Those scruffy geologists

[granite_crusher]

Hello everybody,

I am following EU and Thunderbolts for many years I really like the most of the work community is doing, however I have bad feeling that there is in forum smearing of other science fields, and often based on misinformation or outdated information. I saw in quite many posts something like that "that You need to completely throw out what you know" and start from fresh. I would say that is foolish. It is like at french revolution someone would say that to go to democracy first you need to go to stone age, so lets burn all houses, bridges, tear apart roads, sink all ships, burn the cattle and the crop fields, stake and burn the cars... I think You should had got the idea. I agree that wrong/"based-on thin air" believes deserves to be bashed, and part of consensus geology needs to be buried. Oh wait - there is actually no consensus geology! We have a joke that it is enough to have 3 geologist in the group to get 12 very different opinions about same rock. There are concepts which like 90% geologists believes-in. When there are those 10% which (I just took those percentage values from thin-air) questions everything and comes up with new ideas. Most of "wrong" (in the eyes of some of EU commoners) concepts are built upon some mainstream physics concepts. The problem is that geology science builds onto mainstream biology, chemistry and physics, and rely on those without questioning. If you can make mainstream physics go to dustbin and be replaced with EU, the geology in ~100 years will adapt to the change. What I want to say, geological community was very extremely inert. New ideas were getting adopted often few generations after some one thinks about that, and thus citing something from 50 60 or 70'es can be completely outdated. Also there is experimental geology (it is not only EU who do lab experiments), and also the nature is our laboratory: You can observe some geological processes in few hundred years, and some processes are quite fast and can be understood looking into them only few consecutive years. The pure lab experiments started to be conducted at 90es and so the pace of changes in geology raises up. I also should mention that hundred years ago Geology was divided into two major "dogmas" uniformists and catastrophysts. Uniformism had won the hearts, but catastrophism is reappearing in geological landscape time to time. Modernly there is quite decent percentage of expanding earth geologists proponents as well. I am quite convinced that with right push it is possible to get allies.

Ok. My idea is to start thread about modern Geology (as insider), which I will slowly update and demonstrate the concepts and knowledge which are well based in laboratory and experiments, and concepts which are commonly accepted in the geological community, but is based on a thin-air (I mean well known for EU misconceptions in physics/astrophysics). There are some side effects - some of with-air based parts of geology is still valuable, and while fundamentals of those are wrong, the outcome is valuable.

I specialize in igneous rocks, and all kind of measurements of rocks (mostly analytical composition of minerals and rocks). I will take my time writing there short posts. I would like some propositions what should I tackle first, it would be easier to cover stuff most relevant for EU.

[Cargo]

When modern Geology can accept that Fossilization is not solely to due to Age, we'll be getting somewhere.

[JP Michael]

I did not want to post in this thread until I had prepared my resources.

• 1. What is the current geological understanding of the principles of stratigraphy?
• 2. Does modern geology acknowledge Guy Berthault's research [1] refuting Strabo's Principles of Stratigraphy (1669), and if not why not?
• 3. Does modern geology acknowledge hypersonic ionic wind sedimentary deposition models [2], and if not why not?
• 4. What is the current geological understanding for the processes of fossilisation?
• 5. Does modern geology acknowledge rapid fossilisation [3] and rapid mineralisation [4], and if not why not?
• 6. Linking back to questions 2 and 3, does modern geology acknowledge that fossil location is meaningless for determination of age due to the fact that sedimentary layers are deposited horizontally and vertically in the same sedimentation event? [5] If not, why not?

Note: I fully acknowledge your own personal geological beliefs may differ from those of 'modern geology'. The purpose of these questions is to look at the beliefs of the modern establishment, as well as the why (ie, underlying assumptions preventing progress).

Great thread and looking forward to an industry insider's answers!

[1] Guy Berthault, "Experiments in Stratification." Impact 328, Oct. 2000. See also "Experiments in Stratigraphy, parts 1-4."
[2] Andrew Hall, "Electric Earth," EU2017. See also "Ionic Winds Shaped the Earth," SpaceNews, July 13th 2019; "Eye of the Storm - Part IV," Thunderblogs, July 20, 2019.
[3] Peter 'Mungo' Jupp, "Instant Fossilisation", EU2017; Anon., "Keys to Rapid Rock Formation," Creation 17(1):45, Dec. 1994; Anon., "Clock in the Rock," Creation 19(3):6, Jun. 1997.
[4] P. Bell, "Rock-solid Butter!" Creation 33(1): 40-41, Jan. 2011; R. Maclachlan, "Tarawera's Night of Terror," Creation 18(1):16-19, Dec. 1995; T. Walker, "Toy Car Rocks Million-Years Belief," Creation 29(4):49, Sept. 2007; T. Walker, "Petrified Flour," Creation 23(1):17, Dec. 2000; Anon., "Fossil Fence Wire," Creation 20(3):6, Jun. 1998.
[5] See Berthault, "Experiments in Stratigraphy, Part 3," 4:22-5:47.

[LaSuisse1]

I did not want to post in this thread until I had prepared my resources.

• 1. What is the current geological understanding of the principles of stratigraphy?
• 2. Does modern geology acknowledge Guy Berthault's research [1] refuting Strabo's Principles of Stratigraphy (1669), and if not why not?
• 3. Does modern geology acknowledge hypersonic ionic wind sedimentary deposition models [2], and if not why not?
• 4. What is the current geological understanding for the processes of fossilisation?
• 5. Does modern geology acknowledge rapid fossilisation [3] and rapid mineralisation [4], and if not why not?
• 6. Linking back to questions 2 and 3, does modern geology acknowledge that fossil location is meaningless for determination of age due to the fact that sedimentary layers are deposited horizontally and vertically in the same sedimentation event? [5] If not, why not?

Note: I fully acknowledge your own personal geological beliefs may differ from those of 'modern geology'. The purpose of these questions is to look at the beliefs of the modern establishment, as well as the why (ie, underlying assumptions preventing progress).

Great thread and looking forward to an industry insider's answers!

[1] Guy Berthault, "Experiments in Stratification." Impact 328, Oct. 2000. See also "Experiments in Stratigraphy, parts 1-4."
[2] Andrew Hall, "Electric Earth," EU2017. See also "Ionic Winds Shaped the Earth," SpaceNews, July 13th 2019; "Eye of the Storm - Part IV," Thunderblogs, July 20, 2019.
[3] Peter 'Mungo' Jupp, "Instant Fossilisation", EU2017; Anon., "Keys to Rapid Rock Formation," Creation 17(1):45, Dec. 1994; Anon., "Clock in the Rock," Creation 19(3):6, Jun. 1997.
[4] P. Bell, "Rock-solid Butter!" Creation 33(1): 40-41, Jan. 2011; R. Maclachlan, "Tarawera's Night of Terror," Creation 18(1):16-19, Dec. 1995; T. Walker, "Toy Car Rocks Million-Years Belief," Creation 29(4):49, Sept. 2007; T. Walker, "Petrified Flour," Creation 23(1):17, Dec. 2000; Anon., "Fossil Fence Wire," Creation 20(3):6, Jun. 1998.
[5] See Berthault, "Experiments in Stratigraphy, Part 3," 4:22-5:47.

None of the references you use are of any scientific value. Most of them are to creationist publications. Creationism is not science, and can therefore be ignored. The only references that aren't creationist are to EU youtube videos. Again, that does not count as science. Please try to find some real science, in real journals, in the peer-reviewed literature, by real, qualified scientists.
What you have done above is provide a perfect example of why such nonsense is completely ignored by real scientists.

[LaSuisse1]

When modern Geology can accept that Fossilization is not solely to due to Age, we'll be getting somewhere.

When you can provide some valid science in the relevant literature for them to consider, then maybe they'll consider it. If such exists, then please link to it. That is how science works.

[JP Michael]

When you can provide some valid science in the relevant literature for them to consider, then maybe they'll consider it. If such exists, then please link to it. That is how science works.

Keep your head deep in that sand box, Mr. Ostrich, since your sole purpose seems only to troll these boards with lame 'just-so' storytelling of your religious scientism. A public declaration of your uncritical kow-tow to 'the establishment' is not a valid argument and only betrays your intellectual bigotry.

But of course, people like you do not know the meaning of words like 'logic', 'reason' or 'falsifiable'. A reasonable person would assess the evidence on its merits, irregardless of its source or worldview, not just dismiss it based on your a-priori assumption that anything originating from a world view different to your own is automatically false. What a closed-minded, shallow and pathetic understanding you have.

Please do not derail this discussion of the difference between empirical and imaginary geology again.

(And for the record, Creation is peer reviewed by qualified scientists in their respective fields. We just happen to not share the worldview of your uniformitarian religion)

[LaSuisse1]

When you can provide some valid science in the relevant literature for them to consider, then maybe they'll consider it. If such exists, then please link to it. That is how science works.

Keep your head deep in that sand box, Mr. Ostrich, since your sole purpose seems only to troll these boards with lame 'just-so' storytelling of your religious scientism. A public declaration of your uncritical kow-tow to 'the establishment' is not a valid argument and only betrays your intellectual bigotry.

But of course, people like you do not know the meaning of words like 'logic', 'reason' or 'falsifiable'. A reasonable person would assess the evidence on its merits, irregardless of its source or worldview, not just dismiss it based on your a-priori assumption that anything originating from a world view different to your own is automatically false. What a closed-minded, shallow and pathetic understanding you have.

Please do not derail this discussion of the difference between empirical and imaginary geology again.

(And for the record, Creation is peer reviewed by qualified scientists in their respective fields. We just happen to not share the worldview of your uniformitarian religion)

Hi, loony tunes. How are you? Let us hope you are not representative of most followers of EU. Creationism is complete woo. And is peer-reviewed by nobody. Do you know what 'pure woo' means? You will find that Thornhill et al have no time for religious b*ll*cks. Which is what you are presenting. Go back to your creationist website, and tell them that you failed! Stick to science, or don't bother.

[JP Michael]

AN OPEN LETTER

Dear Lasuisse1,

If your sole desire is to be put to public shame and embarrassment on this forum, I am only too happy to crack open the walnut of your thought processes and expose them for the vapourous inanity they truly are.

None of the references you use are of any scientific value. Most of them are to creationist publications. Creationism is not science, and can therefore be ignored. The only references that aren't creationist are to EU youtube videos. Again, that does not count as science.

Here is the summation of your argument:

1. Anything which is not 'science' can be ignored.
2. The Establishment is the sole judge of what 'science' is.
Therefore, anything which 'The Establishment' does not decree to be science can be ignored.

Now anyone with any critical faculties at all will immediately notice the problem with such unquestioned assertions. When any 'Establishment' sets itself up as sole magisterium of truth, it must by nature affirm that logic and reason are to be wholly set aside as a means by which truth can be attained outside of the fiat dictums of said Establishment. So instead of promoting free enquiry, all you have done is establish the Office of Scientific Inquisition whose sole job is to annihilate the heretics who refuse to tow the party line. This process is quite apart from logical and reasonable inductions or deductions based on observations and argumentation that critically engages at a normal philosophical level. Such analysis usually implies engagement with written material sourced from outside said Establishment.

I submit to you that your assertions are neither a scientific, reasonable or logical manner by which truth can be ascertained. That you wholeheartedly endorse such means as the best way to educate others tells me you are little more than a tyrannical narcissist with an ego higher than the axis mundi.

Anyone who honestly believes that turning scientific pursuit into a doctrinal mafia should probably turn to the history books and review such incidents as The Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Germany and Communist Totalitarianism of the 20th and 21st centuries. Your current assertions are such that you have clearly already chosen to side with the methodologies of the Catholics, German Nationalists and Communists respectively who likewise chose fiat ignorance over the normal processes of critical thinking and interaction with source materials and evidence.

Given your preponderance to irrationality and despotism, I will reserve my doubts that anything I've said will have any effect on reforming your methodological dogmatism, but I will remain quietly hopeful that your mental faculties are not so completely indoctrinated that the implications of your assertions will not suddenly dawn upon you. How great a step really is it between dictating the Establishment's 'rule of law' and actually enforcing involuntary worldwide compliance at the point of a weapon?

Please try to find some real science, in real journals, in the peer-reviewed literature, by real, qualified scientists.
What you have done above is provide a perfect example of why such nonsense is completely ignored by real scientists.

Out here in the free world, our minds are not ruled by the New Papist Magisterium. And it's wonderful! I pray you will join us some day.

With kind regards to your growth in critical thinking,
JP.

[granite_crusher]

whohoho,
People, please hold the horses. If anyone would bash Creationism in this thread It should be me as an author of this thread, but I won't. It is not that I would agree or disagree with it, I simply see it very useful as it attacks the comfort zone of modern geology very nicely, and I like that. If I would go with bashing Creationism I would do that including the study of the Holy Bible and history of the church(es), not with sole reason and scientific proof experiments and other devilish activities. But again, I won't do that here as this is EU forum. So lets classify these points and material outside from religious view as "Young Earth theory". Ok? In this thread however I will try to use only reason and logic and ask for anyone participating to do the same. Please be polite to each other.

One more point (I hope I am not opening Pandora's box with that). I am personally completely lax about the peer review. The peer review was flawed already an age ago - it was proven to be flawed with some joke by biologist (Ironically to this thread some my good friend paleontologist introduced me to that book while I started my geology studies, from that time I am completely lax about peer review). I think it is worth to see that, it is so bizarre and surreal: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/s ... t-hoax-rat

Another example from 7 years ago - it was still clear that peer review is flawed like a hell https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutsh ... view-38589.

In example from my own specialization: magma mixing concept was actively bashed for 100 years and stopped being actively neglected only 50 years ago, and accepted as real process in magma systems by igneous petrologist only 20-30 years ago. Plate tectonics was not accepted, no geologists (except one professor from Wrocław (currently Poland, but at that times it was in 2nd Reich – Breslau)) wanted to hear out the A. Wegener, the meteorologist who got the idea about continental spreading/migration, and had not lived to the adoption of his theory. Interestingly, Wroclaw Geologists currently are known as one of the bigger community of proponents of Expanding Earth theory. I also have seen a lot of papers in my own specialization which are a complete junk. I start to read papers straight from methodology section, and If it passes my scrutiny only then I read introduction and further, otherwise I just stop - life is too short to waste it reading junk (I apply this rule for stricto scientific publications).

I was fearing that this thread will derail straight into paleontology and sedimentology - the two least loved subjects of mine, and I see it just happened. While I don't work in those fields, I have some indirect touch rarely with them through analytical work. I will try to answer those questions anyway as far I can in next post as I will gather my answer.

One more general note: I am not industry insider, rather academic insider. I hope this will change some day. I simply have some technical challenges (operating Schottky-field emission equipped SEM and making it to work stable is really fun activity) which keeps me agitated to stay at the current position. Lets say I am also probing the community. And when time will come I will try to present EU view there. That will either produce a spark, or will make me leave that place for better good. Up to this point I see that it is not that people working in academics are stupid or lazy. The academia is institutionalized and only number of papers counts. Lots of people have put all they cards into career in academics, and they fear of loosing they position. Many have families, bank loans, mortages and I quite understand them. Fear as a tool of controlling masses is old as our known civilization, and probably predates it. Fear also causes most of people stop of thinking. Geological academics community is particularly in hard position as all world had lost its mind with new green religion of Eco'holiness. Lately I had hear from colleague very disturbing story how his student actively resisted of learning where known coal deposits resides in the country. According to student, she resists as that is dirty fossil fuel, and that harms the planet, so she would not want to know anything about these. The public high school education (or rather lets call it with straightforward name – ecodumbisation) just started giving its ugly fruits. And youngsters don't want to study something what would give them ability to work in mineral and energy industry as those are dirty and unholy devils for Eco-yeah. I know that in this process many geological departments in Germany universities ceased to exist in the last 20 years (technically were reorganized into something something environmental or eco-something). And I knew this will come to East Europe with delay which I sadly observe to fulfill as I saw it will be.
But in the end it is own fault for this as with being silent about climate hoax and taking no public position against such widespread nonsense it sealed the destiny of geological community. Was this all inaction from fear or ignorance of coming doom? Hard to tell.

At this point I would like to derail into "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Khun. What we probably would like to see with EU is successful scientific revolution so that human kind would benefit from our hard work. It can be seen that to make successful scientific revolution the practitioners of old and new paradigm need to find common language as initially they can't understand each other. EU and modern Astrophysics can't find its common language. What Khun had missed from the big picture is the State (countries, international organisations) which usurped the Science as replacement of religion to control the masses. It is probably impossible to find common language with Astrophysicists because with institutionalization they are fortified against anything what would question its infallibility (because else that would mean that State makes mistakes). I had heard/seen that "Paradigm shift" terminology in many EU materials. However, in my opinion the EU community should rather think and plan the scientific revolution as in sense of real revolution. I know, some naive people think that revolutions happen spontaneously without any helping hand. I rather am convinced that only revolutions which succeeds are well planed and supported by someone behind. In history classes much more attention is given for successful revolutions (French revolution comes in mind), and rather rarely unsuccessful revolutions are studied or even mentioned. I am from country which had two unsuccessful revolutions lead by people spontaneously, and country only was successful to free itself from occupation at third time when some other state lend a hand in revolutionary war. Yes revolution is kind of war and needs good strategy, and allies can be handy or even crucial. In war it is even good to know what allies an enemy can have and neutralize those first. And that is why I think I started this thread, to try to find common language between EU and "modern" geology and show weak points usable for revolutionary war. Due to its internal divisions geology is one of the weakest "fortresses". And that brings me to mineral and energy industry...

Mineral and energy industry is not in agreement on everything with majority of academic geology. They buy only ideas which brings more profit (what a surprise ). Now if EU can improve practically the earth evolution model, and increase successful prospection rate they will win industries hearts and open back-doors to academic Geology. Which would lead getting rid of current contamination by contemporary Astrophysical nonsense in the Geology thus severely weakening Astrophysics position. Its probably not very perspective plan on the earth, as most of best perspective deposits at surface and near surface had been already prospected. But in case of other planets, this can be a game changer.
They would really would not throw out currently profitable models based on plate tectonics and geological time reconstruction, just for some other theory which have no idea how element concentrations depletes at one place and accumulates at other when some process is applied.

In the end I want some clarifications:

Cargo, what do you mean by fossilization? There are three type of fossils which come in my mind:
remnants of land and air dwellers, remnants of sea dwellers and palaeo-poop (so called caproliths).
The third type can look funny, but it is quite useful particularly when doubting about how fast extermination of something was.
"That shit is radioactive" can have quite unexpected meaning. However at least I don't know any fossils of water dwellers to have such property.
So what does you mean by fossilization? time from death of creature to its carcass finding by excavation. Or time animal living or dead body is buried under some forming rock? It also depends which group we are talking about.

If it goes about turning living things into stone preserving its whole unaltered shape... it is known for me and Geologically accepted only with fast catastrophic volcanic processes. Of course land, air and poop is affected by such process, but not the sea dwellers. Are You suggesting that electric strike could turn living things into fossils which would drop down dead? (And poop into stone?) Is there any lab experiment which would demonstrate that that is possible? Every year there are deaths from thunderstrike, but I had not hear that anyone would turn into stone. Lets say, that during great trouble the currents/ and voltages of those thunder strikes were much higher. But I have bad news. We have sometimes organic material or some tissues for observation under SEM. Guess what, organic stability under electron beam is one of most outstanding problem for SEM analyses. You don't need to go million of kV, it is enough few kV and organic material simply evaporates at place where electron beam hits - it just reacts instantly. The only thing what megavolt interplanetary lightning could achieve is evaporate soft tissue leaving carcase without it. I can think only possibility which should need to be tested in laboratory by applying lighting on organic tissue with some exotic atmosphere (i.e. atmosphere full of SiO2 in aerosol). Interesting if we could find volunteer for the test, oh and machinery for experiment. I will continue this soon.

[JP Michael]

At the outset I attempted to phrase my questions in such a way as you could answer according to what is generally understood in modern geology. Sedimentation and fossilisation are two key aspects of catastrophic geology that I feel important to have addressed.

I do not think it is as simple as giant bolts of lightning striking a pack of diplodocus and turning them all into stone (let alone how easily that could be falsified regarding SEM vaporisation of biologicals).

I referenced Andy Hall's stuff deliberately: these are radical views of sedimentation that do not invoke watery catastrophism, have potentially global scope, and could account for instantaneous fossilisation. He mentions the possibility of elemental transmutation at high-intensity discharge locations, a factor which is already known in geological prospecting (not that the minerals were caused by discharge, rather the specific locations deposits are found which Hall posits being caused by discharge in the past).

[LaSuisse1]

At the outset I attempted to phrase my questions in such a way as you could answer according to what is generally understood in modern geology. Sedimentation and fossilisation are two key aspects of catastrophic geology that I feel important to have addressed.

I do not think it is as simple as giant bolts of lightning striking a pack of diplodocus and turning them all into stone (let alone how easily that could be falsified regarding SEM vaporisation of biologicals).

I referenced Andy Hall's stuff deliberately: these are radical views of sedimentation that do not invoke watery catastrophism, have potentially global scope, and could account for instantaneous fossilisation. He mentions the possibility of elemental transmutation at high-intensity discharge locations, a factor which is already known in geological prospecting (not that the minerals were caused by discharge, rather the specific locations deposits are found which Hall posits being caused by discharge in the past).

You have yet to provide a single scientific criticism of modern geology and archaeology. Relying on creationists and unpublished youtube nonsense, doesn't cut it.

