That was thirty minutes ago. You could have read the article on girdled rocks two or three times by now. Not surprisingly, your perceptions are not trustworthy.
My point remains. It is not unlikely in my layperson’s understanding that there are fossils there, but not accessibly.
1 Like
And presumptive “science” is not ridiculous? The kind of science I am addressing in this OP is nothing more than presumptive. And those who accept such just because “scientists” have claimed it is science have turned scientists into high priests and science into their dogma.
By bringing that up again, you have testified against yourself that you rather missed the point about the only thing Christians should be ridiculed for.
"You are using your own false presuppositions to make erroneous scientific conclusions."
So, you think I am misrepresenting evolutionary claims as to the formation of marine fossils?
Would you like to start comparing notes? Have you actually read what they say on this matter?
So, is this your view of how science works? It just “bets” that it’s right–even in the absence of evidence?
Brandolini’s law states it takes ten times the effort to debunk rubbish as it takes to produce it. Something seems to have ossified.
We probably do, just a litttle tough to excavate at deep depths below the hundreds to thousands of feet of recent sediment to find the deep stuff. If you look, I suspect you can find such fossils in drillings offshore… No bony fish of course. Most marine fossils are shells, so are already along the way to fossilization.
3 Likes
They aren’t rock layers. They are life layers.
There is enough crinoid plates in that one deposit to cover the entire Earth 1/4 inch deep in crinoids. Sorry, but that just isn’t going to explain it.
You have no evidence to back up this claim.
Crinoid begins to grow, crinoid dies, crinoid breaks apart on ocean floor where it died. Repeat.
3 Likes
Minus areas with igneous and metamorphic surface rocks (like where I live).
In the cases where there are intact vertebrates, which are quite rare. We know what mud-smothered ecosystems look like–shells completely intact and arranged in their original relative positions. Most deposits do not look like that; they look like the organisms were sitting around dead for a bit before being buried: large bivalves have holes from lithophagines and gastrochaenids, cementing bivalves grow on the inside of other shells, worms that are commensal with hermit crabs make a hole in the columella of the snail, etcetera.
Oil companies doing drill holes on the continental shelf in the gulf find plenty of fossils and subfossils in their cores.
Fossil shell-sand deposits look enough like a modern ocean floor that we can tell roughly what depth a deposit formed in just by looking at it. Index fossils exist. Global Planktonic foraminifera can be used to precisely correlate layers (and agree very well with both faunal succession and radiometric dating).
What about those of us who have observed it firsthand? Does that mean that reality is my dogma?
Yes. Dozens of times by dozens of authors.
There is. One just has to have a far larger budget than most paleontologists to do offshore drill cores.
5 Likes
Keep in mind we are talking about inland (ancient) seas. What are called inland seas in the geologic column are estimated at, between 600’–2500’ deep. And the inland seas I am talking about are 886’ deep (Hudson Bay)…3363’ deep (Caspian Sea)…and 7257’ deep (Black Sea).
Also, I am not talking about carbonates, like shells. They do not need to go through permineralization to become “fossils.” But bones do–and did, in the fossil record, including marine bones.
And, again, two of the seas I picked–Caspian and Black–are supposed to be “ancient inland seas”–dated at 33 million years old. So, they should contain millions of permineralized marine animal bones, if such bones can, and did, form on the sea bottoms.
In fact, even Hudson Bay–at 2 million years old–and only 886’ deep, should have lots of these fossilized bones (and, not so deep as to be hard to find).
If such bones do exist in these seas, wouldn’t paleontologists be finding them–or at least be curious to see if they might add to their knowledge of evolution by looking for them (think about how excited they are at every fossil find)?
Could it be that even they know that permineralization of animal bones does not actually occur under water–but, instead, requires quick, complete, and deep burial in muddy sediments?
As I’ve said, we’re not talking about carbonates–like these shells. Such do not need to permineralize in order to become “fossils.” But bones do. This whole thread is about what is necessary for bones (particularly, marine) to permineralize.
Evolutionary explanations claim that bones can, and did, permineralize on ancient, inland sea bottoms. But we know that this is not actually how such fossilization occurs–rather, it demands rapid, complete, and deep burial in muddy sediments.
The problem is not the depth of water but the depth of sediment until you get to ages adequate to represent fossilization, as as fossils are relatively sparse, you would be hard pressed to find them.
Uniformitarians and catastrophists agree there was a single Sauk oceanic transgression (or incursion) that simultaneously deposited all three layers of the Tonto Group–which include the Tapeats Sandstone (which outcrops across much of North America) and the Muav Limestone (outcrops in Utah, Nevada, and California)–a formation that tapers from 650’ thick in the west to 350’ thick in eastern extent.
For example, this quote:
Geology of the Grand Canyon area - Wikipedia
“An ocean started to return to the Grand Canyon area from the west about 550 million years ago.[9] As its shoreline moved east, the ocean began to concurrently deposit the three formations of the Tonto Group.”
Though, of course, uniformitarians stretch out the Sauk transgression into a millions-of-years event.
Crinoids still exist today, living in both the shallows and deep waters of the ocean.
So, shouldn’t we be able to find 2,000-feet carbonate layers packed with their broken bodies on ocean floors today? Or…even 1,000-feet thick layers…or even 500’ thick?
Certainly…
I appreciate your very informative responses here.
So, do any these fossils include permineralized bones of marine animals?
Foraminiferea actually form carbonate shells, don’t they? So, their becoming “fossilized” has nothing to do with permineralization.
Can you list several examples of the fossilized fauna they find on this continental shelf–but fauna that does not have a carbonate shell…fauna whose bones must be permineralized to become a fossil?
This is in keeping with the OP.
Phil, please consider this quote, by a creationist paleontologist. But he’s not the only authority who has pointed out that permineralization does not require even thousands of years.
How Long It Takes For Fossilization To Occur
“Contrary to what many people believe, permineralization may not take a long time. Given the right geochemical conditions during burial, permineralization can occur rapidly: ranging from within a few hours to a few years, depending on the size and nature of the original material.”
Like he said, “Given the right …conditions.” Most of what the creationist world touts as rapid fossilization is actually just encrustation of mineral laden water, like you get on your faucets if you have hard water. Besides, if that is true, haven’t you been arguing that fossils can’t form in seabeds because they are eaten up before they can be fossilized?
2 Likes
I thought he’d dropped that claim after it was pointed out that bones can last thousands of years on the seabed.
1 Like