Mummified Brachylophosaurus

[laptoppop]

1) Underwater currents can indeed flow and pulse. Think of the gulf stream in our oceans.
2) The context of a flood includes the early flood and the late drying up times -- both of which include times of streams and rivers in unusual places.

Actually, taking Noah's flood as an interpretative start is exactly the right thing to do. The right question isn't how can we figure out how these deposits might have come about in a non-supernaturalistic vaccuum, but rather is it possible to interpret these deposits in the context of a global flood which agrees with a specific revelation of a loving God?

Yes, the dynamics of a global flood are varied -- leading us to expect a variety of deposits around the globe.

 

[shernren]

Of course it is possible. Just look at any group of rocks possible and say one of three things:

1. It was laid down before the Flood. Pre-flood conditions have been obliterated so I can't tell you how.
2. It was laid down during the Flood. The Flood was extremely complex so I can't tell you how.
3. It was laid down after the Flood. There's not much rock left to account for so I won't bother telling you how.

It is entirely possible to posit a miraculous Flood that can pick up any particulates possible, lay down any sediments possible, and create any possible postdiluvean geology, subject only to the imagination of God and the gullibility of geologists. But that's not science. Pursue such a "model" all you want but it won't be scientific. Furthermore, it won't go very far. How do you know that a particular rock you are looking at wasn't miraculously transformed into green cheese or sponge cake while you weren't looking? You can't cite Guy Berthault's experiments or Baumgardner's Terra either, because neither of them involve the supernatural or invoke miracles. The irony and hypocrisy of flood geology is that it loudly shouts that it is abandoning uniformitarianism, but it still uses it on the side.

(The analogy between flood geology and geocentrism in parallel is becoming more and more striking to me. Both were based on literal readings of the Bible coupled with the modernist philosophies of their days. And geocentrists like Clavius, whenever they observed some sort of new motion in the stars and planets, had to postulate yet another celestial sphere to explain it - there were systems known as "homocentric" which featured more than fifty celestial spheres in a humongously gaudy spectacle of a universe. I can easily imagine Clavius saying "The Ptolemaic system is very complex and difficult to model fully, covering a wide range of conditions" - and thereby getting away with not actually predicting anything.)

The non-supernaturalistic is hardly a vacuum. One might as well try to cook without salt than say that science operates without God.

 

[busterdog]

If you insist that keratin was preserved as-is, why not write Nate Murphy yourself and ask him yourself?
For what it's worth, I wouldn't be surprised if some traces of keratin remain. We've used keratin traces in the past to confirm the presence of feathers in Chinese dinosaurs.

Well, I don't insist. I am just confused. It doesn't really matter that much to me. "Mummified" would represent pretty lousy journalism.

Feathered dinosaurs, as in quetzalcoatl?

 

[Mallon]

1) Underwater currents can indeed flow and pulse. Think of the gulf stream in our oceans.

Do they deposit the fully-articulated terrestrial animal skeletons, too? Think these things through, pop. Again, that's where the Flood model falls apart -- in the details.

2) The context of a flood includes the early flood and the late drying up times -- both of which include times of streams and rivers in unusual places.

So what would differentiate these deposits from the flood deposits? You need to come up with more than just hearsay, pop. You need to come up with testable predictions.
Can I start calling you "adhocpop"?

 

[Assyrian]

Feathered dinosaurs, as in quetzalcoatl?

I thought quetzalcoatl was a mythological feathered snake

 

[Mallon]

Feathered dinosaurs, as in quetzalcoatl?

No, feathered dinosaurs as in Shuvuuia.

 

[busterdog]

I thought quetzalcoatl was a mythological feathered snake

That's the one. I just thought the association was curious. Proves nothing.

 

[FallingWaters]

Why is it referred to as being "mummified"?
Isn't mummification done by humans?

 

[Mallon]

Why is it referred to as being "mummified"?
Isn't mummification done by humans?

It's just a colloquial term used to stress the excellent preservation of the fossil. Dinosaurs are usually referred to as "mummies" when the dessicated skin becomes fossilized with the skeleton. Like the Edmontosaurus seen here:

 

[laptoppop]

Of course it is possible. Just look at any group of rocks possible and say one of three things:

1. It was laid down before the Flood. Pre-flood conditions have been obliterated so I can't tell you how.
2. It was laid down during the Flood. The Flood was extremely complex so I can't tell you how.
3. It was laid down after the Flood. There's not much rock left to account for so I won't bother telling you how.

It is entirely possible to posit a miraculous Flood that can pick up any particulates possible, lay down any sediments possible, and create any possible postdiluvean geology, subject only to the imagination of God and the gullibility of geologists. But that's not science. Pursue such a "model" all you want but it won't be scientific. Furthermore, it won't go very far. How do you know that a particular rock you are looking at wasn't miraculously transformed into green cheese or sponge cake while you weren't looking? You can't cite Guy Berthault's experiments or Baumgardner's Terra either, because neither of them involve the supernatural or invoke miracles. The irony and hypocrisy of flood geology is that it loudly shouts that it is abandoning uniformitarianism, but it still uses it on the side.

(The analogy between flood geology and geocentrism in parallel is becoming more and more striking to me. Both were based on literal readings of the Bible coupled with the modernist philosophies of their days. And geocentrists like Clavius, whenever they observed some sort of new motion in the stars and planets, had to postulate yet another celestial sphere to explain it - there were systems known as "homocentric" which featured more than fifty celestial spheres in a humongously gaudy spectacle of a universe. I can easily imagine Clavius saying "The Ptolemaic system is very complex and difficult to model fully, covering a wide range of conditions" - and thereby getting away with not actually predicting anything.)

The non-supernaturalistic is hardly a vacuum. One might as well try to cook without salt than say that science operates without God.

Where have I said that "I can't tell you how?"?? The mechanisms for hydrodeposition of materials are varied, but either are known, or can be worked out with repeatable experimentation. You may not like the fact that they are varied, but that's the way floods work. Think of a stream flooding -- you'll get one type of effect. Now enlarge the flood to a city, like New Orleans. Different parts of the city had different effects, based on currents, height of the land, etc. Now think of a county wide flood. There will be even more variation. Now go to a country wide flood. The flood will be quite varied with valleys and mountains getting in the way, existing sediments both dissolving and depositing, etc. Extend it to a world wide flood with oceans and seas to contend with.

The flood will be different in different places. It will be different at different times. This is to be expected and predicted. So the question becomes -- are these deposits consistent with the various conditions we could see during a world wide flood?

Actually, I believe that while the communicating with Noah was miraculous, and God leading 2 of each kind (7 for clean) into the ark, and God shutting the door of the ark was miraculous, and the start of the flood was triggered somehow, possibly/probably miraculously -- I think it is most likely that once it got underway, it proceeded in a totally "natural" way, and left the evidence that we should expect to see after such an event.

 

[laptoppop]

Do they deposit the fully-articulated terrestrial animal skeletons, too? Think these things through, pop. Again, that's where the Flood model falls apart -- in the details.

Not at all. There's no reason to think of the flood as a uniform event -- in fact there are lots of reasons to understand that it would be an event with incredible variety. One would expect underwater mud flows -- just as we see in a local flood. So, yes, there's no problem with fully-articulated terrestrial animal skeletons.

So what would differentiate these deposits from the flood deposits? You need to come up with more than just hearsay, pop. You need to come up with testable predictions.

The testable question is: are these deposits consistent with what could be the results of a global flood, preflood, or post flood conditions? To answer that, we need to understand
1) what are the conditions that one could encounter in a global flood? (Extremely varied, both spatially and temporally)
2) how do various modes of erosion and deposition work? -- calm settling, mud flows, high speed streams, interaction of surface water with hypercanes, etc. etc.

Can I start calling you "adhocpop"?

You can call me whatever you want. I will continue to refuse to use an overly simplistic understanding of a global event, especially when a fuller understanding is consistent with the Scriptural record.

NOTE: Please read my post right before this one -- even though it is back one page. Thanks.

 

[FallingWaters]

It's just a colloquial term used to stress the excellent preservation of the fossil. Dinosaurs are usually referred to as "mummies" when the dessicated skin becomes fossilized with the skeleton. Like the Edmontosaurus seen here:

Gee. When I use inaccurate words,
I get people jumping all over me, insulting my intelligence.

 

[shernren]

Where have I said that "I can't tell you how?"?? The mechanisms for hydrodeposition of materials are varied, but either are known, or can be worked out with repeatable experimentation.

