Fossilisation is rare, so ....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I know what Peter is getting at. he's trying to say that since fossilization is rare we shouldn't have so many fossils. The reason that isn't necessarily true is that in the flood model we do expect to get a lot of fossilization - it was rapidly buried by definition.

---

Precisely. In that case fossilization is NOT rare. Hence, in a way, Peter is correct.

quote:

---

In the gradualism case that isn't so but then they've got time on their side. So both groups have mechanism for fossil formation but IMO the flood model is far better and explains why we get fossil graveyards, fossils of animals giving birth, ofssils of animals devouring other animals and fossils of trees passing through hundreds of strata.

---

Actually, I expect fossils to exhibit in death all of the natural processes of life. I don't really expect to see them preparing a will. Do not modern animals sometime die in child birth? Do not some animals die choking on something they (recently) ate? Actually, everything you mention here is expected in the uniformitarianist viewpoint.

[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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.

---

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've certainly heard many times of all types of dinoasurs (herbivore/carnivore) on top of each other but intact.

---

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:

---

With that in mind, you can imagine rivers, I'll imagine flood channels - both fluvial.

---

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.

[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:

---

If you don't want to consider it possible becasue of 'the details' that's fine with me.

---

Sure, let's ignore the details.

quote:

---

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.

---

Maybe it's because of the details??? Perhaps we know the details that simply prohibit your scenario.

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

I guess.

quote:

---

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.

---

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.

---

Could you please rephrase this question?