Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Creation Website For Children
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 41 (496031)
01-25-2009 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wheely
01-25-2009 6:38 PM


Here's another one for the frauds and hoax files ...
Hi Wheely, welcome to the fray,
Wheely's garbled garbage in garbled garbage out website article on Nicolas Steno
quote:
Moreover, even if it was possible that the wildlife & natural elements did not effect the sharks skeletal remains, (impossible but lets pretend that it is possible), entropy would destroy the sharks remains.
WOW. imean WOW.
Nicolas Steno - Wikipedia
quote:
Nicolas Steno (Danish: Niels Stensen; latinized to Nicolaus Stenonis) (11 January 1638 - 25 November 1686) was a pioneer in both anatomy and geology. Already in 1659 he decided not to accept anything simply written in a book, instead resolving to do research himself.[2] He is considered the father of geology and stratigraphy.[1]
In October 1666 two fishermen caught a huge female shark near the town of Livorno, and Ferdinando II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, ordered its head to be sent to Steno. Steno dissected the head and published his findings in 1667. He noted that the shark's teeth bore a striking resemblance to certain stony objects, found embedded within rock formations, that his learned contemporaries were calling glossopetrae or "tongue stones". ... Fabio Colonna, however, had already shown in a convincing way that glossopetrae are shark teeth[5], in his treaty De glossopetris dissertatio published in 1616[6]. Steno added to Colonna's theory a discussion on the differences in composition between glossopetrae and living sharks' teeth, arguing that the chemical composition of fossils could be altered without changing their form, using the contemporary corpuscular theory of matter.
Steno, in his Dissertationis prodromus of 1669 is credited with three of the defining principles of the science of stratigraphy: the law of superposition: "...at the time when any given stratum was being formed, all the matter resting upon it was fluid, and, therefore, at the time when the lower stratum was being formed, none of the upper strata existed"; the principle of original horizontality: "Strata either perpendicular to the horizon or inclined to the horizon were at one time parallel to the horizon"; the principle of lateral continuity: "Material forming any stratum were continuous over the surface of the Earth unless some other solid bodies stood in the way"; and the principle of cross-cutting discontinuities: "If a body or discontinuity cuts across a stratum, it must have formed after that stratum."[7] These principles were applied and extended in 1772 by Jean-Baptiste L. Romé de l'Isle. Steno's landmark theory that the fossil record was a chronology of different living creatures in different eras was a sine qua non for Darwin's theory of natural selectionhttp://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Messages.cgi.
Gosh, you might have learned something of VALUE if your actually read a 340 year old book ....
I hope this is the right place to place my website.
A better place is: FSTDT
If you want a good place for it on this forum, can I suggest we cut to the chase and post it at Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes ?
The question is whether you have the guts to stick around and try to defend your use of falsehoods and misinformation to delude children, especially as just a LITTLE study would show you that what you post was worthless gibberish.
Your website is a fraud.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : sausage
Edited by RAZD, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 6:38 PM Wheely has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 41 (496034)
01-25-2009 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Granny Magda
01-25-2009 9:24 PM


Re: Whoops!
Hey Granny Magda
So... What do the evolutionists say? Is it the tendons, or the ridiculously funny claim about a last gulp of air? I challenge you to show me a single example of serious scientist claiming this latter one.
How can you tell when information is posted from a creationist website?
....... When it is profoundly wrong.
How can you tell when a person talking about evolution is a creationist?
....... When they make silly claims.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Granny Magda, posted 01-25-2009 9:24 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 10 of 41 (496044)
01-25-2009 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Wheely
01-25-2009 10:32 PM


Obviously you do NOT have the guts to stick around and defend your garbage
Hello Wheely,
Okay well that is it and one last response to Razd: This long post should be evident that I do have the guts to stand my ground.
This will be my last post, so please don’t expect any more rebuttals from me. I am much to busy.
Curiously, saying that you are running away after posting another bunch of gibberish and more links make you
(a) spammer, and
(b) NOT someone with the guts to defend your GARBAGE.
Razd, if I may suggest when you rebut someone by using their arguments, respond to their argument. My argument with regards to the Nicholas Steno page was that entropy would have destroyed the sharks teeth long before evolution had the chance to grow the mountains over the course of millions and billions of years.
Your response consisted of quoting me a segment from Wikipedia, which by ended up proving my point, so thanks.
No, child, the wiki article shows that your picture is a lie, you say on the picture that the fossil tooth was from the sharks head in the picture, which is actually the diagram from the one he dissected and then used to show that the tooth from that head was similar to the fossil found in the rock.
You also said that he found a skeleton. This to is a lie, he found a tooth.
You also said several other things that are false. Every page I read had false information and silly ignorant arguments.
Your argument mentions entropy and conflates it with some silly concept about destroying evidence, but you give no evidence for how this occurs. All you have is an argument from ignorance.
If you don't stick around I am going to suggest that admin treat your posts as spam trying to divert traffic to your website.
That you think the wiki article proves your point then you do not understand it. There is a section of it that is pertinent:
QUOTE:
***
“Steno dissected the head and published his findings in 1667. He noted that the shark's teeth bore a striking resemblance to certain stony objects, found embedded within rock formations, that his learned contemporaries were calling glossopetrae or "tongue stones". ... Fabio Colonna, however, had already shown in a convincing way that glossopetrae are shark teeth[5], in his treaty De glossopetris dissertatio published in 1616 [6]. Steno added to Colonna's theory a discussion on the differences in composition between glossopetrae and living sharks' teeth, arguing that the chemical composition of fossils could be altered without changing their form, using the contemporary corpuscular theory of matter.”
***
What the highlighted section shows is that there was mineral replacement of the molecules in the fossil. Of course he wouldn't know about that, as he wrote the article in 1660, but you should ... if you knew what you were talking about. You don't.
The arrogance you have to think you should teach this kind of ignorance to children is despicable.
Enjoy.
ps - your website is still a fraud.
Edited by RAZD, : still

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 10:32 PM Wheely has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 13 of 41 (496051)
01-25-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Wheely
01-25-2009 10:32 PM


Just to be clear - you have not defended your silly argument at all
Wheely, Wheely, Wheely.
Instead of rebutting your arguments, I just thought I’d just give you my resources instead and let you preview them and argue with my friend.
Curiously (a) we can't argue with them here, (b) they are not YOUR arguments and (c) your task is to defend your arguments here or be treated as a hit and run spammer.
As he lectures he puts them on DVD to fund his ministry, (as many people do) but he also posts them on Youtube for free. Here are 19 of his 22 part series.
But this still doesn't explain why you think you need to lie to kids about evolution. You are telling lies.
You also betray a sever lack of judgment in being able to tell truth from fiction, whether it is a friend or not, and it appears that you have not ground-truthed your website against reality. That makes your site unreliable at best.
Furthermore, what are sharks doing in rock layers? The biblical World Wide Flood would put them there quite easily but according to you, an evolutionist, who thinks the bible is false probably wouldn’t agree with that. So . how would a shark get buried in rock layers?
If you really want to know the truth, which from all appearances you don't, I suggest you try reading up on it. You can start here: Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
You will note that the geological explanation covers all the evidence, not just individual fossils, but the layers on top of layers of marine deposits on mountains.
You will note that brachiopods and other similar organisms have a larval stage where the are free swimming before settling down. You will note that the shells of these animals show many years of growth rings.
A flood of less than one year does NOT explain this evidence of marine life on mountaintops.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 10:32 PM Wheely has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 41 (496101)
01-26-2009 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Wheely
01-26-2009 1:04 AM


Wheely, Wheely, Wheely
Just some quick notes, Wheely, I'll give you more later tonight.
I just wanted to clear the air. You said:
“...your task is to defend your arguments here or be treated as a hit and run spammer.”
I had never intended on getting into a debate.
Then this is the wrong forum for you. This forum is to debate the issues.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.
Message 14
I checked out your claim and you were right. That is the implication I gave via the picture. That is not what I intended to portray, but that is seemingly the impression it gave you and when I looked at it from your perspective I got that same conclusion. So, thanks for bringing that to my attention. What I wanted to imply what that the 'tooth' was from that type of shark, not 'that shark'. I corrected it.
Great, it shows a willingness to learn, unlike many people that come here, convinced that falsehoods such as those posted on your website are true in spite of evidence that contradicts it.
However, technically, it is still not correct. He compared the fossil tooth to the tooth from a modern shark to show that it was a sharks tooth, however it could have come from one of many different kinds of shark, not necessarily one that the modern shark descended from.
As for me ”running away’ because I don’t have a backbone and using the claim that I am busy as an excuse, is false. I could see how you could have derived that conclusion though.
Gosh, you said it was your last post. Twice. What gave me the idea that you really meant it was your last post?
“You also said that he found a skeleton”
No I didn’t. I know he found just teeth, but teeth are attached to a jawbone, which is attached to a skull which is attached to a body: a skeleton. I know he didn’t find a skeleton, ...
Sharks continually shed teeth throughout their lives. Thus you can find a lot of teeth and not expect to find a skeleton.
... but if shark’s teeth were on a mountain, then so was the rest of it at some point in time. So, therefore how did it get there, on the mountain embedded into rock layers?
Curiously, Nicholas Steno noted that it could not have been from one flood, because that does not explain the multiple layers of fossils.
Leonardo da Vinci came to the same conclusion
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html
There is also the problem of the kinds of different marine fossils found on mountaintops and deep inside mountains.
See Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? for a discussion of ALL the evidence of marine fossils on and in mountains.
I don’t know how to take the word ”Child’. Are you calling me a ”child’?
Speak like a child, take information without investigating the validity like a child, behave like a child and be treated as one.
You are in college: impression confirmed. This also means you do not have an education degree, and thus no basis to teach children.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : msg=-14

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Wheely, posted 01-26-2009 1:04 AM Wheely has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 41 (496196)
01-26-2009 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Wheely
01-25-2009 10:32 PM


Bits and Pieces of Mountains and Boreholes.
Hey Wheely, I've got a little free time now to pick up some of the bits and pieces. Hope you don't mind if I spend some time on this.
Message 9
The ”tongue stones’ were actually discovered to be sharks teeth, not stones.
Note that this is back when fossils were first being understood as evidence of past life, rather than as mystical objects. Science was not developed, and intellectual thought was just recovering from the dark ages.
Message 14 (recap)
No I didn’t. I know he found just teeth, but teeth are attached to a jawbone, which is attached to a skull which is attached to a body: a skeleton. I know he didn’t find a skeleton, but if shark’s teeth were on a mountain, then so was the rest of it at some point in time. So, therefore how did it get there, on the mountain embedded into rock layers?
As has been pointed out, sharks shed teeth continually and the skeletons of sharks are made of cartilage instead of bone. Cartilage is not as durable as bone and bone is not as durable as teeth. There are few fossils that have cartilage in them, and there are many cases where only teeth are found.
An open minded skeptic will not claim that something is there until he finds evidence of it, and we don't want to teach kids to jump to conclusions.
You highlighted a section then commented that Steno wouldn’t have known about the ”chemical composition of fossils’. If he didn’t know about it in 1660 then how was he able to comment on it?
...
It states that “Steno added to Colonna’s theory . ” by arguing the chemical composition. How could he argue something that he didn’t know about?