Well, then we can get back to anoxic deposition of fossils in the context of a global flood. I bumped the topic that sorta petered out last time under real-world strains.

 

[laptoppop]

First of all, the quote you had specifically said that anoxic conditions were not required for well preserved fish.

Secondly -- yes, we see anoxic conditions in particular places now - but that does not mean this is the only way to purge the oxygen from water. I do not know all the possible chemical interactions, but they should be easy to find. Also - does water lose oxyengation when it is superheated? If so, one could expect such water to be coming around the edges of the plates -- especially if catastrophic plate tectonics is true.

In any case, you have not shown that it is impossible to form such water in the conditions of a global flood, so I'll keep believing Genesis.

I've got a ton of work to do today -- so posting should be quite light.

 

[Mallon]

Not at all. There's no reason to think of the flood as a uniform event -- in fact there are lots of reasons to understand that it would be an event with incredible variety. One would expect underwater mud flows -- just as we see in a local flood. So, yes, there's no problem with fully-articulated terrestrial animal skeletons.

So let me get this straight. You are advocating that the mummified "Leonardo" specimen we are discussing was most likely deposited in an underwater current that left channel sandstones just like the ones we see lining rivers today?
I'm sorry, pop, but that's total ad hoc, made-up baloney and it demonstrates a complete lack of geological understanding. Don't just tell me that your flood model predicts this. SHOW ME.

The testable question is: are these deposits consistent with what could be the results of a global flood, preflood, or post flood conditions? To answer that, we need to understand
1) what are the conditions that one could encounter in a global flood? (Extremely varied, both spatially and temporally)
2) how do various modes of erosion and deposition work? -- calm settling, mud flows, high speed streams, interaction of surface water with hypercanes, etc. etc.

You left out fossil sorting. And we know how fossils sort in disastrous floods because we can see it happen both today and in the rock record. As it turns out, flood catastrophes don't sort dead animals out very well. The churning waters mix everything up and deposit everything in one huge jumble. And yet we see very ordered fossil sequences throughout the stratigraphic record that does not match any sorting mechanism proposed to date. On that piece of evidence alone (besides hundreds of others), Flood geology completely fails.

You can call me whatever you want. I will continue to refuse to use an overly simplistic understanding of a global event, especially when a fuller understanding is consistent with the Scriptural record.

But you have demonstrated no "fuller understanding"! Your argument to date has consisted of nothing more than "A global flood model predicts varied and localized deposition such as we see in the sedimentary record." That means NOTHING! Your assertions are ad hoc and completely vacuous. In trying to explain everything, you explain nothing. This sort of reasoning might work for you, which is fine, but it quite obviously doesn't hold a grain of salt with anyone working the field. Until you can actually tell us what your model predicts, which deposits the Flood supposedly left, and other important details, I don't see why you should expect to be taken seriously by anyone.

 

[Mallon]

Gee. When I use inaccurate words,
I get people jumping all over me, insulting my intelligence.

Like when?

 

[FallingWaters]

Like when?

Any and every time I might use some word or phrase that is not up to the latest lingo that is being used at this hour.
That is why I usually don't post here.
Thank you for answering my question.
Have a nice day.

 

[FallingWaters]

This is a Fantastic discovery, irregardless of debating.

(Duck-Billed Dinosaur)
Great Falls Tribune

STREAMING VIDEO LINK

MALTA (Montana) — The absolute latest in technology is helping solve a forensics mystery that is 77 million years old. Five years ago in the badlands north of Malta, paleontologists uncovered a mummified duck-billed brachylophosauruses so well preserved that much of its skin and soft tissue parts remained along with its skeleton.

Please, what is the date on this article?

I watched the video.
The paleontologist said his flesh was "pebbled".
I wonder if he meant like a Gila monster's flesh?

 

[Mallon]

Please, what is the date on this article?

This find was only announced within the last couple of years, so it's likely recent.

I watched the video.
The paleontologist said his flesh was "pebbled".
I wonder if he meant like a Gila monster's flesh?

Probably depends on which area of the body you're looking at. Hadrosaur skin can be pebbled, as you see here:

Or have bigger, rhomboidal patterns as seen on "Leonardo" here:

 

[FallingWaters]

Thank you for those delightful photos.