Anaconda wrote: What caused dinosaur bones to be turned into mineral?
I have no reason to think that's even the case, so I feel no compulsion to explain it.
StalkingGoogle
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Julian Braggins wrote: I cut slices of petrified wood
You cut what you imagine to be petrified wood. In all probability what you cut was a fulgurite. Demonstrate the process of petrification in the lab.
Julian Braggins wrote: I know what is petrified wood
You clearly think you do, at least. Demonstrate the process in the lab.
Julian Braggins wrote: fossilised bone I've seen was in precious black opal
Almost certainly a sculpture. Demonstrate this process of bone turning into opal in the lab.
Julian Braggins wrote: the one I dug was not fully fossilised, little more than hard clay
You may or may not be right about it being bones. If they are bones, you say yourself they're not fossilized. You say yourself they were "hard clay" embedded in a loose material. My guess is you fell for a scam to make money.
Anaconda
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
StalkingGoogle,
I asked StalkingGoogle a question:
Anaconda wrote: What caused dinosaur bones to be turned into mineral?
And StalkingGoogle stated:
StalkingGoogle wrote: I have no reason to think that's even the case, so I feel no compulsion to explain it.
This is a science forum and you have made an assertion that there is no such physical process as "fossilization". I have asked you a question. In light of your statement, I'll rephrase the question: So, if you don't think the material constituting, quote 'fossilized' unquote, dinosaur bones, is a mineral, which numerous scientists have identified as a mineral; then in your opinion, what is the material, if its not mineral?
StalkingGoogle, you have decided to participate in a science forum and make an assertion, then another participant has asked you to answer a relevant question in regards to you assertion; it is 'good form' to provide a responsive answer.
StalkingGoogle, your statement, "...I feel no compulsion to explain it.", Is non-responsive to my quesion.
Please answer and explain what the material constituting the dinosaur bones is in your opinion.
Also, please cite and link (since readers already know you have the ability to link outside sources) evidence supporting your contention.
If you will not, I and other readers can only conclude you are not participating in good faith on the forum.
StalkingGoogle
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Anaconda wrote: This is a science forum and you have made an assertion that there is no such physical process as "fossilization".
You're confused. The burden of proof is always on the claimant, never the skeptic. I am skeptical of this process called "fossilization". I've never seen it demonstrated in a lab or even read about it being demonstrated in the lab. Until such time as this process is reproduced under controlled conditions, the burden of proof is on the faithful believers, not the skeptics.
Anaconda wrote: So, if you don't think the material constituting, quote 'fossilized' unquote, dinosaur bones, is a mineral, which numerous scientists have identified as a mineral; then in your opinion, what is the material, if its not mineral?
I don't accept the premise that bone can turn into opal, malachite or turquoise. If you know of some process to do so, please feel free to demonstrate it in the lab. I'm sure you'll become very famous.
Anaconda wrote: StalkingGoogle, you have decided to participate in a science forum and make an assertion, then another participant has asked you to answer a relevant question in regards to you assertion; it is 'good form' to provide a responsive answer.
See above where I explain your confusion here on where the burden of proof lies. It's always on the claimant, never the skeptic.
Anaconda wrote: StalkingGoogle, your statement, "...I feel no compulsion to explain it.", Is non-responsive to my quesion.
My response was non-responsive? Are you deliberately trying to be oxymoronic or is it accidental? I responded that I disagree with the premise of your question, which to my view moots your question, no answer to your question is then necessary.
Anaconda wrote: Please answer and explain what the material constituting the dinosaur bones is in your opinion.
I have no idea what "dinosaur bones" you're even talking about. I know what most people see in a museum that's called "dinosaur bone" is actually a plastic model of an entire organism based on a few (possibly) bone fragments. It's ludicrous on its face.
Anaconda wrote: Also, please cite and link (since readers already know you have the ability to link outside sources) evidence supporting your contention.
I cite the entire sum of human knowledge and technical achievement, which in its entirety can't seem to reproduce this "fossilization" process even once. See above where I explain your confusion about where the burden of proof lies. It's always on the claimant, never the skeptic.
Anaconda wrote: If you will not, I and other readers can only conclude you are not participating in good faith on the forum.
So if I refuse to let you badger me I'm not participating in good faith? Well that's one way of looking at it, I guess. See above where I explain your confusion about the burden of proof. It's always on the claimant, never the skeptic. And by "claimant" I don't mean the minority that disagrees with the majority beliefs, I'm talking about claiming something for which there is no evidence, in this case "fossilization", which seems impossible to reproduce in the lab short of carving bones out of rocks, a hoax that's been perpetrated so many times history has lost count of them all. Need I go on?
Sparky
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
StalkingGoogle ,
I know what most people see in a museum that's called "dinosaur bone" is actually a plastic model of an entire organism based on a few (possibly) bone fragments. It's ludicrous on its face.
Are you saying that dinosaurs never existed?..
I am skeptical of this process called "fossilization". I've never seen it demonstrated in a lab or even read about it being demonstrated in the lab.
Fossilization may not be explained correctly, indeed, EU has it's own theory of this process. It is not necessary to have lab reproduction to formulate a theory.
Maybe someone with some chemistry/geology experience can point us to experiments that suggest fossilization can occur.
I cite the entire sum of human knowledge and technical achievement, which in its entirety can't seem to reproduce this "fossilization" process even once.
You make a claim. Can you cite just one experiment which attempted to reproduce fossilization?
-carving bones out of rocks, a hoax that's been perpetrated so many times history has lost count of them all.
That is just nonsense! Suggesting that All recovered bones are part of a hoax only demonstrates obsessive compulsive ignorance. Not that there is anything wrong with that...
Do you happen to belong to a group or organization that believes and teaches such stuff?
Indeed, many dinosaurs remains have been found by fishermen, kids, cowboys, and hikers, while doing their thing! There are places where huge bones stick out of the river bank or cliff!!!
Hoaxes?!...Pffffft.
Anaconda
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Sparky,
Good points, especially your clarifying question, "Are you saying that dinosaurs never existed?.."
A reasonable implication of StalkingGoogle's post is that in his opinion dinosaurs never existed.
StalkingGoogle:
StalkingGoogle wrote: Need I go on?
No.
Readers can decide for themselves whether your statements have merit or not.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Dinosaur bones where the original biologically formed calcium has been replaced by non-biologically derived mineral have been found in geological formations. No serious scientist disputes this FACT.
You, in turn, are disputing this well documented fact, therefore, you are the claimant and I am the skeptic to your claim.
All your logical gymnastics, in my opinion, is nothing more than an elaborate dodge to my question, therefore, it's reasonable to conclude, in my opinion, you have no evidence to support your assertion — in reality a naked opinion.
Again, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Readers can draw their own conclusion.
As for my conclusion; you have an opinion — and I'll leave it at that.
The Liscomb bone bed has produced the most important dinosaur remains from Alaska. We collected bones on and below the surface. We found both fossilized and unfossilized bones. We dug down about three feet to get to the bones frozen in permafrost. It was the frozen unfossilized bones we were seeking for our research, although we collected some fossilized bones as well. Both types were found together (I'm not sure how to explain it).
StalkingGoogle
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Sparky wrote: Are you saying that dinosaurs never existed?..
I can't say if they did or didn't. I can say for a fact that fraud and hoaxes have been passed off as dinosaur fossils.
Sparky wrote: It is not necessary to have lab reproduction to formulate a theory.
If you ever expect that "theory" to be taken seriously some experimental verification better be forthcoming.
Sparky wrote: Maybe someone with some chemistry/geology experience can point us to experiments that suggest fossilization can occur.
Maybe such experiments lie outside the realm of the possible.
Sparky wrote: You make a claim.
Actually I expressed skepticism at this hitherto unverified process of "fossilization" of bone and other tissue of living organisms.
Sparky wrote: That is just nonsense!
I can make an equally valid competing claim about your nonsense.
Sparky wrote: Suggesting that All recovered bones are part of a hoax
You betray your bias when you say "bones are part of a hoax". Obviously if we're dealing with sculptures here, they're not now and never were bones. If they are bones, they're not fossils. This is not rocket surgery.
Sparky wrote: only demonstrates obsessive compulsive ignorance
I can make an equally valid competing claim about your obsessive compulsive ignorance.
StalkingGoogle
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Anaconda wrote: A reasonable implication of StalkingGoogle's post is that in his opinion dinosaurs never existed.
Since I never made this claim, this is just an assumption you share.
Anaconda wrote: You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
It's a fact that neither "fossilization" nor "petrification" has ever been demonstrated in the lab. Until that happens, it's not just my opinion that it's bunk, it's a fact.
Anaconda wrote: Dinosaur bones where the original biologically formed calcium has been replaced by non-biologically derived mineral have been found
In your opinion I'm sure that's true.
Anaconda wrote: You, in turn, are disputing this well documented fact, therefore, you are the claimant and I am the skeptic to your claim.
Until such time as experimental verification of this "fossilization" process surfaces, I'm the skeptic here, you're the claimant. You believe in these far-fetched ideas regardless of how many frauds and hoaxes have been perpetrated.
Anaconda wrote: in my opinion, you have no evidence to support your assertion
You're confused. The burden of proof is always on the claimant, never the skeptic. Until such time as experimental verification of this "fossilization" process surfaces, I'm the skeptic here, you're the claimant. You believe in these far-fetched ideas regardless of how many frauds and hoaxes have been perpetrated.
I've seen this claim many times that "fossilization" has been replicated in the lab. In every case that I've examined it turns out this isn't true. For example, one process involves soaking wood in acid until it is spongy and rubbery then soaking it in another solution that deposits material into the matrix of the wood that is then cured in an oven, whereupon it hardens. Neither of these compounds used in the process have ever been observed to occur spontaneously in the abundances needed for this to take place.
As for "dinosaur bones" being found frozen and unfossilized, all I can say is then it shouldn't be long before we have living dinosaurs, since we should be able to clone them. Where are the dinosaur clones at? I can't say if any given claimed dinosaur bone is authentic or not, but I can say this process whereby bones and skin and what have you turn into rock is spurious until proven otherwise.
flippinrocks
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
about 6 years ago, I buried a farmer's dead cow in a swail fill. Guestimate around 6-9 feet deep, if you guys are polite and on your best behaviour, maybe the farmer will let us excavate it and see the results 1st hand.
also, this was during winter when this took place.
Sparky
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
StalkingGoogle,,
I can make an equally valid competing claim about your obsessive compulsive ignorance.
Which i am making small headway in fixing, but i try, by not falling for the most outrageous of claims. You are making the outrageous claim that fossilized bones are a hoax!
All dinosaur bones are hoaxes?..Nonsense! In this area, your good reasoning is completely lacking, and what comes out is perverted.
My question is, why? Why would anyone NEED to believe such outrageous nonsense? Because it can't be derived from the evidence, using the most basic, logical investigation and inference. Their must be an addiction like need.
BTW, I am aware of hoaxes of all sorts. A forum persona may be a hoax. With all of the crap that is posted online, what percentage is a hoax? Or is it all a hoax, from your line of reasoning?
And since i can decide to believe or not believe the evidence, and have proven to be able to change my stance on a subject, I must not have a strong bias. Now, if i had a strong belief in the theory that an invasion of mini black holes wiped out the dinosaurs, and I refused to review the evidence or consider other's argument, that would be a Bias!...Actually, more of a delusion..
- For their experiment, Shin and his colleagues used pine and poplar boards from a local lumber store, cutting the wood into small cubic samples. Once the samples were cleaned and cut, they were soaked in hydrochloric acid for two days and then soaked in silica solution for another two days. After the wood had been air-dried, the pieces were placed into a furnace filled with argon gas and steadily heated to 1400 degrees Celsius, where the samples baked for two hours. - Finally, the samples were cooled to room temperature in an atmosphere of argon. - The finished product was silicon carbide, a ceramic version of the wood, which was petrified as if it had been trapped in sediment for millions of years. The material "replicates exactly the wood architecture," Shin said.