He was able to determine the chemical components of the fossils and see that they were different from the modern specimen. We now know that this process occurs by permineralization and replacement, but poor Nicholas did not have the benefit of that knowledge and figured out a significant part of it by himself.
Again, this is information that is 340 years old, from the rebirth of scientific thought.
So . how did a shark get buried in rock layers on mountains near Steno’s homeland? The argument that I have heard from an evolutionist is that they died and over the course of millions of years the sharks skeletons took a ride up, as the mountain grew via many tectonic plate activity.
Good question, and you appear to have some grasp of the answer.
The argument you will hear from evolutionists is that this is geology no evolution, and the evidence you will hear from geologists is that plate tectonics is the only theory that explains all the evidence of mountains and layers of rocks, and that they have been unable to find any evidence of a global flood.
We can measure these very same processes going on today in mountains and valleys all over the world, and guess what? Many mountains are still rising, and their rate of rise is sufficient to explain their height from the times their rocks are dated to be on a sea bottom.
There is evidence of marine life on almost every mountain, including everest, but the marine life is NOT evidence of a (less than a year duration) flood. Why?
Because (a) it involves life forms like Brachiopods that are born as a free moving larvae, but that settle on the bottom where they find a suitable habitat (not too silty, not too much current) and then they grow a clam-like bivalve on a rather fragile stalk attached permanently to the bottom - and without those conditions you would not have Brachiopods growing to form fossils in that location.
Because (b) once the Brachiopods have attached, they are not capable of moving about like clams, but can only continue to grow in place, which they do, getting bigger and forming annual rings like clams and trees and corals, and in these fossil deposits the brachipods range in ages from a few years to 30 or 40 years, as evidenced by the growth rings and sizes - a period of time much longer than any biblical (or other global) flood account I am aware of.
Because (c) the marine deposits preserve not only Brachipods with intact stalks, but intact delicate coral structures, things that show that the demise of these organisms was not cataclysmic.
Because (d) the marine deposits show complete and mature ecosystems, with burrowing worms and plant (seaweed) roots preserved by mineral casting, organisms which also take more than a year to grow.
Because (e) these marine deposits lie on top of other marine deposits, that lie on top of other marine deposits ... etc, etc, etc. and all showing peaceful mature marine ecologies with organisms that took much more than a single year to grow.
Because (f) these marine layers are continuous and cover large tracts of land, and the only disruption they show is due to the lifting process of plate tectonics, long after the sediments have become rock.
Because (g) you can sometimes find evidence of terrestrial life in between layers of marine life, layers with the same evidence of roots and burrows and small fossils to show that it too was a mature ecology that lasted many years before the sea once again covered this section of land.
The rational conclusion is that these layers were indeed underwater, but they were underwater for extensive periods of time, time measure in centuries and millenia, not once but several times, and only later did the land rise above sea level.
As noted previously, Leonardo da Vinci fingured out long ago that a single catastrophic flood did not fit the evidence, and that the marine fossils formed in a marine environment without a flood:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html
quote:
How did those shells come to lie at the tops of mountains? Leonardo's answer was remarkably close to the modern one: fossils were once-living organisms that had been buried at a time before the mountains were raised: "it must be presumed that in those places there were sea coasts, where all the shells were thrown up, broken, and divided. . ." Where there is now land, there was once ocean. It was possible, Leonardo thought, that some fossils were buried by floods -- this idea probably came from his observations of the floods of the Arno River and other rivers of north Italy -- but these floods had been repeated, local catastrophes, not a single Great Flood. To Leonardo da Vinci, as to modern paleontologists, fossils indicated the history of the Earth, which extends far beyond human records. As Leonardo himself wrote:
Since things are much more ancient than letters, it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries. . . But sufficient for us is the testimony of things created in the salt waters, and found again in high mountains far from the seas.

If you think a flood cause this evidence then please explain each detail listed above and then (for extra credit) show how flood water makes the sediment at the bottom rise up into mountains and suddenly become rock.
Message 16
You said:
“As for giant floods leaving the sharks teeth on mountains, there is absolutely no evidence for this.”
Yes there is! There is a smorgasbord of it! View the resources above; enjoy.
(1) I will point out a small pet peeve of mine: it is possible to find evidence to support any position you care to invent. For instance every road map is evidence of a flat earth - it shows the earth being flat.
When you only consider information that appears (or can be interpreted to) support your argument this is called Confirmation Bias:
Confirmation Bias (Wikipedia, 2009)
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.
Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.[1]
For an argument to be valid it must not only show that there is evidence supporting it, but that there is no known evidence contradicting it. If you just deny out of hand evidence that contradicts your argument without considering the validity of the argument, this is called Cognitive Dissonance:
Cognitive dissonance - (American Heritage Dictionary, 2009)
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
A powerful cause of dissonance is when an idea conflicts with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." This can lead to rationalization when a person is presented with evidence of a bad choice. It can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.
These are not tools used by open-minded skeptics to determine the truth of concepts.
(2) I don't debate information that is by someone not in the debate, and if you want to include this information, I suggest you ask your friend to participate. Strangely I doubt that he is any better prepared than you are to deal with the complete mountains of evidence for plate tectonics, the age of the earth, and the evolution of life over the last 3.5 billion years.
(3) when you present information like this instead of putting it in your own words, it appears that you are too lazy to summarize or present even a single argument. Perhaps you would like to pick one that you feel best presents the case.
I will repeat: there is no evidence of floods depositing things on tops of mountains. None. Nor do floods deposit sharks teeth (or any other fossil) inside rock. Nor do floods "make" rock. Nor do floods deposit things neatly. Floods deposit in the low points all jumbled together and sorted by relative density.
Message 16
The teeth that we are dealing with are fossilized teeth, as you pointed out. It is because the are fossilized that they won’t deteriorate, because a fossil is basically rock. However fossilization is a rapid process if you leave an animal out for it to be buried by sediments it would be composed before it becomes a rock. All of our fossils is due to Noah’s flood.
Curiously, your "rapid fossil formation" means you now need to explain the lack of the rest of the shark in this fossilization process. For fossilization to occur too fast for normal decay to decompose organic forms, then it must also fossilize the undecayed sharks.
Strangely, there is also no scientific evidence of water turning organic material into rock or mineral.
Message 20
Fossilization IS a rapid process.
Curiously, your opinion is completely unable to alter or change reality in any way. It cannot make chemical processes happen at a faster rate, nor keep nature from continuing to behave in the same natural manner as the last several billion years.
If an animal dies it will decompose before it is ever becomes fossilized.
Which, of course, is why fossils are rare rather than plentiful. The conditions that lead to fossilization include rapid burial, but they can also include different biochemical conditions: acidic (peat bog mummies), desert (natural mummies), ice (mammoths and Otzi), anaerobic lakes, etc etc etc. One cannot assume that decomposition always occurs, only that it normally does.
If an animal is left out in the elements, scavengers, ... will turn the animal into compost ...
Strangely, scavangers will eat the flesh and sometimes carry off or redistribute the bones, but they don't turn an animal into compost.
If an animal is left out in the elements, ... the elements ... ... will turn the animal into compost ...
Amusingly the elements have been shown to preserve organic material, either through desert dehydration, freezing, acidic sterilization, etc.
The elements are also not a process of decay, and they don't turn an animal into compost.
If an animal is left out in the elements, ... the natural process of entropy will turn the animal into compost ...
Interestingly, entrophy is not a biological process of decay. When you talk about entropy properly you are talking about the entropy of systems, such as of the sun and the planets, or of the universe. Entropy is the steady loss of energy. You can measure the entropy of decaying systems, but entropy is not causing that decay.
When you misuse words like this it shows an ignorance of science, not a knowledge of it. Science uses specific terms to mean specific things, and if you do not use those terms to mean the same things then you are not talking about the science, but some personal fantasy.
Entropy is not a "natural process" in biology related to decay and does not turn an animal into compost.
If an animal is left out in the elements, scavengers, the elements and the natural process of entropy will turn the animal into compost ...
So what are we left with? What is missing from this picture?
What turns an animal into compost is bacteria eating it, breaking down the proteins to use in building new bacterial organisms. We call this natural process decay. Any process that prevents bacterial decay will preserve organic matter for fossilization.
... before it can be slowly buried into sediment, which Evolution propounds: that over the course of millions of years, animals got slowly buried.
Nope. In many cases the evidence shows that the fossil was rapidly buried - and then fossilized over many years, as minerals replaced organic compounds.
Fossils can also form when dead organisms preserved from bacterial decay by other means.
You are correct that bones do last a long time and one thing that my friend says in the resources I provide above is that it has been scientifically proven that ”fish’ decompose within no time; that is days. To my recollection he doesn’t say how fast shark bones decompose, but sharks are fishes, so I am making an assumption that they also disintegrate very quickly; perhaps not as fast as say the fish in your fish tank will, but still very quickly. In addition, even though bones do take a fair length of time to disintegrate, I am pretty positive it doesn’t take millions of years, perhaps hundreds, but I highly doubt ”millions’ or even ”hundreds of thousands’. Furthermore in order for a shark to be buried it needs to be on the ground. When a shark dies it floats, just as any other fish. The sharks and every other sea creature that we see in the fossil record was deposited in the rocks and buried.
Babble. Ignorant babble. Silly ignorant babble, seeing as the structure of sharks has already been discussed.
Fish bones are bone, similar to the bone in your body. Sharks use cartilage, similar to the cartilage used in joints in our body. I've seen fish bones preserved on rocky ground (sea shore) for years. I've also seen them covered in sand, and then years later being uncovered. Bones don't "disintegrate" on their own.
I've also seen fishermen use dogfish sharks as crab bait. They sink, but even something that floats when it dies will sink when decay opens the body cavity and releases gases that cause the dead body to float. Even wood sinks in time. And many lakes and bays have anaerobic bottoms that preserve organic matter that sinks.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : words

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 10:32 PM Wheely 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