|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fossilisation is rare, so .... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: Actually, it was a herd of maiasaurs, there were no signs of predators or predation. Most importantly Horner's conclusions were, as Joe rightly remembers, that the Maiasuar's had been killed and then a flood had moved their bones long after the dying event. And floods, even catastrophic ones, aren't uncommon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Actually, it was a herd of maiasaurs, there were no signs of predators or predation. Most importantly Horner's conclusions were, as Joe rightly remembers, that the Maiasuar's had been killed and then a flood had moved their bones long after the dying event. And floods, even catastrophic ones, aren't uncommon.[/B][/QUOTE] Most of the better dinosaur fossil finds are in fluvial sedimentary rocks such as the Morrison Fm. That is one reason why they are so often confused with flood deposits. [This message has been edited by edge, 05-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
In any case, MP, many fossil graveyards record complete (ordered) skeletons. I still find it hard to believe Horner was talking about 'random bones' but if you say he was I'll take your word for it.
I've certainly heard many times of all types of dinoasurs (herbivore/carnivore) on top of each other but intact. With that in mind, you can imagine rivers, I'll imagine flood channels - both fluvial. ------------------You are go for TLI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
TB,
No comment on message 16? Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: I don't know what you mean by random bones. Here is what Horner said: "... nor did it make sense that a heard (sic) of living animals buried in mud would end up with all their skeletons disarticulated." They were not complete ordered specimens, but disarticulated skeletons, with the bones lying east-west and the small bones separated from the large bones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, some do and some don't. It isn't necessary to assume that all sites are the same. However, many, if not most, dinosaur fossil sites consist of scattered, disarticulated and sometimes broken bones. I have seen several such sites. Why do you think that they originally had the wrong skull for the (at that time) brontosaurus? But you are confusing me. I thought that creationists used the broken and disarticulated fossils as evidence for the flood.
quote: I have not actually heard of this. (Here it comes!) Can you document it? What do you mean by 'on top of each other?' Where do they occur so 'many times?' Can you give us your interpretation?
quote: Well, rivers do flood. This is something we have actually seen. Not a myth. And actually, you might want to look up a definition of 'fluvial,' unless you wish to redefine that term also.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Edge/TB,
I was at the Natural History museum (London), where there is a fossil protoceratops (i think), & velociraptor next to each other. The museum claimed this was the only known fossils of dinosaur combat. It may now be dated info, but I doubt the situations changed that much. That said, I'm not sure I would expect many meals to be taken whilst drowning was being avoided, non? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: Well they were presumably of the same "baramin" which means they could interbreed, so perhaps they were ... No no, I won't go there at this time of the morning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Fair enough MP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Mark, all I can tell you is that we have a documented mechanism for creating 'generations' of fossilized forests. If you don't want to consider it possible becasue of 'the details' that's fine with me. I am not an expert on those details and I find the very rapid dismisals of creationist ideas (rather than OK - it could be possible) evidence of your biases.
If you guys can't even imagine soils being washed into a forest deposit then I think you (not necessarily you Mark) are obviously not willing to understand the other viewpoint. I have no problem with you pointing out miriad problems but if they were prefaced with 'it's not completely impossible but' it would lead to more sensible debate. Most beds around the world are marine so statistically they will end up on the bottom more often. And catastrophic inundations of the land by sea will deposit the terrestial beds in one place and the rest is obviouly going to be marine until a deper surge comes. Hence alternate arine/non-marine beds. And why should we get a 'jumbled mess of tees' in our model? Austin showed that the trees sink vertically and insert in mud and will stay vertical especially under catastrophic circumstances of non-stop deposition. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Mark, all I can tell you is that we have a documented mechanism for creating 'generations' of fossilized forests. [/QUOTE] Could you please reiterate these for us? I do not remember you providing this or documenting it.
quote: Sure, let's ignore the details.
quote: Maybe it's because of the details??? Perhaps we know the details that simply prohibit your scenario.
quote: Where has this come up before? I don't remember soils washing into a forest. Seems to me that the soil would then be deposited on top of soil...
quote: It would also lead to a more sensible debate if you tried to counter some of the points made against you rather than ignoring them.
quote: I guess.
quote: As I have suggested above, this reference to Austin shows that you are not really that familiar with the mainstream literature. My guess is that you have read a LOT more of the creationist websites or papers than the mainstream. How long do you think that those trees remain vertical?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 1/ I never prefaced anything with 'it's completely impossible', either You asked me to believe that sinking trees with root systems & soil attached explained rooted, in situ fossil trees. I merely pointed out an expected global prediction of such an occurrence re. Fossils in the GC. I don’t deny such a phenomena exists, just that it is insufficient to explain the evidence. It is up to your model to provide the answers. I shouldn't have to preface everything with "it's not completely impossible, but". 2/ Your model lives & dies on the details. 3/ Please present the documented mechanism for creating successive forests. 4/ regarding bias, I am biased in favour of the theory that explains the most evidence, that is not contradicted elsewhere. I am concerned that creationist models will overlook those details. So, that documented mechanism please. Now, the soils..
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/forests.htm You are saying that the soils are transported & washed in. Retallack also commented on Fritz's (1980) paper, stating that "there are at least some cases of petrified tree stumps unquestionably in place," with roots penetrating incipient soils horizons that, "compared to previous accounts, are suprisingly well differentiated" (p. 52). In his reply to Retallack, Fritz (1981, p. 54) again stated: Tall upright trees with unbroken trunks. narrow root systems, and intact roots penetrating the substrate were apparently preserved were they grew. Unlike the tall in situ trees, many upright stumps have short trunks and roots broken prior to burial in a conglomerate with no organic zone, weathering profile, or color change. The bark of these trees is rarely preserved, owing to abrasion So, two types of upright trees have been identified, short trunk, abraded examples indicative of transported uprights, & long trunk examples with root systems penetrating SOIL HORIZONS. The cretaceous McRea formation in New Mexico Bucl and Mack (1995) describe large in situ trees in fluvial deposits of the McRae Formation. The McRae Formation in south-central New Mexico is about 420m thick, and consists of two members, the Jose Creek and the Hall Lake. The formation is of latest Cretaceous age, based upon the included dinosaur fauna. The formation is rich in paleosols (at least 26), many of which contain in situ tree trunks.14 paleosols, from 45-150m thick, are recognized in the Jose Creek Member. These are classified as argillisols, http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agl/agll/prosoil/argic . These display well-developed soil horizonation (A-E-Bt-Bc-C), and soil structures such as blocky peds and clay cutans. Downward bifurcating, downward-tapering root traces are abundant, some of which are silicified (root petrifactions). Several of these paleosols are blanketed by ash-fall tuffs burying tree stumps up to 1.7m! in diameter, with preerved large roots penetrating and cross-cutting the underlying palesol horizons (see fig. 5). 12 paleosols are recognized in the overlying Hall Lake Member, from 70-450cm thick. These are classified as calcisols, http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agl/agll/prosoil/calc.htm and vertic calcisols . Soil horizons and soil structures are well-developed, and at least one paleosol includes a "massive, well-indurated bed of pedogenic calcrete up to 4m thick," which indicates a very advanced stage of calcisol development. Calcisols are diagnostic of semi-arid environments. What are well defined soil horizons doing in a fossil forest if the soils were washed in?
quote: So why do those trees move in the first place if they can remain rooted under catastrophic conditions of non-stop deposition? What you seem to be saying is that only trees that have been uprooted & then deposited elsewhere, can be held in place. If what you say is true, it seems reasonable that many trees are going to remain rooted in pre-flood soils, where are they? This phenomena should indicate a clear boundary between pre-flood, & flood deposits. Those pesky details again.. You will get a jumbled mess of trees in your model because trees will not fall next to each other, they will fall on top of each other, overlapping etc. (as well as next to each other), meaning the complete layers seen at specimen ridge should not exist, as the rooted paleosols that came WITH the trees will penetrate the conglomerate layer. Also, as the surge abates, why are marine organisms not deposited on top of the terrestrial forests stuck in place. Surely those conglomerates would be full of dense shelly marine fauna? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Hey, TB, howzabout wandering over to my "flowering plants and the Flood" thread in this topic and seeing what you can do with it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PeterW Guest |
The point I was trying to make is that (I'll try to be more
clear):: Fossilisation is either rare ... or it isn't. Everyone here tends to agree that fossilisation IS a rareoccurrence requiring very specific environmental conditions (not simply burrial). The two scenarios (as I understand it) are:: 1) All/most fossilised specimens are the result of burrials in flooddeposits during the Great Flood. According to TC, anything hitting bottom would be fossilised. OR 2) Fossilised specimens found were laid down over millions ofyears locally WHEN conditions were favourable. Under scenario 1) I would expect to see very few fossilisedspecimens of ALL animals in existence at the time of the flood. My reasoning for this is that the environmental conditions for fossilisation, while helped by a flood, are none-the-less quiterare. Encountering such conditions within the flood year (or so) would be expected to result in few (rare) fossilisation events. Under scenario 2) I would expect to find few fossils of particular,short-lived species, many of longer lived species, and many fossils over-all. Reasoning:: Given sufficient time, even a rare event can occurra high number of times. If a species is long lived, then many generations are available for fossilisation (when the conditions are right), while shorter lived species are not. Overall, many fossils would be found if an extended time period was involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
There's little evidence to demonstrate that, in some beds at the very least, one might not even get every vertebrate creature fossilised in a catastrophic situation. Why not (in some beds at least)? What are these 'special conditions' other than burial? Teach me.
In the field, in many beds we can see ripple marks in every every square foot of every layer! You think we wouldn't be able to find evidence a fish was rapidly buried there if it was? I think you're just finding it hard to
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024