2 ms·
> 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 liqui
by 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 agoSince 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 agoThey don't believe in viruses, either. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29381616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29381616)
- verisimi 5y agoYou might not believe me, but these are genuinely held opinions. I know there are 'experts' and lots of information, but I don't think all that is anything more than a talking shop. The information can be steered, be wrong, etc. Eg there are huge bodies of scriptural works, phrenology was a thing once, etc, etc - was that right just because it exists? Just because there is lots written doesn't mean I have to invest half a lifetime to get to grips with whatever is being discussed. Either it makes sense, or it doesn't. Instead I take a simple position - if I don't have verified experience of whatever-it-is I take a closer look. I ask - what are the claims, what is the evidence. I'm not trusting that someone else has 'got this' even if they are credentialed. Its illuminating. If nothing else, it illuminates just how little knowledge other people have on the subject, and yet they like to pretend they are an authority! And these pretenders will group together and dismiss the man but not the argument. Anyway, if I've given you pause for thought, that's great. Merry Christmas to you too :)
- teh_klev 5y ago> 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. There's these things called books, there's even a thing called Wikipedia with a specific article to get you started[0]. Why are you being so vexatious? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Permineralization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Permineralization