please real unicorns in the fossil record? citation please, thanks
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Fossils can be made quickly
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
please real unicorns in the fossil record? citation please, thanks
Right Divider
Body part
Nat Geo for Kids is about your speed.
https://www.natgeokids.com/uk/disco...als/siberian-unicorn-fossil-discovery-humans/
Here are a few more since it appears that your Googler does not work.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/29/siberian-unicorn-extinct-humans-fossil-kazakhstan
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-when-siberian-unicorns-last-roamed-the-earth
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/living/real-unicorn-remains/index.html
:chuckle:
Right Divider
Body part
I think this part was particularly insightful:
Yep...
Yep. A rhinoceros species, elasmotherius, went extinct only about 39,000 years ago, about 33,000 years before the creation of the earth.
Stuart
Whose claim was it that fossils necessarily take millions of years to form? It wouldn't be a creationist strawman, would it?
Fossils can form relatively quickly, but unfortunately for your argument no fossils formed during the 'Flood in Genesis' for two reasons:
1. Fossils by definition are older than 10,000 years.
2. There never was a global flood during the timescale you claim is described in Genesis.
Stuart
A definition you just made up?
Right Divider
Body part
Based on your false philosophy.
I acknowledge your desire for the alt-facts to go with the religious fundamentalist lifestyle choice.
Stuart
No one.
I said, in a parenthetical, "for example."
But the thrust of my argument was against "long periods of time."
What, you mean like the one you just made?
Except they're not.
Trying to define the argument out of existence does not make the argument go away.
I linked to an article that shows that fossils can form RAPIDLY, in "a SINGLE DAY."
By definition, a single day is NOT 10,000 years.
You can form a fossil in a single day at any point in time if you have the right conditions. That means as recently as a second ago, which means that fossil is, by definiition, NOT 10,000 years old.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Right Divider
Body part
Stuu's just here to preach his religion regardless of the facts.
Well I guess we are in agreement then.
Stuu: It wouldn't be a creationist strawman, would it?
A kind of meta-strawman?
AiG thinks it's a 'popular belief': Contrary to popular belief, rocks and fossils actually form quite rapidly.
AiG for kids (creepy) feels the need to warn kids against something: The Bible helps us to understand that it didn’t take millions of years for fossils to form
Whatever this creationist site is claims the following: Evolutionist view point..it usually takes about a few million years for a single fossil to form
Truth That Matters (classic alt-fact language) mangles it thus: The uniformitarian theory adopted by evolutionists is that fossils were formed as animals slowly got buried in sediments over millions of years during the course of the earth's evolutionary history.
I reckon that establishes your earlier line as a classic creationist strawman. But of course I take your word that you didn't mean it in that way.
Here are five links that demonstrate the use of a working definition of 'fossil' as preserved remains older than 10,000 years:
San Diego Natural History Museum: https://www.sdnhm.org/science/paleon...rces/frequent/
National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/fossil/
American Museum of Natural History: https://www.amnh.org/research/paleontology/faq
The Virtual Petrified Wood Museum: http://petrifiedwoodmuseum.org/FossilTypes.htm
Moab Happenings of Utah (partly a geology society I think): https://www.moabhappenings.com/Archi...910-Fossil.htm
If it formed in a single day 9000 years ago, it is not a fossil. If it formed in a single day 11,000 years ago and it is preserved living remains or impressions, it is a fossil. That is the current usage of that word by real scientists.
Stuu:2. There never was a global flood during the timescale you claim is described in Genesis.
No indeed it doesn't. But I'd say having no interruption to ice cores or dentrochronology are two examples of complete, final disproof of a global flood within the past 10,000 years. I'm surprised you have the bravery to have even mentioned it again, given how laughably absurd Mr. Brown's claims are. As they say, he is not even wrong.
Stuart
Let's be clear: A fossil is just the result of a physical process that in some cases can be completed in just a few hours.
If you're going to talk like everything we dig up has to be 10,000 years old before we can call it a fossil, then you're just being a waste of time.
Do you even know what things are required to fossilize an organism?
Last edited:
You should tell the paleontologists. Why does it particularly matter what it's called? Is it important to you that remains less than 10,000 years old be called fossils?
I do.
Stuart
Trust me, if I ever find one stupid enough to say what you made up, I will.
:AMR: Who said there was anything wrong with calling a fossil a fossil?
Apart from you, that it. "Ar, this hat encased in rock is 200 years old, therefore it cannot be said to have fossilized."
If they're fossilized — of course there would be something wrong with not being able to call them fossils.
And what part of that process says it must have happened at least 10,000 years ago?
Well, copying from my reply to JD above, here are five organisations to which you should send emails to start correcting the world:
San Diego Natural History Museum: https://www.sdnhm.org/science/paleon...rces/frequent/
National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/fossil/
American Museum of Natural History: https://www.amnh.org/research/paleontology/faq
The Virtual Petrified Wood Museum: http://petrifiedwoodmuseum.org/FossilTypes.htm
Moab Happenings of Utah (partly a geology society I think): https://www.moabhappenings.com/Archi...910-Fossil.htm
Your beef is not with me. It doesn't bother me whether or not the world of paleontology doesn't call very young geological preservations of living things 'fossils'. But they don't. They are called subfossils when younger.
To help you with understanding why they don't, I found online this quote of the Oxford Dictionary definition of fossil: Something preserved in the ground, especially in petrified form in rock, and recognizable as the remains of a living organism of a former geological period, or as preserving an impression or trace of such an organism. Now since, strictly we are in the Quaternary Period currently, for a fossil remain to be from the most recent earlier geological period it would have to be at least 2.588 million years old, coming from the Neogene period. But it must be a looser interpretation used, one that roughly corresponds to the end of the earlier Pleistocene epoch, actually 11,700 years ago. So it looks a bit arbitrary as used in practice.
If you took the case of petrified wood, this document provides an excellent overview of the chemistry of the petrification of wood, including attempts to petrify wood quickly in the laboratory. In natural settings, preservation of the wood virtually immediately is followed by processes that achieve some mineralisation within short or intermediate periods of time, up to thousands of years, followed by mineral transport and recrystallisation processes that take tens of millions of years in the case of gem-quality pertrified wood:
For example, 'Using Frick’s Law a theoretical conifer tree trunk with a diameter of 100 cm and a length of 100 cm buried horizontally in a pyroclastic deposit would be permineralized through diffusion within an estimated time of 47,000 years. Using an advection model the same tree buried upright (in situ) would require approximately 3,600 years for cell lumina and intercellular spaces to become impregnated with opal. This estimate assumes wood structure remains intact. The results of this study are consistent with other findings and indicate that the incipient permineralization of large trees with opal is on a time scale of thousands of years.'
So in the case of the large block of wood buried in a pyroclastic flow, the turning of the wood into an object that paleontologists might call 'fossilised' is no where near complete at 10,000 years. On the other hand, when silicate-rich water can flow up through the phloem and zylem of the wood, the object might be partly mineralised in the centre by 3,600 years. So it may seem arbitrary in the case of wood, but 10,000 years looks like a reasonable cut-off to me, nonetheless. My own sample of petrified wood is 150 million years old and I gather it took in the order of a hundred thousand years to permineralise and recrystallise to the extent it has. I would suggest to you that a piece of wood that has only very recently been preserved against decomposition by anaerobic burying is not yet what anyone should think of as a 'fossil'.
Stuart
Oh you think those are real "unicorns". How sweet.
Idiots. The bunch of them. You included if you think that distinction is of any value.
A useless distinction.
Right Divider
Body part
Just deny anything that doesn't agree with your story, eh?