Dinosaur footprints destroy flood geology.

[AV1611VET]

Were the Wooly Mammoth or the Saber-Tooth Lion dinosaurs?

 

[Chalnoth]

Were the Wooly Mammoth or the Saber-Tooth Lion dinosaurs?

No. They were mammals who lived much, much more recently than any dinosaurs (barring birds).

 

[AV1611VET]

No. They were mammals who lived much, much more recently than any dinosaurs (barring birds).

Read my question slowly please ---

 

[Chalnoth]

Read my question slowly please ---

Yup, read it right the first time. No, they weren't dinosaurs. Unless, of course, you just communicated poorly and meant to ask something entirely different.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Were the Wooly Mammoth or the Saber-Tooth Lion dinosaurs?

No, they were mammals - and curiously enough, we have found their fossils in the same strata as humans - something that has never occurred with dinosaurs, even though they coexisted with humans according to YECs.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they were mammals - and curiously enough, we have found their fossils in the same strata as humans - something that has never occurred with dinosaurs, even though they coexisted with humans according to YECs.

Keep looking.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Keep looking.

Was there any point in your question? Apart from demonstrating once again that arrogance is a product of ignorance rather than knowledge, of course.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Were the Wooly Mammoth or the Saber-Tooth Lion dinosaurs?

AV your only solution to losing the discussion is to ignore it by changing the subject matter.

This thread is about trace fossils in the geological record and how they provide unquestionable evidence that Uniformiatrianism is fact and that the global flood never happened.

If you want to pursue another topic, i.e. are mammoths and sabre toothed cats dinosaurs; start a thread asking that question.

Now back to the question at hand: dinosaur foot prints in the geological record. If the sedimentary succession is made up of flood deposits it would not contain all the trace fossils i.e. dino track, burrows, desiccation cracks, palaeosols that indicate long standing continental deposition.

Dino tracks, Argentina

 

[Nathan Poe]

I suspect that AV is trying to sound clever (and, once again, failing) by saying Saber-tooth lion instead of Saber-tooth tiger.

Assuming you have a point, AV, what is it?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I suspect that AV is trying to sound clever (and, once again, failing) by saying Saber-tooth lion instead of Saber-tooth tiger.

Assuming you have a point, AV, what is it?

Actually smilidon fatalis, the animal most commonly referred to as the saber tooth tiger was neither a lion or a tiger but the lion is probably its closest living relative. I think AV is indeed trying to change the subject from one that destroys young earth flood geology. He'll probably bring up Pluto next.

 

[Nathan Poe]

He'll probably bring up Pluto next.

He does seem to have an unhealty fascination with dwarf planets.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The link below is too a web page that outlines the evidence of mud cracks through the geological record and how it is impossible for a global flood to have occurred.


LINK

It is written in a style that even the most indoctrinated YEC could understand.

Read it and weep creationists

Permian desiccation cracks

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The reason I have used desiccation cracks is that very similar conditions are needed to form them as that needed to form fossilised dinosaur foot prints and/or tracks.

The ground that the dinosaur is walking over needs to be soft but not to soft or the imprint will collapse in after the dinosaur lifts its feet. The ground then needs to dry out before being infilled with new and often different sediment.

So to get all the dinosaur trackways in the world there would have had to of been thousands of dry periods on top of the thousands of dry periods that are needed to form the desiccation cracks outlined in the post above.

No way is it possible for the geological sedimentary column to have formed from a global flood.

The only way to believe in a global flood is to bury your head in the sand and ignore the mountains of evidence for Uniformiatrianism.

When considering the evidence do not forget all the other evidence such as palaeosols, burrows etc. YEC are found of finding explanations for one problem to their world view and ignoring all others.

Any parody YEC put forward must explain all the observable evidence; this is something they never do, because it is impossible.

Uniformiatrianism does explain all evidence; there was no global flood

 

[Split Rock]

Fair enough --- I'll just vacate this thread.

There's way too much "science" in it and not enough Theology.

This from the man who claims his theology holds science to a "higher" standard...

 

[RobertByers]

Uh, if moving fluid sediment covered those layers, they would destroy the footprints. The footprints have to dry and harden before covering for preservation.

I think I can answer for organized creationism here.
I see the footprints as just like the sediment. No need, I think, for drying but simply the same process that instantly turned the sediment into rock turned the footprints equally.
Creationism sees sedimentary rock formation as a sudden event and so footprints or raindrops can be preserved instantly.
Rob Byers

 

[Skaloop]

I think I can answer for organized creationism here.
I see the footprints as just like the sediment. No need, I think, for drying but simply the same process that instantly turned the sediment into rock turned the footprints equally.
Creationism sees sedimentary rock formation as a sudden event and so footprints or raindrops can be preserved instantly.
Rob Byers

By what process? Surely you've walked on a beach. Your footprints do not solidify instantly. How can a material be soft enough to imprint footprints, then suddenly solidify to preserve said footprints? How is soft sediment instantly turned into rock?

