Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,919 Year: 4,176/9,624 Month: 1,047/974 Week: 6/368 Day: 6/11 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do we only find fossils?
mick
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 15 of 136 (258298)
11-09-2005 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
11-09-2005 7:11 PM


Hi Yaro
yaro writes:
If all the fossils we find are only 6,000 years old, then how come we always find them as fossils? That is to say, we never find any non-fossilized dinosaur bones, trilobite shells, pakicitus skeletons
Fossils were created by the sediments that washed over carcasses during the Great Flood. It is well known that fossils can be formed extremely rapidly under the right conditions.
The flood was so powerful that it destroyed all organic life; only bones that happened to be fossilized left a trace of their existence. So all we see now are fossils of species that were destroyed in the flood. Individuals that weren't fossilized were blasted into smithereens.
Dinosaurs, for example, failed to get onto the ark, and their organic material was completely destroyed by the flood, only their fossils remain.
Mick
PS. It's fun being a creationist!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 7:11 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Whirlwind, posted 11-10-2005 10:03 AM mick has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 21 of 136 (258304)
11-09-2005 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
11-09-2005 8:36 PM


Dinosaurs existed in "modern times"?
randman writes:
I do think there is evidence dinosaurs lived longer than people think and some have been around in modern times. Wasn't there that species found a few years back that scientists had said had been extinct for 65 million years?
Hello again, randman,
Please elaborate. What is the evidence and what do you mean by "modern times"? I know there are so-called "fossil species" but they aren't actually dinosaurs (the coelocanth, for example, is a fish, isn't it?). Is there a "living fossil" dinosaur in the same way that there is a "living fossil" fish?
I guess this is on topic because we're talking about the likelihood of a "living fossil" being "actually fossilized" or not. But for the sake of the mods' sanity let's avoid the "are living fossils really living fossils" debate which I think is going on elsewhere.
Cheers!
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 8:36 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2005 8:52 PM mick has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 110 of 136 (258901)
11-11-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Belfry
11-09-2005 9:33 PM


Partial fossilization
Hi Belfry,
Belfry writes:
The T-rex soft tissue find has been widely misunderstood (and misreported on some creationist websites). The soft tissue was fossilized when it was found. The minerals were then carefully removed, and the tissues were then recognizable (though much degraded; last I heard it was hopeful, but not certain, that there might still be some intact proteins to be found).
Do you know if this kind of partial fossilization is common in other groups of animals? I guess if fossilization is a slow gradual process, then there has to be a point in every fossilization event where the object is a mixture of mineral and soft tissue. I wonder how long this stage would last.
Thanks for the info.
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Belfry, posted 11-09-2005 9:33 PM Belfry has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024