Dinosaur tracks revealed due to severe drought conditions at Dinosaur Valley State Park

[essentialsaltes]

That sounds like a blind assumption.

I referred to the fact from the article that there was "sediment covering and filling the tracks"

The tracks were not directly in contact with the current of the river.

 

[dwb001]

I referred to the fact from the article that there was "sediment covering and filling the tracks"

The tracks were not directly in contact with the current of the river.

I know... there are all sorts of currents that are not directly a result of the water in the river.
Branches in the current stir the sediment, frosts and freeze cycles, droughts (this drought was probably not the first), wind erosion, plant growth (roots etc).

Did the discoverers have to chip out the rock that was in the prints or were the prints already exposed but then filled with loose sediment?
What type of rock was the print made in and what type of rock would have filled the print long before first exposure?
These are just off the top of the head questions that any scientist should be asking before making age estimates.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How long would the river need to be flowing over the tracks to reduce the impression to the depth of a imprint rather than a hole?

I don't know. First you'd have to determine if there was erosion of the surface with the imprint *after* it was exposed, or if the depth was reduced prior to the sediment solidifying.

Right... and the depth of the imprint would diminish quickly as the hole filled with sediment from the river and the exposed higher layers were abraded by debris.

Yes the imprint could have its depth altered before consolidating as well. These things can in part be determined by examining the geology of the rock.

Right... and what was the status of that print over the past 113 million years?

It was buried under other sediments.

How exactly was it preserved?

The sediments turned into rock and did so while the print was still present in that layer of sediment.

If we were to duplicate that rock in the lab and expose it to similar conditions as the river.... how long would it last(vs the average of how long a rock can last)?

If you have a really long time.

Has an actual scientific examination been made or just sciencey interpretations made?

You could check the originally quoted article and see what lies behind it.

 

[dwb001]

I don't know. First you'd have to determine if there was erosion of the surface with the imprint *after* it was exposed, or if the depth was reduced prior to the sediment solidifying.

Yes the imprint could have its depth altered before consolidating as well. These things can in part be determined by examining the geology of the rock.

It was buried under other sediments.

The sediments turned into rock and did so while the print was still present in that layer of sediment.

If you have a really long time.

You could check the originally quoted article and see what lies behind it.

I agree with all your points as a point of view.
But the science should be done to answer the questions before conclusions are drawn.
The only thing I disagree with you on is how long it takes rock to form.
The longest 'rock' it takes to make in the lab is coal, and that takes weeks/months not millennia.

 

[Estrid]

So long would be what the erosion rate of the rock is that the prints were found in.

I am not arguing a 'yec' idea... I never said "you eat cabbage'.
I do believe in a 6k year old Earth... but I have not brought that into the discussion.

I am asking scientific discovery questions.

How long has a river been flowing over that area?
What is the erosion rate of the material?
Is the wear pattern around the prints (the edges of the prints) consistent with the erosion conditions of the rock?

Have these questions been explored through experimentation?
If no experiments have been run than it really isn't a science issue yet.
Science requires the ability to experiment and duplicate results.

Your questions are so obviously based on a yec
assumption that it's a bit silly not to just say so.

The 6000 k earth thing is so thoroughly disproved
so many different ways that a question far more pertinent
than yours is- how could you possibly not know your personally chosen reading of " genesis" has zero bearing on reality?

 

[dwb001]

Your questions are so obviously based on a yec
assumption that it's a bit silly not to just say so.

Use the full words until you have established their meaning please.
I did not bring up young Earth... you did.

The 6000 k earth thing is so thoroughly disproved

Nope.

so many different ways

Name them.

that a question far more pertinent
than yours is-

What question... I have asked many?

how could you possibly not know your personally chosen reading of " genesis" has zero bearing on reality?

Sorry the double negative and your sentence structure makes your question meaningless.
Please rephrase and I will attempt an answer.

 

[Estrid]

That sounds like a blind assumption.
Lets do the science and find out... rather than just falling back on our old positions and digging in our heals.

" Heels".

Are you quite certain you can avoid doing
exactly* what you call for avoiding?

* see the ancient stories about earth's origin.

The ones for which there is zero evidence,
only blind faith and assumptions of personal
infallibility

 

[Hans Blaster]

I agree with all your points as a point of view.

Not sure what you mean by this.

But the science should be done to answer the questions before conclusions are drawn.

What questions are those? Before thinking that conclusions are drawn without study you should check the linked resources in the OP and see that the status is.

The only thing I disagree with you on is how long it takes rock to form.

I've said nothing about how long rock formation takes, so I'm not sure how you could agree or disagree.

The longest 'rock' it takes to make in the lab is coal, and that takes weeks/months not millennia.

So you don't have any problems with the sediments with the foot print turning into rock then?

 

[dwb001]

" Heels".

Are you quite certain you can avoid doing
exactly* what you call for avoiding?

Lets see.

* see the ancient stories about earth's origin.

The ones for which there is zero evidence,
only blind faith and assumptions of personal
infallibility

Careful about claims of zero evidence.

 

[Estrid]

Use the full words until you have established their meaning please.
I did not bring up young Earth... you did.

Nope.

Name them.

What question... I have asked many?

Sorry the double negative and your sentence structure makes your question meaningless.
Please rephrase and I will attempt an answer.

I will leave you play cutssie word games with
those who think it amusing.

 

[dwb001]

I will leave you play cutssie word games with
those who think it amusing.

Well thank you for not allowing me to answer your question.
I ask you not to use a cutssie word game with me and you accuse me of it.
Confusing questions I don't answer... but will ask for clarification.
Where is the word games in that?

 

[AV1611VET]

According to today's science:

Colorado River = 70 million years old = cut the Grand Canyon one mile deep

Mississippi River = 70 million years old = cut the river 200 feet deep

Both rivers are the same age, but one eroded the earth a mile down, while the other only 200 feet

Like ... huh?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well thank you for not allowing me to answer your question.
I ask you not to use a cutssie word game with me and you accuse me of it.
Confusing questions I don't answer... but will ask for clarification.
Where is the word games in that?

Be careful, bro.

Or you'll be accused of knowing more than any scientist on Earth.

And if you keep it up, you'll probably end up in Ig City (i.e., placed on her IGNORE list).

 

[dwb001]

Be careful, bro.

Or you'll be accused of knowing more than any scientist on Earth.

And if you keep it up, you'll probably end up in Ig City (i.e., placed on her IGNORE list).

I just ask questions.... the scientists can answer them or not.
Maybe science has progressed past the point of asking questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just ask questions....

So do I.

But I'm on several peoples' IGNORE list now.

.... the scientists can answer them or not.

There are a FEW here who will answer your questions with respect to how you asked it.

Hans Blaster is one such person.

Maybe science has progressed past the point of asking questions.

Just expect getting the run-around when you do.

 

[Canuckster]

You can do that though most
H2 is separated from fossil fuel.

Ya but ocean or tap water is a lot cheaper and cleaner. Here's another inventor, Stan Meyer. Both these inventors are Christians by the way. Stan Meyer didn't live long afterward. Apparently he was hired by the Pentagon.

 

[RileyG]

This news is really fascinating! I'm surprised they stayed preserved for millions of years.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ya but ocean or tap water is a lot cheaper and cleaner. Here's another inventor, Stan Meyer. Both these inventors are Christians by the way. Stan Meyer didn't live long afterward. Apparently he was hired by the Pentagon.

This is such a scam. It's shocking how blatant it is. (I've seen episodes of ST:Voyager with less technobabble than this stream of nonsense.)

At 3:30 the "laser distributor assembly" is clearly just an ordinary distributor cap for a 4-cyclinder engine with standard spark plug leads coming off of it.

13:40 "high pulse voltage frequency" - words strung together to mean nothing.

17:00 "beyond 2.5 million barrels of oil per gallon of water" not sure you could get that if you did complete nuclear burning. This is deep fantasy.

17:45 It cure the problems of the greenhouse effect too. (Why not? It's a magic infinite energy source. No need for pesky Arab fossil fuels anymore.)

18:40 "I'm a scientist" with broad experience

18:55 "You've got to have a lot of faith to believe in evolution" (sure why not insert some irrelevant trope about creationism into your "free energy" scam. Maybe you can hook some fundamentalists, and later accuse the "secularists" and "atheist science" communities for denying your brilliance and suppressing your "technology")

Immediately next: "I want to make money to evangelize people" that why "God contacted me" with this technology.

24:40 Sadaam has "viral germs due to genetic restructuring" that can destroy/contaminate all of the oil quickly.

29:20 "we're now using the ambient air to ionize the gases" (smh, that's not how ionization works)

He calls it a "water fuel cell" but nothing about the description is fuel cell. It is actually the opposite of a fuel cell.

The system (as described) is basically an electrolysis cell that separates hydrogen from water and then burns it. (A fuel cell would is the opposite of electrolysis, it combines hydrogen and oxygen to generate current.)

If you had an actual energy source to drive the electrolysis and then burned the hydrogen, that would work, but (and it's important) it would be more efficient to use the fuel to directly drive the motor. Separating the hydrogen in the vehicle and then burning it is horribly inefficient.

Of course, this scammer does some fast talking hand waving with technobabble to imply that they can easily separate the hydrogen from the water and then use it as a fuel for the ICE.

 

[Estrid]

Ya but ocean or tap water is a lot cheaper and cleaner. Here's another inventor, Stan Meyer. Both these inventors are Christians by the way. Stan Meyer didn't live long afterward. Apparently he was hired by the Pentagon.

Hydrogen has storage / transport probs of course
but the core problem is the energy needed to
separate hydrogen from oxygen. (electricity)

That's why fossil fuel- sourced H2 is cheaper.

Supply the cheap abundant sustainable electricty
and then we can take hydrogen cars more seriously.

I'm curious why you feel his being a christian is
significant?

 

[Estrid]

This news is really fascinating! I'm surprised they stayed preserved for millions of years.

Surprised by preservation at all, or by millions of years?