>Let's not be coy here. Unless you are willing to say that the Mongolian beds
>are not part of a global flood, I must assume that you do because I know
>your views. I would rather deal with the implications of what your really
>believe about the world's geologic framework.
I prefer to discuss the scientific options prior to any discussion of the
implications. This is my style, and the way I have always tried to
proceed. So if you don't mind, lets discuss the issue with respect to
science, then when we understand what we can about the science, we can
discuss the implications for whatever world view you wish to attach.
>Need I remind you that I have read your model. If the dino nests are nothing
>more than what they appear to be, then you must agree that this is quite
>problematical for a global flood view (whoever might hold such a view)
>because the dino required time to lay the egs and in at least one case sit
>on them.
Again, I prefer to wait until we resolve the issue of the sedimentary
environment before considering what implications this might have for any
particular view of origins. Personally, I have no problem with dinosaurs
wandering around laying eggs anywhere they can find a safe haven in a
global flood, but we can discuss that in another context, since two of my
colleagues are currently involved in professional studies on dinosaur egg
sites worldwide (work which they have reported on at GSA meetings and on
which they are preparing manuscripts for publication).
>Moldic fossils also rarely preserve organic material so should we apply the
>same standard to them and deny (or at least withhold judgement) that they
>are the remains of living matter?
Whatever moldic fossils are (that's a term I have never heard, but will
assume it refers to fossils represented by molds), if they have evidence of
the form of the organism, there is no reason to doubt their origin. In the
case of all rhizoliths I have observed personally or have seen reported in
the literature, there was no direct evidence of their having been made by
roots. If there are cases where they do show such evidences, in those
cases I would accept their suggested origin, but to extrapolate that to all
"rhizoids" uncritically, makes no more sense than suggesting that because
there is a fern leaf inside a Mazon Creek nodule, all Mazon Creek nodules
are made by fern leaves (I have some containing insect larvae), except that
here there remains the possibility that the unknown "fern leaf" nodules
could be opened to reveal what was really inside, a luxury not available
when considering the origin of "rhizoids". So, yes, I think it is wise to
withold judgment until a lot more is known.
>Weathering of glauconite from other beds and its deposition in a terrestrial
>bed would require time and so is inconsistent with any global flood view
>(whoever might hold such a view should take note)
Sure is. But that is not the only way to obtain glauconite. If you dumped
a seabed containing glauconitic sand into another basin, the glauconite
would not then be second generation, or require time.
>I am not sure I fully understand this, but Saudi Arabia was receiving
>carbonate for almost all of geologic history. The entire Omani column is
>carbonates with small amounts of shale.
I hate to let such an interesting problem die without further explanation:-))
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu