Jump to content


Photo

Polystrate Fossils Require Rapid Deposition.


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#21 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 June 2007 - 11:46 PM

You are almost right. I think you would be completely right if the point of the article was to refute creationism.  It isn't.

It is just to report an interesting study of oddly-preserved standing trees.  Dating methods are not important to a normal reader, so they don't seem to be trying to hide anything.  I would expect that creationists would explain the whole thing with the Noachian flood and not deny the age of it.  I did a Google search and found out that the original study was published online freely (I love it when they do that).  You can find it here (PDF). I briefly scanned it.  Apparently they used C-14 to date the age, which corresponded with the stopping of a glacier and a rise in climate temperature, melting the water that buried the trees.

View Post


I was making a point on applying the scientific method. You assumed it was true even without the data you dug up in a search. Which breaks the first rule, or step of the scientific method. I was trying to get at is as to why you would accept this as being true without this information.

Accepting one source over another, when neither show testing evidence. Is showing bias, and prejudgement of what you prefer to be true. Then actually wanting to find truth. For can you lay out a process of how the presenter of evidence from one source should always be accepted, while the other always rejected? One that would be within the scientific method.

It can't be done without showing bias on some level. Which is what the scientific method is trying to avoid.

#22 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 08 June 2007 - 11:17 PM

I was making a point on applying the scientific method. You assumed it was true even without the data you dug up in a search. Which breaks the first rule, or step of the scientific method. I was trying to get at is as to why you would accept this as being true without this information.

Accepting one source over another, when neither show testing evidence. Is showing bias, and prejudgement of what you prefer to be true. Then actually wanting to find truth. For can you lay out a process of how the presenter of evidence from one source should always be accepted, while the other always rejected? One that would be within the scientific method.

It can't be done without showing bias on some level. Which is what the scientific method is trying to avoid.

View Post

My only claim was that a tree may die and remain standing, and that seemed apparent just from the pictures. I think you are right this time regardless, about me believing such articles without studying the science in detail, and I can excuse myself only by lacking the claim of being a geologist. I do have bias, and I think that is normal and necessary too. I am biased against the scientific minorities in favor of the majority. I think it is hard to function in modern society without blindly accepting many scientific authorities. Maybe you can do it, and if you can, then good on you.

#23 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 June 2007 - 04:40 AM

My only claim was that a tree may die and remain standing, and that seemed apparent just from the pictures. I think you are right this time regardless, about me believing such articles without studying the science in detail, and I can excuse myself only by lacking the claim of being a geologist.  I do have bias, and I think that is normal and necessary too.  I am biased against the scientific minorities in favor of the majority.  I think it is hard to function in modern society without blindly accepting many scientific authorities.  Maybe you can do it, and if you can, then good on you.

View Post


Everyone has bias to a certain extent. But you have to check the bias if you are truly looking for truth. For when it goes across a certain line, it can cloud your judgement on what truth is on any subject.

Example (on a side note): I used to reject anything that dated over 10,000 years old because of my strong belief in YEC only. Now would you say I was bias because I looked at my belief before I looked at the evidence? Of course you would.

This is also how evolution works in the opposite manner. They are bias towards any evidence that may support a young earth. It is rejected before even considered. Why? There is really no scientific explanation as to why both young and old earth evidence exists together.

So to try and figure out how things look both young and old at the same time. I figured that the bible would have an explanation that most were missing. Including myself. So instead of being totally bias towards old earth dating, I pondered it to test it. Because if you do not test what you believe, and accept majority view of what truth is. Then you are accepting someone Else's version of truth as your own truth. Which also means that their truth controls your life, and how you will look at everything. A free thinker never accepts truth until he tests it. Or ponders it. A free thinker thinks as an individual.

A brain washed truth requires you to close your heart and mind to any other possibilities. And becoming narrow minded is a quality a lot of people do not like.

Leaving the door open for the possibility of a biblical explanation for old earth evidence "mixed" with young earth evidence. Kept me open minded towards this subject. Ready for God's word to show it to me. You see as long as I had accepted one truth, and rejected another possible truth. My mind would not allow an explanation, even from what I base all my truth around (God's word). So if I read the bible with that in mind, the only thing I would see would be what I wanted to see.

So upon allowing this pondering, and waiting for what I would be shown reading the bible. It suddenly hit me one day that the first six days of creation was done in a eternal time-line. This got me to wondering how this would affect how creation was done. But since we cannot experience eternity yet, the only way I could figure it out was to subtract from eternity time what cannot exist according to God's word.

Sin, death, and aging cannot exist in eternity. From there I had to figure out how time would pass without these processes being a part of it. To make a long story short, from that I figured out how things were created old, but was mixed with young earth evidence.

I never would have seen this if I did not leave the door open for a possibility and allowed myself to think freely. I still test this truth. I won't accept it totally until I'm convince that it explains the unexplainable. And can be confirmed by God's word, and evidence that science accepts (old earth) and ignores (young earth). Because young earth evidence could not hold it's ground against old earth evidence if there was not good evidence to support it. Because these debates would have died a long time ago if young earth evidence was as weak as old earthers imply that they are.

But every year science turns up an unexplainable find that absolutely does not fit in their old earth beliefs. But because they have narrowed their minds towards only old earth thinking. They ignore the young earth find, and basically will not have the answers to explain why one type of evidence is found mixed with another.

The finds are evidence for two parallel time-lines. Science will never see this because they will never ponder it. I can start another thread if anyone wants to discuss this further. So this does not derail this one.

#24 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 09 June 2007 - 05:06 AM

I don't know what dating method they used.  They said 10,000 years.  If it is really just 100 years, then it still solves the problem.  You can tell they are over 100 years old just by looking at the pictures.
They say it took burial in sand and water.

View Post


Might I suggest a rapid burial...something lke a flood would produce?

#25 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 17 September 2007 - 12:55 PM

Perhaps a slow burial like those in spirit lake Washington. They were felled and deposited in the lake from the Mt St Helens eruption in 1980. Many ended up at the bottom of the lake and are now embedded in several feet of silt and dirt. One day they too will become polystrate fossils but it won't have been quick. Creationists tell us that trees rot too fast for it to be a slow process, yet the trees at the bottom of the lake as well as the ones still floating on the lake surface have been there for 27 years. This does tend to disprove that all trees must deteriorate quicly and that only a massive flood can account for polystrate fossils.

#26 Crispus

Crispus

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Florida

Posted 09 March 2009 - 11:05 AM

Excellent article from the latest issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly.
http://www.creationr...ate_fossils.htm

View Post

That is a great article. I'm not as knowledgable about science as most of the people on this forum but have done research on the flood and found some interesting facts about polystrate fossils. On the wikipedia page about them it says "...larger polystrate trees found within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata show evidence of regeneration after being partially buried by sediments."

If trees were deposited into peat bogs that were in the process of coalification then why weren’t they assimilated into the peat eventually becoming coal? In 2005 a fossilized forest covering forty square miles was found in an Illinois coal mine. Scientists believe there was an earthquake that flooded and buried the forest. Among the species of plants were the fossilized remains of mangrove-like plants. On an evolutionary time scale mangroves appear in the late Cretaceous period more than 200 million years after the Carboniferous period and one of the researchers, Howard Falcon-Lang of the University of Bristol, U.K., said "It was always assumed that mangrove plants had evolved fairly recently." In 2008 a team from the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Bristol led by Dr. Falcon-Lang found five more fossilized forests in Illinois. They are believed to have grown a few million years apart about 300 million years ago yet, oddly, they are stacked one on top of the other.

"It appears the ancient land experienced repeated periods of subsidence and flooding which buried the forests in a vertical sequence."

They were on a fault line but it seems quite unlikely that the epicenter of those earthquakes would be in the exact same place producing the same results five different times. If an earthquake occurred at the beginning of a cataclysmic flood then rip currents and massive waves would take plants, animals and sediment to the lowest point in a valley or plain unless there was obstacles or resistance. Along with the fact that fossilization is usually associated with flooding requiring rapid burial and removal from oxygen the finds in Illinois present another problem for evolutionists. The trees were not assimilated into the peat bogs eventually becoming coal after millions of years. Instead the plants left an impression in the coal bed showing that they were buried quickly and were put under extreme pressure. This is consistent with the creationist explanation of the formation of coal and not with the evolutionary explanation. On the page about compression fossils on wikipedia it says "While it is uncommon to find animals preserved as good compression fossils it is very common to find plants preserved this way." While the statement about animals may be open for some debate, compressive stress would preserve the huge fossil forests in Illinois. There are also fossil forests in Yellowstone Park, New Zealand, Ellesmere Island and Axel Heiberg Island in the Canadian Arctic among other places.

Another good article about fossils forests is The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia by Randy Berg. http://www.earthage......va Scotia.htm


#27 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 March 2009 - 07:10 PM

Hi Crispus,Welcome to the forum and thanks for the link.

#28 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 10 March 2009 - 02:07 AM

Perhaps a slow burial like those in spirit lake Washington.  They were felled and deposited in the lake from the Mt St Helens eruption in 1980.  Many ended up at the bottom of the lake and are now embedded in several feet of silt and dirt.  One day they too will become polystrate fossils but it won't have been quick.  Creationists tell us that trees rot too fast for it to be a slow process, yet the trees at the bottom of the lake as well as the ones still floating on the lake surface have been there for 27 years.  This does tend to disprove that all trees must deteriorate quicly and that only a massive flood can account for polystrate fossils.

View Post


Wood does not rot as fast as that!

On the other hand it does not last for thousands of years. Polystrate fossils are found going through layers that are said in evolution mythology to be laid down over hundreds of thousands of years. That is not credible. At the very least one would expect the tops of the trees to be significantly damaged or reduced through their longer exposure, which is not generally seen, I believe. Just look around the world and try to find an example of surviving trees that are being gradually buried after being dead for centuries. I do not think you will find a single one.

The mechanism that has broken and displaced those trees from Mt St Helens is the same one that will have operated on a vastly larger scale during the flood. With millions of cubic kilometres of sediment being rapidly deposited, these trees will have been rapidly buried, while the water created the layers surrounding them. At Mt St Helens, layered deposits many metres thick are known to have been laid down in a matter of hours or days.

#29 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 10 March 2009 - 04:51 AM

It seems as if the evos want it both ways.

See those layers over there?  They are old. Took millions of years to deposit.

But look. A polystrate fossil is part of that formation. 

My bad.  It took a  short time to deposit those layers.

View Post


Looking around at the natural process that are taking place in the world today we can simply invoke Uniformitarianism ("The present is the key to the past") - and there are indeed places where rapid burial occurs. Llikewise there are places were sedimentation rates are very slow. Why is this having it both ways?

Science has NEVER stated that ALL rock takes thouasands of years to deposit. Is uniformitarianism not a valid principle? Are you stating that you do NOT agree with it? Do you not agree that it is a logical supposition? If not, why not?

#30 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 10 March 2009 - 05:18 AM

Looking around at the natural process that are taking place in the world today we can simply invoke Uniformitarianism ("The present is the key to the past") - and there are indeed places where rapid burial occurs. Llikewise there are places were sedimentation rates are very slow. Why is this having it both ways?

Science has NEVER stated that ALL rock takes thouasands of years to deposit. Is uniformitarianism not a valid principle? Are you stating that you do NOT agree with it? Do you not agree that it is a logical supposition? If not, why not?

View Post


Yes, but where there are dinosaur graveyards, there is rapid burial. Only a massive flood could cover over 3,000 60 foot long saurapod dinosaurs in fossil sites that are similar all over the world. The majority of dinosaur fossil sites, these dinosaurs are frozen in time, and it is quite extremely obvious that it was caused by a massive flood... as with 99% of all fossil sites worldwide.

#31 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 10 March 2009 - 06:33 AM

Yes, but where there are dinosaur graveyards, there is rapid burial.  Only a massive flood could cover over 3,000 60 foot long saurapod dinosaurs in fossil sites that are similar all over the world.  The majority of dinosaur fossil sites, these dinosaurs are frozen in time, and it is quite extremely obvious that it was caused by a massive flood... as with 99% of all fossil sites worldwide.

View Post


Dinosaur mass death assembledges occur in a variety of rocks. Addmiditly some are water deposited (river flood plains, lakes) however lots are also terrestrial in origin. There are lots are large dinsour bones dating from the Cretaceous in what is the modern day Gobi region of Mongolia. Like today, this region was once an arid desert and the fossils are found preserved within Aeolian sandstones (wind blown) of the type found today in modern deserts. Such animals, once dead, would have been consumed quickly by sandstorms thereby preserving the animals quickly for subsequent fossilisation.

