Read my post. I was speaking about a hypothetical worst-case scenario.Red Baron Farms said:
That is your personal assessment, based on a demonstrable lack of understanding of the conditions involved (we've demonstrated it, so don't pretend that this statement isn't true). Others quite clearly disagree.
Not as many as you claim. Most the things you responded with have been ruled out or made very very unlikely by the evidence and no mechanism.
You admitted to not understanding near-surface pedogenesis and groundwater flow; thus, we can dismiss everything you say on this topic. An assessment without a deep understanding of the system is meaningless at best and harmful to understanding at worst.Red Baron Farms said:
No, but you DO get people only LOOKING FOR this material there, either conciously or un. It's far more likely that someone screwed up than it is that some unknown mechanism that no one can figure out is at work.
No, you aren't. I already have, and all you do is repeat yourself ad nausium.
Wrong. I simply don't see the mechanism for those things to cause the selective contamination found in the fossil material. That's a very different thing than what you claim. I am happy to have you explain this preferential contamination to me. How does the contamination know exactly where to contaminate and where to avoid? How does the contamination know to make blood vessels, and how does the heme-iron get inside those blood vessels, leaving room for a later nuclear material to contaminate the center of each heme-iron contamination, but only in the reptile and bird fossils, not the old mammal fossils? How does the squid ink know to contaminate the ink sacs of a cuttlefish fossil, but not the mantel? That is what I don't understand. Seems very very very far fetched to me. You obviously completely misunderstood me. But again, please explain these things. I am happy to learn.
And this is based on your extensive experience with paleontological field and laboratory methods, along with an in-depth knowledge of the local pedogenic and hydrological conditions, I presume? If not, this is nothing but an argument from personal incredulity and is worth precisely as much as when Creationists try this crap.Red Baron Farms said:
Either read my posts or I will stop responding to you.
Certainly not. It is based on the studies I have been reading. They of course have been receiving similar commentary from other experts like you. No scientist worth his salt is going to accept any of this without ruling out other explanations. So the more recent studies have step by step been ruling out exactly the type of things you are mentioning to me. In other words they have been checking for contamination of the surrounding material to see if it came from outside or from the original material. They have been sequencing the proteins found to see if the material is animal origin or bacteria/mineral origin. It's all in the scientific literature. If not in the studies I posted, in the studies cited by the studies I posted, or in other studies I read. (and I do read both the pro and con studies as well as any scientific commentary I can find on them both) Not because I am an expert, because I found experts that knew more than me and wrote about it. That's why I am asking you. You are an expert. Please explain these inconsistencies in the contamination/biofilm hypothesis.
That was you purposely obfuscating, presumably because you don't want to answer my questions about the studies I read.You never refuted my scenario--in fact, you admitted to not knowing enough to evaluate it.Red Baron Farms said:
And this process will continue for the current generation of geologists and paleontologists. That's how these things work. You are over-eager in accepting these conclusions--we are just starting to analyze these things, and do not have a sufficient dataset to fully evaluate them. Take a broader look at geology sometime--compare this to other events--and you'll see this very distinct pattern. You can be an early adopter, and that's fine--but you don't have the knowledge to support your position (by your own admission), and my experience in this field makes me very hesitant to accept something as new and unstudied as these claims.
Apparently you don't have the knowledge either, because you still refuse to answer.
Yes I admit I don't understand how the above can occur from burrowing animals and groundwater. If you know please explain. If you don't, please say "I don't know".
Those areas present nucleation points.Red Baron Farms said:
Organic material leaches out of modern stuff all the time--that's basic soil science. If the fossils are in any zone with groundwater, these molecules can be deposited based on local geochemical gradients. Unlike you, I do not believe that sufficient systematic analysis has been done to rule out people seeing what they want to see--I do not accept, at the current time, that only those chemicals and structures that would be expected to be found in specific tissues are present in the fossils of those tissues. So I feel no need to explain why they preferentially do so. I believe that people are often overzealous, and that they are committing errors in this case.
Yes, I have. So have others. The fact that you don't recognize them as answers demonstrates how little you know on this topic. There's no shame in it--but it does render your personal evaluations meaningless.
Controversy is what makes science exciting.
Red Baron Farms said:
Of course. And you'll notice there are no claims of YEC on any of those sources either. The controversy is completely different. Not arguing a young material, but rather it is controversial precisely because it is claimed to be old material. The traditional view is that no original organic material could possibly survive so long.
Controversy is what makes science exciting.