 

[RobertByers]

Wrong Again: The dinosaurs were walking on newly deposited sediments that is a fact, however you are making the YEC fundamental error; you are ignoring all the other evidence i.e. palaeosols, coal beds with associated root systems, burrows, desiccation cracks, unconformities, mineralization, hard ground the list is endless.

You explanation above is a very poor one as far as dinosaur foot prints go, but as far as the rest of the evidence goes, all it does is show your total lack of understanding for natural processes.

All the evidence can be accommodated into Uniformiatrianism.

None of the evidence can be accommodated into YEC creationism

Below is an unconformity located in Britain: The lower rocks are Carboniferous, the upper rocks are Cretaceous, what is really interesting is that between the two is a fossilised ecosystem including dino fossils as well as a gap of ~200 milion years. The lower rocks have been buried to considerable depth and undergone mineralization the upper rocks have not. All the rocks were laid down in shallow clean water, i.e. there are no clastic sediments, there rocks are bio-clastic, that is they were formed by living creatures and are 100s of metres thick.

I'm confused about your "other evidence' as to the discussion of footprints.
The sorting , moving water would be very varied in its results.

Anyways.
This picture seems off topic but it is common.
The lower rock was made during a early stage of the flood. Days, weeks, hours, before the upper rock was thrown on top of it.
In fact I will guess the reason for the life fossils in between is because they settled at the top of the lower sediment/ now rock and sat there a while before the upper level was laid.
This is exactly what the first idea should be when looking at it. Collected sediments in cross currents of different pressures and depth. All were made into rock in the same event with just hours, days, or weeks, difference.
It is what it is. Collected material in a bunch.
like one would see in a great spring surging river.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Wow. Just wow. I'm printing the highlights of this thread off and showing them to my geology buddies tomorrow. What a riot.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I think I can answer for organized creationism here.
I see the footprints as just like the sediment. No need, I think, for drying but simply the same process that instantly turned the sediment into rock turned the footprints equally.
Creationism sees sedimentary rock formation as a sudden event and so footprints or raindrops can be preserved instantly.
Rob Byers

You have answered for organised creationism, but sadly your parody is completely wrong. Sediments do not just instantly turn to stone; they have to go through diagenesis.

Diagenesis: quoted from wikipedia Diagenesis
In geology and oceanography, diagenesis is any chemical, physical, or biological change undergone by a sediment after its initial deposition and during and after its lithification, exclusive of surface alteration (weathering) and metamorphism. These changes happen at relatively low temperatures and pressures and result in changes to the rock's original mineralogy and texture. The boundary between diagenesis and metamorphism, which occurs under conditions of higher temperature and pressure, is gradational.
After deposition, sediments are compacted as they are buried beneath successive layers of sediment and cemented by minerals that precipitate from solution. Grains of sediment, rock fragments and fossils can be replaced by other minerals during diagenesis. Porosity usually decreases during diagenesis, except in rare cases such as dissolution of minerals and dolomitization.
The study of diagenesis in rocks is used to understand the tectonic history they have undergone; the nature and type of fluids that have circulated through them. From a commercial standpoint, such studies aid in assessing the likelihood of finding various economically viable mineral and hydrocarbon deposits.


Replacing diagenesis with magical mysticism will not lead to rapid cementation of the sediments, just compaction of YEC minds.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I'm confused about your "other evidence' as to the discussion of footprints.
The sorting , moving water would be very varied in its results.

Anyways.
This picture seems off topic but it is common.
The lower rock was made during a early stage of the flood. Days, weeks, hours, before the upper rock was thrown on top of it.
In fact I will guess the reason for the life fossils in between is because they settled at the top of the lower sediment/ now rock and sat there a while before the upper level was laid.
This is exactly what the first idea should be when looking at it. Collected sediments in cross currents of different pressures and depth. All were made into rock in the same event with just hours, days, or weeks, difference.
It is what it is. Collected material in a bunch.
like one would see in a great spring surging river.

I have already state that these rocks are biogenic, that is they are make from the skeletal parts of invertebrate creatures. This is not something that can happen overnight, in days, in weeks or a year. It would take thousands of years for enough generations of invertebrates to have lived and died to just produce the material that forms these rocks.

On top of that there is quite clearly a unconformity in the photo, with the rocks below having undergone diagenesis uplift and erosion before the upper limestone’s were laid down. So even in the simplest explanation of what we see; the history of events would go something like this.

Formation of the lower limestone’s by countless billions of invertebrate skeletal remains below water.

Burial of the lower limestone’s to kms of depth

Lower limestone subjected to diagenesis processes including dissolution and cementation.

Lower Limestone’s subjected to uplift.

Lower Limestone’s subjected to erosion.

Lower Limestone’s subjected to sea level rise.

Formation of upper limestones by countless billions of invertebrate skeletal remains below water.

Burial of upper and lower limestones to kms of depth

Upper and lower limestone subjected to diagenesis possesses.

Uplift and erosion.

This is very simplified and only takes into consideration of what we can see; in other areas there rocks are underlain and overlain by vast thicknesses of strata that also need explanation and not your hand waving and magical mysticism.