[JP Michael]

And you still havent demonstrated why I should submit to your holier-than-thou judgement seat. Since when did your Scientism have a sole monopoly on what is true and what is false? Since when were the normal laws of logic and philosophy voided so you can set yourself up as sole lord and god, the single being in the universe by whom all potential evidence must be approved as suitable for debate, analysis and engagement? Why do you get to choose the rules by which I can arrive at an understanding of our universe?

Avoiding your despotic logical fallacies still isn't a valid form of argument. Its intellectual bankruptcy in its most amusing form!

And they call creationists irrational!

Looking forward to you making a greater case for your logical incompetence and overall complete foolishness.

Cheers,
JP

PS: please stop derailing this thread. The grown-ups are trying to have a discussion here.

[LaSuisse1]

And you still havent demonstrated why I should submit to your holier-than-thou judgement seat. Since when did your Scientism have a sole monopoly on what is true and what is false? Since when were the normal laws of logic and philosophy voided so you can set yourself up as sole lord and god, the single being in the universe by whom all potential evidence must be approved as suitable for debate, analysis and engagement? Why do you get to choose the rules by which I can arrive at an understanding of our universe?

Avoiding your despotic logical fallacies still isn't a valid form of argument. Its intellectual bankruptcy in its most amusing form!

And they call creationists irrational!

Looking forward to you making a greater case for your logical incompetence and overall complete foolishness.

Cheers,
JP

PS: please stop derailing this thread. The grown-ups are trying to have a discussion here.

You can make up any old nonsense you like. It's a free country. At least the one I live in. Just do not pretend that rubbish on youtube is science. Do not pretend that rubbish posted by crazies, who think the Earth is < 10 000 years old, is science. It isn't. And no scientist takes it seriously. And why would they? It's rubbish. It has zero scientific merit. That is why it is hidden away on youtube and in loony creationist publications. If it had any scientific merit, it would be in the scientific literature. It has no more to do with science than does astrology. Carry on

[JP Michael]

And you still havent demonstrated why I should submit to your holier-than-thou judgement seat. Since when did your Scientism have a sole monopoly on what is true and what is false? Since when were the normal laws of logic and philosophy voided so you can set yourself up as sole lord and god, the single being in the universe by whom all potential evidence must be approved as suitable for debate, analysis and engagement? Why do you get to choose the rules by which I can arrive at an understanding of our universe?

Avoiding your despotic logical fallacies still isn't a valid form of argument. Its intellectual bankruptcy in its most amusing form!

And they call creationists irrational!

Looking forward to you making a greater case for your logical incompetence and overall complete foolishness.

Cheers,
JP

And I'm calling you out on your endless equivocation.

You have still failed to address the issues I raised.

Answer the questions, please.

Who made 'Science' the sole judge and possessor of truth?

Why is 'peer review' the only acceptable level of publication you will consider in your search for answers/truth?

Why do you get to set the rules of engagement rather than agreeing to be reasonable and using the laws of rational argument?

Why should I submit to these unreasonable demands?

[Cargo]

This thread has turned into a heap of fun. I will try to cover some points, but know I am not long-winded, mostly because a point should be available with has few words as possible.

The only one to bring up Creator feelings was the one who's only purpose seems to be screaming 'heretic' at anyone who has not been published in whatever Science Library they come from. I will not be responding to this person because it's just not worth it. I'm older then the Internet, this type of person is a waste of bandwidth. BUT!
(the act of doing) Science always comes before Papers (the recording/analysis of the science). Literature and Papers are never Science themselves.
To demand Papers-only-Science as a reason is both circular and self-defeating. You will never know what you are missing, and you will never do Science.
Please continue to read your papers and fantasize that you Know what is or isn't valid Science. But you are better off in your echo-chamber then out with us in the real world.

Now I will take leave of Lassuise and their null circular words.

On to Fossils. Grant, I am speaking of the two prime examples from the field research most of which JP kindly referenced.
The tree fossils which are obviously are not of enough age or in time bounds layers of geology of any kind to be there.
Then the mammoth dig which is also shown in the same video series.

Since we don't know if it's even possible, we can hardly limit what may be happening to just lighting bolts and direct discharge. I've already discounted directs hits, obviously to destructive. And volcanic fossilization is not know for persevering things without some melting as well. Hot land flows, not lava, but 'mud', could be involved of course.

Thanks for the thread by the way, it's is very nice to converse with new people.