3 ms·
Maybe. But I don’t see anything in this piece that says that it’s a fossil, rather than something that resembles this person’s idea of a fossil. It doesn’t look
by saaaaaam 4mo ago
Maybe. But I don’t see anything in this piece that says that it’s a fossil, rather than something that resembles this person’s idea of a fossil. It doesn’t look like a fossil to me. It looks like a piece of rock that’s been bashed about a bit.
And given the whole premise of the piece is “this should not be here!” I don’t really understand the point you’re making. The author says it’s a strange find in that area - so either they have a valid point or they don’t.
I don’t know if it’s a fossil. It doesn’t look like a fossil to me. I’m not a fossil expert. The only way to tell if it is a fossil is to do some analysis on the actual specimen before writing screeds about what it might or might not be based on visual similarity.
- colechristensen 4mo agoIf we're going to rate annoying takes on the internet, "some guy who knows nothing about a topic being snarky because AI was involved" is far worse than somebody doing something with AI.
- saaaaaam 4mo agoGuy? And I think you’re arguing yourself into a hole here. What makes you think I know nothing about the topic? I have donated - at their request - three fossils to national museums. But I’m not an expert by any stretch.
- MattRix 4mo agoIt’s obvious you’re not an expert at the topic because we can all read the original article and then read your posts in this thread…
- saaaaaam 4mo agoI’m really not sure what you mean. Did you actually read the article? There is nothing in there that confirms this is a fossil. One moment the author says “I found a fully solid rock that eerily resembles a seashell” and the next minute they treat it as though it is a fossil but their analysis shows that the shell the piece of rock most resembles is from a completely different geological period.
- colechristensen 4mo agoWho cares? What if it isn't? What are the consequences? It's still an interesting post.
- saaaaaam 4mo agoA number of people in this thread arguing with me in a remarkably personal way apparently care quite a lot. And I guess you must care at least a little bit given you’ve made the effort to comment.
- tokai 4mo agoAuthor points out themselves, in the second paragraph, that its not a strange find. The strangeness of the find is his personal experience. Not that its a strange find geologically.
- oh_my_goodness 4mo agoI agree it's not a strange find. Because fossils. But then what was the big deal about finding it? Remember, the same author says "I found a seashell in the middle of the desert!" "shouldn't be here" and "coastline 500 miles"
- saaaaaam 4mo agoAnd then the author takes a massive leap from “I found a fully solid rock that eerily resembles a seashell” to doing an analysis that treats it as though it actually is a fossil. And that analysis finds out that the shell the assumed fossil most resembles is completely out of period.
- throw1234567891 4mo agoIt says right there it’s a seashell hard as a rock. Guess why, Sherlock.
- saaaaaam 4mo agoNo it doesn’t. It says “ I found a fully solid rock that eerily resembles a seashell”.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- margalabargala 4mo agoTo be clear, you are looking at the photographs in the linked article, and asserting that you think it's not a fossil? It's visibly very clearly a fossilized sea shell. You are being a useless pedant about the author's choice of verbiage.
- throw1234567891 4mo agoWell, it's your words against his. You're not much of an expert by your own account in other comments. It's irrelevant if it's from a correct geological period, it's a rock hard seashell. Go and read up the definition of "fossil".