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

[Aryeh Jay]

My God, it's true, it's all true. I was digging in my backyard and didn't find a single dinosaur bone, therefore dinosaurs never existed. Of course I didn't find any human bones or gold either so I guess humans and gold are fake too.

 

[AV1611VET]

My God, it's true, it's all true. I was digging in my backyard and didn't find a single dinosaur bone, therefore dinosaurs never existed. Of course I didn't find any human bones or gold either so I guess humans and gold are fake too.

Atheists say that about God.

 

[Astrid]

My God, it's true, it's all true. I was digging in my backyard and didn't find a single dinosaur bone, therefore dinosaurs never existed. Of course I didn't find any human bones or gold either so I guess humans and gold are fake too.

No other reasonable explanation is possible.

 

[sjastro]

The common fossils found are the following.

• ammonites;
• bivalves;
• trilobites;
• belemnites;
• brachiopods;
• corals;
• crinoids.

It's no coincidence these are/were marine creatures in which the environment provides the conditions for fossilization; a rapid burial in sediment and if undisturbed for a sufficient period, fossilization through permineralization.

It's no surprise we don't have a graveyard of dinosaur fossils as specific conditions are required for fossilization to occur.

 

[Thomas White]

Atheists say that about God.

That's his point.

 

[essentialsaltes]

2023 Update - Low water levels reveal dinosaur tracks dating back 110 million years​

[Hmmm. OP article says 113 million years ago. Evolution: theory in crisis.]

 

[Astrid]

The common fossils found are the following.

• ammonites;
• bivalves;
• trilobites;
• belemnites;
• brachiopods;
• corals;
• crinoids.

It's no coincidence these are/were marine creatures in which the environment provides the conditions for fossilization; a rapid burial in sediment and if undisturbed for a sufficient period, fossilization through permineralization.

It's no surprise we don't have a graveyard of dinosaur fossils as specific conditions are required for fossilization to occur.

Since the "flood geologists" just make things up
with gay abandon* on might suppoe they would
calculate those dirty scientiets would do the,same,
invent any story to " explain " away the Truth of Gods Flood.

Similar scientific illiterates of diminished capacity
believe things like that a car could run on water instead of gasoline.




* such as flash frozen mammoths being from " flood",
the " hydroplate throry" , excess flood water wafted to
Neptune , or pterodactyls bringing koalas to the ark.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since the "flood geologists" just make things up with gay abandon* one might suppose they would calculate those dirty scientists would do the same, invent any story to " explain " away the Truth of God's Flood.

Is that how you see scientists through the eyes of flood geologists?

They're 'dirty'?

Do you feel you are qualified to speak for these flood geologists?

 

[AV1611VET]

Similar scientific illiterates of diminished capacity believe things like that a car could run on water instead of gasoline.

I get the feeling you have a vendetta against scientists that surpasses mine.

At least I give some of them credit for being gifted to us from God.

You know? select men & women who are given the gift of knowledge by the Holy Spirit?

Called to be scientists; just like some are called to be missionaries?

 

[Canuckster]

Similar scientific illiterates of diminished capacity
believe things like that a car could run on water instead of gasoline.

there are no cars that run on water.... they run on hydrogen extracted from water

 

[dwb001]

If these tracks were under a river... why are they still visible after so long?

Erosion from running water has great power to erase things.

How were they preserved over such a long time and why are they so deep? Should they not be shallow imprints instead of deap depressions?

 

[Hans Blaster]

If these tracks were under a river... why are they still visible after so long?

Under a *modern* river, that is one that exists *now*. There is nothing that said the prints were formed under a river.

Erosion from running water has great power to erase things.

Or in this case to reveal them by eroding the overlying rocks and sediment.

How were they preserved over such a long time and why are they so deep? Should they not be shallow imprints instead of deap depressions?

Rocks can survive for a very long time. In this case the main component in preservation would have been the initial preservation of the prints before they wore away 113 million years ago.

 

[dwb001]

Under a *modern* river, that is one that exists *now*. There is nothing that said the prints were formed under a river.

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?

Or in this case to reveal them by eroding the overlying rocks and sediment.

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.

Rocks can survive for a very long time. In this case the main component in preservation would have been the initial preservation of the prints before they wore away 113 million years ago.

Right... and what was the status of that print over the past 113 million years?
How exactly was it preserved?
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)?
Has an actual scientific examination been made or just sciencey interpretations made?

 

[Astrid]

there are no cars that run on water.... they run on hydrogen extracted from water

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

 

[Astrid]

If these tracks were under a river... why are they still visible after so long?

Erosion from running water has great power to erase things.

How were they preserved over such a long time and why are they so deep? Should they not be shallow imprints instead of deap depressions?

How long is " so long"?

Are you trying to argue a yec idea?

 

[dwb001]

How long is " so long"?

Are you trying to argue a yec idea?

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.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Right... and the depth of the imprint would diminish quickly as the hole filled with sediment from the river

This may help. FTA in post #26:

“It’s important to clarify that the drought does not magically unveil tracks in pristine condition,” Kuban told CNN. “Even when the river is dry, the tracks are typically under extensive amounts of gravel, sand and dried mud. It takes many volunteers many days — in this case weeks — to remove the sediment covering and filling the tracks.”

 

[dwb001]

This may help. FTA in post #26:

“It’s important to clarify that the drought does not magically unveil tracks in pristine condition,” Kuban told CNN. “Even when the river is dry, the tracks are typically under extensive amounts of gravel, sand and dried mud. It takes many volunteers many days — in this case weeks — to remove the sediment covering and filling the tracks.”

So gravel, sand and wet mud (when the river is running) have no abrasive effects on the edges of the prints?
There is not agitation of movement at level of the print?
No shifting sand movement distorting the edges of the print?

All the materials listed appear to be abrasive in their nature in a water environment.
How long does such a print remain in this condition under those conditions?

I am asking have these experiments been done or are assumptions being made without using the scientific process?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So gravel, sand and wet mud (when the river is running) have no abrasive effects on the edges of the prints?

Probably not much, because the prints are filled and covered in sediment.

 

[dwb001]

Probably not much, because the prints are filled and covered in sediment.

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.