How can you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

rl, ever tried to bury something in a rock? just wondering, you seem to think it's possible.

hi,

I'm hoping you'll delete that so I don't have to embarrass you by responding to it.

You do it with an electrical arc Dag. I learned that in welding class.

How many YECs does it take to change a light bulb?

Sometimes when a theory sounds idiotic, it's because the author(s) of the theory viewed the intended audience as idiots...

you're very funny (whether you want to be or not).

additionally, i do not need to tell you of course that i cannot delete anything after someone posts after me... but that might be too complicated to understand.

I asked what you meant by decay, RL, because if we look carefully at the majority of fossils, most of what we see are fossils of bones and hard shells. That's because the soft tissue decayed. Sometimes, minerals get into the pores of an animal and a plant and maintain the shape.

Thing is prevention of decay is not necessary for fossil formation.

As for sedimentation being slow... Duh, RL. The formation of a layer is slow. When an organism is first buried, the layer of mud or dirt or what have you isn't very compact. As sedimentation occurs, more is added and the space between particles is compacted. This takes a long time. Not sure how long... Paleontology isn't my strong point. You'll have to ask FM or a paleontologist about how long it takes.

It's interesting to note, however, that fossils can occur in amber, which does not take a short time to form. First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more. It takes, I believe, 20 million years.

So, amber fossils contradict your 10,000 year old Earth ideology.

RL wishes to segregate each of the separate steps in a sediment turning into a rock, and then having, in turn, additional layers of sediments (or even volcanics )overlie the various layers. Hes not doing a good job at trying to dice and slice the processes.

Fossils are predominantly the hard parts. Those that are soft part residues are like the inner flourocollagen found inside the silicified bones of T Rex (the Creationists make a big deal out of the soft tissue remnants but fail to mention that these are sealed within a fully fossilized bone). Copaline sediment includeresins , both amber and coal opal(kauri) that contain formerly soft parts of insects.

The vast majority of fossils are hard parts, shell, bone, carapace, exoskeletons, casts and molds of bodies and feathers , just like placing a handprint on a cement walk thats just been layed. We also see many fossils called "Ichnofossils" which are tracks, trails, and /or imprints left by animals and even humans , where we see that theyd been gnoshing on some carrion bones and left tool marks and the bones get fossilized with the tool marks intact


Did all the fossils have to be laid out and buried quickly? We almost have made that a mantra but it isnt always so. Fossilized trees and some large animals have occured that break through a sediment layer and have new sediments lie atop some sections, giving the appearance that fossils "bust through" two or more separate formations, when it can be clearly seen that the older (underlying) formation has been eroded and then the new one was deposited on top.

I get enjoyment out of watching RL attempt to break peoples posts into tiny bits in an effort to try to break their credibility. Yet Im always pleased how everyone else besides RL gets the point of a discussion and contributes even more and better data than the original question(Its a teachers delight to see this happen) I guess RL is just a bit " viewpoint challenged"

Of course soft tissue decays. And so does bone, it just takes longer.

In addition, when we find a fossil, such as





do you think scavengers have very, very carefully eaten the soft parts and left the bones nicely arranged?

The discrepency is with the Ridiculous Church Dogma- not the Bible, which shows the Eath ALREADY existed when the Creative Days began-

Gen 1:1-In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2-And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. , KJV

AND that the 'Days' WEREN'T 24-hour days-

Gen 2:4-These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. , KJV

Did fossils, such as the one above, also already exist when the Creative Days began?

Wow, cool bat fossil. Thanks

Do you think that every bat or bird or fish that falls, lands on open ground so that scavengers can get to it?

Do you think that the devil arranged the bat bones and stuck them in 50myo stone for us to find?

Or if we look at the geology of where this fossil was found, are we going to find that it was probably formed at the bottom of an anoxic lake (where scavengers would have a hard time getting to it).

The Green River Formation

First off, the amount of actual fossils probably repesent a very small fraction of the species they represent.
The conditions for fossilization need to be just right.

1There can be rapid burial such as the "flysch" formations of the Ordovician .Herein the fossils appear to be "tumbled about" as they slid down a continental slope in an offshore mudslide

2Fossils can be deposited in lime shale lakes , like the Solnhofen Limestone, which represents a huge inland sea that were limey muds. The fossils herein are ususally animals that expired by not quite making it back to shore(birds such as archeopteryx) These fossils show animals that died in contorted positions in a quiet lake, They sank and were incorporated into the layer (Experiments on "how to become a fossil" were carried out by the forensics department at U Fla a number of years ago and they set out dead ducks in sedimentary tanks that were washing in sediments. The animals bloated up and then "collapsed" into a flat mass that , with continued sedimentation , developed into a flat mass with some showing body outlines as the sediment mass was allowed to desiicate and then was split open after a few years.

3The anoxic deposits as rosborne mentioned include the Green River, The Chatanooga, and the Martinsburg and Elkhorn deposits. Here the low oxygen usually prevents a development of a diverse benthic faunal assemblage and only pelagic (swimming) animals. These are slowly depositing fine shales that preserve very fine details and many fossils show outlines of their bodies in one of their incorporating layers

4Slow moving oxygenated deposits that sediment at a continued but slow rate , like the Burgess SHales or the Mahantango Formation or the KAroo BAsin. Many depositional environments are represented here that usually only the bones are seen and thee are slowly permineralized such that the bones chemistry is slightly different than the enclosing roc

5Dry land deposits such as sand dunes, alluvial (episodic) flood deposits , aerial dust deposits, also fossilize animals and usually these are disarticulated because they lie in a "heap" and can be scavanged.

6Special areas such as glacial terrains, volcanic ash flows,earthquake deposits, long reaching volcanic dusts deposits (called bentonites) all can fossilize animals (they usually accomplish this by first killing the animal that gets fossilized.
There is a fossil rhino in the Columbia plateau that shows a hot ash deposit that entrapped and killed a rhino just like the people in Pompeii.


RL makes generalizations that all fossils have to be rapidly buried. SOme do and some dont. The process is always showing us entirely new ways that animals have been preserved for us to find millenia and thousands of millenia later. I wouldnt get excited about his ramblings , his agenda doesnt allow analytical thinking, only dogmatic thinking

Good post Farmer. But as the world is less than 10,000 years old you have clearly been deceived by the scheming works of the Devil. Repent from your paleontologian ways or be cast into the deep.







I'll see you there.

I'm going to reply to RL's question directed at me by quoting FMs words. After all his is the most concise reply to his question.

How many scavengers were present in these experimental tanks?

I fail to understand the logic behind your question, RL.

The question that the researchers were finding an answer to was, "how do fossils form"? Not, how do fossils not form.

It's not intended to be logical. It's intended to be a sound-bite.


Good reply though

The experiment was not representative of real world conditions if scavengers are not taken into account, is it?

Why should it mimick all the real world variables, RL? The experiment was to find out how something can be fossilised.

Tell me, if you were to do an experiment to find out how good a car's structural design is, do you blow it up in a terrorist attack? If so, why not? Terrorist attacks are also a real world factor.

Your logic is rather silly, RL.

A fossil, large enough to be scavanged, would have been a burden on the anthro dept that was running the experiments. They often bury pig carcasses to see how they fare in aerobic and anaerobic condition. But the fossilization of ducks was a study insedimentology. Of course, in the fossil record, there are many examples of disarticulated animals whose bodies were scavanged , thats why I said that fossils can happen in all kinds of conditions. and result in all sorts of remains.

You seem to wish to have all conditions present at all fossilization events RL. Thats what gives paleoecologists the drive to go to work, they can interpret the environmnet of deposition from the fossil. Ofetn, these very clues result in some ways to dsicover commercial deposists of fuels and minerals.

Its a matter of trying to understand the varying conditions that we can discern from the field data weve been given. Its a detective game where the evidence leads to a conclusion not the other way around.