The Fossilman Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Hunter Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 What do you want to know? They are rocks, and why add the last picture which doesn't seem to be yours? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fossilman Posted March 2 Author Share Posted March 2 They all have a very similiar shape that resembles the last picture which is of a Pancreas. Is there a connection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 13 minutes ago, The Fossilman said: They all have a very similiar shape that resembles the last picture which is of a Pancreas. Is there a connection? No. Soft tissue fossilization is extremely rare. The rocks look like similar rocks exhibiting similar cleavage/erosion patterns. 3 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fossilman Posted March 2 Author Share Posted March 2 I have personally collected considerable evidence that I think brings into question the idea that soft tissue fossilization is extremely rare and will present that evidence here if allowed to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 32 minutes ago, The Fossilman said: I have personally collected considerable evidence that I think brings into question the idea that soft tissue fossilization is extremely rare and will present that evidence here if allowed to do so. Will you be able to show us the tissues under high quality microscopes such as those used by university researchers? The burden of proof of such claims is very high. 3 My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 These seem to be just rocks, sorry. The shape says nothing here given that geologic forces can quite easily result in what you are seeing here. Given where you found them, would you agree they are around 60ish mya? ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fossilman Posted March 2 Author Share Posted March 2 I do have a high quality microscope [Zeiss Inverted Microscope] but it would be fruitless to try and demonstrate remains of tissue as all the specimens are fully mineralized and would be unrecognizable as tissue under a microscope. I do have considerable evidence that if given the opportunity to present that evidence it would at the very least raise many questions as to how fossils are formed and what rocks really are. Consider the word gravel. Remove the L and you have grave. What if the gravel pits are actually graves? Permineralization may not be the only way fossils have been formed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 Except science might have some issues with that. The removal of a single letter in a modern word does nothing but create what we would call a false cognate. Nothing you are saying here is truly scientific. Sorry, but these remain just rocks. 1 2 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necropedia Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 Just rocks with that shape due to breakage patterns or weathering. A few look like weathered basalt or other rocks of volcanic origin. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fossilman Posted March 2 Author Share Posted March 2 True science questions all things even a well established theory. Yes these are just rocks that happen to look like a Pancreaus and a rock that looks like the alveoli of a lung and a rock that looks like a Dolphins head and a rock that looks like a giants head. What if I have many other rocks that look like hearts,lungs,livers,bladders,brains,kidneys,and much more all found in grave l pits. When do I start to question the prevailing theory of fossil formation and explore a new theory? If allowed I will start a thread [Evidence for the preservation of soft body tissue [organs] in the fossil record] and the forum can examine the evidence and decide if there is any merit to the claim. Will put to the test the idea if we are willing to question all things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 True science abides by the empirical method and does well under Popper’s notion of falsification. Invest some time in to understanding how the empirical method proceeds. It is what we do. As a science based forum, we insist on it as opposed to fairy tales. ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fossilman Posted March 2 Author Share Posted March 2 Are you willing to look at the empirical evidence I have of soft body tissue preservation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Hunter Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 Yes please show your evidence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Hunter Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 (edited) I just checked out your website. You have a vivid imagination, and bad case of pareidolia. Everything is geologic in origin, there are few similarities in the rocks you have and organs and bones you compare to. To dedicate a website to such fantasy means you have a lot of time on your hands that perhaps you should dedicate to learning about geology and paleontology. I certainly saw no evidence of anything but your imagination. Edited March 2 by Lone Hunter 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwigia Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 2 hours ago, The Fossilman said: Are you willing to look at the empirical evidence I have of soft body tissue preservation? As far as I'm concerned, only if you would present me with your own published and recognized peer-reviewed scientific paper. 3 Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger http://www.steinkern.de/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincentB Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 Just rocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 Ditto what our other members have said above. Then there is Occam's razor (the law of parsimony) which is a tool for deductive reasoning where unlikely explanations for observations are 'shaved away'. When deciding between competing explanations, the simplest is most likely correct. We have two choices to explain your angular rocks: 1) They are rocks as this L-shape is very simple to create and can be seen in billions of rocks all over the world (as the physical processes to create them are universal here on this planet). 