Question about fossils and impact events

[Al Dente]

On 7/6/2020 at 3:35 PM, Kcee said:

I'll take any suggestions that anyone has to offer. All I do know is that Mother nature has a lot of explaining to do because some of this stuff just do not add up.

You are trying too hard to convince yourself that what you are seeing is from a meteor impact when none of the evidence points that way. You need to ask yourself how could tiny metallic droplets get through the atmosphere without burning up, then penetrate the ocean water and in some cases the sediment to embed onto clams and snails on all sides? Also, why isn't the composition consistent with the composition of known meteorites?

 

The more likely explanations have been pointed out to you. What you are looking at is normal mineral deposits that are frequently found on fossils. The simplest explanations are usually the correct ones.

[Bone Daddy]

2 hours ago, Al Dente said:

You are trying too hard to convince yourself that what you are seeing is from a meteor impact when none of the evidence points that way. You need to ask yourself how could tiny metallic droplets get through the atmosphere without burning up, then penetrate the ocean water and in some cases the sediment to embed onto clams and snails on all sides? Also, why isn't the composition consistent with the composition of known meteorites?

 

The more likely explanations have been pointed out to you. What you are looking at is normal mineral deposits that are frequently found on fossils. The simplest explanations are usually the correct ones.

Indeed. The Earth's known impact craters are well-documented. There is a large body of research on these features. Thanks to recent technological advancements, there are likely very few extant craters that are not already known. Use the following link to look up data on every known meteorite impact crater on Earth. If there is no crater in a given area, then it's safe to assume there are no impact-related features nearby.

 

Micrometeorites fall at terminal velocity and do not retain cosmic speeds after hitting our atmosphere. The majority of meteoritic material in the oceans is made up dust-like motes which drift down every day and are quickly lost in the sediments without leaving a trace. In other words, the stuff that manages to survive the trip through our atmosphere and then the briny deeps, won't have enough energy remaining to damage anything or leave a mark.

 

Earth Impact database - http://passc.net/EarthImpactDatabase/New website_05-2018/Index.html

 

 

[Kcee]

I'm not a scientist so of course I could be reading too much into this stuff but you can't get answers if you don't ask questions. What good is a theory if you don't put it out there for other to pick apart so I welcome the good criticism as well as the bad.

When it comes to the composition of meteorite I can only tell you what has been told to me by scientist and that is that the composition of some meteoritic material can change if mixed with earth minerals or if even if they have been buried for extended periods on earth. 

13 hours ago, Bone Daddy said:

Micrometeorites fall at terminal velocity and do not retain cosmic speeds after hitting our atmosphere.

This is not my theory, I borrowed it from the article that a scientist wrote about finding tiny supernova debris embedded in a mammoth tusk so you'll have to take that argument up with him but I do like the theory.

[Ludwigia]

On 8.7.2020 at 6:28 AM, Kcee said:

 This is the first I've heard of acidic erosion of fossils so I will indeed research it. Thanks for the info.

 

This statement shows that your knowledge of normal erosive processes is rather lacking. If you really want to follow up on your theories in a proper scientific fashion, then you would need to expand your knowledge greatly in this area in order to cover all of the possibilities which can create the type of deposits which you are finding, some of which have already been pointed out here by people with that kind of knowledge. You appear to be interpreting some of your "evidence" only according to your theories without taking the other numerous possibilities into account.

[Kane]

Your focus may be a bit narrow here. Instead of seeking why something may be true in order to "prove" a theory, enumerate the many ways it can be refuted or falsified instead. If you focus on any clues that support a theory you like, you'll invariably find them, or find ways to shoehorn them to fit that theory through selective omission or cherrypicking. It doesn't necessarily make it true, though. Keeping it objective and avoiding belief or bias is what keeps science honest and viable.  

 

[Kcee]

Well, this post has generated a lot of good articles to explore and a lot of good advice to to keep in mind. I've learned a lot here so I'll do my best to put it to good use. Thanks guys.