Coprolites - a Falsification of the YEC Hypothesis

[WinAce]

Coprolites: a Falsification of Young-Earth Creationism

General background information on the formation of fossilized dung, i.e. coprolites, can be found here (http://www.littleexplorers.com/subjects/dinosaur/glossary/Coprolite.shtml) and here (http://www.royalsaskmuseum.ca/wedo/faq/b03-coprolite.html).


King Coprolite (http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL3/kingcoprolite.html)

The technical name for a specimen of fossilized faeces is a coprolite. This particular coprolite comes from Late Cretaceous rocks in Saskatchewan, Canada, dating from between 65 and 74 Ma. It measures 44 cm long by 13 cm wide and 16 cm deep, and has a volume of more than two litres: and that's only a dry measure. When fresh and wet, it could have been even bigger. The coprolite is full of small, crushed bone fragments, strong evidence that the animal that produced it was a carnivore.

Only a dinosaur could have produced such a large specimen: the only suitable candidate known to have lived at the time was the fearsome, six-tonne predator Tyrannosaurus rex. The faeces could have been produced by another animal that has not been discovered, but if so, it would have to have been as large and carnivorous as T. rex. So the link between T. rex and the coprolite makes sense.

http://www.fossils-r-us.com/html/fishscalecop1.jpg

Exhibit A. Undigested Fish Scales (Carboniferous, 345 mya). Shark coprolite from Scotland.

Carnivore-related coprolites containing bits and pieces of animals can be found throughout the geological layers - these are but a few examples. Since the geologic column was supposedly laid down by a flood, and carnivory supposedly began only post-flood, how do YECs explain the fact that pre-carnivore strata contains fossilized evidence of carnivory?

But wait, kids, that's not all! Not only are carnivore-produced coprolites found throughout the geologic column, but ones that unambiguously and completely falsify the flood (http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/poop.htm) are also. Allow me to explain.

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/turtlepooEoceneBetsibokaMadagascar.jpg

Exhibit B. Eocene Epoch (around 50 mya) turtle coprolite from Madagascar.

How do we know this wasn't deposited in the flood? Look at it. See the cracks? What do they remind you of? That's right, dog poop. Dog poop that's been out in the air a long while, dried out and cracked. Something it can't do when it's underwater.


For these turtle-fouled Eocene rocks and younger rocks which lie above them, these facts require that they are at least post flood. One can follow the Eocene rocks from Madagascar around Africa and Eurasia and across to India. In the Ocean the link is unbroken.. The thickness of the rocks equal in age or younger (Post Paleocene) offshore India reaches 15 kilometers in thickness (see Curiale et al, AAPG86(2002):4:636). Thus the young-earth creationist, if he/she decides that the sediments I am speaking of are post-flood, must then account for 15 kilometers of post flood sediments offshore India. This is 50,000 feet of sediment. The young-earth creationist must ask himself how it is possible to non-catastrophically erode and deposit that much sediment within the past few thousand years. Clearly this is a difficulty. On the other hand if the young-earth creationist thinks that the sediments are flood sediments, they must explain how the turtles found dry land in the middle of the flood, so that lots of feces could be deposited and then have the time to dry out.
And that is the real poop on the Global Flood.
- Glenn Morton

Dried and cracked coprolites are found throughout the geologic layers, not just Eocene rocks. Needless to say, this puts a damper on any claims the layers were wholesale deposited by a flood...

[Edit - oh, this is now the biology forum? Shucks. So are geological discussions off-limits here?]

[Socrates]

So the juvenile non-scientist WinAce has learnt a new word. But actually coprolites are good evidence FOR the Flood! How many droppings would last thousands of years in the open? No, they would need to be BURIED rapidly by water-borne sediments, and then soaked through with minerals to preserve the structure. It is possible to have buried dried poop. Also, there are other ways that poop can crack, and while Morton is completely full of poop he's no expert in coprology.

WinAce further shows his crass ignorance:Since the geologic column was supposedly laid down by a flood, and carnivory supposedly began only post-flood, how do YECs explain the fact that pre-carnivore strata contains fossilized evidence of carnivory?Most YECs regard the FALL as the big discontinuity and where animals first became carnivorous. HUMANS were permitted to eat meat only after the Flood, but this is not when animals first ate meat.

[tgamble]

Today @ 07:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61252#post61252)
Socrates:

So the juvenile non-scientist WinAce has learnt a new word. But actually coprolites are good evidence FOR the Flood! How many droppings would last thousands of years in the open? No, they would need to be BURIED rapidly by water-borne sediments, and then soaked through with minerals to preserve the structure. It is possible to have buried dried poop.

Not in the middle of a flood it isn't! ROTFL!


Also, there are other ways that poop can crack, and while Morton is completely full of poop he's no expert in coprology.

Neither are you.

As usual, you can't refute the facts so you resort to insults.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am not sure where to put this thread... I think the archeology one is actually where it goes. I will get this clarifed and let you know.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Some fine poop pics you posted. :thumb:

[Butters]

Hmm... Isn't this the kind of thing that could be experemented with? Couldn't you lay out some dung and let it air dry. And cover some with water, and see what happens? I see a government grant lurking out there!

[Sauron]

04-10-2003 @ 04:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61498#post61498)
Dee Dee Warren:

I am not sure where to put this thread... I think the archeology one is actually where it goes. I will get this clarifed and let you know.


Archaeology is the study of artifacts and civilizations from past human habitations.

This belongs in Biology, since it has nothing to do with human beings.

[Sauron]

04-09-2003 @ 11:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61252#post61252)
Socrates:

So the juvenile non-scientist WinAce has learnt a new word. But actually coprolites are good evidence FOR the Flood! How many droppings would last thousands of years in the open?


Any of them. ALL of them. Put droppings out in the dry sandy areas of a desert or semi-arid region, and they'll last quite awhile. Once the moisture has been sucked out and they're dessicated, then being covered by sand or rocks isn't a problem.

In short - your objection to the "longevity of poop" is groundless.

[WinAce]

Technically, it doesn't even matter if they're dried or not. You don't have dung from terrestrial animals laid down at all when they've all drowned from a flood. The drying just adds a nice touch. :duh:

I'm waiting for that explanation of how non-dry dung can crack, also.

Also, the first part of my post was intended for those YECs who claim no carnivory before the end of the flood to keep the lions from eating 1 of every herbivore on the ark. :rofl:

[Dr.GH]

I was away last week for some field work in the Colorado Desert. My colleagues had rather a better time than I did. This included the recovery of a human coprolite. It was from a location that I have previously dated to about 1,200 years ago by a C14 date on a buried charcoal sample. I haven't seen the sample yet, but, I was told that there were fish scales, and undigested seeds that could be seen. A very exciting source of data. We will also date the sample.

I also would observe that there are recovered insect 'coprolites' called frass that can be recovered from archaeological sites. The oldest frass examples I have personally recoverd are about 7,000 years old from Southern California.

[Rusty T]

Also, the first part of my post was intended for those YECs who claim no carnivory before the end of the flood to keep the lions from eating 1 of every herbivore on the ark.

Of course you're forgetting the turtle fodder that the Bible failed to mention, but surely must have been there, because the B-I-B-L-E (yes, it's the book for me) can't be wrong.:rofl:

tizzi

[TheFiveSolas]

Butters wrote:


Hmm... Isn't this the kind of thing that could be experemented with? Couldn't you lay out some dung and let it air dry. And cover some with water, and see what happens? I see a government grant lurking out there!


:rofl: I always knew most government grants went to cr$%.

[Socrates]

Tizzidale:Of course you're forgetting the turtle fodder that the Bible failed to mention, but surely must have been there, because the B-I-B-L-E (yes, it's the book for me) can't be wrong.You're right, it can't be wrong, because Christ affirmed that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), and He proved His credentials by rising from the dead.

But as Francis Schaeffer pointed out, the Bible is true truth, not exhaustive truth. So it is perfectly reasonable to postulate plausible explanations where the Bible is silent, as long as they are not treated dogmatically. It's up to biblioskeptics to disprove these explanations of precisely how Noah took care of carnivores.

[Rusty T]

:rofl:

Heck, why turtle fodder? God has a propensity for conjuring multiplicities of frogs. Why not frog fodder? Or maybe God had the lions drink protein shakes?

tizzi

[Socrates]

tizzidale:Heck, why turtle fodder?Actually, my bad -- it should have been tortoises. Indeed giant tortoises have been used as a source of fresh meat for oceanvoyages, since they can last for a long time without being fed or watered. And carnivores will catch and eat tortoises and scoop out the meat between the carapce and plastron.

Also, the ancients knew how to preserve meat by drying, salting or with honey.

That's the trouble with bibliosceptics --- they haven't a clue of how ingenious people have been on ocean voyages and farms, well before modern high-tech equipment.

[Socrates]

WinAce the non-scientist:You don't have dung from terrestrial animals laid down at all when they've all drowned from a flood.Yes you can, since animals often defecate in a panic. I'm waiting for that explanation of how non-dry dung can crack, also. Some dung is quite dry to start with. Sheep dung forms pellets, and it's not hard to see why intermediately dry dung can crack as it's expelled.

[tgamble]

Today @ 06:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65809#post65809)
Socrates:

WinAce the non-scientist

No surprise that Socrates resorts to juvenile comments like these since he can't refute the evidence against the flood myth.
:rofl:

You still haven't even attempted to solve the problems in Morton's arguments!

I also notice that you've stopped posting in the relevent topics in religion 101. What a shock.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 12:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65723#post65723)
Socrates:

You're right, it can't be wrong, because Christ affirmed that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35)

Care to look at that passage again? As I read it, Christ was not using "broken" to refer to accuracy, but rather that his accusers can't claim that Psalm 82:6 is not scripture, i.e. they can't "break" it away from the rest of their law.


33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for (43) blasphemy; and because You, being a man, (44) make Yourself out to be God."
34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in (45) your (46) Law, '(47) I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'?
35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
36 do you say of Him, whom the Father (48) sanctified and (49) sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, '(50) I am the Son of God'?

[WinAce]

Yeah, animals defecate in a panic, and their dung will float to the bottom, middle and top of 20,000 feet of sediment, as well as all the sorted layers in between. :duh:

Care to offer an actual explanation for why coprolites are found in practically every strata, not just the lowest layers, where they should be limited to if all the animals that defecated them died out from flooding afterwards and were buried with sediment, oh formidable "scientist" Socrates?

I'll also be waiting for some alternate ways for dung to crack underwater, just out of curiousity.

[Duvenoy]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0312_030312_dinodung.html


The notion of fossilized dung may draw wry smiles from some. But the researchers who study coprolites, as fossil feces are known, say these dietary waste products can tell us much about dinosaurs and other ancient animals.


If you happen to be a tad squeamish about (ahem) future coprolites, don’t have lunch with the zoo keepers. When these guys talk shop, it can ruin your peanut butter sandwich, whatever jelly you might have on it.

This is an interesting, pretty much general article discussing the “giggle" fossils.

I wonder: would the bilges of the Ark, assuming it were found, or even existed, be filled with coprolites? And if so, would they show that crocodilians were vegetarian?

doov

[WinAce]

Just bumping because I really want to see the YEC explanation for terrestrial coprolites in all layers of strata, not just the lowest layers where animals drowned.

[WinAce]

*Tap tap* Is this thing on?

[AdvocatDiaboli]

Maybe Socrates is hard at work, trying to come up with a reasonable explanation. This really is an interesting topic.

Maybe the rain paused, the dung fossilised super-fast, the rain continued, sediments were formed super-fast, etc.
Sounds reasonable.

[Socrates]

Socrates:


You're right, it can't be wrong, because Christ affirmed that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35)

RA:Care to look at that passage again? As I read it, Christ was not using "broken" to refer to accuracy, but rather that his accusers can't claim that Psalm 82:6 is not scripture, i.e. they can't "break" it away from the rest of their law.I have looked at it many times, and it is excellent confirmation of both its accuracy and authority, and don't see RA's outlandish view anywhere. When Jesus quoted Scripture both here and elsewhere, it was simply not an option for His opponents to say "so what?" or "that part of Scripture is wrong". For Christ, what Scripture said, God said.

[Socrates]

Duvenoy:I wonder: would the bilges of the Ark, assuming it were found, or even existed, be filled with coprolites? And if so, would they show that crocodilians were vegetarian?It's a matter of common courtesy as well as intellectual honesty to read previous discussions in this and related threads. I've pointed out that much manure on the Ark could have been destroyed by vermicomposting, and that animal carnivory began at the Fall.

[DivineOb]

Because, you know, responding to the disproof a young earth would be out of the question.

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 07:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72854#post72854)
Socrates:

Duvenoy:I wonder: would the bilges of the Ark, assuming it were found, or even existed, be filled with coprolites? And if so, would they show that crocodilians were vegetarian?It's a matter of common courtesy as well as intellectual honesty to read previous discussions in this and related threads. I've pointed out that much manure on the Ark could have been destroyed by vermicomposting, and that animal carnivory began at the Fall.

Actually, I have, but elsewhere. Being new here, it's a bit much to ask that I slog through every thread.

The point is moot in any case. It has yet to be shown that the Ark even existed. I rather doubt that it ever will be. Noah's a pretty good story, though.

doov

[WinAce]

Just bumping this one up for Socrates.

[TheFiveSolas]

I have to admit that the topic of this thread is hysterical.

However, I've come to see these posts as evidence of the desperate measures evolutionists sometimes lower themselves to in their attempt at disproving a young Earth.

Winace had posted a picture of "cracked dung" with the following comment:


How do we know this wasn't deposited in the flood? Look at it. See the cracks? What do they remind you of? That's right, dog poop. Dog poop that's been out in the air a long while, dried out and cracked. Something it can't do when it's underwater.


First off, how many of you have done (or even read) detailed studies on the shape of feces when it is expelled from different creatures (such as whether or not it had cracks)?

Second, how many of you have done (or even read) of detailed studies as to how long it takes for "poop to crack"?

I have a dog, and have noticed that his poop often comes out with cracks similar to those in the picture at the start of this thread. Secondly, I have noticed that in the sun his poop can become dry and cracked by the very next time I take him for a walk.

In summary, I think your argument is full of poop. You think it proves something that in reality it doesn't.

Thanks for the good laugh though! :teeth:

[Frumious]

My first post. Hi everybody. I know some of you from other boards. :hi:


I have to admit that the topic of this thread is hysterical.

However, I've come to see these posts as evidence of the desperate measures evolutionists sometimes lower themselves to in their attempt at disproving a young Earth.

Looks more like desperate efforts of YECs to ignore problems with their "model".


Second, how many of you have done (or even read) of detailed studies as to how long it takes for "poop to crack"?

Hmm. I suspect it takes poop quite a while to dry out and crack when it's under water, as in a worldwide flood. I do know from lots of experience that it's easy to wash cow manure off a barn floor with a garden hose if you don't wait to long. If you wait a few days and let it dry out and "crack" it's a bit harder but you can still wash it away.


I have a dog, and have noticed that his poop often comes out with cracks similar to those in the picture at the start of this thread. Secondly, I have noticed that in the sun his poop can become dry and cracked by the very next time I take him for a walk.

In summary, I think your argument is full of poop. You think it proves something that in reality it doesn't.

Thanks for the good laugh though! :teeth:

I think your argument is cracked.:wink:

Here's an experiment for you. Take some of your dried cracked dog poop and put it under water. You don't even have to slosh it around with massive currents allegedly capable of depositing layered sediments over thousands of square miles. Just put it under water. Hold your nose and see what it looks like after a few months. Maybe then you will rethink your "analysis".

The Frumious Bandersnatch

[WinAce]

For that matter, I'd love to know terrestrial animals were pooping throughout the year in the midst of a global flood at all.

[Dr.GH]

First off, how many of you have done (or even read) detailed studies on the shape of feces when it is expelled from different creatures (such as whether or not it had cracks)?

Second, how many of you have done (or even read) of detailed studies as to how long it takes for "poop to crack"?


I know that I am letting myself in for some kidding, (for example, “See, science is full of crap!” ) but below are the articles and abstracts I have produced (mostly with my students) that have had something to do with feces of one sort or another.

The Geological Society published a very good book on corprolites maybe 20 years ago. Most good field guides for mammals include the shapes of scat.


1996 "Raptor Prey Bone Accumulations from a Nest Area." M. S. Pyatt and G. S. Hurd. Southern California Academy of Science, Annual meeting, May.

1996 "Deer Bone Accumulations from Mountain Lion Kills. R. Travis and G. S. Hurd. Southern California Academy of Science, Annual meeting, May.

1996 "The Archaeological Recovery and Interpretation of Frass." B. Stokes and G. S. Hurd. Southern California Academy of Science, Annual meeting, May.

1996 "Environmental History Reconstruction from the Microscopic Analysis of Column Samples," Gary S. Hurd, Brian Stokes. Southern California Environment and History Conference, Plenary Session, California State University Northridge, November.

1998 "Carnivore Modification of Deer Bone" Steve McCormick, G. S. Hurd. Society for Californian Archaeology.

1998 "Bone Modification and Deposition by Raptors" Mike Pyatt, Melissa Pryor, Gary Hurd. Society for California Archaeology.

1998 "Rockshelter Deposition of Insect Remains By Fox and Mouse" Matt Ritter, Gary Hurd. Society for California Archaeology.

1998 "Fish Bone Deposition by Coyote" Karl Allwerdt, Gary S. Hurd. Society for California Archaeology, March.

1998 "The Archaeological Recovery and Interpretation of Frass." B. Stokes and G. S. Hurd. Society for California Archaeology.

1998 "Digestive Modification of Bone by Fish. G. S. Hurd, Society for California Archaeology.

1998 "Primary and Secondary Predation Patterns of Avian Bone," Ken Riddell, G. S. Hurd, Society for California Archaeology.

1998 "Plant Hosts of Lepidoptera Larva." Southern California Academy of Science Annual Meeting. Poster [G. Hurd, Delia M. Beed, Christopher Dollar, Deborah Newgard, Melanie Salash, Chris Torri]

edited to add: I have never gotten to work with human coprolites, but here is a good webpage on some of the results their study can produce.

[TheFiveSolas]

Frumious wrote:


Here's an experiment for you...


Is it your claim that fossils don't form by being submerged in a liquid (i.e., a flood or lava flow)? Fact is, that is how they are formed. If something merely sits out in the air it doesn't turn into a fossil. Rather it needs to be rapidly buried.

However, my challenge still stands. Show me a detailed study that supports your underlying assumptions regarding "cracks in poop" (i.e., specifically dealing with whether or not certain animals produce poop with cracks already in them, how long cracks take to form, etc.) Until then, this thread will be mere prejudicial conjecture.

[Frumious]

However, my challenge still stands. Show me a detailed study that supports your underlying assumptions regarding "cracks in poop" (i.e., specifically dealing with whether or not certain animals produce poop with cracks already in them, how long cracks take to form, etc.) Until then, this thread will be mere prejudicial conjecture.

Well I have seen a lot animals produce a lot of poop in my life and I don't recall any of it being cracked and dried looking right when it was dropped and certainly don't recall any that would stay looking dried out if submerged in water for almost a year. Horse turds are often sort of split up as they fall but it is really easy to tell by looking if they are dried out or relatively fresh as it is with other animal that I am aware of. I have seen fresh droppings from cows, pigs, horses, sheep, dogs, deer, bears, and cats of various kind in nature and more in zoos, but of course I never published a "detailed" study.

Why don't you show us an animal that produces poop that will look like it was dried out when it is submerged in water right after it was dumped? I know creationists claim that some animals were different before the flood but I don't think you can claim that they produced prefossilized dried out looking droppings.

How do you think dinosaurs coprolites got sorted into Triassic, Jurassic and Creataceous sediments along with the dinosaurs the dropped them and even the nests of those dinosaurs? These sediments sometimes sit on top of Permian, Devonian, Carboniferous and Cambrian sediments that are supposedly flood deposits. Yet here we have dinosaur poop.
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/king-sized-coprolite.html
and dinosaur nests and eggs sorted into the same layers with them.
http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/ENVS/research/ichnology/dinoeggs.htm

If the animals ran away from the flood and then pooped there should not have been time for it to dry out before the flood caught up. If it was poop that was deposited and dried before all these earlier flood sediments were deposited how did it get sorted up into the specific layers? Did animals carry their dried coprolites with them to get them distributed through different layers? Or do dinosaurs, dinosaur nests and dinosaur eggs just happen to hydrodynamically sort to the same layers?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 08:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74020#post74020)
TheFiveSolas:

Frumious wrote:


Is it your claim that fossils don't form by being submerged in a liquid (i.e., a flood or lava flow)? Fact is, that is how they are formed. If something merely sits out in the air it doesn't turn into a fossil. Rather it needs to be rapidly buried.

However, my challenge still stands. Show me a detailed study that supports your underlying assumptions regarding "cracks in poop" (i.e., specifically dealing with whether or not certain animals produce poop with cracks already in them, how long cracks take to form, etc.) Until then, this thread will be mere prejudicial conjecture.


Hmm. Seems unlikely that much of anything would be preserved in a lava flow, other than rocks, of course. And these are occaisonally found.

Aspiring fossils need to be buried, certainly, but not necessarally by mud. A dry burial could be volcanic ash, as a couple of Roman cities found out, or even by sand or dust. After that, time usually takes it's course.

Coprolites can also form under water. Fish and wading birds such as ancient flamingos have left them behind, and they are well known. I seem to recall that in a previous post, I referenced a study mentioning catfish coprolites.

Given enough time, the inhabitants of Pompi and Herculaium (sp?) would likely have become some fascinating fossils. But, we dug them up and now they're all just a bunch of dead guys on display. Pity.

doov

[TheFiveSolas]

Duv,
Thanks for the info.

I also remember seeing photos of Shark coprolites, which I'm sure must have occurred in the water.

Frumious wrote:


Why don't you show us an animal that produces poop that will look like it was dried out when it is submerged in water right after it was dumped?


Why would I need to prove that? Do you think animals only pooped on the day of the flood?? :rofl: According to Scripture it took Noah about 100yrs to build the Ark. Therefore, animal poop would have had many years to dry out before a flood came (not to mention the fact that animals were around for quite a while after creation and prior to the flood). Again, I don't see how coprolites present a problem to the YEC view.

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 09:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74475#post74475)
TheFiveSolas:

Duv,
Thanks for the info.

I also remember seeing photos of Shark coprolites, which I'm sure must have occurred in the water.

Frumious wrote:


Why would I need to prove that? Do you think animals only pooped on the day of the flood?? :rofl: According to Scripture it took Noah about 100yrs to build the Ark. Therefore, animal poop would have had many years to dry out before a flood came (not to mention the fact that animals were around for quite a while after creation and prior to the flood). Again, I don't see how coprolites present a problem to the YEC view.




Let us not be too sudden, here. As with any fossil, a submreged coprolite needs special conditions to form; mainly the quiet waters at the bottom of a lake, as with the catfish, or in a shallow lagoon, as with the flamingos. Rapid burial is a must, as moving water will quickly break up the feces.

These sorts of coprolite are often found in many levels of sedimentry strata, demonstrating that lakes and seas formed many times in a given area.

It seems that only recently has a lot of attention been focused on these fossils. They are telling us a great deal about the animals that left them behind. Sometimes, the animal can't be identified, but as in the catfish, the coprolites were found with fossils of their former owners. Evidence of flamingo nests Id'd the bird droppings.

Coprolites are a fascinating study. I hope to read more on it as time passes.

doov

[Frumious]

According to Scripture it took Noah about 100yrs to build the Ark. Therefore, animal poop would have had many years to dry out before a flood came (not to mention the fact that animals were around for quite a while after creation and prior to the flood). Again, I don't see how coprolites present a problem to the YEC view.

So how did it get from where it was deposited into layers that sit on top of thousands of feet of other sediments that are supposedly flood deposits? As I asked before, do you think dinosaur bodies, dinosaur coprolites and dinosaurs nest all hydrodynamically sorted into Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments or did the Dinos carry their poop and their nests with them when they were outruning the Permian and Devonian animals while escaping the flood?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

[DivineOb]

I don't know how good T5S is with ascii art, but it would help me as well if he could draw a quick sequence of illustrations of exactly what he thinks happened during the flood and which accounts for the fossil data.

[RufusAtticus]

04-19-2003 @ 02:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72850#post72850)
Socrates:

I have looked at it many times, and it is excellent confirmation of both its accuracy and authority, and don't see RA's outlandish view anywhere.

What in that passage leads you to believe that it is about accuracy and not cannonization?

[WinAce]

Let's see. Turtles come ashore nowadays and leave (uncracked) dung. It occassionally dries out in the sun, cracks, then gets buried in the sand.

At the same geographic location, we find dried and cracked turtle coprolites for several millions of years down in the strata.

The obvious conclusion is:

(A) Satan planted fake dried out turtle dung to fool scientists
(B) Turtles used to excrete cracked and pre-fossilized poop until the metal hydrogen vapor canopy above the earth disintegrated during the flood
(C) The strata in that Madagascar beach wasn't deposited in a flood.

[TheFiveSolas]

Duv,
Winace made the comment that:


...to the bottom, middle and top of 20,000 feet of sediment, as well as all the sorted layers in between.


Since you appear to have some expertise in this area I will ask if you know whether or not this assertion (specifically the 20,000 feet thick of sedimentary layers containing coprolites) is true.

My gut instinct is that it is pure hyperbole.

DivineOb wrote:


I don't know how good T5S is with ascii art, but it would help me as well if he could draw a quick sequence of illustrations of exactly what he thinks happened during the flood and which accounts for the fossil data.


I have no artistic talent, nor do I have any backround in what such a catastrophic event would look like or do to sediment. I'll try to find some creationist geologist literature (on the flood) on the web and post it for you to look over.

(Edit to add)
DivineOb,
I found the following semi-techinical article that gives a good general overview of creationist stratigraphy.
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp

[Socrates]

TheFiveSolas to Duv and Winace:Since you appear to have some expertise in this area I will ask if you know whether or not this assertion (specifically the 20,000 feet thick of sedimentary layers containing coprolites) is true.If it comes from the demonstrably unreliable latter-day Benedict Arnold Glenn Moron, it should definitely be questioned.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 10:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74920#post74920)
TheFiveSolas:

DivineOb wrote:


I have no artistic talent, nor do I have any backround in what such a catastrophic event would look like or do to sediment. I'll try to find some creationist geologist literature (on the flood) on the web and post it for you to look over.

Ok, but just to be clear, I'm talking about not just how bones are put into the layers, but also how the droppings are as well. It seems to me that you can't get both bones and droppings in the same locations in a particular stratographic layer under the same flood conditions.

[WinAce]

Today @ 05:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74925#post74925)
Socrates:

If it comes from the demonstrably unreliable latter-day Benedict Arnold Glenn Moron, it should definitely be questioned.

The irony of this from someone who trusts AiG of all places is astounding.

[Duvenoy]

5 Solas;

I only know a little about it. I'm not a scientist, merely someone with an enduring interest in some aspects of science. So, I'll not give the thickness of the sediments in question, lest I get it wrong and mislead you. However, coprolites and their attendent, fish fossils have been found in strata seperated by other strata showing dry land, rather like a layered cake. This tells us that seas/lakes alternated with land as conditions changed. As WinAce stated: "Top, middle and bottom." Something of an over-simplication, perhaps, but that's the story.

Socrates;

How is Glenn Morton unreliable? Certainly, his faith and belief systems underwent a radical change, but what has this to do with his science?

doov

[Frumious]

Since you appear to have some expertise in this area I will ask if you know whether or not this assertion (specifically the 20,000 feet thick of sedimentary layers containing coprolites) is true.

My gut instinct is that it is pure hyperbole.

The theropod Coprolite I referenced was found in the Morrison formation which sits on the Colorado Plateau. I think there are at least several thousand feet of sedimentary rocks beneath them including some rather thick layers of limestone IIRC. So how did dinosaur bones, tracks and coprolites get on top of all those lower layers that are supposed to be flood deposits?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

[tgamble]

Today @ 01:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75028#post75028)
Duvenoy:

Socrates;

How is Glenn Morton unreliable? Certainly, his faith and belief systems underwent a radical change, but what has this to do with his science?
doov

He doesn't agree with YECism so he's unreliable. It's just that simple! Morton is a former YEC who abandoned it when he got into the field and realized everything the ICR taught him was a lie. (his words, not mine). Socrates is extremely bitter about this.

Socrates has often accused Morton of being unreliable and insulted him in various ways, but Socrates has never been able to refute anything Morton has written.

[WinAce]

Arise from the dead, topic.

[AdvocatDiaboli]

Does anyone have any idea how many coprolites have been found?

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 02:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79684#post79684)
AdvocatDiaboli:

Does anyone have any idea how many coprolites have been found?

From my reading, I think most fossil coprolites found thus far are from fish.

One of the problems a terrestrial (ahem) pile of it might have is dung beetles, particulary the stool of plant-eaters. There are many species of these beetles around the world today, and I see no reason to think that the situation was much different far in the past. Different species, of course. The average stool seldom lasts long enough to get the chance to become a fossil.

And, of course, someone could have stepped in it and ruined for fossilizing (is that a word?).

An exception to this is the human coprolites found in ancient Indian villages in the desert southwest. These are simply dessicated feces, not fossils, but hundreds of years old. They quickly liquify when introduced into water or alcohol, and I'm told that the smell returns as well (I warned you about having lunch with the zoo-keepers). Given sudden burial under conditions that minerals could eventually replace the organics, they too, could become fossils.

Exactly how many? I don't know. I'm not sure anyone does. But there are enough of them that they are common and cheap at fossil sales.

doov

[Dr.GH]

Carnivor feces (scat) are largely bone, hair, scales, feathers and lots of mucus. In addition to bettles, moth larva eat the hair, and rodents are commonly noted as coprophagic. In fact, harvest mice are recorded to have stored fox feces rich in insect remains in large numbers in caves. This preserves some, and can introduce them into the archaeological record.

1998 "Rockshelter Deposition of Insect Remains By Fox and Mouse" Matt Ritter, Gary Hurd. Society for Californian Archaeology

Rarely, do desicated remains ever become mineralized. That we find coprolites which show evidence of having been once desicated suggest that they were first isolated from the surface somehow. Feces depositied in turbid, anoxic water stand a farily good chance of becoming mineralized.

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 04:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79848#post79848)
Dr.GH:

Carnivor feces (scat) are largely bone, hair, scales, feathers and lots of mucus. In addition to bettles, moth larva eat the hair, and rodents are commonly noted as coprophagic. In fact, harvest mice are recorded to have stored fox feces rich in insect remains in large numbers in caves. This preserves some, and can introduce them into the archaeological record.

1998 "Rockshelter Deposition of Insect Remains By Fox and Mouse" Matt Ritter, Gary Hurd. Society for Californian Archaeology

Rarely, do desicated remains ever become mineralized. That we find coprolites which show evidence of having been once desicated suggest that they were first isolated from the surface somehow. Feces depositied in turbid, anoxic water stand a farily good chance of becoming mineralized.

Thanks, Doc.

Of particular interest is the Sloth Moth (don't have the Latin handy. Sorry). This insect lives, in large numbers, in the algae-ridden fur of the Sloths of the Amazon rain forests. When the mostly aborial Sloth decends to defecate, the moths hurry out, like a mini-plague of, well, moths, to lay their eggs in the fresh dung, which is soon consumed by the larvae.

Few if any coprolites here.

doov

[TheFiveSolas]

When this thread was first started Winace asserted that poop takes time to crack. So, I decided to do a "scientific study" proving that this is not the case.

Below you will find a photo of freshly pooped poop (courtesy of my dog). :teeth:

Note that cracks are present even though the "pile" is fresh.

I will be posting, after other posters comment (be nice! :lol: ), some pictures showing the progression of dog poop over a period of only two weeks (in a climate of about 50-65 degrees fahrenheit, with little rainfall over the two week timespan).

[James]

LOL, interesting application of Microsoft Paint skills. No one around saw you snapping this picture, I hope? :lol:

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 09:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83406#post83406)
TheFiveSolas:

When this thread was first started Winace asserted that poop takes time to crack. So, I decided to do a "scientific study" proving that this is not the case.

Below you will find a photo of freshly pooped poop I've kind of ignored the cracks in a stool(courtesy of my dog). :teeth:

Note that cracks are present even though the "pile" is fresh.

I will be posting, after other posters comment (be nice! :lol: ), some pictures showing the progression of dog poop over a period of only two weeks (in a climate of about 50-65 degrees fahrenheit, with little rainfall over the two week timespan).

I've pretty much ignored the cracks question, as I don't see what difference it makes. Whether or not feces is cracked depends entirely upon it's consistancy when expelled. Firm and a little dry, as in the picture, will show cracks and even segments. A moister, looser stool might only be a puddle; cow dung, for example. Under the right conditions, either could become a coprolite.

I have a couple of interesting snakes currently in residence. Both Bitis genera, both healthy adults. They defecate at intervals of from one to three months. Needless to say, It's quite a load. Unlike the scat of many reptiles, their feces is not entirely different in consistancy from your dog's, except for the white uriates.

What a fascinating coprolite this would make! snakes shed their fangs regularly and these pass through with the meal that they came out in. I don't bother with it anymore, but I've collected fangs by drying the feces and breakinbg it up.

So, dry and hard, or loose and runny, dung is dung. All but a minute percentage goes the way of the dung beetle, the garden worm, of the sole of the oxford shoe. But what's left can tell pretty amazing story.

doov

[TheFiveSolas]

James,
Actually, there were about three to four people around who saw me taking the pictures! :rofl:

Since Duv corroborated my critique regarding "cracks in poop" not requiring drying, I'll simply post a picture of two-three week old dog poop.

Note how it is almost completely broken down.

If there exists such ENORMOUS quantities of fossilized dung throughout the Earth's sedimentary layers as posited by Winace (and others) AND (per Dr.GH above) dung needs to be submersed in turbid water in order to become a coprolite I herewith assert that "Coprolites support a YEC hypothesis."

[Socrates]

:thumb: Hey, great work, TheFiveSolas! :joy: This is real science, totally splattering the claim by Glenn Moron and his parrot that cracks in dung prove long periods of drying. :whack: And TFS shows once again how supposed evidence against the Creation/Fall/Flood model actually turns out to make far more sense when interpreted in this paradigm.:em7:

[Woman]

illuminating and odiferous

[Solly]

Today @ 08:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83922#post83922)
TheFiveSolas:
I'll simply post a picture of two-three week old dog poop.

Note how it is almost completely broken down.


Hmm, in this country such scientific research is hindered by the £500 fine imposed on those who do not clear up after their dogs.

However, great thread guys, and no moderation either. A pleasure to read.

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 08:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83922#post83922)
TheFiveSolas:

James,
Actually, there were about three to four people around who saw me taking the pictures! :rofl:

Since Duv corroborated my critique regarding "cracks in poop" not requiring drying, I'll simply post a picture of two-three week old dog poop.

Note how it is almost completely broken down.

If there exists such ENORMOUS quantities of fossilized dung throughout the Earth's sedimentary layers as posited by Winace (and others) AND (per Dr.GH above) dung needs to be submersed in turbid water in order to become a coprolite I herewith assert that "Coprolites support a YEC hypothesis."

I really must differ. It takes a very long time to turn organics into stone, even under the best of conditions. Feces is especally difficult to fossilize due to it's delicatcy. The main reason that coprolites are so common is that, well, everybody leaves a lot of the raw material behind them in a life time, and some fraction of it gets the right conditions. given the huge number of species that came and went (this number will never be known, sadly), it would be amazing if there were fewer coprolites.

And again, fish coprolites along with the fossilized remains of the fish have been found in strata sandwiched between other strata showing land.

doov

doov

[Solly]

Today @ 11:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83976#post83976)
Duvenoy:

I really must differ. It takes a very long time to turn organics into stone, even under the best of conditions. Feces is especally difficult to fossilize due to it's delicatcy. The main reason that coprolites are so common is that, well, everybody leaves a lot of the raw material behind them in a life time, and some fraction of it gets the right conditions. given the huge number of species that came and went (this number will never be known, sadly), it would be amazing if there were fewer coprolites.



We know that minerals dissolved in water enter the remains of plants and animals buried in sediment and start the fossilization process. Fossilization does not have to take a long time. It depends on the physical and chemical conditions and is nearly independent of time. If the pH, temperature, mineral content, and other conditions are right, fossilization will occur rapidly. One cannot say with any certainty what conditions were present when a particular fossil formed. We read in Rick Balough's Crossfire article (Aug 93) the Scientific American report that mineral-laden waters at Mother Shipton's Cave in Yorkshire, England fossilized animals within a few years. [Sci Am, 1889] One reader suggested that this was not true fossilization. This is a moot point. Fossilization is fossilization regardless of whether silicates, carbonates, or other minerals are involved.
By Jon A. Covey, B.A., MT(ASCP)
Edited by Anita Millen, M.D., M.P.H., M.A.
Creation in the Crossfire (http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/FossilMan1/FossilMan1.html)

discuss.

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 11:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83980#post83980)
Solly:




Creation in the Crossfire (http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/FossilMan1/FossilMan1.html)

discuss.

True enough, as far as it goes. In the highly mineralized waters found in a limestone cave, a fossil might form rapidly.

However, those conditions are not all that common. Most fossils are formed under much less ideal conditions.

Hypothetical example: Let us say that a bit of feces (gotta stay on topic) from, say, a theropod, was dropped in the sand just before a dust storm. The storm came and buried it under several feet of dry sand. It dessicated quickly, then just laid there; no bugs, vermiforms, nor shoes to disturb it for centuries (This has been shown with ancient, human coprolites in the American SW), concievably even milinia. Meanwhile, the sand has become pretty solid around it, preserving it's form. Then conditions change and a river enters the land, forming a lake; or the sea encroaches yet again. Suddenly, our coprolite begins to have it's home invaded by water seepage and the minerals it carries. As these minreals are in nothing like the concentrates found in a limestone cavern, it takes a very long time.

So, there is no hard and fast rule as to the time it takes a fossil to form. Nor is it important. If the species that depsoited the coprolite can be IDd, or the strata dated, the age of it will be known.

doov

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 10:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83970#post83970)
Woman:

illuminating and odiferous


Warned ya 'bout them zookeepers! (chuckle)

doov

[DivineOb]

Well, lets not be hasty now ;).

This does seem to be evidence against the idea of the cracks providing evidence that the dung must have been exposed to the elements for a period of time before being covered (barring new information coming to light), but I don't see this disproving the entire force of this argument.

I'm rather skeptical that, given the fierce water currents (to deposit the levels of earth up to the necessary height) could have maintained the dung in as 'pristine' condition as one would expect from the original picture.

[Bald Ape]

Trying to put a "fresh" spin on this topic...

The findings: A geographic column comprised of many million layers of sediment, and scattered throughout this sediment: cracked poop of large carnivores.

The creationist explanation: 6000 years ago, a guy named Adam ate the forbidden fruit, causing a nearby T. Rex to say, "The heck with gnawing at this grass, I'm going to take a bite out of that Rhino over yonder...". After this meal (and many others by other large carnivores), pooping occured. In some of these pooping scenarios, the carnivore was perhaps a bit dehydrated, and so its poop came out looking a bit cracked. It (the poop, not the carnivore) sat in the sun awhile, and hardened. In some rare cases, after hardening in the sun, some poop was buried, without any major loss of structure.

Poop was buried in this fashion from approximately 6000 years ago to about 4000 years ago. Then came the flood. The immediate deluge of water caused all of the sediments of the last 2000 years, buried poop and all, to get churned up and about. As more and more water piled on, the sheer pressure induced the churned sediment/poop mixture to stratify over the period of about a year into the millions of layers of sediment (and, of course, poop) observed by geologists today. The same extraordinary pressure that caused the layers to form also quite literally turned the poop into stone.

It is very important to keep in mind that because the exact conditions of the flood can never be replicated, it is impossible to prove that any kind of preferential sorting, layering, poop petrification, etc, couldn't have happened.

Creationists: Is this scenario accurate?

And evolutionary paleontologists/geologists: Are there any coprolite findings which cannot be qualitatively explained by this scenario (if we allow the "magic physics" of the flood to sort and petrify the poop)?

[Woman]

Bone chips found in this 2.4-liter (2.5-quart) mass of fossilized dinosaur feces, among other clues, point to Tyrannosaurus rex as the most likely candidate.

This coprolite is most likely from a sauropod, owing mainly to its large size (about 40 cm diameter), and age (Jurassic)



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0312_030312_dinodung.html




Paleontologists
Stay in the loop
They bury their noses
In dinosaur poop!

[reddjohnny]

The coprolites undoubtedly number into the undiscovered billions. But for the few I have found, my observation revealed coprolites in pristine condition. My research thus far places these coprolites at the end of the Jurassic Period approximately 65.5 billion years ago. Evidence of coprolite: carboniferous black consistently no layered across entire medium; creased, rolled, extruded, tapered, finely textured; fairly light in weight. Corroborating evidence: found in the presence of other carboniferous fossils: location in Crowley's Ridge which formed the boundary between two major Jurassic rivers; marine amphibian head complete with Jurassic silhouette, eyes, mouth line, eye ridges, head profile, and triangular shape; post-Jurassic mammalian in form of fetal primate exhibiting crown shaped primate skull, deep set sockets for eyes, forward bridge, protruding and jutting jaw with mouth line, perpendicularly set lower frontal jaw creases forming the lower lip section (fossil exhibits morphing due to compression, but details are unmistakable. The carboniferous boundaries exist everywhere. These event boundaries essentially froze in time billions of living organisms for all time. Anyone may oberserve at any time what I have observed. One cannot dismiss the universe with one quick broad sweep a general statement. One arrives after many years of dedicated study. One there no turning back is possible.

[wattsr1]

The coprolites undoubtedly number into the undiscovered billions. But for the few I have found, my observation revealed coprolites in pristine condition. My research thus far places these coprolites at the end of the Jurassic Period approximately 65.5 billion years ago. Evidence of coprolite: carboniferous black consistently no layered across entire medium; creased, rolled, extruded, tapered, finely textured; fairly light in weight. Corroborating evidence: found in the presence of other carboniferous fossils: location in Crowley's Ridge which formed the boundary between two major Jurassic rivers; marine amphibian head complete with Jurassic silhouette, eyes, mouth line, eye ridges, head profile, and triangular shape; post-Jurassic mammalian in form of fetal primate exhibiting crown shaped primate skull, deep set sockets for eyes, forward bridge, protruding and jutting jaw with mouth line, perpendicularly set lower frontal jaw creases forming the lower lip section (fossil exhibits morphing due to compression, but details are unmistakable. The carboniferous boundaries exist everywhere. These event boundaries essentially froze in time billions of living organisms for all time. Anyone may oberserve at any time what I have observed. One cannot dismiss the universe with one quick broad sweep a general statement. One arrives after many years of dedicated study. One there no turning back is possible.

Gidday Reddjohnny, and welcome to TWeb.

Stcik around and hope you learn a lot, teach us a lot and have some fun.


Regards, Roland

[grmorton]

The coprolites undoubtedly number into the undiscovered billions. But for the few I have found, my observation revealed coprolites in pristine condition. My research thus far places these coprolites at the end of the Jurassic Period approximately 65.5 billion years ago.

I hate to further my reputation as a bad person, but I am very skeptical of your claims. No scientist would say that the coprolites are at the end of the Jurassic period 65.5 billion years ago.. The Cretaceous ended 65 million years ago, the universe wasn't in existence 65 billion years ago, much less coprolites. And no real scientist would mistake the end of the Jurassic for the end of the Cretaceous. Care to explain all this?

[grmorton]

Does anyone have any idea how many coprolites have been found?

Do you count the tiny ophiomorpha fecal pellets which line their burrows? You ought to see my web page Going to the Bathroom in the Global Flood http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bathroom.htm

Pictures are to be found there.

[The Barbarian]

it's not hard to see why intermediately dry dung can crack as it's expelled.

Obviously.

[Dr.GH]

Oh I don't want to feed the arguments that I am "full of S.. er.. hit" but, I am an expert on a type of coprolite, frass or insect feces.

The are fossil frass found consistantly in terrestrial sediments from before the Triassic until the present. My interest is in fairly recent material form the Holocene. There is no support from any science for YEC.

PS: I am happy to see a Winace thread posthumously resurrected. I used to be sad.