Ron E. Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 (edited) I was reading this thread about the possibility of fossilized freshwater shark teeth and was reminded of something that was pretty amazing that I saw a few years ago. In nearby Eureka Springs, Arkansas, there is a botanical garden that has the remains of a water-powered grist mill on its grounds. They have on display there fossilized bags of wheat flour. The bags fell into the water and were fossilized within a matter of days, weeks, months, or possibly years. But they were most certainly solid limestone. This raises the question: when we find fossilized material, particularly out of matrix, can we be positive that its age is consistent with the actual geological formation they are found in? Particularly, could this be the case with an anomalous find, such as practically unknown ancient freshwater shark teeth? And let me say in advance that I have absolutely no intention of starting any "young earth" talk here. Yes, I am religious. No, I don't believe the earth is less than billions of years old. However, I think there is merit in discussing the possibility that the fossilized condition of specimens doesn't necessarily confirm that such specimens are ancient. Thoughts? (this could get good!) Edited October 6, 2009 by Ron E. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texaswoodie Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Take a couple of facts, mix in an ounce of intelligence, add a pound of supposition, bake it for an hour and you have a theory. Unfortunately a lot of people think that theories are facts. You only need to look at the Global Warming farce to know this is true. Let the flames begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 relax. mineralization happens. "when we find fossilized material, particularly out of matrix, can we be positive that its age is consistent with the actual geological formation they are found in?" no, because it wasn't found in the formation if it was out of matrix. unless a fossil is an "index" fossil that's been found to have lived during a specific time and therefore serves to help date strata, then context is important. much of what i find is out of context. it's been removed from it's original strata and relocated somewhere else. so unless it's from an extinct species, then i don't presume how old it is, at least not to the point of having birthday parties for it. and it's well known that some fossils are "reworked" into older strata by forces of nature. you can find land and sea fossils together in many places, and you can find pleistocene and cretaceous fossils together. but, having said all that - experience is the best teacher. some of the people here have looked at thousands of fossils from a particular area. they've seen all the subtle nuances of difference in preservation, mineralization, etc. and they can spot anomalous weirdnesses, like petrified bags of flour. yes, i always build clocks to tell the time, but still. what i'm saying is that experienced people who use a holistic approach to assessing their finds, are probably fairly likely to be correct when they think something is not old, kinda old, or really old. by the way, the reverse of your concern is also true. we had a post about unfossilized, merely carbonized wood from the cretaceous a few weeks back. i have no doubt that it was in fact wood from the cretaceous. nature is very, very interesting. i like it! p.s. - i tend to add or subtract probable age in my mind from things i've found in different places, based on my experience with how stuff mineralizes in that environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Smilodon Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 "we had a post about unfossilized, merely carbonized wood from the cretaceous a few weeks back. i have no doubt that it was in fact wood from the cretaceous. nature is very, very interesting. i like it!" Tracer, The famous New Jersey cretaceous amber site had plenty of carbonized wood in it - not mineralized, and drusy iron pyrite (if there is such a thing) and nice geodesic pyrite crystals/cubes. Yes, nature IS very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 The bags could have been MINERALIZED but they weren't LIMESTONE. Limestone is deposited in a very special way requiring lots of pressure and the bodies of countless little sea critters. The bags fell into a high mineral concentrate environment. I've seen dragonflies glued to slate tiles and set into a hot spring. Voila! They look like Solnhofen (sp?) fossils but they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron E. Posted October 6, 2009 Author Share Posted October 6, 2009 The bags could have been MINERALIZED but they weren't LIMESTONE. Limestone is deposited in a very special way requiring lots of pressure and the bodies of countless little sea critters. The bags fell into a high mineral concentrate environment. I've seen dragonflies glued to slate tiles and set into a hot spring. Voila! They look like Solnhofen (sp?) fossils but they're not. Well, they were converted from flour to calcium carbonate, FWIW, and in a geological blink of an eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordpiney Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 years ago, i read a book by ivan sanderson. in it, he described a spot where anything you put in the water would be quickly turned into "fossils." i remember seeing pictures of an orange that was mineralized in a very short period of time. weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 ...they were converted from flour to calcium carbonate... I'd need to see the chemistry on that one... Cementing via permineralization I can see, but anything else sounds like alchemy. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Take a couple of facts, mix in an ounce of intelligence, add a pound of supposition, bake it for an hour and you have a theory. Unfortunately a lot of people think that theories are facts. You only need to look at the Global Warming farce to know this is true. Let the flames begin. Since you went there... Perhaps, you might learn what defines a theory before you attempt to explain one. Just a hint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texaswoodie Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory" Like I said........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron E. Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 I'd need to see the chemistry on that one... Cementing via permineralization I can see, but anything else sounds like alchemy. I didn't take a chemical analysis, but the flour bags were solid white mineral, it had CaCO3 written all over it ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I didn't take a chemical analysis, but the flour bags were solid white mineral, it had CaCO3 written all over it ;-) Ron, there's a good chance that what you were seeing was an encrustation of minerals on the flour bags, as opposed to solid limestone. (I suspect the locals oversimplify the explanation to tourists - e.g.: limestone). I've seen this type of mineralization in some of the spring charged pools and streams of Texas on various recent objects. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory" Like I said........... You're right. You can't prove a theory, only disprove a theory. A good theory is the best explaination that we have for a given situation. A good theory also defines how it can be disproven easily...the ol' rabbit in Cambrian strata as a way to disprove the theory of mammals not appearing until the Mesozoic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron E. Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 Ron, there's a good chance that what you were seeing was an encrustation of minerals on the flour bags, as opposed to solid limestone. (I suspect the locals oversimplify the explanation to tourists - e.g.: limestone). I've seen this type of mineralization in some of the spring charged pools and streams of Texas on various recent objects. What I saw (and will photograph my next visit) was solid rock flour bags, details down to seams and cloth patterns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory" Like I said........... Typically, anti-intellectuals/crackpots resort to quote mining to support a fallicous position, while ignoring the more salient points of a principle. And this is a prime example of that practice. If anyone here doesn't know the true definition of a theory, and wants to learn, there are many excellent examples to be found on the web; the last place I would look for any kind of definition, about anything, is from a Global Warming Denier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texaswoodie Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I quoted the link YOU gave to me. My point is that (speaking of crackpots) scientist that come up with these theories try to pass them on as fact when the pure and simple truth is they don't know it to be a fact. Anyone that thinks they know for sure what happened a billion years ago is simply fooling themselves and trying to draw everyone else into their fantasy world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texaswoodie Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Back to the subject at hand Instant Petrified Wood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THobern Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I quoted the link YOU gave to me. My point is that (speaking of crackpots) scientist that come up with these theories try to pass them on as fact when the pure and simple truth is they don't know it to be a fact. Anyone that thinks they know for sure what happened a billion years ago is simply fooling themselves and trying to draw everyone else into their fantasy world. No, they don't; they try to pass them off as theories, although the idea of a theory - an explanatory model - carries more weight than a fact. I think that you're getting confused by the certainity with which things are presented. Either way, sweeping unsubstantiated claims, and a misunderstanding of the scientific method, does suggest that this is a largely unfounded moral prejudice against Science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoPutz Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Typically, anti-intellectuals/crackpots resort to quote mining to support a fallicous position, while ignoring the more salient points of a principle. And this is a prime example of that practice. If anyone here doesn't know the true definition of a theory, and wants to learn, there are many excellent examples to be found on the web; the last place I would look for any kind of definition, about anything, is from a Global Warming Denier. Are you calling the person who quoted that a "quote-mining crackpot?" Wow, I'm glad I deal with fourth graders who don't know how to use big words to make others feel small. Hardly a way to disagree with something... making mistakes and supporting "fallicous" positions makes us work harder for the common goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texaswoodie Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 No, they don't; they try to pass them off as theories, although the idea of a theory - an explanatory model - carries more weight than a fact. I think that you're getting confused by the certainity with which things are presented. Either way, sweeping unsubstantiated claims, and a misunderstanding of the scientific method, does suggest that this is a largely unfounded moral prejudice against Science. I have nothing against science. The fact is that science evolves. One theory that is popular today will be changed completely in a few decades. In the 70's scientist claimed we were going into another Ice Age. Today they are saying it's Global Warming. Who knows what it will be 10 years from now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THobern Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I have nothing against science. The fact is that science evolves. One theory that is popular today will be changed completely in a few decades. In the 70's scientist claimed we were going into another Ice Age. Today they are saying it's Global Warming. Who knows what it will be 10 years from now? You took a quote on falsification and standards of proof to support your position that scientist's are incredibly fickle; I can only infer that you don't understand what you are attacking; try reading up on the scientific method and falsification. As for global warming, "climate change" is a better term that envelops the wide variety of changes, cooling included, that we can expect, and have already begun, to see. "Who knows what it will be 10 years from now?" Nobody does, that's why we do Science. We wouldn't know if we were guessing, or using the highest standards of proof. If you think claims are extraordinary, it's often because they are. That doesn't mean, however, that they aren't supported by ingenious deductions. We have a lot of trouble assessing our own ignorance; don't dismiss the claims of Science because you can't imagine how they were reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Are you calling the person who quoted that a "quote-mining crackpot?" Wow, I'm glad I deal with fourth graders who don't know how to use big words to make others feel small. Hardly a way to disagree with something... making mistakes and supporting "fallicous" positions makes us work harder for the common goal. I was merely pointing out a tactic employed by anti-intellectuals/crackpots... Regarding your "big word" statement: I can assure you that my vocabulary, and vitriol, is much more extensive than that which was employed, however, I choose not to offer those opinions out of respect for the board. I find the amount of anti-intellectual nonsense that finds it way to the forum, of late, a bit disconcerting. I understand that some don't appreciate that I confront those that think that they know more than a collective body of scientists; that have formed a consensus of opinion after many years of careful observation, but I will not going to let a bunch nonsense go unchallenged. I'll have more to "say" later, but unfortunately, now, I don't have the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THobern Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 It's not the size of your vocabulary that matters, it's how you use it. Adding unnecessary words and phrases for their own sake is the same as adding big words for their own sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Ron, there's a good chance that what you were seeing was an encrustation of minerals on the flour bags, as opposed to solid limestone. (I suspect the locals oversimplify the explanation to tourists - e.g.: limestone). I've seen this type of mineralization in some of the spring charged pools and streams of Texas on various recent objects. Yes, this is what I was going to say as I started reading this thread. Limestone is largely calcium carbonate but something composed of (or encrusted with) calcium carbonate does not mean it's limestone. A geologist can explain how he could separate a hardened flour bag from a chunk of limestone but something tells me the scientific explanation would be unsatisfying to some people. They would continue to see the flour bag as a "hole" in a theory because they simply prefer it rather than because they logically eliminated other possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THobern Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Auspex had a wonderful "fossilised" nest; http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?showtopic=8426&view=&hl=nest%20lime&fromsearch=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts