PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Science Debates
     Fossil dung
       How does that happen?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
hatfield

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are reports of fossilized dinosaur droppings but how can this happen? Dung rots away in months at the most but fossils take millions of years to happen. Another thing is that dinosaur fossils have been found on top of the ground. Why aren't they deep down in multimillion year old layers?
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 04:25 AM on April 6, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Erosion and earthquakes easily expose fossils. We know what layer they're in because their radioisotope tests will match a certain layer in rock content and age.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:31 AM on April 6, 2006 | IP
hatfield

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good point but surely erosion or earthquake would do the same harm to the fossils as it would the rocks and would not leave whole fossilized skeletons together. The radiodating I find unconvincing since I discovered in my researching that the dates are checked against the fossil age which is found by dating the rock layer which is done by radiodating which is checked against the fossil age.

Any luck with the dung explanation?

(Edited by hatfield 4/6/2006 at 5:48 PM).
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 4:58 PM on April 6, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good point but surely erosion or earthquake would do the same harm to the fossils as it would the rocks and would not leave whole fossilized skeletons together. The radiodating I find unconvincing since I discovered in my researching that the dates are checked against the fossil age which is found by dating the rock layer which is done by radiodating which is checked against the fossil age.


Note that I also mentioned the content of the rock found in the fossil matches a specific layer in the ground. A fossil isn't actual bone. It's a mineral mold of the real thing. We compare the content of the minerals and rock in, on, and of the fossil. Not only do we find a layer of the earth that matches that of the fossil in mineral content, but the layers are usually consistent in their age with the layer.

You must also surely know that earthquakes don't destroy everything either. They often create large cracks and make shifts in the elevation of rock layers that would otherwise be on the same level. A layer splits into two sections, A and B; B rises above A. It's very easy to uproot whole sections of rock without disturbing anything in them. Do a lot of fossils get destroyed in earthquakes? Yes, and it's one reason we don't have nearly so many to look at as we'd like.

To answer your question about fossilized dung:
Once again, the dung itself is not literally frozen. Mud takes its place, hardens, and becomes a fossil as it's compressed under ground. It's a long, delicate process of oxidation that I'm not lettered on enough to explain through my own words, but I'm sure you could ask a chemistry or geology teacher/professor at whatever school you attend.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:20 PM on April 6, 2006 | IP
hatfield

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok now your changing what I said. I didn't say fossils were frozen. If the material to be fossilized gets compressed over millions of years how come the dinosaur droppings are intact and unsquashed. As we have found elsewhere, radiodating is unreliable. A geology professor who believes strongly in the theory of evolution admitted in a recorded and unedited discussion that one sample gave a range of dates that covered 16 billion years. If we get readings that are clearly wrong how can we trust the other ones?

Long and slow process over millions of years? I don't think so. I went to a place in England called Sutton Hoo. It was used as the burial ground of a powerful Saxon king (known to be from his grave goods and historical records that date it to about 6-700 AD. All organic matter has already fossilizied as verified by the museum built near the site. The mineralizing happen quickly enough for more than the bones to be fossilized. The overall body shape is seen. I looked online for details to show you but nothing seems to have been put online about this quick fossilizing but I did see a science program that talked about that burial site and how other burials have happened quickly as well.

Thanks for taking the time to answer
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 02:54 AM on April 7, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok now your changing what I said. I didn't say fossils were frozen.


I was clearing up a possible misconception. I didnít mean to say you donít know what youíre talking about.

If the material to be fossilized gets compressed over millions of years how come the dinosaur droppings are intact and unsquashed.


Now youíre putting words in my mouth. Lol

I didnít say it takes millions of years. The truth is, I really donít know how long it takes for something to fossilize. Itís not something Iím particularly interested in. At any rate, I would assume itís only a handful of thousands of years, and remember that the material to be fossilized is not what gets compressed, but a layer of mud that took the materialís form.

As we have found elsewhere, radiodating is unreliable. A geology professor who believes strongly in the theory of evolution admitted in a recorded and unedited discussion that one sample gave a range of dates that covered 16 billion years. If we get readings that are clearly wrong how can we trust the other ones?


Because theyíre consistent. The fallibility of radioisotope dating is grossly exaggerated, and most problems associated with it have to do with the difference between use of Uranium isotopes and Carbon-14. Carbon-14 isnít accurate after much more than 5000 years, so it offers extremely ages that vary when you abuse the measurement system and use the wrong isotope. Uranium has three different isotopes, one of which has a consistent half-life of approximately 5 billion years. The answers we get from radio dating are not different every time, and most importantly, when we take two different samples of the same layer of the earth, the ages are the same. Itís not a game of wild guess work.

Long and slow process over millions of years? I don't think so. I went to a place in England called Sutton Hoo. It was used as the burial ground of a powerful Saxon king (known to be from his grave goods and historical records that date it to about 6-700 AD. All organic matter has already fossilizied as verified by the museum built near the site. The mineralizing happen quickly enough for more than the bones to be fossilized. The overall body shape is seen. I looked online for details to show you but nothing seems to have been put online about this quick fossilizing but I did see a science program that talked about that burial site and how other burials have happened quickly as well.


Then that settles it. How does that contradict what I said?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:35 AM on April 7, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, let me say that I'm not playing devil's advocate.  I honestly do not know the answer to the following question.

Uranium has three different isotopes, one of which has a consistent half-life of approximately 5 billion years.

Obviously, we have not bee around for the past 5 billion years.  How do we know that the half-life of the isotope is 5 billion years?  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:32 AM on April 7, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Obviously, we have not bee around for the past 5 billion years.  How do we know that the half-life of the isotope is 5 billion years?  


The same way you can look at the data for any other model of exponential decay, and determine the percent at which its decay is decreasing within any given interval.

It's been a few months since exponential unit in Pre-Calc though, so I'll try to explain it in layman's terms:

You have a curved graph. It starts in the upper left-hand corner, and gradually rolls down near to the bottom left-hand corner, and off to the bottom right-hand corner. You can take any two points on that graph and solve its percent decrease in rate of decay with the use of logrithms.

Obviously, the percent amount of an atomic isotope in a rock isn't quite so perfect. There are variables that increase its rate of decay, like faster oxidation processes and maybe a ton of heat. But there's no record of such variables that would offset our estimations by literally over 99.99%, the inaccuracy within our dating techniques required to make the Earth under 10,000 years old.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:35 PM on April 7, 2006 | IP
hatfield

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Radiodating also assumes that all of the daughter element really was caused by the decay of the isotope and wasn't present at all when the rock was made.

You are right when you say that Carbon dating is inaccurate above 5000 years but that doesn't stop many people from believing dates of many tens if not hundreds of thousands of years for mammoths and such. Any measuring method needs to be calibrated and checked for accuracy. How do the check the dating methods used on rocks? As we have seen, by checking them against the fossil ages which are ultimately dated by the radio methods that they verify. Ever heard of circular reasoning?

There's an article from Science News for Jan 28 2006 that talks about how researchers made fossils in only three years so I don't go with the assumption of thousands of years. For those reading this who are interested I will post the article here if you ask me to.

Still no nearer to finding out how dino-turds got fossilized quicker than they could rot. Musta been a very short time though.

I note your comment about a 99.99% error needed for a <10,000 year old earth. The moon sample that was dated eight different ways and gave eight readings that varied by 16 billion years shows an error of 400%. Yikes! The readings were referenced in Science Magazine 1970 and that geology professor confirmed them
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 5:44 PM on April 7, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Radiodating also assumes that all of the daughter element really was caused by the decay of the isotope and wasn't present at all when the rock was made.


Thatís because all molecules have a certain percentage of each isotope when they are chemically combined. Thereís absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe the molecules of the past were of different composition.

You are right when you say that Carbon dating is inaccurate above 5000 years but that doesn't stop many people from believing dates of many tens if not hundreds of thousands of years for mammoths and such. Any measuring method needs to be calibrated and checked for accuracy. How do the check the dating methods used on rocks? As we have seen, by checking them against the fossil ages which are ultimately dated by the radio methods that they verify. Ever heard of circular reasoning?


Itís very tiring to answer the exact same question for the fourth time in a couple of daysÖ so Iím not going to do it. Please read the post I made right before Myersí more carefully.

There's an article from Science News for Jan 28 2006 that talks about how researchers made fossils in only three years so I don't go with the assumption of thousands of years.


I addressed this in the above-mentioned post as well: how does this contradict what I told you? I simply do not understand what point youíre trying to make by establishing that some rare fossil finds could have been fossilized within a short period of time. The time it takes for something to fossilize no more helps nor hurts the Theory of Evolution than the fact that, 2000 years ago, the average human life span was under the age of 40.

Still no nearer to finding out how dino-turds got fossilized quicker than they could rot. Musta been a very short time though.


