Yes, water erosion would've completely smoothed out the planet's surface. Solid rock, even metal will gradually, inevitably be worn away by water action. Water erosion is ridiculously powerful, even though it takes time to act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
To my knowledge, there has never been a dinosaur or plesiosaur washed up on beaches anywhere. I'd love to see an article, photograph or report, since this would a particularly significant bit of info. Coelocanths are a common find, but they're merely an ancient fish species. The tuatara, similarly, is an ancient beaked lizard rather than a dinosaur.Quote:
I'm using dinosaurs that have been washed up on beaches.
Mythology has indeed given us a vast array of 'imaginary' creatures to admire... but again, many of these are based on other ideas. Chinese dragons were influenced by dinosaur bones, it is known that many of the world's greatest fossil fields are in China, and many fossils were ground up for use in medicines. Practically every culture has dragon myths, but with a few exceptions these creatures have no similarity to known dinosaur species. Strangely, none of the mythological entities resemble the truly great, fearsome dinosaur species. Rather than creating legends about the likes of archaeopteryx and plesiosaurus, why aren't there paintings and art depicting theriznosaurus, seismosaurus and quetzalcoatlus?Quote:
I'm using legends of interaction with creatures you say never co-existed with man. I'm using semi-accurate depictions of creatures which, according to you, nobody would have any idea what they looked like. I'm using depictions and stories from over a half-dozen cultures all over the world. But I guess you don't have any argument against it, so you'll attack it.
As for the notion that materials can fossilise quickly... this is, in some senses, true. There's a cave in England which is famous for making porous materials petrify rapidly, due to the mineral content of the water that drips from its ceiling. Cloth, plants, even stuffed toys are turned into silicate 'fossils' in a relatively short time.
However, this is utterly unrelated to vast geological strata of mudstone - the gunk from the sea floor - which has gone from being sand and mud, and truly become rock. Same's true for basically every other fossil-bearing stone.
Another relevant issue is geological stratification itself. Places such as cliffs - where the strata are visible - can provide a useful 'timeline', of sorts. Every year, as the seasons pass, different kinds of residue are laid down in sediment and soil. Volcanic eruptions leave layers of ash; many volcanoes are known to erupt on a regular, predictable basis. What I'm saying is, there's simply too much rock with too many layers to account for a mere 7000-10000 year history. Unless, of course, things started off extremely fast, then slowed down exponentially - thus giving the impression of a steady, continual process. Plate tectonics also comes into it. Rather than being a far-fetched theory, it is known that the continents are drifting at a rate of approximately one centimeter per year. Modern technology has confirmed this. Also, at faults on the sea floor, volcanoes can be seen creating 'new' sea floor, where the continents meet. The theory of all continents having previously been joined is further reinforced by geological evidence, with ancient cliffs in completely separate locations - for example, Europe and the Americas - having exactly the same rock in their lower levels. Not just similar types of rock in similar patterns, but the same stone. Same composition, same thickness and depth of the strata. A geologist could give a better explanation than me, but that's the gist of it.
Also, at the risk of causing my own death through sheer exhaustive repitition... I want to remind everyone, regardless of what "side" they're on, to try keeping this debate impersonal and at least superficially respectful. We're not going to change each others' minds anyway, so the best any of us can hope to accomplish is demonstrating that our own beliefs are justifiable. This isn't achieved by stating, "omgz u r rong cuz u r dum".
