Dinosaur footprints destroy flood geology.

[ChordatesLegacy]

Here’s a question for all creationists.

For years now YEC have used hydraulic sorting as a mechanism for sorting out different fossils groups. However animal tracks are far more common than skeletal remains and would not suffer from the YEC hydraulic sorting paradigm.

So why in all the thousands of fossil track ways found are there none with large mammals and dinosaurs together?

Scientific answer; separated by millions of years in time

Example of trace fossils - dinosaur tracks. Iguanodontid footprints (upper part of photo) and a small theropod footprint (lower) in the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone near Morrison, Coloroado (Photo by E. L. Crisp, October 1999).

View of the main palaeosurface trackway (looking west) showing the tracks of seven large animals as they walked in a westerly direction. LINK

 

[RobertByers]

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?

The soft sediment was collected in the first place by the water flow and turned into rock. The sediment was turned into rock by pressure exactly as geology today says except they put great amounts of time behind. Creationist geologfy agrees with the others beology that pressure on top of sediment makes rock. We say instantly and they say gradually.
So the footprints/ rain drops can be expected as the remains of a instant "freezing" . The exact process can only be presumed by all sides.

 

[RobertByers]

Chordateslegacy
No this no what happened.
Lets remember that all that is known is what . Nothing was witnessed or tested to see if it could happen even.

Dead creatures skeletons is exactly what creationism predicts. The moving water crushing millionos of creatures in a more fruitful world.
The different layers are just ordinary sorting events in a short period. The different layers of creatures knew each other as living over there or here.
All is sorting and water created formations. The top material was laid days, weeks, later during different earth movements and water flow.

There is no reason to see these formations as anything other then what they are. Collected sediments/life in a great pressurized water event with varied sorting dut relative to times of the flood event.
Your ideas of layering are unlikely as they require such a stationary area to allow the marvelous laying by weight of immense sediment over time.
Not to mention the endless dying of creatures, pause, then more dying to make such formations.
Creationism makes the simpler conclusion. Neither case witnessed, by humans, but cross referencing should show our idea is better or the only plausible one.

 

[RobertByers]

Chordateslegacy
Wrongo
The answer is that dinos and mammals were not living together (save little ones).
Its impossible that horses, sheep, deer were living with such great hunters of all sizes in the dino world.
Mammals in those pre-flood days would of been a minority of the fauna and living in segregated areas. The flood changed the ratio of clean to unclean animals. The unclean ruled before the flood and the clean after.
Creationists should not want to find mammals living with dins. in fact this creationist sees the k-t line as the flood year. So the fossil mammals above are post flood. Yet organized creationism does wrestle with the flood line and many would see these mammal fossils as from the flood and so pre-flood fauna.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers wrote

The soft sediment was collected in the first place by the water flow and turned into rock.

Totally wrong where limestone’s are concerned, because they are biogenic, that is they form from the skeletal remains of countless billions of invertebrate creatures over periods up to millions of years. This is easily checked by investigating the ocean floors, which are covered by biogenic ooze, the precursors of limestone.

Quote from HERE

composition of seafloor

composition of seafloor (in sedimentary rock: Origin of limestones)

...of all, abyssal plain sequences are less likely to be incorporated into the orogenic belts that develop as continental margins are compressed during ocean basin closure. Second, pelagic calcareous oozes are the obvious modern analogues of ancient abyssal plain calcilutites. These oozes are produced by aragonite-secreting plankton that float near the surface (such as foraminiferans and...

composition of seafloor (in ocean: Biogenic oozes)

Biogenic oozes are pelagic sediments that have more than 30 percent skeletal material. They can be either carbonate (or calcareous) ooze or siliceous ooze. The skeletal material in carbonate oozes is calcium carbonate usually in the form of the mineral calcite but sometimes aragonite. The most common contributors to the skeletal debris are such microorganisms as foraminiferans and coccoliths,...
This is how the material that forms limestones accumulates and is observable and testable.
Biogenic Sediments LINK


Rob your comments only compounds peoples already low opinion of you. You lack even the most basic understanding of sedimentary petrology and the diagenesis processes that lead to the cementation of sediments.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers says

Creationist geologfy agrees with the others beology that pressure on top of sediment makes rock. We say instantly and they say gradually.

Totally Wrong: Nothing in creationist mysticism agrees with geology. The only reason you make such statements is that you lack any understanding of geological processes.

Take stylolites which are though-going sutured surfaces which cut grains, cement and matrix in limestones indiscriminately. Clay, iron minerals and organic matter, the insoluble residue from the dissolution of limestones accumulate in the stylolites. This only occurs at great depth releasing calcite which travel upwards in solution to form cements for less buried biogenic oozes.

This is a gradual process because as the pressure builds it is released by dissolution in a alternating sequence of sediment deposition, which remember is the skeletal remains of invertebrate creatures at the top of the sediment pile and dissolution processes at depth in the sediment pile.

Stylolites in limestone.

Also this is very testable in the laboratory; indeed it is proven beyond doubt.


Just in case you want to actually learn some sedimentary petrogenesis; here’s a book and list of references to scientific papers.

Your ignorance is no defence for the mystical rhetoric you preach.


An Atlas of Pressure Dissolution Features

L. Bruce Railsback
Department of Geology, University of Georgia ​

​

Manten, A.A., 1966, Note on the formation of stylolites: Geol. en Mijnbouw, v. 45, p. 269-274.
Manus, R.W, and Coogan, A.H., 1974, Bulk-volume reduction and pressure-solution derived cement: Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 44, p. 466-471.
Marshak, S., and Engelder, T., 1985, Development of cleavage in limestones of a fold-thrust belt in eastern New York: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 7, p. 345-359.
Mazullo, S.J., 1981, Facies and burial diagenesis of a carbonate reservoir: Chapman Deep (Atoka) Field, Delaware Basin, Texas: Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., v. 65, p. 850-865.
McClay, K.R., 1977, Pressure solution and Coble creep in rocks and minerals: a review: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 134, p. 57-70.
Meike, A., 1983, Microstructure of stylolites in limestones: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 15, p. 642.
Meike, A., 1990, Dislocation enhanced selective dissolution: an examination of mechanical aspects using deformation-mechanism maps: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 12, p. 785-794.
Meike, A., and Wenk, H.-R., 1988, A TEM study of microstructures associated with solution cleavage in limestone: Tectonophysics, v. 154, p. 137-148.
Merino, E., 1992, Self-organization in stylolites: American Scientist, v. 80, p. 466-473.
Merino, E., Ortoleva, P., and Strickholm, P., 1983, Generation of evenly-spaced pressure-solution seams during (late) diagenesis: a kinetic theory: Contr. Min. Petrol., v. 82, 360-370.
Meyers, W.J., 1980, Compaction in Mississippian skeletal limestones, southwestern New Mexico: Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 50, p. 457-474.
Meyers, W.J., and Hill, B.J., 1983, Quantitative studies of compaction in Mississippian skeletal limestones, New Mexico: Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 53, p. 231-242.
Mimran, Y., 1977, Chalk deformations and large scale migration of calcium carbonate: Sedimentology, v. 24, p. 333-360.
Mossop, G.D., 1972, Origin of the peripheral rim, Redwater reef, Alberta, Canada: Bull. Canadian Petrol. Geol., v. 20, p. 238-280.
Mullenax, A.C., and Gray, D.G., 1984, Interaction of bed-parallel stylolites and extension veins in boudinage: Jo. Structural. Geol., v. 6, p. 63-71.
Nelson, R.A., 1983, Localization of aggregate stylolites by rock properties: Amer Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., v. 67, p. 313-322.
Neugebauer, J., 1973, The diagenetic problem of chalk. The role of pressure solution and pore fluid: Neues. Jahrb. Geol. Paläontol. Abh., v. 143, p. 223-245.
Nitecki, M.H., 1959, Role of clay in stylolite formation (abs.): Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 70, p. 1651-1652.
Niktin, A.A., 1985, Patterns of stylolite-formations in sedimentary and metamorphic rocks: International Geology Review, v. 27, p. 659-668.
Onasch, C.M., 1993, Determination of pressure solution shortening in sandstones: Tectonophysics, v. 227, p. 145-159.
Onasch, C.M., 1994, Assessing brittle volume-gain and pressure solution volume-loss processes in quartz arenite: Journal Of Structural Geology, v.16, p. 519-530.
Park, W.C., and Schot, E.K., 1968, Stylolites: their nature and origin: Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 38, p. 175-191.
Park, W.-C., and Schot, E.H., 1968, Stylolitization in carbonate rocks, in Müller, G., and Friedman, G.M., eds., Recent Developments in Carbonate Sedimentology in Central Europe: Berlin, Springer-Verlag, p. 66-74.
Paterson, M.S., 1973, Nonhydrostatic thermodynamics and its geological application: Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. v. 11, p. 355-389.
Pray, L.C., 1960, Compaction in calcilutites (abs.): Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 71, p. 1946.
Prokopovitch, N., 1952, The origin of stylolites: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 22, p. 212-220.
Purser, B.H., 1978, Early diagenesis and preservation of porosity in Jurassic limestones: Jour. Petroleum. Geol., v. 1, p. 83-94.
Quenstedt, F.A., 1837, Die stylolithen sind anorganischen Absonderungen: Wiegmann's Archive Naturg., v. 3, p. 137-142. (or auszuge (extract) in Neues Jahrbuch Mineralogie, 496-497 (1837))
Railsback, L.B., 1993, Contrasting styles of chemical compaction in the Upper Pennsylvanian Dennis Formation in the Midcontinent region, U.S.A.: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 63, p. 61-72.
Railsback, L.B., 1993, Lithologic controls on morphology of pressure-dissolution surfaces (stylolites and dissolution seams) in Paleozoic rocks from the Mideastern United States: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 63, p. 513-522.
Railsback, L.B., 1993, Intergranular pressure dissolution and compaction in a Plio-Pleistocene grainstone buried no more than 30 meters: Shoofly oolite, southwestern Idaho: Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 8, p. 163-169.
Railsback, L. Bruce, 1996, Stylolites in limestones that lacked significant primary aragonite: Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, t. 167, No. 1, p. 181-183.
Railsback, L.B., 1998, Evaluation of spacing of stylolites, and its implications for self-organization of pressure dissolution: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 68, p. 2-7.
Railsback, L.B., and Andrews, L.M., 1995, Tectonic stylolites in the "undeformed" Cumberland Plateau of southern Tennessee: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 17, p. 911-915..
Railsback, L.B., and Hood, E.C., 1993, Vertical sutured contacts caused by intergranular pressure dissolution during tectonic compression in Jurassic limestones, High Atlas Mountains, Morocco: Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstracts w. Programs, v. 25, p. A162.
Renard, F., and Ortoleva, P., 1997, Water films at grain-grain contacts: Debye-Hückel, osmotic model of stress, salinity, and mineralogical dependence: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 61, p. 1963-1970.
Renard, F., Ortoleva, P., and Gratier, J.P., 1997, Pressure solution in sandstones: influence of clays and dependence on temperature and stress: Tectonophysics, v. 280, p. 257-266.
Renard, F., Park, A., Ortoleva, P., and Gratier, J.P., 1999, An integrated model for transitional pressure solution in sandstone: Tectonophysics, v. 312, p. 97-115.
Rigby, J.K., 1953, Some transverse stylolites: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 23, p. 265-271.
Rittenhouse, G., 1971, Pore-space reduction by solution and cementation: Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., v. 55, p. 80-91.
Robertson, E.C., Sykes, L.R., and Newell, M., 1962, Experimental consolidation of calcium carbonate sediment: U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper 350, p. 82-83.
Robertson, E.C., 1965, Experimental consolidation of carbonate mud (abs.), in Pray, L.C., and Murray, R.C., eds., Dolomitization and Limestone Diagenesis: Soc. Econ. Pal. Min. Sp. Pub. 13, p. 170.
Robin, P.-Y. F., 1978, Pressure-solution at grain-to-grain contacts: Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, v. 42, p. 1383-1389.
Rutter, E.H., 1976, The kinetics of rock deformation by pressure solution: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, v. A 283, p. 203-219.
Rutter, E.H., 1983, Pressure solution in nature, theory, and experiment: Jour. Geol. Soc. London, v. 140, p. 725-740.
Salameh, E., and Zacher, W., 1982, Horizontal stylolites and paleostress in Jordan: Neues Jahrbuch Geol. Pal. Monatshefte, 8, p. 509-512.
Schwander, H.W., Bürgin, A., and Stern, W.B., 1981, Some geochemical data on stylolites and their host rocks: Ecologae Geol. Helv., v. 74, p. 217-224.
Shaub, B.M., 1939, The origin of stylolites: Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 9, p. 47-61.
Shaub, B.M., 1949, Do stylolites develop before or after the hardening of the enclosing rock? Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 19, p. 26-36.
Shinn, E.A., Halley, R.B., Hudson, J.H., and Lidz, B.H., 1977, Limestone compaction: an enigma; Geology, v. 5, p. 21-24.
Shinn, E.A., and Robbin, D.M., 1983, Mechanical and chemical compaction in fine-grained shallow-water limestones: Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 53, p. 595-618.
Simpson, J., 1985, Stylolite-controlled layering in an homogeneous limestone: pseudo-bedding controlled by burial diagenesis: Sedimentology, v. 32, p. 495-505.
Smith, J.V., 2000, Three-dimensional morphology and connectivity of stylolites hyperactivated during veining: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 22, p. 59-64.
Sprunt, E.S., and Nur, A., 1977, Experimental study of the effects of stress on solution rate: Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 82, p. 3013-3022.
Stockdale, P.B., 1922, Stylolites: their nature and origin: Indiana Univ. Studies, v. 9, p. 1-97.
Stockdale, P.B., 1923, Solutive genesis of stylolitic structures: Pan-Amer. Geology, v. 39, p. 353-364.
Stockdale, P.B., 1926, The stratigraphic significance of solution in rocks: Jour. Geol., v. 34, p. 399-411.
Stockdale, P.B., 1936, Rare stylolites: Amer. Jour. Sci., v. 32, p. 129-133.
Stockdale, P.B., 1943, Stylolites: primary or secondary?: Jour. Sed. Petrol., v. 13, p. 3-12.
Stockdale, P.B., 1945, Stylolites with films or coal: Jour. Geol., v. 53, p. 133-136.
Tada, R., and Siever, R., 1986, Experimental knife-edge pressure solution of halite: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 50, p. 29-36.
Tada, R., and Siever, R., 1989, Pressure solution during diagenesis: Annual Reviews Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 17, p. 89-118.
Thomas, A.R., Dahl, W.M., Hall, C.M., and York, D., 1993, Ar-40/Ar-39 analyses of authigenic muscovite, timing of stylolitization, and implications for pressure solution mechanisms - Jurassic Norphlet Formation, offshore Alabama: Clays and Clay Minerals, v. 41, p. 269-279.
Trémolières, P., and Reulet, J., Influence des déformations techtoniques sur les caractéristiques pétrophysiques matricelles des réservoirs calcaires: Revue de l'Institut Français du Pétrole, v. 33, p. 331-348.
Trurnit, P., 1968, Analysis of pressure solution contacts and classification of pressure solution phenomena, in Müller, G., and Friedman, G.M., eds., Recent Developments in Carbonate Sedimentology in Central Europe: Berlin, Springer-Verlag, p. 75-84.
Trurnit, P., 1968, Pressure solution phenomena in detrital rocks: Sedimentary Geology, v. 2, p. 89-114.
Von Bergen, D., and Carozzi, A.V., 1987, Stylolitic porosity in carbonates: a critical factor for deep hydrocarbon production: Jour. Petrol. Geol., v. 10, p. 267-282.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers wrote

There is no reason to see these formations as anything other then what they are. Collected sediments/life in a great pressurized water event with varied sorting dut relative to times of the flood event.

In this case you are not just wrong but unbelievable wrong.

In the nineteenth century people (including scientists of the day) thought it would be impossible for life to occur in the deep oceans, stating that the pressure would be too great and it would crush anything at that depth.

You are using the same argument to suggest water pressure at depth is enough to produce rock. Nothing could be further from the truth and the only reason you suggest it is because you have no understanding of the processes needed for the petrogenesis of sediments to occur.

Water is incompressible and the pore pressure on sediment grains in the deep ocean is in balance, i.e. water does not compress sediments at the ocean floor, this can only happen as the sediment is buried under increasingly think sediments which creates pressure removing the pore water and compressing the sediments.

It’s the same reason animals can survive in the deepest parts of the ocean i.e. their internal pressure is in equilibrium with the surrounding water.

Here’s a link to life in the Mariana Trench ~32000 feet deep, so you can educate yourself, there also a section on the geology of the trench.

LINK

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers Wrote

Your ideas of layering are unlikely as they require such a stationary area to allow the marvelous laying by weight of immense sediment over time.

Wrong Again; look at the following layering from the Mississippi delta.

Processes we observe and understand created these sediments, they can also account for sedimentation we see in the geological record. No magic, no mysticism, no flood.

We do not have to apply superstition to explain the geology of the world.

You and your ilk need so much magical mysticism and your arguments all come down to one think.

DID SOMEONE WAVE A MAGIC WAND

Read a book and get educated, because your comments make you look foolish.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers wrote

Mammals in those pre-flood days would of been a minority of the fauna and living in segregated areas

Really behind barbed wire or electrical fence; segregated my a$$, again you resort to magical mysticism.

I know I am going to regret this but here goes.

Question: How were mammals segregated from the dinosaurs.

And when you have answered that one how about this.

Question; How were Miocene mammal segregated from Pleistocene mammals as observed in the geological record.

Question: How did this segregation occur in the oceans, must have been one hell of a fence?

Again your logic is completely flawed, just like YEC.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

ROB Byers Wrote

The flood changed the ratio of clean to unclean animals. The unclean ruled before the flood and the clean after.

So we go round in circles. The sediments containing dinosaurs also contain palaeosols, burrows, mud cracks, ran drop marking, coal seams with roots, hard grounds, desert deposits, evaporates DINO PRINTS AND TRACKS etc, the list is endless.


SO NO FLOOD

Only the ignorant could take you seriously

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers said:

Yet organized creationism does wrestle with the flood line and many would see these mammal fossils as from the flood and so pre-flood fauna.

Of course creationists are wrestling with the flood line, or better worded the flood geology; this is because in two hundred years of geological investigation, not one single piece of evidence for the biblical flood has been found.

Talk about banging your head on a wall; creationists could be used for demolishing buildings, at least then their ignorance would be useful.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course creationists are wrestling with the flood line, or better worded the flood geology; this is because in two hundred years of geological investigation, not one single piece of evidence for the biblical flood has been found.

Keep looking.

I like the scene in Godzilla 2000 where the guy is down in an impression looking around, then the camera zooms out to a birdseye view; and he's standing in a footprint.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Keep looking.