Youíre either refusing to read what I actually say, or you just donít get it: mud forms a mold around the dung. The dung decomposes, leaving a mud replicate, which hardens and oxidizes and leaves a fossil of the dung with a small amount of organic molecules left inside of it. The dung can rot almost immediately, and it will still fossilize.

I note your comment about a 99.99% error needed for a <10,000 year old earth. The moon sample that was dated eight different ways and gave eight readings that varied by 16 billion years shows an error of 400%. Yikes! The readings were referenced in Science Magazine 1970 and that geology professor confirmed them


Not only is your source 36 years outdated, and supported byÖ one anonymous geology professor, but itís completely irrelevant. Youíre talking about the moon; Iím talking about layers of rock on the planet Earth. I could care less about the moon in the first place, because here on Earth, we donít get eight completely different readings every time we try to date something.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 4/7/2006 at 9:34 PM).

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 4/7/2006 at 9:35 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:34 PM on April 7, 2006 | IP
hatfield

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok we will agree to disagree. I apologize for getting your defenses up but for my own sake if fossils can take only a few years to be made I can't and won't insist that all others are eons old. Even one quick fossil is enough.

(Edited by hatfield 4/8/2006 at 04:10 AM).
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 03:57 AM on April 8, 2006 | IP
Gomez

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A quick google search of 'dinosaur dung' found me some dinopoop that were definitely not a mould but the actual stuff fossilized. Leaving aside the age assumptions, the pages may be of some help to you, hatfield.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 04:26 AM on April 8, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A quick google search of 'dinosaur dung' found me some dinopoop that were definitely not a mould but the actual stuff fossilized.


A mold of mud around the real thing is an actual fossil. The organic compounds trapped inside still stick around, however, because the mud hardens and there's no way for them to escape without forming into gases and effusing their way out.

Ok we will agree to disagree. I apologize for getting your defenses up but for my own sake if fossils can take only a few years to be made I can't and won't insist that all others are eons old. Even one quick fossil is enough.


Finally, we've got a thesis. Now show how the time it takes something to fossilize is at all related to how old the fossil itself is.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 4/8/2006 at 07:36 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:36 AM on April 8, 2006 | IP
Gomez

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes some fossils are a mold but not all. One example of a molded one is the trilobite embedded in a shoe print that I once saw online. Now to the thesis. A fossil that is observed to have been made in a few years strongly suggests that it is less than millions of years old.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 10:45 AM on April 8, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now to the thesis. A fossil that is observed to have been made in a few years strongly suggests that it is less than millions of years old.


Exactly.

Why I disagree: the fossil could have been made in the blink of an eye or it could have taken millions of years. Whatever the time it took to make the fossil, it will always have the capacity to have been a fossil much longer. When we measure the age of fossils, we don't look at how long it took to become a fossil; we look at how long it's been a fossil.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:04 PM on April 8, 2006 | IP
Gomez

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not bad for somebody who has no interest in fossils or their ages.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 02:00 AM on April 9, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not bad for somebody who has no interest in fossils or their ages.


Lol... Believe me, I haven't had a Geology course since 8th Grade, four years ago.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:24 AM on April 9, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Who here, besides me, can't believe that we are actually discussing "dinopoop"?  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:23 PM on April 9, 2006 | IP
hatfield

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fair comment, EM
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 04:45 AM on April 14, 2006 | IP
hatfield

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A lump of dinopoop was found sneezing. It is being tested for turd flu
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 5:19 PM on April 14, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

booo


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:26 PM on April 14, 2006 | IP
Hespero

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you go in a cow pasture in dry country like Wyoming or Montana you find hard, dry cow poop.    

Whether something fossilizes just depends on how it is buried!  There are even fossil trilobite tracks and raindrop splatters.

I see people talking about how long it takes something to fossilize.  it takes only as long as it takes to bury it.  That is what the name means...something that was buried.  For something to MINERALIZE is different.  How long that would take would totally depend on the environment.  And even if it only took a hundred years to mineallize, well, it could stay buried for another ten million years without changing.

As for why things are not squashed flat...well some things are.  Depends how deep they are buried.  You can find metaconglomerate rocks that the little pebbles in them are flattened out into nothing but streaks.  A lot of fossils are deformed by pressure and earth movements, and a lot are not.

Anyhow, dinosaur poop.  Probably most of it had to dry before being buried.  



 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 4:20 PM on December 12, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

©†YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.