LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI'm trying to find the flaws in this creationist article, by answers in genesis called, "Can Flood geology explain thick chalk beds?"
Would anyone care to help me out?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp
December 4th, 2010, 03:13 AM
I'm trying to find the flaws in this creationist article, by answers in genesis called, "Can Flood geology explain thick chalk beds?"
Would anyone care to help me out?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp
A few have addressed this idiocy.
http://scienceantiscience.blogspot.c...bal-flood.html
http://www.answersincreation.org/nochalk.htm
There really is only one flaw in their argument - that they start out assuming that their version of events is correct, and find slants and excuses to fit to the evidence so that they can justify it. This is not scientific, and should not be treated as such.
In the article you refer to, they basically say "if we assume that these conditions were in place, and that they are actually viable, then.....", despite the fact that the evidence would suggest the conditions are not viable. They also take the stance of ignoring practically all of modern geology, which shows very clearly that the Earth is far older than 10,000 years old, and that there was no world-wide flood 6000 years ago.
I noticed that as well, that they started out with an a priori assumption and went from there. That was the only flaw I could really find myself.
After reading the Answers In Creation rebuttal other flaws are made obvious to me now. I'm going to move onto the Science Anti science blog.
the usual stance in science is that you start off with some assumptions, see where they and some logic lead you to, and question your initial assumptions if they lead to an absurd conclusion
once you have concluded that your assumptions were wrong you then drop them from any further discussions unless new reasons turn up that might shed a new light on your earlier line of reasoning
that's not how creationists work - they keep on applying the same questionable starting assumptions even when grave doubts have arisen over the validity of using them
and that's one of the many reasons why creationist thinking doesn't have any place in a scientific endeavour
I notice no mention is made of the chert beds and nodules that are commonplace in the chalk. The explanations for the origin of the chalk as a consequence of algal blooms during the flood do not appear to provide for their existence, in general, or their character and distribution in particular.
January 7th, 2011, 05:20 PM
Its interesting to see that the chalk beds mark the point in geologic time when most life on earth was wiped out by some unknown event.I'm trying to find the flaws in this creationist article, by answers in genesis called, "Can Flood geology explain thick chalk beds?"
Would anyone care to help me out?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp
January 7th, 2011, 06:00 PM
Umm, actually they mark points where there is a very stable and healthy marine ecosystem, on periods of extinction. Also there a a number of know chalk beds which date to different periods in earths history, creating more problems for the single global flood proponents.Originally Posted by mise
January 7th, 2011, 06:10 PM
No problem maybe if dates are currently incorrect...Umm, actually they mark points where there is a very stable and healthy marine ecosystem, on periods of extinction. Also there a a number of know chalk beds which date to different periods in earths history, creating more problems for the single global flood proponents.
The chalk beds were finished forming at the end of the cretaceous age.
The period when the White Cliffs formed, the ''Cretaceous'', and which ended around 65 million years ago, was also when most life on earth, including the dinosaurs, was wiped out during a mass extinction.
January 7th, 2011, 06:16 PM
What evidence is there that the multiple dating methods are incorrect?No problem maybe if dates are currently incorrect...Umm, actually they mark points where there is a very stable and healthy marine ecosystem, on periods of extinction. Also there a a number of know chalk beds which date to different periods in earths history, creating more problems for the single global flood proponents.
The chalk beds were finished forming at the end of the cretaceous age.
The period when the White Cliffs formed, the ''Cretaceous'', and which ended around 65 million years ago, was also when most life on earth, including the dinosaurs, was wiped out during a mass extinction.
There are older chalk beds also though.
For instance the Niobrara Formation of Kansas formed from 87 and 82 million years ago.
The key word is "finished", that is they stopped forming at the end of the Cretaceous, due to the impact event on the Yucatan.
January 7th, 2011, 06:38 PM
The investment in time and effort in realizing these dating methods is great. Imagine the nightmare if the dates were wrong. Scientists may not be able to live with themselves. I like to accept all possibilities as potentials. So perhaps I see one insufficient dating method attempting to support the findings of another insufficient dating method. All dating methods appear to be incorrect when used by themselves.
Older chalk beds shmolder chalk beds, ...perhaps they are the same age!
I would like to see your evidence for this, other than you simply hoping it is the case.I like to accept all possibilities as potentials. So perhaps I see one insufficient dating method attempting to support the findings of another insufficient dating method. All dating methods appear to be incorrect when used by themselves.
No, not really. Its possibly one reason why so many dating methods are sought after, I suppose. I'm thinking of the green river formation with two tuff layers, the few feet of sediment between those tuff layers represent 6 million years of varves, though the margin of error for the dates of both tuff layers is also about 6 million years. Meaning in theory, at any rate, that the 6 million years worth of varves could have been laid down in one day or in as many days as you like up to 6 million years.
What do you mean?Its possibly one reason why so many dating methods are sought after, I suppose.
Source? *Hint: AnswersinGenesis is not a valid source.I'm thinking of the green river formation with two tuff layers, the few feet of sediment between those tuff layers represent 6 million years of varves, though the margin of error for the dates of both tuff layers is also about 6 million years. Meaning in theory, at any rate, that the 6 million years worth of varves could have been laid down in one day or in as many days as you like up to 6 million years.
In support of Ophiolite, there are other things in the chalk than chalk only... Cherts nodules, marcassite nodules (very common in Cretaceous chalk), limonite and sometimes, there are beautiful cristallisation of calcite like in Chepy near Reims (Omya school chalk quarry and factory).
I went there and I can't imagine how these calcite cristals could be made in 6000 years...
From an anti-creationist person though I have forgotten the site, I may find it again sometime. Notwithstanding that, I presume his science was accurate, you could check it.Is there such a thing as a perfect dating method?
Source? *Hint: AnswersinGenesis is not a valid source.I'm thinking of the green river formation with two tuff layers, the few feet of sediment between those tuff layers represent 6 million years of varves, though the margin of error for the dates of both tuff layers is also about 6 million years. Meaning in theory, at any rate, that the 6 million years worth of varves could have been laid down in one day or in as many days as you like up to 6 million years.
Ah... found it. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm ... third para. from the conclusion at bottom of page.From an anti-creationist person though I have forgotten the site, I may find it again sometime. Notwithstanding that, I presume his science was accurate, you could check it.Is there such a thing as a perfect dating method?
Source? *Hint: AnswersinGenesis is not a valid source.I'm thinking of the green river formation with two tuff layers, the few feet of sediment between those tuff layers represent 6 million years of varves, though the margin of error for the dates of both tuff layers is also about 6 million years. Meaning in theory, at any rate, that the 6 million years worth of varves could have been laid down in one day or in as many days as you like up to 6 million years.
I have another question about this website information if anyone would here would be willing to try to answer it, thanks.
What is a perfect dating method? Do you want dating to be able to say that "this lava flow happened over two weeks in the summer of 2 000 000 BC" for it to be reliable? Knowing the error margins is a good thing.Is there such a thing as a perfect dating method?
Despite what you may think, scientists aren't conducting their research with the intent to oppose the views of creationists or be anti-creationist because of some frivolous us vs them mentality, they simply want to learn about the world and be as sure as they can about what they learn. The data they come up with happens to disprove the frankly dishonest attempts by "creation scientists" to reinterpret data any way they can, as long as it conforms in some way with the Biblical account, no matter how convoluted it becomes.
If you have done some of your own reading of first hand research (not only the slanted second hand reports by "creation scientists") and are not able to see this, then I can't see any other alternative but to conclude that you too must be intellectually dishonest and/or displaying rampant cognitive dissidence.
It's not so much about creationist vs anti-creationist, it's about science vs non-science. Just as astrology is not science, so is creationism not science.From an anti-creationist person though I have forgotten the site, I may find it again sometime. Notwithstanding that, I presume his science was accurate, you could check it.Source? *Hint: AnswersinGenesis is not a valid source.I'm thinking of the green river formation with two tuff layers, the few feet of sediment between those tuff layers represent 6 million years of varves, though the margin of error for the dates of both tuff layers is also about 6 million years. Meaning in theory, at any rate, that the 6 million years worth of varves could have been laid down in one day or in as many days as you like up to 6 million years.
I can't find information that states what you say, but if the dates are as you have given them, then you could indeed say that the varves could have formed in either millions of years or in one, provided that we know nothing about the varves themselves. Of course, we do, and the evidence points in no other direction than that the varves are indeed varves, i.e. that the layers could only have been laid down yearly and not all the millions of them in the span of a single year. As with nearly any contortion of the science by creationists, in the end the only way the flood could have happened as described in the bible is if god was sowing miracles all over the place in large scale and deliberately produced fossils and geology that would trick diligent scientific researchers into concluding an old earth.
Edit: I only saw your link now and am looking into it.
On this page you will find a photo of a worm burrow possibly 6 inches deep burrowing through a section of varves. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm scroll down a while...
Burrows in mud varves. Count varves to see how many years they represent. Estimate how many worms populate, live and breed per square meter in laucustrine, brackish and saltwater muddy flats and compare the disturbance per square meter of this sample of rock.
varves...
rough count 90 years.
50,000 invertebrates per square meter page 20...
Connecticut wildlife: biodiversity, natural history, and conservation
Populations of small marine worms can exceed 20,000 per square metre.
The Avon-Heathcote Estuary - Fact Sheet - google it…
estuarine worms
Depending on the species, maturation of the larvae can take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to complete. The average life expectancy for polychaeta is poorly understood, but some live for a few weeks, where others can live for many years.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5344364_li...olychaete.html
So if a marine worm lived for 3 years, lets say at an average density of 20,000 worms per square meter and if the sample rock in the picture is at a guess 6 inches by 10 inches and the number of varves recorded in it represents 90 years worth of sediment.
In 90 years worth of sediment there may be an expected 30 * 20,000 worms per square meter…. or 18,000,000 …18 million worms per square meter per 90 years.
If I took a strip 4cm wide and 1 meter long that would be 400 square cm's,
1/25th of a square meter, and divide that by 4 it would give an approximation of a possible area of the sample in the photo.
So 18,000,000 worms divided by 25 equals the number of worms in a 4cm strip of mud 1 meter long over a period of 90 years = 720,000 worms
and divide this by 4 to get an approximation of the area in the photo = 180,000 worms in an area of 10 inches by 4 cm's over a period of 90 years.
However, I only see 1 worm burrow in that photo where I would expect to see 180,000 if that sample actually represented 90 years worth of sediment.
Hmm…
if the varves were deposited 2 varves per day the 90 years would now be 45 days worth of sediment. The number of worms per square meter would be possibly 20,000 during all of that 45 day period. Giving a worm burrow density for that same photo of 12.5 worm burrows for the whole 45 days worth of sediment in the same area of 10 inches by 4 cm's.
Which case is closest to the evidence we can see in the photo. Obviously, to me, it seems that 2 varves per day is more reasonable, based on this particular evidence.
Quote by Kalster
In my last post I provided visual evidence about the varves [a photo] as opposed to evidence provided by an interpreted dating technique. If you're interested in comparing how both types of evidence fare when compared with each other read my previous post, look at the link provided and let me know what you think....provided that we know nothing about the varves themselves. Of course, we do, and the evidence points in no other direction than that the varves are indeed varves, i.e. that the layers could only have been laid down yearly and not all the millions of them in the span of a single year. As with nearly any contortion of the science by creationists, in the end the only way the flood could have happened as described in the bible is if god was sowing miracles all over the place in large scale and deliberately produced fossils and geology that would trick diligent scientific researchers into concluding an old earth.
Edit: I only saw your link now and am looking into it.
As for the bolded part in your post, quoted above, I would have to say that all of life is a miracle, in my view. But you are looking at the miracle of life from only one viewpoint and you are equally critiquing only one viewpoint. As some wise man probably once said - there may always be a third way...
...Not that God created miracles in the ground to deceive you - but only that you don't understand what you see, you say you only see either one of two possibilities for the event you are looking at. You may have forgotten that you are free always to explore the possibility that you may be wrong, or rather, that there may be other explanations or causes which are valid but neither conventional nor Divine Deceitfulness.
The tiny varves may not be God deceiving you nor may they necessarily be formed the way you though they were... there may be another way... a third way.
cheers..
Hi, I have another question about the Green River formation varves. I posted before about worm burrow densities and I linked to a photo of a worm burrow.
Now I have another question about the photo directly above that photo on the same webpage. It is a photo of more worm burrows and also includes a fish fossil.
A little background info before I ask this question.
Fossils generally are unusual, and not the norm. The animal needs to be buried quickly before it decays completely or is eaten by scavengers. As everyone knows nature is wonderful, nothing is ever wasted if at all possible, there is always some little creature or organism which will eat everything and then eat sand and mud to filter out or digest out the very last scraps of food.
To preserve the fossil fish, and there are thought to be billions of fossils in the Green River Formation, scientists say the fish must be buried in very specific conditions.
First of all as a dead fish floats the water temperature must be below 15 degrees C in order for the swim bladder of the fish to change volume enough to let the dead fish sink to the bottom.
Secondly the bottom of the lake must be totally deprived of oxygen, or else scavengers will eat the fish in a few days.
Thirdly the water temperature at the bottom of the lake must be very very cold in order to preserve the body of a fish for over two or three years or more until it is covered by two or three layers of thin mud and grit.
Fourthly the bottom of the lake must be composted of the toxic chemical hydrogen sulphide or else bacteria or other micro-organisms would quickly digest the body of the fish.
Fifthly It is a puzzle why fish did not decompose in water anyway over the course of two or three years or even several months under water as fish flesh is unusual in that it decomposes swiftly into a cotton-woolly looking substance. After only a few hours in water the fishes flesh will have started to decompose. Which may be a problem if the lamellae of the varves follow the curve of the volume of the fishes body before it decomposed but the varves only formed one varve per year and the varves are mostly just millimeters thick or less.
Anyway to get back to the question I wanted to ask - if you look at the photo I mentioned you'll see a fossil fish with several worm burrows going down through its body.
My questions are these-
1. How did the worms survive in anoxic, hydrogen sulphide conditions at the bottom of the lake?
2. If the bottom of the lake was not anoxic and not filled with toxic hydrogen sulphide how did the fossil fish escape decomposition and being eaten by scavengers - Green River varves also contain fossil crayfish which are very competent scavengers and would not see a feast of dead fish go to waste.?
3. Since the Green River lakes were in a sub-tropical climate, like Florida is today, where do you find cold water below 15C to preserve the fish for extremely slow burial over a few years and the corollary of this is how on earth did a dead fish sit for at least a year on the bottom of a perfectly healthy lake bed filled with crayfish and other scavengers and micro-organisms and not be eaten away in a few days?
cheers!
There is no requirement that they did so. Lake bottom conditions can change seasonally, or randomly. If the worm burrows do indeed go down then they are coming from a sediment level deposited at a later time, when conditions are no longer anoxic.
By the time the conditions were no longer anoxic the fish was not at the bottom of the lake, it was beneath the bottom of the lake.
Your intial premises are incorrect. Burial need not be slow. Some sediments can be deposited very rapidly
Thats what I think, I don't see the requirement for hydrogen sulphide, anoxic water which a. either supports life in a contradictory sort of way or b. which condition of the deep lakebed appears and disappears catching millions of fish off guard.There is no requirement that they did so. Lake bottom conditions can change seasonally, or randomly. If the worm burrows do indeed go down then they are coming from a sediment level deposited at a later time, when conditions are no longer anoxic.
Lakes are very interesting because they are so unchanging, they are deep, quiet, undisturbed basins where sediment very gradually accumulates. Some of these lakes were speculated to be extremely deep. Of course this depth was speculated on because very cold anoxic water was needed somewhere in the lake to preserve the fish, while waiting for, in some cases, 0.1 of a millimeter of sediment to fall each year. Very stable conditions are required to form varves.
Even in cold, anoxic, hydrogen sulphide conditions the fish will still decompose long before sediment of any appreciable amount covers the fish, varves are 0.1 mm thick, one varve falls per year. Fish will not survive whole in water indefinitely.By the time the conditions were no longer anoxic the fish was not at the bottom of the lake, it was beneath the bottom of the lake.
[/quote]Your intial premises are incorrect. Burial need not be slow. Some sediments can be deposited very rapidly
That is exactly what I think also!
The varves covering millions of fish are 0.1mm thick - one varve per year.
Some Knightia, small fish, were preserved near shore, or at least in shalllow water but with less evidence of varves. Nonetheless shallow, warm water in a Floridian climate will not perserve a fish very well even if it covers the fish with one deeper varve over the course of a year.
cheers
This reminds me of the question asked a few posts back. If the worms were able to start populating areas over the buried fish again, and if the varves were falling 0.1 mm per year and if the worms lived for a speculative 3 years then the fossil fish would have been burrowed through hundreds of thousands of times while the varves were slowly accumulating 0.1mm per year.By the time the conditions were no longer anoxic the fish was not at the bottom of the lake, it was beneath the bottom of the lake.
Though in the photo of the fossil fish and the worm burrows, I think there are about 3 or maybe 4 burrows going through the fishes body and a couple more which missed it. To me the split fossil surface looks like any mudflat you would see at any one moment in time today instead of being the record of 500 years worth of burrows (or whatever).
cheers
Well, Fossil Lake sure is a puzzle.
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_53/issue_5/1988.pdf
Heres some info on fish decomposition rates from canadian lakes, smaller but colder than sub-tropical Floridian type lakes.
In lakes fish will decompose in 2 days in shallow water or two or three months in deeper colder water. But not decomposing for a year was not suggested. And since on average it takes a year to deposit 0.18 mm of sediment in fossil lake the fish would have to sit on the bottom of the lakes without decomposing for 10 years before they would be covered by 1.8 millimeters of sediment.
strange.
cheers
...cont.
...if deep lake temperature was 4 degrees C, a decomposing fish would then have a half life of 58 days and would be covered in that time by 0.028 millimeters of sediment, not enough sediment to protect it, I think.
So after 58 days a 1kg fish would have decomposed to 1/2kg presumably, and so on, another 58 days it would be 1/4kg, another 58 days it would be 1/8kg…
…after 174 days the fish would be .125kg and be covered by 0.084 millimeter of sediment. It would be a very decomposed fish with no sediment cover.
fish weight-
muscle weight 66%
blood weight 3%
roe and liver 5%
However that leaves 250g for skin, scales and skeleton.
And our fish after 174 days dead in the water with no sediment cover only weighs 125g. So either the dead fish has lost its skin to decomposition or its skeleton, before it is covered by sediment. The Fossil Lake fish I believe have scales and skeleton intact in the fossils in deeper? colder water. http://www.blackhawkfossils.com/Rare/fj115d.jpg
Im not sure of the relevance and harm this study is supposed to do to the concepts of fossil deposition in Eocene tropical lakes to be honest.Well, Fossil Lake sure is a puzzle.
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_53/issue_5/1988.pdf
Heres some info on fish decomposition rates from canadian lakes, smaller but colder than sub-tropical Floridian type lakes.
In lakes fish will decompose in 2 days in shallow water or two or three months in deeper colder water. But not decomposing for a year was not suggested. And since on average it takes a year to deposit 0.18 mm of sediment in fossil lake the fish would have to sit on the bottom of the lakes without decomposing for 10 years before they would be covered by 1.8 millimeters of sediment.
strange.
cheers
ok. If you would like to describe in detail how you believe the fish were preserved in the 18 inch layer in fossil lake considering fish decomposition in the lake described in the study I would be interested to read your ideas.Im not sure of the relevance and harm this study is supposed to do to the concepts of fossil deposition in Eocene tropical lakes to be honest.Well, Fossil Lake sure is a puzzle.
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_53/issue_5/1988.pdf
Heres some info on fish decomposition rates from canadian lakes, smaller but colder than sub-tropical Floridian type lakes.
In lakes fish will decompose in 2 days in shallow water or two or three months in deeper colder water. But not decomposing for a year was not suggested. And since on average it takes a year to deposit 0.18 mm of sediment in fossil lake the fish would have to sit on the bottom of the lakes without decomposing for 10 years before they would be covered by 1.8 millimeters of sediment.
strange.
cheers
Please include as much detail in your ideas as you feel you are able.
cheers
I just am not seeing a very strong connection you are indicating is present between a cold boreal lake and a tropical Eocene age lake, and would like to know what you feel the connection is.ok. If you would like to describe in detail how you believe the fish were preserved in the 18 inch layer in fossil lake considering fish decomposition in the lake described in the study I would be interested to read your ideas.Im not sure of the relevance and harm this study is supposed to do to the concepts of fossil deposition in Eocene tropical lakes to be honest.Well, Fossil Lake sure is a puzzle.
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_53/issue_5/1988.pdf
Heres some info on fish decomposition rates from canadian lakes, smaller but colder than sub-tropical Floridian type lakes.
In lakes fish will decompose in 2 days in shallow water or two or three months in deeper colder water. But not decomposing for a year was not suggested. And since on average it takes a year to deposit 0.18 mm of sediment in fossil lake the fish would have to sit on the bottom of the lakes without decomposing for 10 years before they would be covered by 1.8 millimeters of sediment.
strange.
cheers
Please include as much detail in your ideas as you feel you are able.
cheers
Fish decompose slower in canadian colder lakes - fish decompose faster in sub-tropical Florida lakes. But fish decompose slower in sub-tropical Fossil Lake - fish decompose faster in colder canadian lake.I just am not seeing a very strong connection you are indicating is present between a cold boreal lake and a tropical Eocene age lake, and would like to know what you feel the connection is.ok. If you would like to describe in detail how you believe the fish were preserved in the 18 inch layer in fossil lake considering fish decomposition in the lake described in the study I would be interested to read your ideas.Im not sure of the relevance and harm this study is supposed to do to the concepts of fossil deposition in Eocene tropical lakes to be honest.Well, Fossil Lake sure is a puzzle.
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_53/issue_5/1988.pdf
Heres some info on fish decomposition rates from canadian lakes, smaller but colder than sub-tropical Floridian type lakes.
In lakes fish will decompose in 2 days in shallow water or two or three months in deeper colder water. But not decomposing for a year was not suggested. And since on average it takes a year to deposit 0.18 mm of sediment in fossil lake the fish would have to sit on the bottom of the lakes without decomposing for 10 years before they would be covered by 1.8 millimeters of sediment.
strange.
cheers
Please include as much detail in your ideas as you feel you are able.
cheers
Are the canadian and Floridian lakes also having anoxic conditions on the bottom as seems to have been present at least parts of the Green River Formation?Fish decompose slower in canadian colder lakes - fish decompose faster in sub-tropical Florida lakes. But fish decompose slower in sub-tropical Fossil Lake - fish decompose faster in colder canadian lake.I just am not seeing a very strong connection you are indicating is present between a cold boreal lake and a tropical Eocene age lake, and would like to know what you feel the connection is.ok. If you would like to describe in detail how you believe the fish were preserved in the 18 inch layer in fossil lake considering fish decomposition in the lake described in the study I would be interested to read your ideas.Im not sure of the relevance and harm this study is supposed to do to the concepts of fossil deposition in Eocene tropical lakes to be honest.Well, Fossil Lake sure is a puzzle.
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_53/issue_5/1988.pdf
Heres some info on fish decomposition rates from canadian lakes, smaller but colder than sub-tropical Floridian type lakes.
In lakes fish will decompose in 2 days in shallow water or two or three months in deeper colder water. But not decomposing for a year was not suggested. And since on average it takes a year to deposit 0.18 mm of sediment in fossil lake the fish would have to sit on the bottom of the lakes without decomposing for 10 years before they would be covered by 1.8 millimeters of sediment.
strange.
cheers
Please include as much detail in your ideas as you feel you are able.
cheers
From the study;Are the canadian and Floridian lakes also having anoxic conditions on the bottom as seems to have been present at least parts of the Green River Formation?Fish decompose slower in canadian colder lakes - fish decompose faster in sub-tropical Florida lakes. But fish decompose slower in sub-tropical Fossil Lake - fish decompose faster in colder canadian lake.I just am not seeing a very strong connection you are indicating is present between a cold boreal lake and a tropical Eocene age lake, and would like to know what you feel the connection is.ok. If you would like to describe in detail how you believe the fish were preserved in the 18 inch layer in fossil lake considering fish decomposition in the lake described in the study I would be interested to read your ideas.Im not sure of the relevance and harm this study is supposed to do to the concepts of fossil deposition in Eocene tropical lakes to be honest.Well, Fossil Lake sure is a puzzle.
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_53/issue_5/1988.pdf
Heres some info on fish decomposition rates from canadian lakes, smaller but colder than sub-tropical Floridian type lakes.
In lakes fish will decompose in 2 days in shallow water or two or three months in deeper colder water. But not decomposing for a year was not suggested. And since on average it takes a year to deposit 0.18 mm of sediment in fossil lake the fish would have to sit on the bottom of the lakes without decomposing for 10 years before they would be covered by 1.8 millimeters of sediment.
strange.
cheers
Please include as much detail in your ideas as you feel you are able.
cheers
"Half-lives did not systematically increase with oxygen levels, since some short half-lives were recorded at 4 m in the anoxic hypolimnion of Lake Cromwell (Fig. 2B)." - pages 1991-1992
A half life of 54 days at somewhat approaching 0% oxygen is what they suggest.
In cold water, 4 degrees C, the half life was 58 days.
neither will preserve a fish long enough to be buried by varves. And in the centers of both lakes varves are available only as annual varves. And in the centers were lots of fossil fish and also in other areas of the lake.
Fossil Lake is only thought to have been deep and, anoxic, because of the excellent preservation of the fish. But the Knightia have been found in the split fish layer equally well preserved, that layer was formed in shallow marginal waters.
Lake Gosiute is said to have been a very shallow playa-lake with significant areas of stromatolites, which grow in very shallow conditions of several tens of centimeters to a meter or so in depth. However Lake Gosiute too is known for its fish fossils.
Link to methods of preservation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_preservation
This is interesting - http://www.springerlink.com/content/p12r522278p54326/
Rapid decomposition of fish bones in Lake Erie sediments..
| « Thunderstorms produce antimatter | Wind? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
