You can't HAVE a lithified sand dune for pete's sake. Every sand dune on the face of this earth is NOT lithified. What you are seeing in the rocks is the grains of sand that form sand dunes all collected in one place which causes them to lie the way they do in dunes because of how the grains got shaped, but there is no such thing as a LITHIFIED SAND DUNE. It is an impossibility. The only lithified beach you could possibly see is one that was rapidly filled in by new sediments to preserve its form. There is no such thing as a lithified beach on the surface of the earth. The footprints are of course footprints, rapidly filled in and preserved between tides during the Flood.
22 comments
So if you have to go to an unprovable bit of nonsense like the Flood, you have lost. Best just to slink away and find another hobby.
That is, unless you're speaking of Arrakis (also known as Duuuunneee), in which case it's still fiction, but much more entertaining.
What you are seeing in the rocks is the grains of sand that form sand dunes all collected in one place which causes them to lie the way they do in dunes because of how the grains got shaped
No, sand dunes exist because some rocks like quartz are harder than others, so after years of weathering, especially by the sea, the only visible grains are hard rock. It's actually a good example of natural selection: the hard rocks survive while the soft ones are pulverized to dust. Once the sand is buried, the grains get bound together by minerals - often from the same softer rocks that didn't survive - to form sandstone. The minerals in sandstone can be dissolved to get the sand back.
I feel awful that I had to look up "lithified".
For those in the lurch like me, it's like "petrified" except it involves sediment stuff.
"footprints, rapidly filled in and preserved between tides during the Flood"
It sounds to me like you have a heretical concept of the Flood, because there wouldn't have been a beach to walk on, and nothing left alive to walk on a beach.
Sand dunes form in deserts as well as beaches.
And even if your mythical Great Flood was anything more than a fairytale, I doubt that anybody was strolling along the beach between the tides.
Be fair, she's is using the world's greatest science textbook of all time, the Bible, as her reference to guide her through the murky waters of reality. How can she be wrong?
Thing is, if she is wrong about that, then what else is she wrong about? And where does that leave the worlds greatest science textbook? Perhaps it's been usurped by the Koran?
As a Swede, I'm not familiar with the term "lithified" (and neither is my spell-checker, apparently). The difference between me and little Faith here, is that I would never get into a debate about it without at least google the term and read up on it for half an hour or so, on different sources.
Regarding the "rapidly filled in and preserved between tides during the Flood", that shows that Faith has never been on a beach in her/his life. What is rapidly filled in by a tide is also rapidly obliterated by said tide.
The sheer magnitude of ignorance, not to mention the stupidity needed to maintain such a level of ignorance, is astounding. This poor person doesn't know how sand works, doesn't know how water works on sand, has not the faintest idea how sandstone or other sedimentary rocks are formed, and is blissfully unaware that concrete is simply sand and rubble that is "LITHIFIED" (Hydrated to those of us who actually know some things about things.) artificially.
Plus, assuming that this poor fool is talking about actual fossil tracks and not the ones that the guy in Texas chiseled into some dinosaur tracks, they don't form in sand. Fossil tracks are captured under a very rare set of circumstances where a print can be preserved in mud. Some were captured in the bottom of lakes that drained and never filled again. Some were captured in mud flats that only rarely became moist and then would become arid for years at a time so that prints would be filled with dust and ash. Some prints have also been captured in mud that was buried by great amounts of volcanic ash or cataclysmic dust storms. But none of them were captured in sand.
@ "SpukiKitty
I feel awful that I had to look up "lithified".
For those in the lurch like me, it's like "petrified" except it involves sediment stuff."
Why feel bad about not knowing something? No one can know everything. I was just about to google "lithified" when I read your post. Not only did I not know what it meant, I had never even heard the term before. I don't feel bad. I'm that little bit wiser than I was a few minutes ago.
How the fuck did they tell the difference between high and low tide during the flood when, you know, the whole fucking world was under water? Not that tides are exactly good at preserving anything that gets in their way, but why even bother going there.
Is he talking about the Paluxy Tracks? It's the only thing I can connect to preseved footprints and Creationist Flood "evidence".
I didn't get lithified either SpukiKitty but figured it out as hardening by other comments before you, so now some of us have a new word we'll never use again.
And I Google basic words, often had them right but still my brain thought not. And yet several edits later I still have typos too often. Besides, looking things up is the greatest thing since I discovered the internet a decade plus ago.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
