Nevermind the fact that wiki describes the formation where the fossil was found as volcanic.
It was volcanic. With intermittent sedimentary layers. But, as we've seen, you need more than a simple eruption to account for flattened and well preserved fossils.
Archeoraptor was made of two very real fossils. An early bird and microraptor. The only forgery involved was putting two fossils together that didn't match. And SCIENTISTS found the forgery very quickly, not the creationists.
Gee, calm down lady!
You show me a dino with feathers and I'm not going to accept it as genuine without some pretty convincing evidence.
I'm thinking you don't know any of the answers either. You're just playing games. Not all of the bones are actually squashed to the point of being crushed. It's not as if it was crushed as if with a vice, just look at it . . .
Uh .. yeah. I don't think it was crushed after being fossilised. That would be you.
There were voids left at pompeii, they poured plaster into them. There was a negative image of the people left in the rock. They weren't actually fossilized.
Yeah .. they made casts when they found the fossils.
Nope. And I'm quite sure, you don't either. If you think you do, provide a citation, not your speculative nonsense.
Well, let's see. I'd need the rock type of the layer the fossil is buried under, I'd need the maximum thickness of the fossil as found in situ and I'd need an estimate of the minimum thickness of the animal as it was when it was first buried. Then we'd have to do an estimate on the porosity of the original deposit. We'd have to settle the dispute about whether water filled the pore spaces or not. Then we could maybe look at a few groundwater studies to see what they did to calculate subsidence.
But that's not going to happen, now is it seeing you can't even show us a simple photo of the in situ fossil!
Luckily we don't have to rely on involved citations, experiments and calculations. We can discuss these ideas simply and reach rational conclusions pretty easily. That suits the forum we are working in, doesn't it?
1. If the original deposit was very porous and easily compressible (as is likely in an airfall ash deposit) then it's very possible that the presumed flattening did happen as you suggest. Unfortunately, with such porosity comes exposure to the elements and the complete breakdown of the organism inside. Once the organic matter is gone all you have to crush is rock.
2. If the original material was not very porous (like in your German limestone site) then crushing of it on even this small scale will require great pressure. This will show up in the rock and most certainly wipe the slate clean of any fossilised organisms.
So in order to maintain a non-water, long-ages description of you have to imagine a highly improbable set of long-enduring conditions and possibilities. Atheist descriptions are full of "low-oxygen environments" and warm, shallow seas" to the point where it seems the entire globe was covered with these. :chuckle: They ignore the very real effects of erosion and weathering that should dominate over and above fossil preservation.
A much simpler and physically possible explanation is easily described by adding one assumption. A global flood. If you're willing then I can describe pretty quickly how billions of fossils were buried the world over between layers of horizontal, uneroded rock and then squashed flat. :thumb:
Or you can keep insisting that I'm a liar, a cretin and that I provide links for every sentence.
lain:
