Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

feederband wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: Sounds like a catastrophe, not a mass die-off because of environmental changes to me.

Exactly - the point being you dont need mass extinctions and such to create large bone beds - Even today large numbers of animals can be trapped around drying water holes - and die en mass

Not in anywhere near the numbers that are in some of these deposits are found in. Some of them cover hundreds of square miles and contain millions upon millions of individuals.

There were alot more creatures and more concentrated than now..No humans to control populations...

Cap'n How come no human fossils found with dino fossils?

I don't know of any massive fossil beds that exist in areas like Mesopotamia that would have been populated by humans at that early date.

There are however many ancient cities and human artifacts buried in in rock that was once mud in that area. Occasionally, ancient human artifacts are found in coal deposits that are found in coal deposits that are supposedly millions of years old etc.

[toddytodd]

feederband wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: Sounds like a catastrophe, not a mass die-off because of environmental changes to me.

Exactly - the point being you dont need mass extinctions and such to create large bone beds - Even today large numbers of animals can be trapped around drying water holes - and die en mass

Not in anywhere near the numbers that are in some of these deposits are found in. Some of them cover hundreds of square miles and contain millions upon millions of individuals.

There were alot more creatures and more concentrated than now..No humans to control populations...

Cap'n How come no human fossils found with dino fossils?

To add to Fedderband's thought: Many fossils beds are formed over millions of years. People have been on the earth a relatively short time, when compared to the age of the earth and its earliest inhabitants. We should expect to find more prehistoric fossils than we do fossils of animals of current age it would seem.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: Not in anywhere near the numbers that are in some of these deposits are found in. Some of them cover hundreds of square miles and contain millions upon millions of individuals.

Link?

[John]

feederband wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: Sounds like a catastrophe, not a mass die-off because of environmental changes to me.

Exactly - the point being you dont need mass extinctions and such to create large bone beds - Even today large numbers of animals can be trapped around drying water holes - and die en mass

Not in anywhere near the numbers that are in some of these deposits are found in. Some of them cover hundreds of square miles and contain millions upon millions of individuals.

There were alot more creatures and more concentrated than now..No humans to control populations...

Cap'n How come no human fossils found with dino fossils?

Same reason they're not found with gorilla and tiger bones.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: We should expect to find more prehistoric fossils than we do fossils of animals of current age it would seem.

The majority of fossils that are found are creatures that live to this day.

Quote: Link?

For example, the Green River deposit covers 25,000 square miles.
http://www.fossilmall.com/Science/Sites/GreenRiver/GreenRiver.htm

And then there is the Morrison Formation
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html#Morrison Formation

That's only two of many.

Also I would like to see an explanation for standing polystrate fossils of trees that traverse several layers of sedimentary rock.

Surely, they did not resist decomposition for the millions of years that these layers supposedly represent.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html

This is a very interesting website, worth checking out, even if you subscribe to evo theory.

Here's another picture, of a velicoraptor and a prototriceratops standing locked in a life and death struggle.



The issue of creation vs evolution is far from being settled.

[cap'n queasy]

John wrote: feederband wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: Sounds like a catastrophe, not a mass die-off because of environmental changes to me.

Exactly - the point being you dont need mass extinctions and such to create large bone beds - Even today large numbers of animals can be trapped around drying water holes - and die en mass

Not in anywhere near the numbers that are in some of these deposits are found in. Some of them cover hundreds of square miles and contain millions upon millions of individuals.

There were alot more creatures and more concentrated than now..No humans to control populations...

Cap'n How come no human fossils found with dino fossils?

Same reason they're not found with gorilla and tiger bones.

I don't think running around with a dinosaur pack would be very advisible.
:wink:

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: For example, the Green River deposit covers 25,000 square miles.
http://www.fossilmall.com/Science/Sites/GreenRiver/GreenRiver.htm



Yes and I quote directly from the site : The formation is one of the largest lacustrine (i.e., lake) sedimentary accumulations in the world, averages some 2000 feet thick, and spans the period 40 to 50 million years ago during the Eocene Epoch of the Cenozoic Era.

When something dies in water - it has two choices. Float to the surface, or sink to the bottom. And the time period of the formation represents nearly 10% the total period of vertebrea life on Earth.



Quote: And then there is the Morrison Formation
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html#Morrison Formation


Which took aproximately 9 million years to form.

I dont see any evidence of mass extinction senarios in either site.

Quote: Also I would like to see an explanation for standing polystrate fossils of trees that traverse several layers of sedimentary rock.

Surely, they did not resist decomposition for the millions of years that these layers supposedly

Easy - It is not sedimentary rock. I would recommend doing a little research into the geology of the area.

Quote: Here's another picture, of a velicoraptor and a prototriceratops standing locked in a life and death struggle.


Without knowing the context of the find - it is impossible to summise what occured. I have seen fossils from the Gobi desert of two creatures locked in battle when the sand dune they where standing beside slumped and covered them in the middle of the battle.

There was a recent amazing find in Kansas of an 8 foot fish, with an undigested 4 foot fish in its gut. The clue to the events is the amazing trauma to the 8 foot fish's back bone. It appears. the 8 foot fish pre-occupied with the kill, was attacked and killed by a larger predator.

[feederband]

cap'n queasy wrote: John wrote: feederband wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: Sounds like a catastrophe, not a mass die-off because of environmental changes to me.

Exactly - the point being you dont need mass extinctions and such to create large bone beds - Even today large numbers of animals can be trapped around drying water holes - and die en mass

Not in anywhere near the numbers that are in some of these deposits are found in. Some of them cover hundreds of square miles and contain millions upon millions of individuals.

There were alot more creatures and more concentrated than now..No humans to control populations...

Cap'n How come no human fossils found with dino fossils?

Same reason they're not found with gorilla and tiger bones.

I don't think running around with a dinosaur pack would be very advisible.
:wink:

No its because we weren't around when they were...

[cap'n queasy]

I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.

Quote: Easy - It is not sedimentary rock. I would recommend doing a little research into the geology of the area

I guess you aren't going to bother to read what the website has to say about it.

[Enoch]

cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.


Why don't you buy it?

[John]

Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.


Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?


How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?


At what temperature would it need to be for these animals to live?

[Enoch]

John wrote: Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.


Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?


How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?


At what temperature would it need to be for these animals to live? I wasn't directing that question to you John. I am asking Cap'n a question. He's a big boy. Why don't you let him answer for himself?

[feederband]

John wrote: Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.


Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?


How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?


At what temperature would it need to be for these animals to live?

What the he$$ does that have to do with time span...

[toddytodd]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: We should expect to find more prehistoric fossils than we do fossils of animals of current age it would seem.

The majority of fossils that are found are creatures that live to this day.

Quote: Link?

For example, the Green River deposit covers 25,000 square miles.
http://www.fossilmall.com/Science/Sites/GreenRiver/GreenRiver.htm

And then there is the Morrison Formation
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html#Morrison Formation

That's only two of many.

Also I would like to see an explanation for standing polystrate fossils of trees that traverse several layers of sedimentary rock.

Surely, they did not resist decomposition for the millions of years that these layers supposedly represent.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html

This is a very interesting website, worth checking out, even if you subscribe to evo theory.

Here's another picture, of a velicoraptor and a prototriceratops standing locked in a life and death struggle.



The issue of creation vs evolution is far from being settled.

Quote: The majority of fossils that are found are creatures that live to this day. Not sure about that, as fossils take far longer to form than people have been on earth. Can you provide any evidence to show that the majority of fossils found are modern day africa elephants, hog-nosed bats, peacocks, modern day ferns or insects, or the like? Keep in mind there is a difference between fossils and bones.

[John]

feederband wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.


Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?


How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?


At what temperature would it need to be for these animals to live?

What the he$$ does that have to do with time span...

Everything...are you not a "free thinker"?

Sun burns several hundred million tons of hydrogen per second...




1 year = 31 556 926 seconds

That's 4 733 538 900 000 000 times 600 000 000...which would mean that the sun would be 2.84012334 to the 24th power tons bigger.

That would make the sun incredibly huge...which would mean that the earth would really really hot...molten hot.


Did dinosuars walk around the molten 1200 degrees Celsius earth?

[Enoch]

John wrote: feederband wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.


Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?


How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?


At what temperature would it need to be for these animals to live?

What the he$$ does that have to do with time span...

Everything...are you not a "free thinker"?

Sun burns several hundred million tons of hydrogen per second...




1 year = 31 556 926 seconds

That's 4 733 538 900 000 000 times 600 000 000...which would mean that the sun would be 2.84012334 to the 24th power tons bigger.

That would make the sun incredibly huge...which would mean that the earth would really really hot...molten hot.


Did dinosuars walk around the molten 1200 degrees Celsius earth?

According to Dr. Sten Odenwald, an astronomer at NASA:

The solar radius is 441,000 miles and it is at a distance of 93 million miles. It subtends an angle of 30 arc minutes at this distance, so 200 miles is an angular change per year of 30minutes x 60 seconds/minute x 200/441,000 = 0.8 arcseconds/year. If this has been going on for the last 50 years, this would have changed the angular diameter of the sun by 40 arcseconds or a little under 3 percent of its apparent size. A change that is 100 times smaller than this (0.4 arcseconds) in that amount of time would have gotten the attention of astronomers a LONG time ago.

There is no evidence that the size of the sun has changed appreciably over the last 100 million years, because the amount of heat the sun produces at the earth depends on the second power of the solar diameter, all other factors being equal, so a little change on the sun would throw the earth into a global heat wave or ice age.

[John]

Enoch wrote: John wrote: feederband wrote: John wrote: Enoch wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't buy those time spans. You may, I don't.


