes of the flood could have destroyed most, just as your view currently is that most animals were not fossilized. For instance if some of the sediments were temporarily hot or even mildly acidic that would turn a human body into goo. I guess some people believe that all of the oil deposits which are very pure were once identifiable bodies of animals or plants but then the pressure processes change them so you cannot recognize them. I am not so sure of that fossil fuels came from any animals but if so, maybe there would be a few humans in there as well!

I appreciate that you admit that the disarticulation is supportive of the Young Earth interpretation, unless a bulldozer disarticulated the bodies. And I think the photo I showed where the legs are bent and articulated but the top part of the body is non-existent shows that this particular body was disarticulated without any part of that area of the sediments being touched by a bulldozer or backhoe. If you look at that video there are sequential photos of that particular body being exposed where only a very small part of the leg bones are even visible to begin with. There was not any machinery that cut that body in half as your theory suggests. This was done with archaeologists present who were trying to preserve bodies so they would have not gone in there with heavy machinery and not even looked at what was removed to see if there were any body parts in it. Your idea is absurd again. The disarticulation point is conclusive.

>> I’m not sure you could class Patton as a geologist nor would I trust his judgement to be honest or impartial. <<

Once again you imply that your side is always impartial and honest but a creationist will distort facts. Maybe I believe that the evolutionists who came in to look at the site were closing their eyes to any flood interpretation and that article that you quote was indeed a hit job. Why should I believe any of your scientists are honest? And BTW, Patton has a Ph.D in education as I recall and not geology, but he worked as a professional geologist for many years in the oil industry. I would expect he has many courses of college study in the field of geology as well. He has excellent credentials to assess whether or not the sediments were disturbed in recent years. If you just look at the photos yourself that is plainly evident.

>> For the Keystone mine there is limited tool evidence<<

You can't just blow that off as if that is a minor point! That is a significant disqualifier for your mine collapse theory. They HAD to have gone in there with mining tools. The article says that other locations where there were mines included bodies with mining tools. Several types of tools are named in that article but none except stone flakes were found beside these bodies. And I would BET MONEY that if I were trying to use stone flakes as evidence of humans in ancient sediments you would just laugh at me and say that was not really a human tool! Miners don't go into a mine with just some stone flakes. Regarding the females there were four females and one infant according to Patton and the reference I gave from UCLA reporting on the carbon date of 210 years did refer to that sample being from a female human. It is absurd to think that females and a baby were crawling around inside a tiny hole which was at least 200 feet long in order to find azurite jewelry stones.

> And the MAB article says that different workers have reported evidence of tunnels.<<

The video shows a cross-section of that area where two bodies were found and you can see with your own eyes that the sediments are undisturbed. Professionals prior to 1995 said that there were no tunnels! And that was written by your supposedly unbiased evolutionists! The evidence points strongly AWAY FROM any idea of it being mining. Where are the ENTACT torches???

>There was a bulldozer onsite in the 1990’s when Patton was there<<

Perhaps I overlooked that but please give your citation for that being true. But of course it would not be surprising that they could have used equipment like that if it were easily available. However if it was while Patton was there and they were purposely searching for human remains there is no question that if they accidentally disarticulated a body then that would have been noted, unless you believe they would lie about that. And I believe when Patton was there, it was while other non creationist scientists were present.

Regarding the mosasaur,>Indeed, the PCR they undertook did in fact amplify bacterial DNA, as well as human and lagomorph (rabbit, attributed to animal glue painted on to the bone at some point). <<

It would not be surprising to find one bacterium within any sample... which it sounds like that is what they found. Only ONE. However their hypothesis is that 4.6% of the total carbon weight of the sample came from modern bacteria and if that were true there would be tons and tons of bacterial DNA and they did not find that. That is conclusive evidence that their idea of bacterial contamination is laughable. In this instance their DNA evidence was able to support the idea that their C14 sample was not contaminated at all!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users