2) Somehow, a pancreas was surgically removed (in a completely perfect state). Then it was somehow removed from its original body and gathered together with dozens more from other bodies and deposited in a pancreas graveyard (etymological games with the word 'gravel' aside). Then, using preservation methods that defy logic and the physical laws, these excised organs are miraculously preserved in their original inflated 3D state despite human internal organs being between 70-80% water and being composed of proteins and other organic compounds but virtually no minerals. The preservation is exceptional enough to preserve a recognizable shape found in life but yet weathered enough to obscure any actual details that would clearly indicate the original organ. Science dictates that we use logic and reason to choose the most parsimonious (simplest) answer. This is a science-based forum. and we stick to how we understand the universe to work. Fiction is fine but this is not the forum for it. We see more than our fair share on the forum of "petrified snake heads", and heart-shaped rocks, and dinosaur eggs from Florida (which was submerged during the entire dino dynasty). New members who do not understand how fossils form are often mislead by the vague appearance of a rock and jump to unreasonable conclusions. We normally try to enlighten these folks by presenting evidence to the contrary and introducing them to the fascinating phenomenon of pareidolia. This phenomenon is produced by our complex pattern-matching brains and has served us well through the ages to help us identify subjects with from incomplete visual stimuli. It has a lighter side which allows people to imagine fantastical shapes in clouds and rocks and other natural occurrences. The darker side of pareidolia is that some folks are so convinced at what they BELIEVE they see that they become obstinate in their beliefs and are not open to other interpretations. The next step is (predictably) that we (the consensus) are told that we are not 'open minded' enough and we are unwilling to 'think outside the box'. The burden of proof for extraordinary claims is extraordinary proof (not extraordinary stories). A very tiny majority of those who come to this forum with what are clearly rocks mistaken for something more interesting will come around to logic and reason and can direct their passion for finding fossils (evidence of past life). The overwhelming majority leave the forum with the admonition that we'll all be sorry when they shake science to its core with their astounding finds. Curiously, we never see the press release nor the celebratory parades. Our membership loves to learn more about the fascinating and diverse world of paleontology and are open to new knowledge as the science advances. We have no time for fictional theories that defy reason. I suspect you have not come to this forum to honestly have your finds identified. You have an agenda and a fiction to promote and this simply is not the forum to do so. We are not buying what you are selling. We encourage discussion as long as it is a means to share and discuss knowledge gained through science. We have no time and little patience to indulge in fantasy. Cheers. -Ken 3 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 When stressed by tectonic forces large rock masses tend to break into block shaped pieces. Smaller L shaped pieces are commonly seen near where the corners of large blocks meet. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
val horn Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 These are rocks. If you are sure then take your finds and your evidence to a university paleo department and work with the professionals and get it published in a scientific journal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilNerd Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 7 hours ago, The Fossilman said: Are you willing to look at the empirical evidence I have of soft body tissue preservation? Sure, if you can actually provide evidence. We have yet to see any. The only “evidence” you have provided for any of your rocks is their vaguely suggestive shape. Shape alone is not conclusive evidence of a fossil. There are other diagnostic features which would need to be present to make a solid fossil identification. Even in the case of soft tissue preservation. 7 hours ago, The Fossilman said: True science questions all things even a well established theory. I think all of us here would agree with this statement. If not for questioning well established theory, we would all still think the earth is flat, that it is the center of the universe, or that humor imbalances in the body caused illness. We are not opposed to questioning, but questioning requires evidence to support your new hypothesis. Questioning well established science doubly so. 2 The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -Neil deGrasse Tyson Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't. -Bill Nye (The Science Guy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fossilman Posted March 2 Author Share Posted March 2 5 hours ago, Ludwigia said: As far as I'm concerned, only if you would present me with your own published and recognized peer-reviewed scientific paper. Peer review only means everyone agrees not that what they agree on is necessarily true. Concensus does not equate to truth. Many peer reveiw studies have been proven to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 Science is not about proof, which only pertains to math and whiskey (and deductive-rationalist disciplines). As someone who has been part of the blind peer review process on numerous occasions, I do take issue with your characterization which seems to suggest that peer review lacks objectivity and integrity. In academia, those are two things that are the life blood of our reputation and career. Peer review is rigorous, and the gold standard in research. You might be surprised how many articles we reject or suggest significant revisions as opposed to seeing print. This is not based on feelings or tribal-esque affiliations. I have given the green light to papers where I personally do not agree with the point of view, but it stood up to the standards of good research and provided more to the ongoing scholarly discourse. 1 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fossilman Posted March 2 Author Share Posted March 2 1 hour ago, val horn said: These are rocks. If you are sure then take your finds and your evidence to a university paleo department and work with the professionals and get it published in a scientific journal. 3 minutes ago, The Fossilman said: I will leave the forum with a simple quote . Condemnation before Investigation is Indoctrination. 3 minutes ago, The Fossilman said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 We wish you all the best. This topic will now be locked as we will learn nothing more at this point. 3 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts