Mummified hadrosaur evidence of recent global flood

This was recently posted on Kent Hovind's website (currently being run by his son) and has been doing the rounds in creationist circles.The story: In 1999, a teenager named Tyler Lyson unearthed a rare find on his family's farm in North Dakota. It is the fossil of a hadrosaur which has been mummified, though to be more specific, the bones have been mineralised and the whole body is in an unusually excellent state of preservation, which includes skin and soft tissues. This find has recently been in the news because of the publication of a book by National Geographic, titled Grave Secrets of Dinosaurs: Soft Tissues and Hard Science. You can read more about it here, though the news story is easy to find in many places on the web.Hovind claims that due to the rare preservation of skin and mummification, the creature had to be buried "very rapidly, in flash flood conditions." And this could have happened 4,400 years ago during the Biblical global flood. The fossil was encased in siderite, which bears out the idea that the fossilisation occurred quickly. I also cannot find any information about possible radioisotope dating of rock surrounding the fossil.I'm going to play devil's advocate here. This hadrosaur fossil is excellent evidence of the Biblical global flood that occurred 4,400 years ago. The fossil is not millions of years old. Refutations welcome.Geology and the Great Flood?

Thanks Dr. A. I did a search on this topic before I started a new thread, typed in "hadrosaur" and "North Dakota." Maybe it didn't work because at least one person on the thread called it a "hydrosaur."Forgive my lack of scientific knowledge about fossils, I honestly tried to find some websites that would tell me about how this kind of fossil forms but couldn't find anything that wasn't full of scientific jargon, i.e. studies published in journals.Desiccation is the process of removing water from an object. How does that happen for a fossil which is actually created underwater, in the mud?

No. I'm not a creationist. I'm not even religious. I'm refuting creationists on another site and they posted this drivel. I thought I'd come here and throw it out, and give everyone some fun by trying to defend it from the scientifically ignorant point of view I keep encountering there. It won't be hard because I don't have any expertise in the process of fossilisation. What is your evidence that this DID happen? The earth is 6,000 years old and nothing about this fossil indicates that it has to be any older than that.

You evolutionists interpret the evidence one way only, all the time. You dig up a fossil and automatically assume that it is millions of years old because you won't accept any other possibility, i.e. THE WORD OF GOD IN THE BIBLE.Where is your proof that this fossil is millions of years old and that it DIDN'T get formed in the Noachian flood?(It's too easy to sound like them. Help, my brain is melting.)

Thanks for the info. Back to creationist mode.You are giving possibilities but it's clear you aren't certain of anything. You still haven't proved that this fossil WASN'T deposited in the global flood 4,400 years ago. The flash flooding was the Noachian flood, as the Bible says. Whatever. The point is that this process can occur rapidly and doesn't have to take your hypothetical millions of years. What do the uppermost parts of the formation have to do with fossils being deposited on the riverbed? And why do you seem to be assuming that Hell Creek had to have been formed at the same time that the hadrosaur died?(At this point, most creationists would probably say that paleomag and radioisotope dating are problematic and erroneous, but this is OT. I keep trying to pin them down on this myself but they are as slippery as eels in a barrel LOL.)

I wasn't able to find much detail about the area in which the fossil was found. It was in the upper part of the formation, clear on that now.Do you know if there are any volcanic strata near where the fossil was found that could help to give an absolute date? Creationists are fond of saying that fossils date rocks and rocks date fossils.For that matter, the sedimentary layer in which the fossil was found could be good evidence against the flood. For a global flood you'd expect a thick layer of sediment with a lot of "stuff" in it, rather than delicate deposition. The frustrating thing is there just doesn't seem to be much specific info about these things on the web.By the way, don't get hot under the collar. I am NOT a creationist. But I figured if I didn't take up their cause in this thread, it would die pretty quickly.

I agree. But the people I'm arguing with aren't exactly the most rational, logical people you could find. They would say that this fossil is potential evidence of a global flood unless proved otherwise, and also that it is potentially only a few thousand years old. Telling them that the burden of proof is on them isn't going to get them to do anything other than repeat the above. I was hoping there might be some convincing evidence I could present to them. An analysis of the rock in which the fossil was found maybe? If the paleomag dates came from strata above the fossil, that would help too.

Just wanted to let you know that I am still avidly reading. Thanks for the fascinating info. I have to say I was puzzled as to why the fossil has been called a mummy, when it sounded to me like an exceptionally well-preserved "normal" fossil.I love being able to come here and read messages from people who are actually involved in the cutting-edge science that creos know so little about, and criticise. I can't honestly say I can think of any more "comebacks" here, other than "you can't prove it isn't from a global flood," but the evidence given here is cumulatively strong enough to prove just that.I was going to go and have this debate with them but they're keeping me busy elsewhere. I believe it's called the Gish gallop LOL.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but how would this particular fossil have become desiccated? You think it was probably buried quickly. It was buried in sediment. To my knowledge, desiccation happens in a very dry environment. What am I missing here?