Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
51 online now:
PaulK, ringo, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 885,056 Year: 2,702/14,102 Month: 367/703 Week: 20/168 Day: 20/21 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Make your own fossils in 10 years!
techristian
Member (Idle past 2965 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 1 of 20 (18208)
09-25-2002 2:54 AM


All it takes is

1)Quick burial.
2)Water, in the right amounts.
3)Suitable minerals.

It has already been done with chicken bones and it is estimated that anything the size of o dinosaur bone would take hundreds of years.

Dan
http://musicinit.com


  
techristian
Member (Idle past 2965 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 2 of 20 (18211)
09-25-2002 3:27 AM


A few interesting related links that I forgot.

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm

Encarta article below showing that fossils can be 10,000 years old.

Go to http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/home.aspx and type "FOSSILIZATION" into the MSN LEARNING AND reSEARCH engine.

[This message has been edited by techristian, 09-25-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Joe Meert, posted 09-25-2002 6:38 AM techristian has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4542 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 3 of 20 (18216)
09-25-2002 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by techristian
09-25-2002 3:27 AM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
A few interesting related links that I forgot.

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm

Encarta article below showing that fossils can be 10,000 years old.

Go to http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/home.aspx and type "FOSSILIZATION" into the MSN LEARNING AND reSEARCH engine.

[This message has been edited by techristian, 09-25-2002]


JM: You understand of course what Glen Morton is trying to say, don't you? Glen is an ex-young earth creationist. He is discussing the creationist claim that it requires a flood to get fossils. This is wrong as any geologist could have told you. You don't even have to wait 10 years to get fossils, but you do need specific conditions for preservation. You have then made the illogical leap to conclude that all fossils are less than 10000 years old. You've not shown that by any stretch.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 09-25-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by techristian, posted 09-25-2002 3:27 AM techristian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by zol, posted 12-01-2004 4:16 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
techristian
Member (Idle past 2965 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 4 of 20 (158701)
11-12-2004 11:20 AM


You don't even have to wait 10 years to get fossils, but you do need specific conditions for preservation. You have then made the illogical leap to conclude that all fossils are less than 10000 years old. You've not shown that by any stretch.

Yes, but I have also proved that it doesn't need to take "millions of years"

Dan

http://etnot.com/ootw.html


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Loudmouth, posted 11-12-2004 11:27 AM techristian has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 11-12-2004 11:34 AM techristian has not yet responded
 Message 7 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-12-2004 12:52 PM techristian has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 20 (158704)
11-12-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by techristian
11-12-2004 11:20 AM


quote:
Yes, but I have also proved that it doesn't need to take "millions of years"

It does take millions of years for argon to build from the decay of potassium in the igneous rocks above these fossils. The age of the fossil is given by the dating of surrounding rock and the other fossil species found in the same layer of sediment. The age of a fossil is never measured by the extent of permineralization or the "rate" of fossilization.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by techristian, posted 11-12-2004 11:20 AM techristian has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20050
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 6 of 20 (158707)
11-12-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by techristian
11-12-2004 11:20 AM


techristian writes:

Yes, but I have also proved that it doesn't need to take "millions of years"

When scientists date fossils, they're trying to determine how old they are, not how long they took to fossilize. Consider the example of a dinosaur killed and buried in a volcano eruption. We'll assume local conditions allowed rapid fossilization, say within a hundred years. So now, just a hundred years after the eruption, the dinosaur bones are completely fossilized.

Sometime later scientists dig up these dinosaur fossils. Since they're found in volcanic layers they'll be very easy to date. Scientists will date the layers and arrive at an age of at least 65 million years. That's the age of the fossils, not the time it took them to fossilize.

All fossils begin as organic remains of a once alive organism. Fossilization is a gradual process of replacing the organic materials with minerals. Depending upon local conditions, that replacement process may range from very incomplete to totally complete. In other words, some fossils, particularly young ones, may still have significant organic content. In the case of frozen woolly mammoths, no fossilization has taken place at all, and the remains are still completely organic. In the case of most dinosaur fossils, the replacement process is complete and these is no organic content left.

When the fossil still has some organic content, then if it is younger than 50,000 years it can be radiocarbon dated. In many such cases there is no 14C left at all, indicating the fossils must be at least 50,000 years old.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by techristian, posted 11-12-2004 11:20 AM techristian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by zol, posted 12-01-2004 4:25 AM Percy has responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2790 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 7 of 20 (158747)
11-12-2004 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by techristian
11-12-2004 11:20 AM


only school children think it takes millions of years to fossilize materials.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by techristian, posted 11-12-2004 11:20 AM techristian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 11-12-2004 1:52 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

  
coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3637
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 8 of 20 (158773)
11-12-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by macaroniandcheese
11-12-2004 12:52 PM


Well, it's strawman.


Hate world.

Revenge soon!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-12-2004 12:52 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-12-2004 11:18 PM coffee_addict has not yet responded
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2004 11:21 PM coffee_addict has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2790 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 9 of 20 (158959)
11-12-2004 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by coffee_addict
11-12-2004 1:52 PM


pretty much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 11-12-2004 1:52 PM coffee_addict has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 206 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 20 (158961)
11-12-2004 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by coffee_addict
11-12-2004 1:52 PM


someone should forge a hominid skeleton and call it "straw man"

that would be awesome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 11-12-2004 1:52 PM coffee_addict has not yet responded

  
zol
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 20 (164273)
12-01-2004 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Joe Meert
09-25-2002 6:38 AM


illogical fossils ??
You make the same illogical leap by implying that fossils cannot be that young.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Joe Meert, posted 09-25-2002 6:38 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
zol
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 20 (164274)
12-01-2004 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
11-12-2004 11:34 AM


Fossilosophy
Your logic is second to none. However, If you want to look back on scientific & geologic estimations at to the age of this planet we live on you will find that over the last 20 yrs or so that scientists have in general reduced their original estimates of the age of earth & all of the creatures held within its geological history. Have you noticed that the term "carbon dating" is not used anymore? Unless that is how old scientists get together of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 11-12-2004 11:34 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2004 4:35 AM zol has responded
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 12-01-2004 8:04 AM zol has not yet responded
 Message 18 by AdminNosy, posted 12-01-2004 10:47 AM zol has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Dr Jack, posted 12-01-2004 10:53 AM zol has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 12-01-2004 11:11 AM zol has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 13 of 20 (164275)
12-01-2004 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by zol
12-01-2004 4:25 AM


Re: Fossilosophy
I'm not aware of any significant changes in the estimated the age of the Earth in the last 20 years - it's still around 4.5 billion years.

And I don't know why you brought up carbon dating since it was never used to date fossils. The method itself is still in widespread use in archaeology and work on refining it continues - especially for ages in the range 11,000 - 50,000 years bp (before present).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by zol, posted 12-01-2004 4:25 AM zol has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by zol, posted 12-01-2004 5:21 AM PaulK has responded

  
zol
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 20 (164283)
12-01-2004 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
12-01-2004 4:35 AM


Re: Fossilosophy
"And I don't know why you brought up carbon dating since it was never used to date fossils. The method itself is still in widespread use in archaeology and work on refining it continues - especially for ages in the range 11,000 - 50,000 years bp (before present). "

Since carbon dating is or was used, it has been a way of measuring the life, life span of our earth, chronologically speaking. Certainly fossils will come into it, they are a great portion of, and undoubtedly an exciting part of both geological & archealogical discoveries every day. As you youself indicate, they are constantly refining their measurements, perspectives. What was in their eyes 60 million five years ago may now have become 60 thousand. Yes, they are refining it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2004 4:35 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2004 5:39 AM zol has not yet responded
 Message 16 by wj, posted 12-01-2004 5:48 AM zol has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 15 of 20 (164286)
12-01-2004 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by zol
12-01-2004 5:21 AM


Re: Fossilosophy
Carbon dating has a limited range and does not directly apply to a lot of material (it only applies to carbon derived directly from the atmosphere). It has no relevance to geology since most of geology lies outside the useful range of dates and much of the material involved contains no carbon at all (except perhaps as a trace contaminant).

Carbon dating has never been used to support dates of 60 million years (it absolutely cannot) and it is not very reliable for dates of even 60,000 years. But there is absolutely no chance of geological dating changing by three orders of magnitude as you suggest.

I strongly suggest that you learn the basics of the subject, because it is quite clear that you don't know what you are talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by zol, posted 12-01-2004 5:21 AM zol has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021