Lloyd
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Dating of Fossils * The following data comes from this website: http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm. * Of about 40 fossils tested, 35 contained a C14 ratio age equivalent of 22 to 39 k.yrs. * 1 showed an age equivalent of 16 k.yrs. * 4 showed age equivalents of 2 to 4 k.yrs. These are said to be somewhat contaminated. * The fossil parts tested for C14 were one or more of the following for each sample: Collagen, Organic Fraction of Whole Bone, Carbonate Fraction of Bioapatite (Bone Mineral), Charred Bone, Humic Acids. Triceratops - MT - 30,890 Triceratops - MT - 33,830 Hadrosaur - MT - 22,380 Hadrosaur - MT - 22,990 Hadrosaur - MT - 25,670 Hadrosaur - MT - 25,170 Hadrosaur - MT - 23,170 Hadrosaur - AK - 31,050 Allosaurus - CO - 16,220 Allosaurus - CO - 31,360 Acrocanth - TX - 23,760 (Acrocanth = Acrocanthosaurus) Acrocanth - TX - 25,760 Acrocanth - TX - 32,400+ Acrocanth - TX - 25,750 Acrocanth - TX - 23,760 Acrocanth - TX - 29,690 Acrocanth - TX - 30,640 (Acrocanth - ? - 19,000) (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm) Allosaurus - CO - 31,360 Hadrosaur - AK - 31,050 Hadrosaur - AK - 36,480 Triceratops - MT - 30,890 Triceratops - MT - 33,830 Triceratops - MT - 24,340 Triceratops - MT - 39,230 Triceratops - MT - 30,110 Hadrosaur - MT – 22,380 Hadrosaur - MT - 22,990 Hadrosaur - MT - 25,670 Hadrosaur - MT - 25,170 Hadrosaur - MT - 23,170 Hadrosaur - CO - 37,660 Apatosaur - CO - 38,250 Rhinoceros - Asia - 22,830 Rhinoceros - Asia - 28,550 Psittacosaur - Asia - 22,020 (Psittacosaur = Psittacosaurus) Mosasaur - Euro - 24,600 Hadrosaur - MT - 1,950 Hadrosaur - MT - 2,560 Hadrosaur - MT - 2,560 Psittacosaur - Asia - 4,070 * The following is a summary of previous similar data on this thread. 1. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm - Wood embedded in limestone, dated at 110 million years old, was C14-dated at 890 years old - Carbonized stick embedded in the same limestone was C14-dated at 12,900 years old - In 1997 five specimens were taken from the new (eleven year old) lava dome (dacite) at Mount St. Helens (formed in 1986) at five different locations and were subjected to conventional Potassium-Argon dating, which gave false readings from under half a million to almost three million years old. 2. Were All Dinosaurs Reptiles?, Kronos Vol. II #2, (1976) - Velikovsky cites a report of the Doheny Scientific Expedition, to the Hava Supai Canyon, Northern Arizona (1925): In the redstone wall of the Supai Canyon in the region of the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a dinosaur, standing upright and balanced on its tail - Dinosaurs were in the vicinity, as is established by footprints not more than one hundred miles from the picture - Near the carvings of dinosaurs there are images of elephants and other animals, even an ibex - The carvings are noted to have been covered in desert varnish indicating great age, i.e. thousands of years. 3. Holden - Dinosaur descriptions in Midrashim read like they are describing a handful of leftovers which were still walking around just prior to the flood and were viewed as oddities - What you get in the Americas, including all of the art work and Vine DeLoria's descriptions of Indian oral traditions sounds more like humans having to deal with dinosaurs on a more regular basis.
StalkingGoogle
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Sparky wrote: You are making the outrageous claim that fossilized bones are a hoax!
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the history of fraud and hoaxing in archaeology and paleontology, among other "sciences" that can not or do not perform experiments before you continue this discussion any further.
As for this "fossilization" process, it's never been demonstrated in the lab. Until it is, I'll remain skeptical.