Why don't you buy it?

Answer these three questions.

How much mass does the sun burn off a second?


How big would the sun be 150 million years ago?


At what temperature would it need to be for these animals to live?

What the he$$ does that have to do with time span...

Everything...are you not a "free thinker"?

Sun burns several hundred million tons of hydrogen per second...




1 year = 31 556 926 seconds

That's 4 733 538 900 000 000 times 600 000 000...which would mean that the sun would be 2.84012334 to the 24th power tons bigger.

That would make the sun incredibly huge...which would mean that the earth would really really hot...molten hot.


Did dinosuars walk around the molten 1200 degrees Celsius earth?

According to Dr. Sten Odenwald, an astronomer at NASA:

The solar radius is 441,000 miles and it is at a distance of 93 million miles. It subtends an angle of 30 arc minutes at this distance, so 200 miles is an angular change per year of 30minutes x 60 seconds/minute x 200/441,000 = 0.8 arcseconds/year. If this has been going on for the last 50 years, this would have changed the angular diameter of the sun by 40 arcseconds or a little under 3 percent of its apparent size. A change that is 100 times smaller than this (0.4 arcseconds) in that amount of time would have gotten the attention of astronomers a LONG time ago.

There is no evidence that the size of the sun has changed appreciably over the last 100 million years, because the amount of heat the sun produces at the earth depends on the second power of the solar diameter, all other factors being equal, so a little change on the sun would throw the earth into a global heat wave or ice age.

Read what he said...it's circular reasoning. He's not basing what he says on the bare facts.....but on his belief that the earth is millions of years old. He is assuming THAT to be true...therefore he would be correct.....the sun couldn't have changed much. But the opposite is true if the sun has changed in size. It would disprove an earth being as old as "they" say.

I gave you the bare facts...the sun would be A LOT bigger. A LOT.

BTW...working at NASA isn't that big of a deal. :wink:

[Enoch]

John wrote: Read what he said...it's circular reasoning. He's not basing what he says on the bare facts.....but on his belief that the earth is millions of years old. He is assuming THAT to be true...therefore he would be correct.....the sun couldn't have changed much. But the opposite is true if the sun has changed in size. It would disprove an earth being as old as "they" say.

I gave you the bare facts...the sun would be A LOT bigger. A LOT.

BTW...working at NASA isn't that big of a deal. :wink:

Even if you don't consider working at NASA to be that big of deal, I will still take educated scientists' explanations before yours. What are your scientific credentials?

But, that really is beside the point

According to Cornell University:

If the sun consumes "x" amount of mass per second during nuclear fusion, and it is believed to be "y" years old, how big (diameter) was it believed to be when it was first "fired up"?

I cannot give you a quantitative estimate of the sun's size, but it was smaller than it is today. A star is born when nuclear reactions begin in the core of the collapsing protostar. Once the star starts nuclear fusion, its size remains nearly constant throughout its life in the main sequence. As you may know, the star is supported by hydrostatic equilibrium, and the temperture of the core is almost constant through the main sequence.

But, there are slight variations in the size and luminosity of the star during the main sequence. As the star ages, the temperature of the core gets slightly hotter (the core shrinks slightly), causing the nuclear reactions to proceed at a faster rate, causing the energy output to go up. Consequently, to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium, the star's envelope expands a little bit and the luminosity goes up slightly. Further, the temperature of the surface of the star goes down slightly (even though the core is hotter).

Thus, even though one thinks that the sun must have been bigger in the past as it had more mass, that is not the case, and it is actually bigger now than it was in the past.

But, that brings up the idea of "what is hydrostatic equilibrium, and how does it work?" Well, I'm glad you asked.

According to Ohio State University:

When the force due to pressure exactly balances the force due to gravity, a system is in hydrostatic equilibrium. The Sun's hydrostatic equilibrium is stable and self-regulating; if you tossed a little extra matter onto the Sun, the inward force of gravity would increase. However, the resulting compression would increase the pressure inside the Sun, resulting in an increase in the pressure force just sufficient to balance the increased gravitational force.

This means that, as the mass of the sun decreases, the gravitational pull from the core of the sun decreases as well. The more the mass, the more the pull. Thus, the size of the sun would remain at a relative constant, with only minor fluctuations possible.

So, sorry, the sun wasn't "much much bigger" as you claim. You are confusing mass with size.

[John]

Quote: Even if you don't consider working at NASA to be that big of deal, I will still take educated scientists' explanations before yours.

Why? I'm an educated scientist at NASA. :shock: :lol:

[Enoch]

John wrote: Quote: Even if you don't consider working at NASA to be that big of deal, I will still take educated scientists' explanations before yours.

Why? I'm an educated scientist at NASA. :shock: :lol: I'm sure you'll understand when I say I don't believe that.

But, no response to the information I presented?