I like the scene in Godzilla 2000 where the guy is down in an impression looking around, then the camera zooms out to a birdseye view; and he's standing in a footprint.

A bit like Christians; I mean their world view puts them at the centre of everything, blinkered to the big picture, which is now in view through the scientific method.

 

[AV1611VET]

A bit like Christians; I mean their world view puts then at the centre of everything, blinkered to the big picture, which is now in view through the scientific method.

Them? I'm sure you meant "us." If not --- who exempted you?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Them? I'm sure you meant "us." If not --- who exempted you?

No, I mean you as in Christians; I am not the centre of anything. I just don’t have the arrogance to think that this universe was for my benefit.

Religious people humble, that’s a joke.

Anyway off subject, I would like to get back to the geology. Have YEC found any evidence for the flood yet?

 

[AV1611VET]

YEC found any evidence for the flood yet?

I'm not a YEC, but I'm on record as saying there isn't any.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Originally Posted by ChordatesLegacy

Of course creationists are wrestling with the flood line, or better worded the flood geology; this is because in two hundred years of geological investigation, not one single piece of evidence for the biblical flood has been found.

Keep looking.

The problem for you AV, as I have pointed out before, is that the more we "keep looking" the more we find evidence that there could not have been a global flood. The data presented on this thread are on a tiny fraction of the data that falsify the global flood but they are sufficient and are far from the only data that show that the flood of Noah if it occured could not have been global. The global flood is falsified by paleontology, geology, biodiversity, archeology, biogeography and paoleoclimatology just to name a few of many branches of science with results totally inconsistent with YEC "flood geology", but let's restrict the discussion on this excellent thread to dino tracks and fossils.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I'm not a YEC, but I'm on record as saying there isn't any.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and flys like a duck you should not be surprised that you can't convince us that it is a chicken. Do you or do you not believe that there was a global flood about 4,500 years ago? Do you or do you not believe that the earth was created about 6,000 years ago? If you do believe those things you are for all intents a purposes a YEC no matter what you claim about "embedded age".

 

[Nathan Poe]

Keep looking.

I like the scene in Godzilla 2000 where the guy is down in an impression looking around, then the camera zooms out to a birdseye view; and he's standing in a footprint.

That was a good scene, from a vastly underrated movie, IMO.

However, AV, it's not just issues with what we haven't found -- but with what we have already found. To wit -- a whole lot of evidence has been discovered which wouldn't be there if a global flood occurred, and nothing yet has been found to indicate that one has.

Should geologists keep looking? You know they're going to do that anyway -- dig into the Earth and study what they find. But consider that YECs and other literalists such as yourself have already concocted absurd flood scenarios such as magical "Water vapor canopies" and hyper fast plate tectonics in order to explain the origins of a flood before any physical evidence of such a flood has been discovered in the first place.

I do believe that's what's known as "putting the cart before the horse."

Now, we all know your mantra to be "The Bible said it -- case closed" or something to that effect, but of course, if you sincerely believed that, "Creation Science" would be unnecessary. As long as you or the other YECs are going to go through the motions of finding supporting facts, why not actually find a few first?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Diagenesis of clay minerals and mudrocks.

Clay minerals are sometimes altered during early and late diagenesis. The main physical post-depositional process affecting the sediments that will become mudrocks as a whole is compaction.

Compaction in mudrocks expels water and reduces the thickness of the deposited sediments by a factor of up to ten. When muds are deposited they contain in the region of 70-80% water by volume. Compaction through overburden pressure soon removes much of the water so at a depth of 1km or so, the mudrock contains around 30% water. Further compaction through water loss requires temperatures approaching 100 degrees centigrade and these are attained at depths in the region of 2-4 km.

Thus every time you walk on mudstone remember they have all been buried to 2-4 km in depth. These processes take time, not only for the sediments to be deposited, but also for diagenesis to occur.

The only thing that is deposited that YEC get right is BULL$H!T