3 ms·

> The egg would have been buried, sat for a long time to fossilize (>10K years), and over a much longer period that sediment turned to rock. Why must the fossil

> The egg would have been buried, sat for a long time to fossilize (>10K years), and over a much longer period that sediment turned to rock. Why must the fossil, which is a rock by this point, change its shape? Do you really believe that an egg can sit in mud for 10,000 years and not degrade? > The formation preserves dinosaur bones and eggs, and fossil plants It sounds like we have a genuine slice of pre-history. If they had said that they had preserved an insect being eaten by a chick being eaten by a dinosaur - ie 3-in-1 - would you believe that too? At what point do you try to establish your understanding with information that aligns to your experience? >> it would still be so much less dense than the matter around it > You do not understand what fossilization means. By this time the original materials of the egg have been replaced by minerals, preserving the form, but not the original density. An egg is mainly fluid, right? From what you say, you seem to think that the fluid would a/ stay in the egg for 10,000 years and then b/ be converted to solid stone. Is this really a plausible argument? You provide an example of how much trust there is in the purported authoritative sources, even though they are impossible to believe. If I said to you I had a 20 year old egg, that I had preserved on my bookcase, that it still had liquid in it - you would think we a fool or a liar. But a 10,000 year old egg in mud? No problem!

eesmith 5y ago
No one claims there is no degradation nor any decay. Only that the fossilization is faster than total decay. And no one agrees with you that a news article is supposed to include the full paleontological details. > would you believe that too? But, they aren't, so your question seems pointless. > Is this really a plausible argument? Like I said, you clearly don't understand fossilization. It's a slow process. Precisely zero of the descriptions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permineralization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permineralization match your characterization. > even though they are impossible to believe You have yet to used your skepticism to analyze your own arguments. If your understanding is wrong, then your conclusion about what is possible to belief is likely also wrong. For example, you still haven't explained why you think any fossil rock should be uniform, with no way to distinguish between fossilized bone and its surrounding matrix. > you would think we a fool or a liar No. Again, use your skepticism on yourself. My first thought is that you sealed the egg, heated it up to kill any bacteria (but below 60C, which is when the egg white starts to congeal) and then ... let it sit for 20 years. No bacteria can come in. No fluid can go out. Why couldn't there be liquid after 20 years? My second thought is you had it in a jar of lime water, which is an old way to preserve eggs, yes, even for years. https://theoldwalshfarm.com/water-glassing-eggs/ https://theoldwalshfarm.com/water-glassing-eggs/ claims still edible after 2 years, so I can believe still with liquid after 20. So we know that eggs can last for years, with liquid inside. Why are you so trusting in the correctness of your beliefs? And the claim isn't even that the egg was hermetically sealed in order to be fossilized. Over time the content of the egg is replaced with groundwater, while in an environment that doesn't easily support organic decay. Which we know exists, as we've found 2,000 year old bodies in bogs, and the rock formation the fossil was in indicates a fluvial environment.
- verisimi 5y ago
  > Like I said, you clearly don't understand fossilization. That's right - I don't. I don't understand how an egg can remain unfossilised yet intact with liquid in for 10,000 years. You do apparently. > claims still edible after 2 years, so I can believe still with liquid after 20. Yes - while I used 20 to illustrate the ridiculous point you are making, you actually said greater than 10,000. > You have yet to used your skepticism to analyze your own arguments. If your understanding is wrong, then your conclusion about what is possible to belief is likely also wrong. and > use your skepticism on yourself. That's not how it works. I'm not making the claim that eggs can last for thousands of years, without degrading, then be converted to stone, then be found millions of years later, then be opened up (somehow!) to reveal the stone 'skeleton' inside of the creature inside. It is fine for me to be skeptical. I'm asking for evidence of these outlandish claims. I don't think there is any. You think you do understand fossilisation etc - so much that you accept the story above. Feel free to explain it in more detail, or how and why you started to believe these sorts of claims. I'm especially interested to hear how you verified what was said. > Why are you so trusting in the correctness of your beliefs? I'm not trusting anything - I even think my experience can be wrong. But the argument I am making aligns with common place understanding. You would leave an egg in some mud and come back 1-2 years later to find it as you left it, right? I'm saying the same rules apply to everything - saying 'millions of years' or whatever shouldn't mean reasoning is deferred. What are you trusting?
  - eesmith 5y ago
    Since you haven't bothered to come to grips with the information available about fossilization - neither that written by experts in the field, and meant for a lay public, nor even the relevant Wikipedia entries - I'm not going to spoon-feed you my much less limited understanding. You aren't skeptical. You're making boring internet arguments. Merry Christmas.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      They don't believe in viruses, either. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29381616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29381616)

eesmith 5y ago

No one claims there is no degradation nor any decay. Only that the fossilization is faster than total decay. And no one agrees with you that a news article is supposed to include the full paleontological details. > would you believe that too? But, they aren't, so your question seems pointless. > Is this really a plausible argument? Like I said, you clearly don't understand fossilization. It's a slow process. Precisely zero of the descriptions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permineralization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permineralization match your characterization. > even though they are impossible to believe You have yet to used your skepticism to analyze your own arguments. If your understanding is wrong, then your conclusion about what is possible to belief is likely also wrong. For example, you still haven't explained why you think any fossil rock should be uniform, with no way to distinguish between fossilized bone and its surrounding matrix. > you would think we a fool or a liar No. Again, use your skepticism on yourself. My first thought is that you sealed the egg, heated it up to kill any bacteria (but below 60C, which is when the egg white starts to congeal) and then ... let it sit for 20 years. No bacteria can come in. No fluid can go out. Why couldn't there be liquid after 20 years? My second thought is you had it in a jar of lime water, which is an old way to preserve eggs, yes, even for years. https://theoldwalshfarm.com/water-glassing-eggs/ https://theoldwalshfarm.com/water-glassing-eggs/ claims still edible after 2 years, so I can believe still with liquid after 20. So we know that eggs can last for years, with liquid inside. Why are you so trusting in the correctness of your beliefs? And the claim isn't even that the egg was hermetically sealed in order to be fossilized. Over time the content of the egg is replaced with groundwater, while in an environment that doesn't easily support organic decay. Which we know exists, as we've found 2,000 year old bodies in bogs, and the rock formation the fossil was in indicates a fluvial environment.

verisimi 5y ago
> Like I said, you clearly don't understand fossilization. That's right - I don't. I don't understand how an egg can remain unfossilised yet intact with liquid in for 10,000 years. You do apparently. > claims still edible after 2 years, so I can believe still with liquid after 20. Yes - while I used 20 to illustrate the ridiculous point you are making, you actually said greater than 10,000. > You have yet to used your skepticism to analyze your own arguments. If your understanding is wrong, then your conclusion about what is possible to belief is likely also wrong. and > use your skepticism on yourself. That's not how it works. I'm not making the claim that eggs can last for thousands of years, without degrading, then be converted to stone, then be found millions of years later, then be opened up (somehow!) to reveal the stone 'skeleton' inside of the creature inside. It is fine for me to be skeptical. I'm asking for evidence of these outlandish claims. I don't think there is any. You think you do understand fossilisation etc - so much that you accept the story above. Feel free to explain it in more detail, or how and why you started to believe these sorts of claims. I'm especially interested to hear how you verified what was said. > Why are you so trusting in the correctness of your beliefs? I'm not trusting anything - I even think my experience can be wrong. But the argument I am making aligns with common place understanding. You would leave an egg in some mud and come back 1-2 years later to find it as you left it, right? I'm saying the same rules apply to everything - saying 'millions of years' or whatever shouldn't mean reasoning is deferred. What are you trusting?
- eesmith 5y ago
  Since you haven't bothered to come to grips with the information available about fossilization - neither that written by experts in the field, and meant for a lay public, nor even the relevant Wikipedia entries - I'm not going to spoon-feed you my much less limited understanding. You aren't skeptical. You're making boring internet arguments. Merry Christmas.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    They don't believe in viruses, either. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29381616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29381616)