Many were, but alot were not. Besides, at the time the nests were made
these "sediments" were all rock; the nests were made in the sand or topsoil
that covered these "sediments", which were themselves later covered and
lithified as part of the normal uniformitarian process. You seem to be
suggesting that these "sediments" had just been laid down by the flood, then
the water temporarily receded and the dinosaurs cames out and built nests
and laid eggs and hatched young ones, then the the waters returned and the
nests were covered while the adults fled. The geological evidence
contradicts this scenario.
>
>>You seem to be suggesting that during the flood,
>>pregnant dinosaurs built nesting sites to drop their eggs, or perhaps that
>>while
>>swimming desperately to avoid drowning, they dropped their eggs and the
>>flood
>>somehow floated in nesting material underneath them. What exactly are you
>>suggesting?
>
>I am not aware of "nesting material", only of depressions with mounded
>sides in which the eggs were laid.
>
As I pointed out in a previous post, these "depressions with mounded sides"
were not natural, but had been carefully excavated by the dinosaurs. Many
of these excavated nests were then lined with vegetation to cushion the
eggs. The eggs themselves were laid carefully in specific patterns, not
haphazardly dumped. None of this suggests that the dinosaurs were trying to
flee an oncoming flood or were trying to raise families in the midst of a
flood.
>
>I hadn't thought that they would release their eggs into the water, but I
>suppose that could happen under duress. Some of the egg layers are strewn
>with broken shell fragments, but that doesn't tell us whether the eggs
>broke on the ground or not.
>
On the contrary, as I again pointed out in a previous post, those sights
that contain broken shell fragments demonstrate that these eggs were broken
as part of a natural nesting situation. The eggs broke as the young ones
hatched; the fragments were then removed from the nest and dropped onto the
surrounding ground. Some of the fragments indicate that the eggs had been
broken open by predators before hatching. There is no evidence that the
these fragments come from eggs that were simply dumped onto the ground by
fleeing dinosaurs, where they either broke on contact or were smashed in the
stampede. The geological and paleontological evidence of the sites simply
do not support your scenario. In fact, they contradict it.
>
>>Yes, they show repeated inundations, since the nesting sites were
>>covered, and then a new one built over the top in the next strata, but
>>they had to be built while the ground was solid.
>
>Yes, and I think an important question is how well-drained the sediments
>were -- are most of the nests in sandy sediments, which would be "solid"
>soon after the tide receeded, and could solidify more as the hours passed?
>Are some in fine silt which would be expected to remain muddy for many
>hours and days?
>
The evidence shows that, whether the soil in which the nests were made was
either sandy or silty, nearly all the nest sites were made in dry, even
arid, soil. There is no evidence that any of these nesting sites were
constructed in wet sediments freshly laid down by some flood. Also, many of
these sites show clear evidence that they had been used for generations
**WITHOUT** intervening water-laid sediment layers. In other words, the
evidence shows that many generations of dinosaurs used the same open,
uncovered patches of ground, and refutes a scenario which invokes dinosaurs
making nests and laying eggs, the nests are covered with water-born
sediments, the dinosaurs return and make fresh nests, these are then covered
with more water-born sediments, the dinosaurs again return to build more
nests, these nests are again covered with more water-born sediments, etc, ad
infinitum, ad nauseum. This simply did not happen.
Kevin L. O'Brien