I've heard that 'conditions' need to be right for preservation, but many of those conditions seem like they should be good at any shoreline during that period. Also, stability of the sediments during the movement of the continents has been mentioned, yet you see some areas that have excellent fossils regardless, and as mentioned here is a very stable area they are at, and there are none. Have they just not been found yet, not looked there yet, or is there another reason I've just not found yet?
Very interesting talk, thanks so much for posting. I have a question, though am not sure if it can be answered from a purely Geological basis. It's mentioned in part 1 that the sandstone deposits of the Cambrian over the muds of the Ediacaran are found almost globally, anywhere there was ocean shoreline basically. Why is it though, that only a few of those have fossils from those periods? I've never been quite able to get that...
@shishkabobby I wasn't replying to whatever discussion was going on, I try to avoid getting into old discussions; I was referring to the comment at 22:20. At first I thought it was another Ben Stein "science makes evil things" argument, but looking back on the video, I'm not sure which side he was on. Jumping at creationist shadows, I guess.
@tctheunbeliever In the discussion, it was pointed out that the dates were measured by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating depends upon nuclear physics (isotope decay is governed by the weak and strong nuclear forces). These same forces are critical to the design and implementation of a nuclear bomb. Since both the nuclear and thermonuclear bombs work, there is reason to believe that nuclear physicists have a good understanding of nuclear forces. Does that explain the comment?
I've heard that 'conditions' need to be right for preservation, but many of those conditions seem like they should be good at any shoreline during that period. Also, stability of the sediments during the movement of the continents has been mentioned, yet you see some areas that have excellent fossils regardless, and as mentioned here is a very stable area they are at, and there are none. Have they just not been found yet, not looked there yet, or is there another reason I've just not found yet?
SisterOfKarn 7 months ago
Very interesting talk, thanks so much for posting. I have a question, though am not sure if it can be answered from a purely Geological basis. It's mentioned in part 1 that the sandstone deposits of the Cambrian over the muds of the Ediacaran are found almost globally, anywhere there was ocean shoreline basically. Why is it though, that only a few of those have fossils from those periods? I've never been quite able to get that...
SisterOfKarn 7 months ago
@shishkabobby I wasn't replying to whatever discussion was going on, I try to avoid getting into old discussions; I was referring to the comment at 22:20. At first I thought it was another Ben Stein "science makes evil things" argument, but looking back on the video, I'm not sure which side he was on. Jumping at creationist shadows, I guess.
Yes, I agree with you.
tctheunbeliever 7 months ago
@tctheunbeliever In the discussion, it was pointed out that the dates were measured by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating depends upon nuclear physics (isotope decay is governed by the weak and strong nuclear forces). These same forces are critical to the design and implementation of a nuclear bomb. Since both the nuclear and thermonuclear bombs work, there is reason to believe that nuclear physicists have a good understanding of nuclear forces. Does that explain the comment?
shishkabobby 7 months ago
They used it to build bombs? Is that the best objection these idiots can come up with? These people are aggressively stupid.
tctheunbeliever 7 months ago
Geology is fascinating.
FaganRoberts 8 months ago