Summations Only

But it isn't drying out, is it? Nor is it lithifying. How long do prints last on modern beaches? After days and days of 'drying' would they survive the rain, wind, and of course the next wave? Or it could just be bona fide, fruitcake silly.

So, sedimentology is taught in Christianity?Sorry, Faith, but it is only your own peculiar statements that we find as silly. So Peter knew that the idea of a global flood was silly?

The cognitive dissonance must be immense.I guess we can't say that 'it is what it is' anymore.It is what 'Faith wants it to be'.In one case, we have the Grand Canyon rocks easily eroded away by thousands of feet (and then become lithified later). And in a second case we have freshly deposited sands that harden enough in one hour to withstand the constant attack of sea waves. And then, those sands can also survive the onrush of a flood surge that will carry tons of sand, silt and gravel and yet still contain fragile footprints.Hey, it makes sense to me.If Faith's scenario is different from this, she needs describe the situation better. But I don't see the alternatives. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Nonsense, we have provided you with examples of modern fossilization processes.You can believe what you want, but expect us to dissent. Actually, mass die-offs are pretty common. ​Mass animal deaths on the rise worldwide - CBS NewsBesides, how do you know that they are all moving at the same time?And why are they not 'jumbled up' with all species of dinosaurs? So, you are saying that Faith's incredulity indicates that something is impossible?Do you know how many times that has been shown to be faulty reasoning throughout history?

Please explain these chemical reactions.And it happens even now. ​Mass animal deaths on the rise worldwide - CBS NewsAnd it is found throughout the fossil record. So why is it not normal?

Sure. Many species are colonial. Others die and accumulated under local conditions of currents or chemical conditions. There are probably scores of reasons for this.

That was the question to you.Why do we find only the very specific dinosaur communities related to the late Cretaceous in the Lance Formation?If this was a global event that killed all dinosaurs at once and the flood was collecting all of the fossils, why do we not see stegosaurs in with the select late Cretaceous fossils?That's hardly 'jumbled up' dinosaur fossil beds. They seem to be very well sorted according to species.

Nonsense. We've known about various mass kills and strandings and bone beds for centuries. Because sediments accumulate very specific places. Without them, there would be no fossils. And sediments today are still accumulating fossils.Why do you ask this question?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

So, you are saying that only one community was affected at any one time?Of all the Lance Formation (which is found in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, Saskatchewan and Alberta) and its equivalents, there was only one dinosaur community?Sure, no problem at all! Actually, if you look at the data, there are hundreds of mass kills every year across the planet. Various populations of bats, birds, fish, pigs, bees, you name it. But they are all from the modern animal communities. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Did I ever say that they were 'the norm'?They are common in the fossil record and in modern times as well. Because the occurred at different times. Including the present.

You were asked first. By more than one person.But since you are not courteous enough to respond, I will try.It is because the Lance Formation occurred at a specific time during dinosaur evolution.

I think it would be a mistake to say that all or even most fossils are found in 'groups'. My comment was only that it is not unusual. That is to say that a flood is not necessary to create such collections of fossils.

Well, mass fossilization could occur with mass deaths. Your logic eludes me. So, it isn't the flood.I'm glad we cleared that up.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

So, the only dinosaurs of a feather in the entire area of the Lance Formation were of just one set? That would include Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, Saskatchewan and Alberta. No stegosaurs? No apatosaurs? No allosaurs?Sorry, not buying. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I think I'll do that as soon as we get into the 18th century.