There are many more examples, so please do not make sweeping statements about it being "obvious that is was caused by a world wide flood". Please do some research like.....go to university and get a degree in Geology before you make such grandiose statements. Oh, and a bit of citated evidence would'nt go amiss too.

#32 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 10 March 2009 - 08:55 AM

Dinosaur mass death assembledges occur in a variety of rocks. Addmiditly some are water deposited (river flood plains, lakes) however lots are also terrestrial in origin. There are lots are large dinsour bones dating from the Cretaceous in what is the modern day Gobi region of Mongolia. Like today, this region was once an arid desert and the fossils are found preserved within Aeolian sandstones (wind blown) of the type found today in modern deserts. Such animals, once dead, would have been consumed quickly by sandstorms thereby preserving the animals  quickly for subsequent fossilisation.

There are many more examples, so please do not make sweeping statements about  it being "obvious that is was caused by a world wide flood". Please do some research like.....go to university and get a degree in Geology before you make such grandiose statements. Oh, and a bit of citated evidence would'nt go amiss too.

View Post


Unfortunately for you, I'm not ignorant of the geological formations in those area's, and sadly for you, I also do not need a geological degree to go to those places and see them myself. I've studied geology for quite some time thank you.

Just because you don't have a degree in something doesn't mean a person automatically doesn't know crap about what their talking about, so don't be so ignorantly niave.

Actually it is quite obvious that the majority of fossil sites were caused by a major flood. If you wish to disprove this than please do so, but don't just niavely think that some lackluster atheist/ evolution worshping geologist has done all the work for you, because quite frankly, they haven't, and won't.

My statements aren't grandiose, they are simply made by evidence backed simple observations which are quite obvious to the casual observer. No fancy imaginary textbook drawings are needed, just basic tools, a knowledgeable layout of the geological area, and the knowledge on how to discern the rock types, and sediment formations. Which I have.

Thank you.

#33 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 10 March 2009 - 09:22 AM

Actually it is quite obvious that the majority of fossil sites were caused by a major flood.  If you wish to disprove this than please do so, but don't just niavely think that some lackluster atheist/ evolution worshping geologist has done all the work for you, because quite frankly, they haven't, and won't.

View Post


I am not the one making the claims. You have said that its quite "obvious" so it's up to you to make the case and present the evidence.

As to having a degree, I accept that self educated amateurs are also capable of making good scientests. However a degree (from a credited university) does at least mean that one has been taught the proper scientific method and the current theory. Unfortumately Creationist websites are NOT a relible source and therefore are not a substitute for the real thing.

BTW, have you been to China? or Mongolia? Have you personally visited all of the Dinosaur mass assembledge sites?

Have you also considered all the other dinosaur fossils that are NOT in mass burial sites? Were these a by product of the flood also? Lone dinosaur fossils are found in a variety of rock/sediment types of which only a handful are water deposited.

Please answer how a global flood would cause a fossil to be preserved within a terriginous aoelian sandstone? Do you not agree with the near 100% majority of Geological experts that oncur that such deposits represent paleo-desert environments?

If you have any evidence to the contrary, why not publish in an academic peer reviewed journal? From the way you are talking you appear to have plenty of first hand evidence, so why not present it to the world?

#34 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 10 March 2009 - 09:30 AM

I am not the one making the claims. You have said that its quite "obvious" so it's up to you to make the case and present the evidence.

As to having a degree, I accept that self educated amateurs are also capable of making good scientests. However a degree (from a credited university) does at least mean that one has been taught the proper scientific method and the current theory. Unfortumately Creationist websites are NOT a relible source and therefore are not a substitute for the real thing.

BTW, have you been to China? or Mongolia? Have you personally visited all of the Dinosaur mass assembledge sites?

Have you also considered all the other dinosaur fossils that are NOT in mass burial sites? Were these a by product of the flood also? Lone dinosaur fossils are found in a variety of rock/sediment types of which only a handful are water deposited.

Please answer how a global flood would cause a fossil to be preserved within a terriginous aoelian sandstone? Do you not agree with the near 100% majority of Geological experts that oncur that such deposits represent paleo-desert environments?

