Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[OldWiseGuy]

from what I could find the whale appears to have been encased in a diatomite layer in a roughly horizontal manner parallel to the bedding planes which indicate a slow deposition of the diatoms in an anoxic, quiet setting. No signs of catastrophic turbulence in the diatomite. Later the layer was tilted as rocks in geologically active margins such as California do.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Sounds reasonable.

Which, of course, is usually NOT how it is presented by YEC sites.

This is the core problem with YEC. They are so tied up in confirmation bias that it becomes more important to ignore the reasonable and common explanation in preference to a much less likely explanation that would require the near complete destruction of all of physics in service to a story written at some unknown time by unknown people with no real data to support their contentions.

 

[createdtoworship]

Which, of course, is usually NOT how it is presented by YEC sites.

This is the core problem with YEC...a much less likely explanation that would require the near complete destruction of all of physics

poisoning the well fallacy, argument fails. Try again.

 

[createdtoworship]

Post #503 is where I mentioned Dalrymple's study of K Ar dating methodologies.

I am still unable to find your response to the xenolith aspect. Please give me the post number. Thanks.

my mistake, you misspelled it so the search results failed when I plugged in your exact wordage, thanks for finding.

Oh and I found my response with xenolith:

it was post 248 about 10-12 days ago during a discussion about lava dating.

 

[TheBear]

......

 

[createdtoworship]

your characterization of fossilization is a bit limited there. I have no idea where you got this injection, pressure and sealing aspects.

so you are unfamiliar with cementation processes in fossilization? Well in order to create a fossil certain conditions must be met. For one it has to be rapid enough that scavengers will not eat meat, bone etc. Trust me my dogs consume the whole bone! Secondly it needs have been buried in a layer where calcium carbonate or one of two other essential minerals are readily available. However if you pour baking soda in a glass and a bone, and stir it up, it obviously doesn't blend very well. You may have a really white bone when you are done, but it won't keep bacteria from eating the insides unless these chemicals are injected under pressure. This is why fossilization is rare. They need to be in a solvent for one (water being the most common), as this will allow the chemicals to chrystalize. Once chrystalized the fossilization can occur. Again, I am no geologist but I know a few basic things about fossilization.

Fossilization, as noted earliear takes on many different forms. In some cases the original hard parts are preserved, such as you might find with shells. In other cases the parts are replaced by groundwater slowly moving through them for a looooooong time.

how can bacteria in the water hold off the tempation to eat up the shell? I here that some types of clams left in the ocean, will open up and be completely obliterated in hours to days. You are saying, they survived a Looooooong time? It is very highly unlikely.

As an example there are fossils of some materials that have been replaced by silica. Chemically silica is EXCEPTIONALLY LOW SOLUBILITY i groundwater. That means in ground water moving through the rock it must dissolve the original material and then bring its tiny bit of SiO2 to replace the fossil. This takes a lot of water moving through the rock a long time.

well like I said, I would need a site reference for this because the silica would have to have some serious antimicrobial properties. I hear all these stories of red blood cells living millions of years. Maybe in ice, but common......really? Do you honestly think red blood cells and flesh will last millions of years? Rediculous. You are frustrated at seemingly foolish creationists, well I am too........at evolutionists.

Fossils form in a very wide variety if ways. Sometimes the fossil is nothing more than a cast or mold of the original.

yes eventually cementation occurs, and the cast is placed, no original material survives. Thats why the red blood cell example is ironic. because it did in fact survive!

If you would like to learn more about this I highly recommend taking a paleontology course.

seriously?

I would recommend you finding some peer reviews first.

again remember, they have to be PHD in field of study, cannot be peer reviewed by friendly peers of acquaintance, as it would contain certain bias. AND it must be Peer reviewed in a scientific affiation that I deem legitimate.

You got your list together?

now go find some peer review.

I only want one.

Just find one.

one!

Funny thing is I never have had ANY evolutionist provide one. In 5 years of debates on this forum. Well it's only been about 2-3 years debating evolution.

But a glance through just about any intro level geology text will help quite a bit.

what does biology have to do with paleantology?

besides coming from a university it sounds, then peer review would be second nature? (to you?)
So find one.
(please)
Just one,

i was unaware that you were waiting for ths from me. You will forgive me if I am unable to post links yet since I do not have the requisite number of posts.

Well, drop me an instant message, and I will post it for you in my reply to it. Since I will be examining it anyway.

I will try to answer your question.

I am unaware of an article that covers "every varve in existence", but basic geology and lacustrine chemistry shows us that the seasonal effects result in the light/dark couplets that are the varve deposits.

well all you have to do is show one peer review that reveals that there is no possibility for a standard major storm to also result in like/dark couplets. Sometimes this is in fact possible. It may be very common who knows. This is why we need to be sure in any argument we make?

If you can provide this simple request for information then I may have more faith in the public school system and take up your offer to take a class in paleantology.

I did attempt a college anthropology 101 class,


The teacher made me sick to my stomach...

He had all these heads of ape/humans. And the real skull pieces that were found in a dig were light bone color and the made up guess work was brownish. I would look at the dozens of skulls, and all I saw was BROWN! Very little bone at all, meaning they actually artisticlly rendered all those faces to look like a transition! I was actually embarrassed that my tax dollars were paying for that!

Some references such as Strahler, Arthur N. Science and Earth History, 1987, Prometheus Books, page 232. Describe varve formation. In fact almost any sedimentology textbook will cover this.

ummmmm, for one. Textbooks are really basic. They won't get into the meat of the issue that we are talking about. Secondly that book is 25 years old!

Generally speaking the process is pretty staightforward.

lol! What do you mean, you don't even understand the basics of cementation!

Perhaps you could propose a mechanism that would layer repeating couplets in light coarse particle bands alternating with darker fine grained bands.

perhaps you can document some of your views with peer review, after all. I provide any type of creationist evidence, and all I hear is - "peer review", "peer review". When I provide one, all I get is: Thats not official! It's made up and funded by creationists! you have to have it reviewed by someone who hates the fact your peer reviewing an article at all, let alone a subject that defies the machine!

I was unaware that the RATE project had any peer reviewed articles. I thought most of their stuff was self published on their website.

it was actually 2 million in costs to do, a very expensive project. And well worth it. But it was formally rejected by every peer review board that they applied to. Which they would naturally. But they have actually passed some other milder forms of this study in the past, and I will post as needed in future. For now, I would like to see you actually fess up and provide a peer review of high quality.

 

[createdtoworship]

sorry for lack of paragraph form, coming from a PDF it lost some of its form:

Geophysically, we begin with a pre-Flood earth differentiated into core, mantle, and crust, with the
crust horizontally differentiated into sialic craton and mafic ocean floor. The Flood was initiated as slabs
of oceanic floor broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental
margins. Deformation of the mantle by these slabs raised the temperature and lowered the viscosity of
the mantle in the vicinity of the slabs. A resulting thermal runaway of the slabs through the mantle led
to meters-per-second mantle convection. Cool oceanic crust which descended to the core/mantle
boundary induced rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field. Large plumes originating near the
core/mantle boundary expressed themselves at the surface as fissure eruptions and flood basalts. Flow
induced in the mantle also produced rapid extension along linear belts throughout the sea floor and
rapid horizontal displacement of continents. Upwelling magma jettisoned steam into the atmosphere
causing intense global rain. Rapid emplacement of isostatically lighter mantle material raised the
level of the ocean floor, displacing ocean water onto the continents. When virtually all the pre-Flood
oceanic floor had been replaced with new, less-dense, less-subductable, oceanic crust, catastrophic
plate motion stopped. Subsequent cooling increased the density of the new ocean floor, producing
deeper ocean basins and a reservoir for post-Flood oceans.
Sedimentologically, we begin with a substantial reservoir of carbonate and clastic sediment in the
pre-Flood ocean. During the Flood hot brines associated with new ocean floor added precipitites to
that sediment reservoir, and warming ocean waters and degassing magmas added carbonates—
especially high magnesium carbonates. Also during the Flood, rapid plate tectonics moved pre-Flood
sediments toward the continents. As ocean plates subducted near a continental margin, its bending
caused upwarping of sea floor, and its drag caused downwarping of continental crust, facilitating the
placement of sediment onto the continental margin. Once there, earthquake-induced sea waves with
ocean-to-land movement redistributed sediment toward continental interiors. Resulting sedimentary
units tend to be thick, uniform, of unknown provenance, and extend over regional, inter-regional, and
even continental areas.
After the Flood, the earth experienced a substantial period of isostatic readjustment, where local
to regional catastrophes with intense earthquake and volcanic activity were common. Post-Flood
sedimentation continued to be rapid but was dominantly basinal on the continents. Left-over heat
in the new oceans produced a significantly warmer climate just after the Flood. In the following
centuries, as the earth cooled, floral and faunal changes tracked the changing climate zonation.
The warmer oceans caused continental transport of moisture that led to the advance of continental
glaciers and ultimately to the formation of polar ice caps.

from
https://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

 

[Subduction Zone]

gradyl, do you know what is wrong with linking to the ICR?

Their articles are not peer reviewed. In fact they actively avoid peer review. That is an indication that they know their articles are false.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

so you are unfamiliar with cementation processes in fossilization?

i am rather well acquainted with it. I don'tbelieve this set if reactions requires high pressure injection.

Cementation in sedimentary rocks is merely the precipitation of the cementing compound in cases like CaCO3. This happens even under atmospheric pressure check out something called caliche sometime.

And as for this cementation in fossilization it occurs to me that you may be overgeneralizing as to fossils. That is why I repeatedly have tried to tell you about several methods of fossilization.

While certainly some fossils may benefit from being under pressure or having a pressurized fluid it is not necessary for all.

And do remember that some fossils like shells are not necessarily prone to bacterial breakdown. Otherwise the bacteria could also attack the raw limestone around them.

Secondly it needs have been buried in a layer where calcium carbonate

this is not necessarily true. In undergraduate I was taking a paleontology class. My project was to find some fossils at a lical quarry. I found a mesozoic sharks tooth likely from a shale layer. There are many fossils found in shales. I will not insult you by explaining the difference between shale and limestone as I am sure you know this.

[quote
You may have a really white bone when you are done, but it won't keep bacteria from eating the insides unless these chemicals are injected under pressure. Again, I am no geologist but I know a few basic things about fossilization.
[/quote]

again not necessarily true. Many fossil shells are not replaced by other minerals. Some may be but usually that can occur simply through the slow PERMINERALIZATION as groundwater moves through. But again I will allow that some groundwater will be under pressure.

how can bacteria in the water hold off the tempation to eat up the shell?

what specific calcium carbonate eating bacteria are you refering to here?

I here that some types of clams left in the ocean, will open up and be completely obliterated in hours to days. You are saying, they survived a Looooooong time? It is very highly unlikely.

The shells are probably longer lasting than the guts of the clam. And again the shells can and do settle on the bottom where the can be slowly (or rapidly...either one) covered over and preserved. In paleontology it is interesting to note that often brachiopod shells are found clised in the fossil record but clam shells found open because of how the musculature works to hold one open or the other closed.

well like I said, I would need a site reference for this because the silica would have to have some serious antimicrobial properties.

My temptation is to provide you with a paleontology textbook reference because this phenomenon is so well known in geology they teach it in geo 1 classes but you dissed another textbook reference already as being too general or too old!

Whch should give you a clue as to how STANDARD some of this stuff is that it is essentially intro info for noobies to the field!

Let me dig up a reference for you from one of my old textbooks tomorrow that will give you a primary reference if you like.

what does biology have to do with paleantology?

are you pulling my leg? This is a pretty funny question.

well all you have to do is show one peer review that reveals that there is no possibility for a standard major storm to also result in like/dark couplets. Sometimes this is in fact possible. It may be very common who knows. This is why we need to be sure in any argument we make?

that is a strange request because I don't think most science deals in " universal negatives" like that.

But the usual understanding of most varves is that they are "rhythmites" in that they show repeated cycles of depositional environments.

Finding a light layer and a dark layer alone is not a usual rhythmite sequence necessarily. Many stacked up like the Green River Fm is another matter.

The processes are so well understood in those cases ( because we can see them forming today) that the old textbooks are good. It can be taught easily to freshmen geology students.

I would be very interested in the formation of varve structures in a cataclysmic single event but I am open to seeing the info on this.

ummmmm, for one. Textbooks are really basic. They won't get into the meat of the issue that we are talking about. Secondly that book is 25 years old!

twenty five years old because this stuff was OLD HAT when I was taking my first geology class in 1982! Lol.

lol! What do you mean, you don't even understand the basics of cementation!

please don't insult me. I probably have more intimate knowledge of calcium carbonate chemistry than you can imagine.

 

[createdtoworship]

i am rather well acquainted with it. I don'tbelieve this set if reactions requires high pressure injection.

Cementation in sedimentary rocks is merely the precipitation of the cementing compound in cases like CaCO3. This happens even under atmospheric pressure check out something called caliche sometime.

And as for this cementation in fossilization it occurs to me that you may be overgeneralizing as to fossils. That is why I repeatedly have tried to tell you about several methods of fossilization.

While certainly some fossils may benefit from being under pressure or having a pressurized fluid it is not necessary for all.

And do remember that some fossils like shells are not necessarily prone to bacterial breakdown. Otherwise the bacteria could also attack the raw limestone around them.



this is not necessarily true. In undergraduate I was taking a paleontology class. My project was to find some fossils at a lical quarry. I found a mesozoic sharks tooth likely from a shale layer. There are many fossils found in shales. I will not insult you by explaining the difference between shale and limestone as I am sure you know this.

[quote
You may have a really white bone when you are done, but it won't keep bacteria from eating the insides unless these chemicals are injected under pressure. Again, I am no geologist but I know a few basic things about fossilization.

again not necessarily true. Many fossil shells are not replaced by other minerals. Some may be but usually that can occur simply through the slow PERMINERALIZATION as groundwater moves through. But again I will allow that some groundwater will be under pressure.



what specific calcium carbonate eating bacteria are you refering to here?



The shells are probably longer lasting than the guts of the clam. And again the shells can and do settle on the bottom where the can be slowly (or rapidly...either one) covered over and preserved. In paleontology it is interesting to note that often brachiopod shells are found clised in the fossil record but clam shells found open because of how the musculature works to hold one open or the other closed.




My temptation is to provide you with a paleontology textbook reference because this phenomenon is so well known in geology they teach it in geo 1 classes but you dissed another textbook reference already as being too general or too old!

Whch should give you a clue as to how STANDARD some of this stuff is that it is essentially intro info for noobies to the field!

Let me dig up a reference for you from one of my old textbooks tomorrow that will give you a primary reference if you like.



are you pulling my leg? This is a pretty funny question.




that is a strange request because I don't think most science deals in " universal negatives" like that.

But the usual understanding of most varves is that they are "rhythmites" in that they show repeated cycles of depositional environments.

Finding a light layer and a dark layer alone is not a usual rhythmite sequence necessarily. Many stacked up like the Green River Fm is another matter.

The processes are so well understood in those cases ( because we can see them forming today) that the old textbooks are good. It can be taught easily to freshmen geology students.

I would be very interested in the formation of varve structures in a cataclysmic single event but I am open to seeing the info on this.





twenty five years old because this stuff was OLD HAT when I was taking my first geology class in 1982! Lol.



please don't insult me. I probably have more intimate knowledge of calcium carbonate chemistry than you can imagine.[/QUOTE]


I am not really interested in anomalies regarding fossilization. I will have to look up the silica, but I don't believe your view of coal and I don't believe your views of shales. I don't really believe any of your views but I am hearing you out because you DON'T use adhominems in every other line. Usually just once or twice a post....lol

but for now look up polystrate fossils.

since you like quoting the minority of fossils to out prove how most fossils occur.

Let start with some of my personal favorites.

the polystrates!

I didn't read your other posts, as I have to head to work.

But I noticed you don't have any peer review to back up your work yet!

 

[Lucy Stulz]

OK, granted things like varve formation and fossilization processes are things that are usually taught to geo 1 students (the concept being so well established) but it is understandable to want some peer reviewed citations. So I provide them for you. I have been unable to find the links on the internet but that isn't really important anyway. I've gone through a scientific literature search engine and found some stuff you can dig up in your local university library or request from you local library. But far be it from me to be yet another in a long line of disappointers.

VARVE FORMATION:
Anderson, R.Y., Dean, W.E. , 1988, Lacustrine Varve formation through time, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 62 (1-4) , pp. 215-235

Abstract:
Studies using sediment traps in lakes reveal that the seasonal flux of sediment regulates both the composition and timing of deposition of materials that reach the bottoms of lakes. If the bottom waters of a lake are partly or totally anoxic, the seasonally deposited materials are preserved as annual groupings of laminae (varves). Common components that form individual laminae consist of allochthonous clastic material derived from the drainage basin, precipitated carbonate minerals, diatom frustules, iron-rich and manganese-rich flocs, autochthonous organic detritus, and autochthonous and allochthonous materials resuspended from the bottom. The "style" of varving has changed over geologic time, reflecting changes in biologic evolution and types of materials available. Precipitated iron-rich laminations were common in the middle Precambrian. Graded sets of clastic organic laminations persisted through the Precambrian, prior to the evolution of bioturbating benthic organisms. Glaciolacustrine varves appear to have retained their distinctive character through time. Carbonate-rich varves occurred sporadically in the Precambrian and Phanerozoic. With the exception of diatoms, major components of modern lacustrine varves were present through the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, and yet varves are rare in strata of these ages, and may have accumulated in marine to brackish-water environments. Diatoms were introduced into lacustrine systems in Early Tertiary time and are common components of varves from then on. Diatom laminae, combined with a greater chance for geologic preservation of younger lake deposits, have increased the number of geologically young occurrences of varved sediments. However, seasonal associations of modern varve components, and the processes they represent, are present in ancient deposits and provide clues to the interpretation of ancient environments. -------------------------------------------------

Permineralization and Fossil Formation


Williams, C.J.[SIZE=+0], [/SIZE]Trostle, K.D.[SIZE=+0], [/SIZE]Sunderlin, D., 2010, Fossil wood in coal-forming environments of the late Paleocene-early Eocene Chickaloon Formation, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Volume 295, Issue 3-4, September 2010, Pages 363-375

Abstract

The early Cenozoic Chickaloon Formation is the main coal-bearing sequence in south-central Alaska. Coal and associated plant macrofossils are well exposed in the Eska, Premier, and Jonesville Coal Groups in the Wishbone Hill District. There is a striking variation in the degree and mode of preservation of fossil trees in a vertical sequence through these coal groups. We examined the wood taxonomy, mineralogy, and geochemistry to elucidate potential cause(s) for these differences. The wood anatomy indicates that the wood is all assignable to the Cupressaceae (Taxodiaceae s.str.) and assignable to the form genus Taxodioxylon Hartig emend. Gothan. However, we found no significant variation in the taxonomy of the wood between stratigraphic layers. The wood generally becomes better preserved in the Jonesville Coal Group. Wood from the stratigraphically lower Premier Coal Group exhibits greater plastic deformation and contains less well-preserved wood anatomical features. The wood from the overlying Jonesville Coal Group retains most of its original morphology, but has suffered from brittle fracture. The geochemistry and mineralogy of the wood follow a pattern that corresponds to the degree of preservation. The less well-preserved wood tends to have a higher concentration of iron carbonate minerals (e.g., siderite and ankerite), whereas the better preserved wood contains more calcium carbonate or silica. All evidence points to rapid permineralization of the original wood, although the least well-preserved wood shows evidence of greater organic matter decomposition than the better preserved wood. The wood taxonomy and mode of preservation of wood from the upper part of the Chickaloon Formation is similar to wood from coeval fossil forests that developed at higher (polar) paleolatitudes. © 2010 Elsevier B.V.
----------------------------------
(Note that one mentions relatively rapid permineralization)
---------------------------------
Kremer, B., Kazmierczak, J., Łukomska-Kowalczyk, M., Kempe, S., 2012, Calcification and silicification: Fossilization potential of cyanobacteria from stromatolites of Niuafo'ou's caldera lakes (Tonga) and implications for the early fossil record, Astrobiology 12 (6) , pp. 535-548

Abstract

Calcification and silicification processes of cyanobacterial mats that form stromatolites in two caldera lakes of Niuafo'ou Island (Vai Lahi and Vai Si'i) were evaluated, and their importance as analogues for interpreting the early fossil record are discussed. It has been shown that the potential for morphological preservation of Niuafo'ou cyanobacteria is highly dependent on the timing and type of mineral phase involved in the fossilization process. Four main modes of mineralization of cyanobacteria organic parts have been recognized: (i) primary early postmortem calcification by aragonite nanograins that transform quickly into larger needle-like crystals and almost totally destroy the cellular structures, (ii) primary early postmortem silicification of almost intact cyanobacterial cells that leave a record of spectacularly well-preserved cellular structures, (iii) replacement by silica of primary aragonite that has already recrystallized and obliterated the cellular structures, (iv) occasional replacement of primary aragonite precipitated in the mucopolysaccharide sheaths and extracellular polymeric substances by Al-Mg-Fe silicates. These observations suggest that the extremely scarce earliest fossil record may, in part, be the result of (a) secondary replacement by silica of primary carbonate minerals (aragonite, calcite, siderite), which, due to recrystallization, had already annihilated the cellular morphology of the mineralized microbiota or (b) relatively late primary silicification of already highly degraded and no longer morphologically identifiable microbial remains. © 2012
-------------------------------------

Hippler, D., Hu, N., Steiner, M., Scholtz, G., Franz, G., 2012, Experimental mineralization of crustacean eggs: New implications for the fossilization of Precambrian-Cambrian embryos, Biogeosciences 9 (5) , pp. 1765-1775

Abstract
Phosphatized globular microfossils from the Ediacaran and lower Cambrian of South China represent an impressive record of early animal evolution and development. However, their phylogenetic affinity is strongly debated. Understanding key processes and conditions that cause exceptional egg and embryo preservation and fossilization are crucial for a reliable interpretation of their phylogenetic position. We conducted phosphatization experiments on eggs of the marbled crayfish <I>Procambarus</I> that indicate a close link between early mineralization and rapid anaerobic decay of the endochorional envelope. Our experiments replicated the different preservational stages of degradation observed in the fossil record. Stabilization of the spherical morphology was achieved by pre-heating of the eggs. Complete surface mineralization occurred under reduced conditions within one to two weeks, with fine-grained brushite (CaHPO4 • 2H2O) and calcite. The mechanisms of decay, preservation of surface structures, and mineral replacement in the experiment were likely similar during fossilization of Cambrian embryos. © 2012
-------------------------------
Oehler, J.H., Schopf, J.W., 1971, Artificial microfossils: Experimental studies of permineralization of blue-green algae in silica, Science 174 (4015) , pp. 1229-1231

Abstract
A technique has been developed to artificially fossilize microscopic algae in crystalline silica under conditions of moderately elevated temperature and pressure. The technique is designed to simulate geochemical processes thought to have resulted in the preservation of organic microfossils in Precambrian bedded cherts. In degree of preservation and mnineralogic setting, the artificially permnineralized microorganisms are comparable to naturally occurring fossil algae.
----------------------------
(now, note that you should like this because it contains moderately elevated pressures...so enjoy!)

No again, the point is to get across to you that fossilization is not a simple one-type process. There are many types. And indeed what I've presented here is the preservation usually of soft tissue which is much harder to preserve.

And as I noted earlier some fossils are not replaced at all. The original minerals in the hard parts are preserved altogether.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

I am not really interested in anomalies regarding fossilization.

You have so overgeneralized on only one means of fossilization you seem to be missing almost all of the topic.

I will have to look up the silica, but I don't believe your view of coal and I don't believe your views of shales.

You don't have to believe my "view of coal" or my "view of shales" (despite the fact that I have worked with both...if you would like to get into coal I would gladly do that in a heartbeat. I suspect I have more experience with coal than you do by a mile or two or a hundred).

What you should believe is what is seen in the real world by people who actually do this stuff.

This is why it is necessary to take at least intro geology classes. You could stand to learn a lot more about the basics.

I don't really believe any of your views

Any particular reason why not? I mean you can certainly check anything out that I've said here. I'm not saying you are always dead wrong on this stuff. There are instances where higher pressure fluids do the work of fossilization. But not all fossils are like that. Fossilization processes are quite varied and I've given you many terms that you can google and check out for yourself at your leisure.

That is why you don't need to "believe" me.

(But thanks for responding to my posts because I don't use "adhominems"...it is nice to have the person who doesn't believe anything I say is so respectful.)

but for now look up polystrate fossils.

I am fully aware of polystrate fossils. They were explained by standard geological processes about 140 years ago. Yes, things get buried quickly in places like floodplains and swamps. No surprise! It happens today. We see it happening today.

Doesn't indicate anything about a Noachian flood (unless you can find a globally correlated to one time-frame set of "polystrate fossils" all across the world).

since you like quoting the minority of fossils to out prove how most fossils occur.

Minority? So again, I must ask what carbonate devouring bacteria are you talking about that would necessarily eat away a calcium carbonate shell?

But I noticed you don't have any peer review to back up your work yet!

Polystrate fossils:

Dawson, J.W., 1868. Acadian Geology. The Geological Structure, Organic Remains, and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, 2nd edition. MacMillan and Co.: London, 694pp.

Coffin, H.G., 1983. Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington. Geology, v.11, p.298-299.

Cristie, R.L., and McMillan, N.J. (eds.), 1991. Tertiary fossil forests of the Geodetic Hills, Axel Heiberg Island, Arctic Archipelago, Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 403, 227pp.

You really need to remember that much of what you are asking for is very, very basic geology. So basic in fact that it is taught to undergrads in their first geology class.

A peer reviewed article on this? Well, again, you'll have to go back a pretty long time.

There's a point at which a concept becomes so well entrenched in the field it is part of all the textbooks.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

I am providing this as a service to you graydll. It is a simplification of fossilization from the National Park Service. It will probably help immensely.

PDF File

Note all the various different ways to arrive at a fossil. No doubt your favorite method is in there somewhere in some form.

It is a very interesting concept.

Earlier you indicated you didn't 'believe' my view of shales. Here's a fossiliferous shale:

(From HERE)

Here's a description of what shale is HERE

As for interesting non-carbonate fossils here is a selection of opalized fossils:

(From HERE)

I will, of course, assume you know that opal is a form of silica (SiO2) and I'm certain you will understand something of the chemistry of SiO2 in groundwater.

You can learn more about it from the book Sedimentary Geology by Prothero and Schwab (here), but if you are really interested in silica chemistry the "bible" of this field is "The Chemistry of Silica" by Ralph K. Iler. The Iler book was what got me through a great deal of my second industry job. It's a great reference. It is extremely thorough and detailed and will give you all the info on SiO2 chemistry you could want. It's pricey though. I paid $300 for my copy a few years back.

Now here's a cool one! A fossil made of PYRITE (FeS2)

(from HERE)

In this case the bacteria around there actually help form this! Some anaerobic bacteria do their work by reducing sulfates to bisulfides which can then go through various other reactions to form this sort of thing if there's Fe in solution around there (bacterial mediated reactions as well).

 

[Loudmouth]

All it takes is one anomaly, such as polystrate fossils, to call into question the whole geologic column.

We see polystrate fossils forming now without a global flood. Why is it a problem?

Here is a polystrate telephone pole:

Are you telling me that Noah's Flood produced this polystrate telephone pole?

 

[Loudmouth]

so basically one view says a global flood happened, resulting in several ocean patches, drainoffs, flood plains, etc in the following years. The other opinion is that these same drainoffs, floodplains were in fact caused by oceans?

So, in other words it's a stalemate. It's the same evidence but no one can prove that the oceans in your view were not a result of global flood runoff.

So is this the new strategy? Just make up the whole thing and claim you have as much evidence as anyone else? That's pretty sad.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We see polystrate fossils forming now without a global flood. Why is it a problem?

Here is a polystrate telephone pole:

Are you telling me that Noah's Flood produced this polystrate telephone pole?

It is a polystrate pole only if a geologist says it is. We can then date the sediment layers to determine when it was buried.

 

[createdtoworship]

How old is the earth, Grady?

not a billion thats for sure.

not a million thats for sure.

I don't know if I accept the 4004BC as the exact creation, in september I believe Ussher states. I simply don't know if that exact measurement is possible. It may in fact be. (according to Bible chronology)

but I would say it's safe to bet on less than 10K years for sure.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is if a geologist says it is.

So you admit that normal geologic processes produce polystrate fossils with no need for a global flood, correct?

 

[Loudmouth]

not a billion thats for sure.

not a million thats for sure.

Based on what evidence?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you admit that normal geologic processes produce polystrate fossils with no need for a global flood, correct?

Of course. (You do realize that pole was a practical joke?)