About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Aupmanyav]

Who said soil shifts by itself? Maybe I'm wrong, if so can you please show me how because it seems clear that a fossil can remain in soil that shifted long before the bone was embedded in it or soil leached into the bone remains.

You are hardly ever correct when it comes to science. A fossil 20 million year old will never be covered with soil 200 million years old or 2000 year old. The strata would have solidified.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are hardly ever correct when it comes to science. A fossil 20 million year old will never be covered with soil 200 million years old or 2000 year old. The strata would have solidified.

Again -- The soil leaching into the bone could be vastly different than the bone's age itself.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are hardly ever correct when it comes to science. A fossil 20 million year old will never be covered with soil 200 million years old or 2000 year old. The strata would have solidified.

Aside from the fact that bones can become like rocks, isn't that correct?

 

[YoursTrue]

You are hardly ever correct when it comes to science. A fossil 20 million year old will never be covered with soil 200 million years old or 2000 year old. The strata would have solidified.

Soil, even with bones in it, can shift and be disturbed and overthrown, or do you disagree with that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are hardly ever correct when it comes to science. A fossil 20 million year old will never be covered with soil 200 million years old or 2000 year old. The strata would have solidified.

Actually you can have younger sedimentary rock over older sedimentary rock.. There are at least two ways that I can think of. One is by a thrust fault. During an orogenic event ( mountain building) there can be a horizontal squeeze that causes a layer to break and slide on top of others. At the boundary older layers will be over younger layers.

Thrust fault - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The other method again occurs during mountain building. As you probably are well aware there are quite often folded rocks associated with the formation. In extreme cases Recumbent Folds will occur. That again is due to compression, but instead of cracking and slipping the rock folds to such a degree that the fold gets pushed up and it folds over the rocks underneath. This usually occurs at a greater depth where heat and pressure make the strata more plastic:

Recumbent folds

'Recumbent folds' published in 'Structural Geology and Tectonics'

link.springer.com

A recumbent fold can be distinguished by the reversal of the order of strata that one finds.

So there are exceptions, but they are also ways to detect them.

 

[F1fan]

From what I am learning, bones (or fossils) are dated according to the soil element within or around. therefore--your conclusion may not be the way I see it.

The way you see things is distorted by your religious bias.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again -- The soil leaching into the bone could be vastly different than the bone's age itself.

Another fractally wrong post. There is no soil involved, it does not leach into the bone. Ground water containing dissolved carbonate or silicate can do so and that replaces the material of the bone, but since we do not date the bone itself that does not matter. When ages are done, usually with volcanic ash, they are also quite frequently dating single crystals. Crystals do not "leach". If you tear apart the structure of a crystal to replace one element you no longer have a crystal.

It is almost as if you are trying to be wrong. How does one get so much wrong in just one sentence?

 

[Aupmanyav]

A recumbent fold can be distinguished by the reversal of the order of strata that one finds.

This strata suffered a lot of violence. The rocks reveal their history in one glance.

 

[shunyadragon]

"The development of radiometric dating techniques in the early 20th century allowed scientists to quantitatively measure the absolute ages of rocks and the fossils they host." Note the last part -- scientists measure the absolute ages of rocks AND the fossils THEY HOST. What do you get from this? Are the dates of the fossils imputed from the sediment or rocks around them, or can fossils themselves minus the sediment be dated?

First, Radiometric dating does not determine 'absolute' dating of rocks or fossils.

Radiometric dating also dates the fossils in the rocks.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again -- The soil leaching into the bone could be vastly different than the bone's age itself.

Soil does not leach into bones.

The procedures of dating is extensive dating rocks above and below the fossil y different methods. It is not the only way of dating rocks and fossils.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Soil does not leach into bones.

The procedures of dating is extensive dating rocks above and below the fossil y different methods. It is not the only way of dating rocks and fossils.

I was thinking about that notion of soil leaching into rock and what it could mean.

In the fantastic world where desperate notions magically become reality for some, soil, being the more recent material, if it could leach into bone and confound dating, it would likely produce dates that are more recent than existing estimates. Making the fossils and the fossil bearing strata likely much older than what is indicated by dating results currently. Given that the main proponent of this notion provides regular evidence that they don't have a clue about science or scientific methods, the desperation driving the "soil leaching into fossils" scenario actually shoots anyone trying to claim a younger age for these things in the foot.

 

[YoursTrue]

I was thinking about that notion of soil leaching into rock and what it could mean.

In the fantastic world where desperate notions magically become reality for some, soil, being the more recent material, if it could leach into bone and confound dating, it would likely produce dates that are more recent than existing estimates. Making the fossils and the fossil bearing strata likely much older than what is indicated by dating results currently. Given that the main proponent of this notion provides regular evidence that they don't have a clue about science or scientific methods, the desperation driving the "soil leaching into fossils" scenario actually shoots anyone trying to claim a younger age for these things in the foot.

How might soil be more recent than the bones? Or pottery? Good you're thinking about it but then you go off into a wild scenario explanation about scientific methods and desperation about soil leaching into fossils. It doesn't?

 

[YoursTrue]

I was thinking about that notion of soil leaching into rock and what it could mean.

In the fantastic world where desperate notions magically become reality for some, soil, being the more recent material, if it could leach into bone and confound dating, it would likely produce dates that are more recent than existing estimates. Making the fossils and the fossil bearing strata likely much older than what is indicated by dating results currently. Given that the main proponent of this notion provides regular evidence that they don't have a clue about science or scientific methods, the desperation driving the "soil leaching into fossils" scenario actually shoots anyone trying to claim a younger age for these things in the foot.

No answers, just again insults.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How might soil be more recent than the bones? Or pottery? Good you're thinking about it but then you go off into a wild scenario explanation about scientific methods and desperation about soil leaching into fossils. It doesn't?

Fossils. Soil is more recent that mineralized fossils. Not that it matters, you haven't shown any ability to understand or sincerity to try. You just turn every rational discussion silly and make responding meaningfully a wasted effort.

I wasn't talking to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No answers, just again insults.

I know. Seeing thirty posters explain how proof is not a standard of science and what that means to a person that denies science, only to see that person continue to repeat demands for proof or fish being fish, is insulting. I think it is like treating others as if they are idiots.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fossils. Soil is more recent that mineralized fossils. Not that it matters, you haven't shown any ability to understand or sincerity to try. You just turn every rational discussion silly and make responding meaningfully a wasted effort.

I wasn't talking to you.

But I am responding to your post because of what you wrote. I realize I'm treading on shaky ground (soil) when I say certain things, but thank you for answering. LOL, as far as responding meaningfully, that is funny. I was reading about black holes and deteriorating matter and frankly I wonder why people waste (no, I mean spend) so much time trying to figure it out. Like maybe it will save the earth from being ruined by "humans"? (Not gorillas, of course.) Now if a person wants to cite scientific sources or articles about the likelihood of some "Unknown Common Ancestor" becoming the forebearer of gorillas, etc., and humans -- it's interesting to see.
Soil on top like two or 20 feet above a mineralized fossil could be 'younger' than the fossil. But maybe it isn't. Maybe -- just maybe -- it has a different date attached to it than the bone or pottery piece.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know. Seeing thirty posters explain how proof is not a standard of science and what that means to a person that denies science, only to see that person continue to repeat demands for proof or fish being fish, is insulting. I think it is like treating others as if they are idiots.

Yes, meantime I take antibiotics when I deem it necessary at this point, Also x-rays. I think the theories were proven with vaccines and the like. I'm glad also that "Science" developed anesthetics because I recently had an operation.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Dan From Smithville I like you, Dan, anyway it's getting late and I think I'll say good night.

 

[F1fan]

How might soil be more recent than the bones? Or pottery? Good you're thinking about it but then you go off into a wild scenario explanation about scientific methods and desperation about soil leaching into fossils. It doesn't?

If there is a case where fossils are exposed due to erosion, and these fossils get redeposited, scientists can assess the age of the new soil and that it has a variety of material in it that are not of the same age. Having a huge collection of fossils, and knowing the ages of various fossils, scientists can determine what the fossils are and how old they are. I'm not sure this is a big problem. I understand you want to exploit anything to further suggest uncertainty in science. This only makes us aware you are uncomfortable with results in science due to your religious beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

How might soil be more recent than the bones? Or pottery? Good you're thinking about it but then you go off into a wild scenario explanation about scientific methods and desperation about soil leaching into fossils. It doesn't?

The problem is your overwhelming self imposed ignorance you do not remotely have the knowledge to as the question above as to how rocs are deposited over billions of years in strata and how the life form remains or fossils are deposited and preserved.

By the way there are many types of rock strata where things are not leached over time. Rocks like some limestones and fine textured shale are effectively sealed and not permeable. Some annual seasonal cyclic deposits in ancient lakes and periodic volcanic layers leave annual perfectly preserved layers covering thousands of years sealing many animal an plant fossils perfectly sealed. Some of these lack and volcanic rock strata are buried by other strata over periods of millions of years.

Yes, you are on worse than shaky ground arguing assertions without any knowledge of science.