Fossilization and the Dinosaurs

[RileyG]

Can someone please explain this to me? It is my understanding because they were buried so deep, water did not wash away any evidence from the Dinosaurs, thus they have been preserved for millions of years.

Will most remains become fossilized?

Thanks in advanced

 

[Occams Barber]

Can someone please explain this to me? It is my understanding because they were buried so deep, water did not wash away any evidence from the Dinosaurs, thus they have been preserved for millions of years.

Will most remains become fossilized?

Thanks in advanced

Fossils don't need to be buried deep but they do need to be buried to protect and preserve them. This means they need to be covered by sediments fairly quickly before predators, corrosion, or the forces of nature get to them. Sediments can be water borne or wind driven. The main issue is quick coverage. It doesn't necessarily need to be deep - it depends on the circumstances. Typical fossilisation is where the animal dies in still water with a high sediment content and is quickly buried by sediments.

Fossilisation requires a very specific set of circumstances where the animal dies in the right place and is left undisturbed as it mineralises for millions of years after its death. This means fossilisation is a rare event but, given billions of animal deaths over time, even rare events can happen regularly.

OB

 

[RileyG]

Fossils don't need to be buried deep but they do need to be buried to protect and preserve them. This means they need to be covered by sediments fairly quickly before predators, corrosion, or the forces of nature get to them. Sediments can be water borne or wind driven. The main issue is quick coverage. It doesn't necessarily need to be deep - it depends on the circumstances. Typical fossilisation is where the animal dies in still water with a high sediment content and is quickly buried by sediments.

Fossilisation requires a very specific set of circumstances where the animal dies in the right place and is left undisturbed as it mineralises for millions of years after its death. This means fossilisation is a rare event but, given billions of animal deaths over time, even rare events can happen regularly.

OB

Thanks for the explanation!

 

[eleos1954]

Can someone please explain this to me? It is my understanding because they were buried so deep, water did not wash away any evidence from the Dinosaurs, thus they have been preserved for millions of years.

Will most remains become fossilized?

Thanks in advanced

It's not a matter of "deep depth* .... it's a matter of being buried quickly .... soft tissue has been found in some dinosaur remains thus making the "millions of years" theory very questionable by some.

*buried quickly .... scavengers would not be able to get to them and remains not exposed to the outside elements.

Science says it takes at least 10,000 years for fossilization to occur .... not millions of years .... the millions of years is tied to the overall theory of evolution .... not just the rate of fossilization.

Very good support for the world wide flood. (buried rapidly) catastrophic event of which the bible indicates the beginning of the
world being around 6,000 years ago with the world-wide flood taking place not too long after that (about 1600 years or so) .... so most certainly in the ball park for fossilization and/or partial fossilization to occur....

science has an idea of how long it takes for fossilization to occur .... millions/billions of years are needed to support evolution theory as a whole ..... evolution theory falls flat without significant time frames being assumed/theorized.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just to add. The majority of organisms don't leave behind fossils. Fossils are, compared to the number of individual organisms that have lived on this planet, incredibly rare. The reason why there are as many fossils as there are is because of the sheer volume of life that has existed over the course of hundreds of millions of years. Assuming this present generation of life has the time to become fossils and be discovered by a future society, it's highly unlikely that you or me will have made it that far along; it's also possible that very little trace of our existence--or even our civilization--might remain given sufficient geological time.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Occams Barber]

It's not a matter of "deep depth* .... it's a matter of being buried quickly .... soft tissue has been found in some dinosaur remains thus making the "millions of years" theory very questionable by some.

It's rare to find 'soft' tissue in fossils but it can happen. 'Soft' refers to the state of the tissue in the live animal (skin, organs etc.). Fossilised 'soft' tissue has been changed by the chemical processes of mineralisation. When found it's no longer 'soft'.

This is a bit like fossilisation as a whole, where bones are infiltrated by minerals to become rock.

Science says it takes at least 10,000 years for fossilization to occur .... not millions of years .... the millions of years is tied to the overall theory of evolution .... not just the rate of fossilization.

You're correct in saying that fossilisation can occur in as little as 10,000 years - much depends on the specific circumstances. This doesn't prevent fossils from being millions of years old when found. The absolute age of fossils is usually determined by a variety of radiometric dating methods. Radiometric dating uses known rates of radioactive decay as a kind of clock.

Very good support for the world wide flood. (buried rapidly) catastrophic event of which the bible indicates the beginning of the
world being around 6,000 years ago with the world-wide flood taking place not too long after that (about 1600 years or so) .... so most certainly in the ball park for fossilization and/or partial fossilization to occur....

There is no scientific support for a worldwide flood.

By the way - if we use your figures fossilisation would need to happen in 4,400 years (6,000 - 1,600)

science has an idea of how long it takes for fossilization to occur .... millions/billions of years are needed to support evolution theory as a whole ..... evolution theory falls flat without significant time frames being assumed/theorized.

Evolutionary theory and deep time is based on a range of evidence - not just fossils

 

[RileyG]

Thanks everyone for your responses.

I accept evolution based on the sheer number of evidence we have.

 

[eleos1954]

It's rare to find 'soft' tissue in fossils but it can happen. 'Soft' refers to the state of the tissue in the live animal (skin, organs etc.). Fossilised 'soft' tissue has been changed by the chemical processes of mineralisation. When found it's no longer 'soft'.

This is a bit like fossilisation as a whole, where bones are infiltrated by minerals to become rock.


You're correct in saying that fossilisation can occur in as little as 10,000 years - much depends on the specific circumstances. This doesn't prevent fossils from being millions of years old when found. The absolute age of fossils is usually determined by a variety of radiometric dating methods. Radiometric dating uses known rates of radioactive decay as a kind of clock.


There is no scientific support for a worldwide flood.

By the way - if we use your figures fossilisation would need to happen in 4,400 years (6,000 - 1,600)


Evolutionary theory and deep time is based on a range of evidence - not just fossils

It's debatable .... there are many assumptions used in the various testing methods.

Mt. Etna – erupted 2100 years ago, but rocks were dated 25 million years ago.
Sunset Crater, Northern Arizona – erupted in 1065 AD, but rocks were dated 200,000 years old.
Lava flows at Mt. Ngaurhoe, New Zealand – erupted in 1949, 1954, but rocks dated 275,000 yrs old.
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii erupted 200 years ago, but rocks were dated 1.4 to 22 million yrs old.
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily, erupted in 1971, but rocks were dated 140,000 to 350,000 yrs old.
Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, but rocks were dated up to 2.8 million years old.

inconsistency all over the place

The fact is there is a lot we do not know .... so theories are created as possibilities about how things could have/might have happened .... some accept it as fact .... some not .... whatever floats one's boat ;o)

There is evidence and then interpretation of evidence and there are many interpretations of the evidence.

 

[Occams Barber]

It's debatable .... there are many assumptions used in the various testing methods.

Mt. Etna – erupted 2100 years ago, but rocks were dated 25 million years ago.
Sunset Crater, Northern Arizona – erupted in 1065 AD, but rocks were dated 200,000 years old.
Lava flows at Mt. Ngaurhoe, New Zealand – erupted in 1949, 1954, but rocks dated 275,000 yrs old.
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii erupted 200 years ago, but rocks were dated 1.4 to 22 million yrs old.
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily, erupted in 1971, but rocks were dated 140,000 to 350,000 yrs old.
Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, but rocks were dated up to 2.8 million years old.

inconsistency all over the place

The fact is there is a lot we do not know .... so theories are created as possibilities about how things could have/might have happened .... some accept it as fact .... some not .... whatever floats one's boat ;o)

There is evidence and then interpretation of evidence and there are many interpretations of the evidence.

Without links I have no way of verifying or understanding what you're describing.

I have a vague recollection of some Creationists using the wrong form of dating on St Helen's rocks and then claiming a false result.

OB

 

[sjastro]

Without links I have no way of verifying or understanding what you're describing.

I have a vague recollection of some Creationists using the wrong form of dating on St Helen's rocks and then claiming a false result.

OB

This is the usual dishonest drivel from YECs.
One of the problems with K-Ar radiometric dating used in the lava flow examples is contamination of samples with atmospheric ⁴⁰Ar.
K-Ar dating has been largely replaced with ⁴⁰Ar-³⁹Ar dating which has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess ⁴⁰Ar, should it be present.

Here are some examples of the accuracy of the new technique.

 

[Occams Barber]

This is the usual dishonest drivel from YECs.
One of the problems with K-Ar radiometric dating used in the lava flow examples is contamination of samples with atmospheric ⁴⁰Ar.
K-Ar dating has been largely replaced with ⁴⁰Ar-³⁹Ar dating which has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess ⁴⁰Ar, should it be present.

Here are some examples of the accuracy of the new technique.

View attachment 332433
View attachment 332434
View attachment 332435​

Thanks Sjastro

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

It's debatable .... there are many assumptions used in the various testing methods.

Mt. Etna – erupted 2100 years ago, but rocks were dated 25 million years ago.
Sunset Crater, Northern Arizona – erupted in 1065 AD, but rocks were dated 200,000 years old.
Lava flows at Mt. Ngaurhoe, New Zealand – erupted in 1949, 1954, but rocks dated 275,000 yrs old.
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii erupted 200 years ago, but rocks were dated 1.4 to 22 million yrs old.
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily, erupted in 1971, but rocks were dated 140,000 to 350,000 yrs old.
Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, but rocks were dated up to 2.8 million years old.

inconsistency all over the place

The fact is there is a lot we do not know .... so theories are created as possibilities about how things could have/might have happened .... some accept it as fact .... some not .... whatever floats one's boat ;o)

There is evidence and then interpretation of evidence and there are many interpretations of the evidence.

Thanks to @sjastro s post #10 I was able to track down some background on your claim about debatable dating methods. It has its own article in talkorigins.

It's lengthy so I won't reproduce it here. I've given you a link at the bottom of this post. Basically, it appears to be a mixture of misstated facts and old news about K-Ar dating.

Unfortunately, Creationist 'sources' have a poor reputation when it comes to things like quote mining, cherry picking data, misrepresenting facts and spin doctoring.

Can I sincerely suggest that you fact check your info to avoid getting caught up in this type of misinformation.

CD013: K-Ar dating of modern rocks.

OB

 

[Astrid]

This is the usual dishonest drivel from YECs.
One of the problems with K-Ar radiometric dating used in the lava flow examples is contamination of samples with atmospheric ⁴⁰Ar.
K-Ar dating has been largely replaced with ⁴⁰Ar-³⁹Ar dating which has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess ⁴⁰Ar, should it be present.

Here are some examples of the accuracy of the new technique.

View attachment 332433
View attachment 332434
View attachment 332435​

As I've mentioned before, it appears to be impossible for a yed to be both honest and informed.

 

[USincognito]

There some other factors that come into play with fossilization like the depositional environment and how sturdy the bones are. Forests and jungles tend to have acidic soils so the majority of bones dissolve rather than get a chance to fossilize. Bats have small hollow bones which can be crushed and many species live in jungles or forests.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I've mentioned before, it appears to be impossible for a yed to be both honest and informed.

Years of EDucation?

 

[USincognito]

This is the usual dishonest drivel from YECs.
One of the problems with K-Ar radiometric dating used in the lava flow examples is contamination of samples with atmospheric ⁴⁰Ar.
K-Ar dating has been largely replaced with ⁴⁰Ar-³⁹Ar dating which has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess ⁴⁰Ar, should it be present.

K-Ar dating isn't useful for anything less than a million years. With it's half-life, in 20 years, a handful of atoms in a sample would have decayed. Steve Austin was basically using a calendar to time a 100m run and using the results to claim stopwatches don't work.

 

[AV1611VET]

K-Ar dating isn't useful for anything less than a million years. With it's half-life, in 20 years, a handful of atoms in a sample would have decayed. Steve Austin was basically using a calendar to time a 100m run and using the results to claim stopwatches don't work.

It's all about that decimal place, isn't it?

 

[Occams Barber]

Can someone please explain this to me? It is my understanding because they were buried so deep, water did not wash away any evidence from the Dinosaurs, thus they have been preserved for millions of years.

Will most remains become fossilized?

Thanks in advanced

Riley

I forgot I had this in my little collection of evolution educational type stuff. It's a very straightforward explanation of 'what is a fossil' and it's only three minutes long. The makers (Stated Clearly) are supported by organisations like NASA and major research facilities, so the content is dependable although its simplified.

Quick Definition: What Is A Fossil? • Stated Clearly

Here you will see how scientists define "fossil" and you will get an overview of how fossils form.

www.statedclearly.com

OB

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's all about that decimal place, isn't it?

Shall we say it again?

It's about using the right tool to do a job. Specifically it is about people *deliberately* using the wrong tool to get a misleading answer. What would you call such a person?

 

[JohnEmmett]

It's about using the right tool to do a job.

Science isn’t the tool for the spiritual


However it’s the tool for the material