Dinosaurs Weren't in the Bible...They Never Even Existed.

[orogenicman]

First of all, you asked how it FOSSILIZATION HAPPENS NATURALLY, not spexcifically how dinosaurs fossilize (which, by the way, occurs by the same process).

Well surely you see the problem with what you did right? You gave me a very specific case of how fossilization is supposed to happen in silica thermal springs, which of course Dinosaurs did not live in Silica thermal springs.

If you had read the paper you would have discovered that it wasn't a broad statement that all fossilization occurs in silica warm springs. Those kinds of springs actually accelerate fossilization because of the warm water. But many organisms are, in fact, fossilized via silica replacement of calcium. The only difference is that in warm springs, the process is accelerated, which allows for long-term field study of the process, and its products.

Not to mention the fact that the article never mention any observation of the process, but rather finding the fossils afterwards and comparing them to the environment they were found in.

Perhaps you should re-read the paper. You can read,right?

Have there been any dinosaur fossils even found in caves?

Irrelevant since the question was about the fossilization process, not dinosaurs specifically. But since you are so insistant, dinosaur fossils have been found in many environments, even burrows. The point is that the same replacement process we see in warm springs and caves are active in fossilization we see in sedimentary strata. Those processes also fossilizes the sediment, which we then call sedimentary rock. Diagenesis has fossilized ther bulk of fossils we find, in fact.

I took some Geology in University; I find it extremely boring to be honest with you.

So you won't mind if someone who had an overall gpa of 3.7 with a 4.0 gpa in his major (geology), studied the field for 9 years, and has 22 years of field experience asks what qualifies you to make any scientific statement on the subject of fossilization?

Then, before you advance to other, more advanced classes, I highly recommend that you take classes in physics, inorganic and organic chemistry, and most importantly, take a class in biology.

Haha, is this some kind of joke? I took loads of that already.

Sleeping in class doesn't make you an expert in pretty much anything. But since I don't believe you ever took any science classes above ther 5th grade level, that point is moot.

I worked for 22 years as a certified professional geologist conducting field work in 13 states. Just because I no longer work in the field doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Well I’d want cutting edge stuff, so I’d want someone who was still employed in the profession.

Actually, I have more time on my hands to keep current now than I ever did when I was working (which is the case with many scientists). But hey, if you actually were truly interested in cutting edge stuff, perhaps you should take a class, eh? Or else pay better attention to those of us in the field who actually paid attention in class.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Go out in the field with me and I will show you what I know. It really is that simple. Come on, Grasshopper. What have you got to lose, but your delusions?

Uh, time and money?

Oh dear, didn't you say a couple of posts back that you make substantially more money than a U.S.D.A. janiter? Make all the excuses you care to, but that only makes you out as the fool we already know you are.

Science doesn't require direct observation, though it is important to provide it when it is discovered.

Operational and empirical sciences do.

Not true. Physics, chemistry, biology, and especially geology (which is a scientific discipline that uses the other three science to conduct its research) do not require direct evidence. You didn't know this? Huh. Perhaps you should have paid attention in school.

You cannot directly see infrared light but do you doubt that it exists?

Direct observation doesn’t necessarily only mean one’s eyes

Any observation that uses extensions of the senses to detect phemomena that cannot be detected by the senses alone is not a direct observation.

Let's go on a geology field trip any place of your choice, of you like (but to be fair, I am most expert on midwest geology, and am poor because I am disabled, so I prefer to stay close to home).

Well that’s going to be a problem then because I live in the West and don’t much care to visit the Midwest right now. It’s a shame; we have some of the best fossil beds in the world about 100 miles from here.

Fossil beds of what?

So come on grasshopper. Put your money where your mouth is. What are you afraid of?

Wasting my money

.

No more so than wasting everyone else's time by posting on matters of which you have no actual knowledge, education, or experience.

You said direct observation must occur for science to happen. But we have never made direct observations of ANY planet other than Earth and the Moon. Observations of the other planets have all been made with indirect observations. Do you doubt any of those observations (such as the fact that Venus is hot and dry as a bone)?

I don’t think direct observation in regards to empirical science means what you think it means.

I don't think you have a clue as to what it means.

Similarly, indirect observations are made in the laboratory all the time. They are vital to all research endeavors.

Such as?

Any observation that is made by means other than direct means (i.e., watching an acidic reaction come to completion by directly watching until a solution stops reacting) is an indirect observation (measuring the pH, or the redox conditions inside a closed reaction vessel).

Again, direct observation is not, and never has been a requirement for conducting any scientific research.

Karl Popper called, he says you are full of beans.

Karl Popper is still dead. So whoever called, he lied.

So when someone schools you all you can do is call them a liar? Yeah that’s a rational defense! I clearly pointed out observable evidence concerning proteins and soft tissue that demonstrates dinosaurs lived within the last 10,000 years.

You have repeatredly cited refuted creationist nonsense and ignored the most recent advances in paleobiology.