If you have any evidence to the contrary, why not publish in an academic peer reviewed journal? From the way you are talking you appear to have plenty of first hand evidence, so why not present it to the world?

View Post


Uh huh, I might just challenge you to come on over and enjoy one of my old threads, so you can read it, and enjoy some of my own research for a little while.

The thread is called the Elusive Geological Time Comlumn.

#35 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 10 March 2009 - 09:40 AM

The thread is called the Elusive Geological Time Comlumn.

View Post


I will happily read your thread - in fact i'm off to do it now. However such a thread is not "research" - Why not publish in a journal?

Perhaps you could also answer some of the questions I posted?

Cheers

#36 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 10 March 2009 - 11:03 AM

I am not the one making the claims. You have said that its quite "obvious" so it's up to you to make the case and present the evidence.

As to having a degree, I accept that self educated amateurs are also capable of making good scientests. However a degree (from a credited university) does at least mean that one has been taught the proper scientific method and the current theory. Unfortumately Creationist websites are NOT a relible source and therefore are not a substitute for the real thing.

BTW, have you been to China? or Mongolia? Have you personally visited all of the Dinosaur mass assembledge sites?

Have you also considered all the other dinosaur fossils that are NOT in mass burial sites? Were these a by product of the flood also? Lone dinosaur fossils are found in a variety of rock/sediment types of which only a handful are water deposited.

Please answer how a global flood would cause a fossil to be preserved within a terriginous aoelian sandstone? Do you not agree with the near 100% majority of Geological experts that oncur that such deposits represent paleo-desert environments?

If you have any evidence to the contrary, why not publish in an academic peer reviewed journal? From the way you are talking you appear to have plenty of first hand evidence, so why not present it to the world?

View Post


Ok, I shall try and answer some of your questions.

No, I have not been to China, or Mongolia, but If I could ever get outside of the states they would be on my to do list.

I don't occaisonally go to creationist websites, I usually go to evolutionist websites with massive geological maps and statistics that are mapped out quite well I might add.

I do go to creationist websites sometimes, but I do find that their information is extremely reliable, especially when the information is not hand-me down, like most evolutionist websites.

Well, I do find it hard for sandstone to form on its own without some form of water. Rocks don't just harden without the right types of conditions. Sandstone is a common sedimentary rock.

Just look at Zion Canyon, in Utah which has many fossils. I highly doubt that the sediments were not laid down by water.

Even in Mongolia, Evolutionist chime all day at how it most likey was a sandstorm. I say no, I say it was most likely a great flood, but seeing as how we are both assuming as to how these fossils were formed. I believe the evidence stacks in favour of a Global Flood, because Global Flood evidence is found globally.

Also, no amount of classroom time is worth as much as actual hands on experience, and this is actually what most universities expect. They prepare one for the real hands on part, but the actual hands on part must be done, either before class, after class, or during class. Most evolutionist I meet really don't bother with actually going out and searching for fossils. Most of their time is reserved for making assumptions based on textbook heresay.

#37 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 10 March 2009 - 12:34 PM

Even in Mongolia, Evolutionist chime all day at how it most likey was a sandstorm.  I say no, I say it was most likely a great flood, but seeing as how we are both assuming as to how these fossils were formed.  I believe the evidence stacks in favour of a Global Flood, because Global Flood evidence is found globally.

View Post


Actually I am not assuming anything...I have science and observation on my side:

Aeolian sandstones exhibit very unique characteristics due to the movement of sand grains by wind power. These characteristics include the appearance of the individual sandgrains, the variety of sand grains and the bedforms shown by the sandstone, all of which result from deposition by wind.

Individual grains often have very smooth surfaces and are well rounded, as well being very spherical. These features are a result of multiple grain-on-grain collisions whilst being carried along by the wind.

Grains within an individual sand layer can also exhibit a very limited size range. This good sorting of grains occurs because wind is very effective at removing any particles that are fine enough to be carried.

Aeolian sandstones often also show very clear cross-bedding which can be used to infer the direction of prevailing wind when the sand was being transported. Such cross bedding can typically show preserved relic sand dunes, known as "dune cross bedding". This cross-beddding is very unique as the angle of repose of dry sand is around 32degrees (the angle of the face of a sand dune) and can easily be proven in the field (modern day Sahara desert) or else in the lab (pile of dry sand). Its important to realise that this angle of repose is different to that of water lain sand/sediments (different fluid regime) and is therefore a unique identifier of the aolian environment.

A well trained geologist would easily be able to distinguish between an aeolian sandstone and a shallow/deep water sand deposit as each has unique characteristics (Mineral content is also a good identifier, but is not something I will go into here).

It is therefore clear that the burial history/palaeo environment of such rocks and correspondingly the dinosaur bones within is not in any doubt; such sediments were NOT desposited in a global flood.

#38 Crispus

Crispus

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Florida

Posted 10 March 2009 - 01:10 PM

Hi Crispus,Welcome to the forum and thanks for the link.


Thanks and your welcome.

Dinosaur mass death assembledges occur in a variety of rocks. Addmiditly some are water deposited (river flood plains, lakes) however lots are also terrestrial in origin. There are lots are large dinsour bones dating from the Cretaceous in what is the modern day Gobi region of Mongolia. Like today, this region was once an arid desert and the fossils are found preserved within Aeolian sandstones (wind blown) of the type found today in modern deserts. Such animals, once dead, would have been consumed quickly by sandstorms thereby preserving the animals  quickly for subsequent fossilisation.

There are many more examples, so please do not make sweeping statements about  it being "obvious that is was caused by a world wide flood".


Pdw, some massive dinosaurs, weighing thirty tons or more, were fossilized through rapid burial from a flood. What force of water could have buried and fossilized those dinosaurs if not a flood at least on the scale of the Lake Missoula flood? Is there physical evidence of floods that buried and fossilized these massive creatures like that we see from the Lake Missoula flood?

#39 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 10 March 2009 - 01:19 PM

Sand dunes don't take thousands of years to move. They don't even take hundreds. By evostandards, such burials would be "rapid". They might be dry (I haven't investigated enough to say) but they're certainly not "slow".

#40 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 10 March 2009 - 03:26 PM

Actually I am not assuming anything...I have science and observation on my side:

Aeolian sandstones exhibit very unique characteristics due to the movement of sand grains by wind power. These characteristics include the appearance of the individual sandgrains, the variety of sand grains and the bedforms shown by the sandstone, all of which result from deposition by wind.

Individual grains often have very smooth surfaces and are well rounded, as well being very spherical. These features are a result of multiple grain-on-grain collisions whilst being carried along by the wind.

Grains within an individual sand layer can also exhibit a very limited size range. This good sorting of grains occurs because wind is very effective at removing any particles that are fine enough to be carried.

Aeolian sandstones often also show very clear cross-bedding which can be used to infer the direction of prevailing wind when the sand was being transported. Such cross bedding can typically show preserved relic sand dunes, known as "dune cross bedding". This cross-beddding is very unique as the angle of repose of dry sand is around 32degrees (the angle of the face of a sand dune) and can easily be proven in the field (modern day Sahara desert) or else in the lab (pile of dry sand). Its important to realise that this angle of repose is different to that of water lain sand/sediments (different fluid regime) and is therefore a unique identifier of the aolian environment.

A well trained geologist would easily be able to distinguish between an aeolian sandstone and a shallow/deep water sand deposit as each has unique characteristics (Mineral content is also a good identifier, but is not something I will go into here).

It is therefore clear that the burial history/palaeo environment of such rocks and correspondingly the dinosaur bones within is not in any doubt; such sediments were NOT desposited in a global flood.

View Post


You clearly do not know what your talking about. I will explain, because clearly you are going forth through massive amounts of assumptions.

You completely forgot that Aeolin sandstone is shaped by the wind... not deposited by the wind, there isn't that much evidence that it was actually brought about by wind. And no you cannot reproduce this in a lab... sorry but your tiny little dreams at this little suedo scientific attempt has utterly failed.

Geologist assume that this sandstone was carried by the wind. ASSUMED not Witnessed.

Such sediments are clearly Water induced because the sand will absolutely NOT stick together on it's own, moisture must be a factor and you know it. Take a sample from the hardened rock around the fossil and it most likely will not contain rounded off sand particles, if it does, then the habitat the dinosaur died was most likely a desert to begin with before the flood, but I highly doubt this is the case.

I just read in my Geology book that these sediments are first deposited by either a flood or river....




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users