Fossilisation is rare, so ....

If fossilisation is rare, and occurs only in very
limited/particular environmental circumstances,
how can one explain the large numbers of fossils found
unless they have been being deposited over a very, very
long period of time ?

"If fossilisation is rare, and occurs only in very
limited/particular environmental circumstances,
how can one explain the large numbers of fossils found
unless they have been being deposited over a very, very
long period of time ? "
--Burry them in a short period of time. Silly! ------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"If fossilisation is rare, and occurs only in very
limited/particular environmental circumstances,
how can one explain the large numbers of fossils found
unless they have been being deposited over a very, very
long period of time ? "
--Burry them in a short period of time. Silly!

​

---

JM: That was a no-brainer. I think the question was poorly worded CheersJoe Meert

"JM: That was a no-brainer. I think the question was poorly worded "
--I had to do alot of research to answer that one. Peter may have been going for something else. Peter?------------------

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. 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.------------------
You are go for TLI

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. 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.

​

---

But no fossil trees at the bottom of the GC. Let me remind you, you have a video showing sinking trees, still rooted. Given that large fossil plants can't be considered rare, don't you find it odd that there are no tree fossils at the bottom of the GC? Don't you also find it odd that gymnosperms appear before angiosperms in the fossil record, yet both produce both small plants to large trees?But one thing ata a time.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-17-2002]

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 edge:
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.

---

JM: Not only that, but in the midst of the flood (Jurassic), we have beetles boring through dinosaur bones that were just dead and lying around. They were lying on the surface long enough to feed two generations of beetles. That is to say nothing of fossilized bees and termites and the development of Mesozoic soil ecosystems on land!CheersJoe Meertref:
Hasiotis, S. 2000. The invertebrate invasion and evolution of mesozoic soil ecosystems: the ichnofossil record of ecological innovations, Paleon. Soc. Pap., v 6, 141-169Hasiotis and Fiorello, 1999. Preliminary report on borings in Jurassic dinosaur bones: evidence for invertebrate-vertebrate interactions, Utah Geol. Surv, Misc Publ. 99-1, 193-200.

"JM: Not only that, but in the midst of the flood (Jurassic), we have beetles boring through dinosaur bones that were just dead and lying around. They were lying on the surface long enough to feed two generations of beetles. That is to say nothing of fossilized bees and termites and the development of Mesozoic soil ecosystems on land!CheersJoe Meertref:
Hasiotis, S. 2000. The invertebrate invasion and evolution of mesozoic soil ecosystems: the ichnofossil record of ecological innovations, Paleon. Soc. Pap., v 6, 141-169Hasiotis and Fiorello, 1999. Preliminary report on borings in Jurassic dinosaur bones: evidence for invertebrate-vertebrate interactions, Utah Geol. Surv, Misc Publ. 99-1, 193-200."
--Might there be an online reference of some sort for this, sounds interesting, though unfortunately my spectrum of accessible texts is limited. (more directly, the boreholes)------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-18-2002]

Mark: the lower levels of the GC are marine. Not many trees expected there! I guess you're talking terrestial beds? Tell me about them.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-19-2002]

Edge I recently saw on TV one of the worlds most eminent dinosaur paleontologists (Horner?) saying that the dinosaur graveyards were undoubtedly huge flood events. And I'm not saying that proves Noah, it's just suggestive.We think that the view of dinosaurs on huge desert plains is wrong - becasue most dinaosaur fossils found in our opinions are on deluged escape routes not habitats. Same reason why not many eggs are found where the fossils are found etc.We actually do have a point you know. Our model does explain some things very neatly although I am yet to see an evolutionist admit it.------------------
You are go for TLI

Those are good points Joe (on bettles/bones) that the flood geologists have to answer.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-19-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Edge I recently saw on TV one of the worlds most eminent dinosaur paleontologists (Horner?) saying that the dinosaur graveyards were undoubtedly huge flood events. And I'm not saying that proves Noah, it's just suggestive. [/QUOTE]JM: Be careful. Horner is one of the more 'misquoted' scientists. I think the 'quote' floating around creationist websites makes it sound as if they were killed in a flood. My recollection of the book is that Horner concluded the dinosaurs were all killed during a volcanic eruption and that there bones were later washed away in a flood. Unfortunately, I know longer have the book. I do know that it has been misquoted NUMEROUS times to suggest that the dinosaurs were killed in a flood when this is NOT what Horner concludes.CheersJoe Meert

I saw this about a month ago on Australian TV and these were not miscellaneous bones. It was 'complete sauropods on top of complete T-Rex (like) skeltons' etc. We'll see, but a I'm sure sure you know that many of the worlds best fossil sites are graveyards with completely preserved (intact) skeletons. In our model we know what happened.------------------
You are go for TLI

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark: the lower levels of the GC are marine. Not many trees expected there! I guess you're talking terrestial beds? Tell me about them.

​

---

Why are they marine? You have sinking trees! Surely you would get marine & terrestrial fossils mixed in, right at the bottom of the GC!You told me that you have a video of sinking trees, with root systems attached, & asserted this as an alternative explanation of successive layers of fossil forests, that contain rooted trees. However, those same sinking trees will be found all around the world at the bottom of the GC, alongside all the shelly fauna, I might add.Why is this not found?Another point is that this doesn't explain that the layers at specimen ridge show successive, COMPLETE layers of soil, separated by a conglomerate, not a jumbled mess of trees laying on top of each other with no conglomerate inbetween, which is what we would expect if your video were indicative of reality when these forests were "laid down". Also, in formations such as that found at specimen ridge, wouldn't hydrodynamic sorting put the rooted, sinking examples at the bottom, the sheared off trunks would float & be carried off around the world in the turbulent flood waters, meaning fossil forests such as this wouldn't occur AT ALL? This is a global catastrophism, not a local flood, & surely any volcanoes would be non-terrestrial at that time too?So,1. Why are there no trees at the bottom of the GC, if they sink.2. How does your video explain the nature of the layering at specimen ridge?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-20-2002]