@ironman197268 "Another interesting thing is those oysters and clams are petrified in the CLOSED position."
All of them closed. Being in a closed position is not unusual just because they are opened when you go to the restaurant.
"Sounds like they got buried, killed, petrified and uncovered in a hurry."
Sounds the exactly the opposite. Fossils require fairly quick covering but the fossilisation process is very slow else Creationist "scientists" would demonstrate otherwise. They don't of course.
@pilgrimpater Really? 14 million years to erode the continents flat, yet there is still a Mt. Everest that took 55 million years to uplift? I don't think so.
@ironman197268 Yes, really. The Himalayas, and hence Everest, are still rising (as measured), despite erosion.
You are right though. Without tectonic plate movement, erosion would "flatten" the earth but with tectonic plate movement, the earth can never "flatten".
@pilgrimpater Why hasn't erosion washed away all the marine life fossils found 3000 feet from the top of Mt. Everest, that was being eroded during uplift for around 50 million years or so?
@ironman197268 Why should it erode all? No doubt some have been eroded because that is why we have access to them. In fact erosion is by far the main mechanism that reveals fossils (yes we can excavate but that's only scratching the surface). Again, i repeat, that with no plate movement, and hence mountain building, errosion would eventually rule but who are you to say that 50 million years is enough?
@pilgrimpater Seriously man, there is oysters and clams up there, that are the size of 500lb boulders. 3000 feet from the top of Mt. Everest. That would put that land area, during uplift, in the time range of about 50 million years ago. So... 3000 feet from the top of Mt. Everest has been eroding for at least 50 million years. Why are all those petrified giant oysters and clams still there?
@ironman197268 Yes indeed there is sea life up there, as in many mountains where sea beds have been forced up, but why are you assuming such an incredible erosion rate? There is definately erosion but not due to the great erosional forces of glaciers and water. The erosion is largely due to wind (and possibly frost) which is an exctionally slow erosional force. In fact i would go so far as to say that the rising due to plate activity contributes to exposure of fossils.
@pilgrimpater Sorry Man, but that doesn't explain why those oysters and clams are still up there. They would've had to have been there for millions of years. That's not possible because they would've decayed, or eroded away, but didn't.
@ironman197268 You are right. My explanation of the erosion of the fossil bearing sediments doesn't explain how they got there and nor is it intended to do so (naturally i can supply the answer but we are talking erosion). By the way fossils do not decay (they are mineral) and you appear to have now gone full circle and repeated your original assertion. Again, i point out that you are assuming high erosion rates from mere wind (and i'm not talking flatulence, LOL).
@pilgrimpater Fossils may not decay but, everything erodes, including petrified oysters and clams. Another interesting thing is those oysters and clams are petrified in the CLOSED position. Sounds like they got buried, killed, petrified and uncovered in a hurry.
@ironman197268 That'll be fossilised, not petrified. NB most are ammonites. Fossils can't find their way into solid rock, so for a catastrophe they would have have to be buried (despite already living under water) somehow avoiding being grouped with other sea bed organisms ( we don't find them in the Himalaya fossil record at the level we are talking about, e.g. lobsters, crabs, etc. Then they would need to fossilise & sediments would need to go through lithification & being upturned. No way.
Your teacher asked for permission to use it in the classroom, which was a great compliment. It's not all that good but does get the point across about geologic time and the effects.
great video thanks
msjessypp 1 month ago
interesting video and very informative
xtremetom180 1 month ago
good work here
osclarkos 1 month ago
@ironman197268 "Another interesting thing is those oysters and clams are petrified in the CLOSED position."
All of them closed. Being in a closed position is not unusual just because they are opened when you go to the restaurant.
"Sounds like they got buried, killed, petrified and uncovered in a hurry."
Sounds the exactly the opposite. Fossils require fairly quick covering but the fossilisation process is very slow else Creationist "scientists" would demonstrate otherwise. They don't of course.
pilgrimpater 8 months ago
Why in the World has the Earth not done this yet? After all, it's Billions of years old right?
ironman197268 8 months ago
@ironman197268 Tectonics outstrip erosion.
pilgrimpater 8 months ago
@pilgrimpater Really? 14 million years to erode the continents flat, yet there is still a Mt. Everest that took 55 million years to uplift? I don't think so.
ironman197268 8 months ago
@ironman197268 Yes, really. The Himalayas, and hence Everest, are still rising (as measured), despite erosion.
You are right though. Without tectonic plate movement, erosion would "flatten" the earth but with tectonic plate movement, the earth can never "flatten".
pilgrimpater 8 months ago
@pilgrimpater Why hasn't erosion washed away all the marine life fossils found 3000 feet from the top of Mt. Everest, that was being eroded during uplift for around 50 million years or so?
ironman197268 8 months ago
@ironman197268 Why should it erode all? No doubt some have been eroded because that is why we have access to them. In fact erosion is by far the main mechanism that reveals fossils (yes we can excavate but that's only scratching the surface). Again, i repeat, that with no plate movement, and hence mountain building, errosion would eventually rule but who are you to say that 50 million years is enough?
pilgrimpater 8 months ago
@pilgrimpater Seriously man, there is oysters and clams up there, that are the size of 500lb boulders. 3000 feet from the top of Mt. Everest. That would put that land area, during uplift, in the time range of about 50 million years ago. So... 3000 feet from the top of Mt. Everest has been eroding for at least 50 million years. Why are all those petrified giant oysters and clams still there?
ironman197268 8 months ago
@ironman197268 Yes indeed there is sea life up there, as in many mountains where sea beds have been forced up, but why are you assuming such an incredible erosion rate? There is definately erosion but not due to the great erosional forces of glaciers and water. The erosion is largely due to wind (and possibly frost) which is an exctionally slow erosional force. In fact i would go so far as to say that the rising due to plate activity contributes to exposure of fossils.
pilgrimpater 8 months ago
@pilgrimpater Sorry Man, but that doesn't explain why those oysters and clams are still up there. They would've had to have been there for millions of years. That's not possible because they would've decayed, or eroded away, but didn't.
ironman197268 8 months ago
@ironman197268 You are right. My explanation of the erosion of the fossil bearing sediments doesn't explain how they got there and nor is it intended to do so (naturally i can supply the answer but we are talking erosion). By the way fossils do not decay (they are mineral) and you appear to have now gone full circle and repeated your original assertion. Again, i point out that you are assuming high erosion rates from mere wind (and i'm not talking flatulence, LOL).
pilgrimpater 8 months ago
@pilgrimpater Fossils may not decay but, everything erodes, including petrified oysters and clams. Another interesting thing is those oysters and clams are petrified in the CLOSED position. Sounds like they got buried, killed, petrified and uncovered in a hurry.
ironman197268 8 months ago
@ironman197268 That'll be fossilised, not petrified. NB most are ammonites. Fossils can't find their way into solid rock, so for a catastrophe they would have have to be buried (despite already living under water) somehow avoiding being grouped with other sea bed organisms ( we don't find them in the Himalaya fossil record at the level we are talking about, e.g. lobsters, crabs, etc. Then they would need to fossilise & sediments would need to go through lithification & being upturned. No way.
pilgrimpater 8 months ago
without sound? or is it anything wrong with my computer....?
sa32112003 1 year ago
Very nice !!!!
Looks like Australia today.
dnabiologic 1 year ago
I'm working on a new and improved version of this right now.
Stay tuned.
PeakPixels 1 year ago
My class watched this in school. :D
crustyandhomer 2 years ago
Cool!
Your teacher asked for permission to use it in the classroom, which was a great compliment. It's not all that good but does get the point across about geologic time and the effects.
BTW, Crusty the Clown is my favorite.
PeakPixels 2 years ago
Thanks for that. I am studying for a final on this and that was helpful to visually show erosion.
da5families 2 years ago
Nicely done, until about 0:20 where it became abit too fast and fuzzy
Reality9O 2 years ago 4
thx :))
Pink101343 3 years ago
very interesting
pachelbelrox 4 years ago 5