Adoucette -

Nice job on the tanks sir. Thanks for sending the details on them. It's VERY clear that you take alot of pride in your work.

Sorry that I haven't got back to you guys in a few days. I've been really busy at work this weekend, and too tired to think on this level(some may joke that that is always the case). LOL.

Ok, well....you all made me do a little searching this time for an adequate rebutle to your most current remarks about diatoms. Congratulations, I had to think. Dang, I'm a brat!



346 fossil whales buried in thick, muddy, diatomaceous sediment

‘We knew it was a great find,’ said paleontologist Leonard Brand about the fossil whales he saw in Peru in 1999, 350 km (200 miles) south of Lima, the capital...."

Overall, they found 346 whales within a 1.5-km2 (370-acre) area, buried in an 80-m (260-ft) thick layer of sedimentary rock called diatomite. This layer is part of the Pisco Formation, which varies in thickness from 200–1,000 m (650–3,300 ft).

Diatomite is sedimentary rock containing a high percentage of fossil diatoms—small single-celled algae, which commonly live near the ocean surface. The layer of diatomite in Peru has 5 to 10% clay and abundant volcanic ash.

Today, when diatoms die, their silica skeletons accumulate on the ocean floor. One gram (0.035 oz.) of diatomite may contain up to 400 million skeletons.4 Diatomite sediment normally accumulates slowly—only a few centimetres per thousand years.1 Even where the rate is higher, such as in some shallow-water areas, accumulation is still slow. For example, in the fjords of British Columbia, diatoms and clay accumulate at 2.5–5.0 mm (0.1–0.2 inches) per year.2

Also today, when a whale carcass sinks to the bottom of the ocean, many kinds of scavengers quickly attack and colonize it. And in their quest for food, some scavengers churn up the adjacent sediments.5

However, in Peru, the fossilized whales and diatoms were well preserved and the whale skeletons were mostly intact. There was no evidence of normal decay, such as wormholes, barnacle encrustations or general degradation. Neither was there any sign that organisms had churned up the adjacent sediment.

The whale skeletons were partially mineralized, and, remarkably, baleen from five whales was preserved. Baleen forms the comb-like structure in the whale’s mouth that filters its food. This is remarkable because it is softer than bone—the same composition as our human fingernails.

There is no doubt that these well-preserved whales, entombed in diatomite, indicate rapid burial. After eliminating other possibilities, Brand and his coauthors concluded:

‘The most viable explanation for whale preservation seems to be rapid burial, fast enough to cover whales 5–13 m [16–42 ft] long and approximately 50 cm [20 in] thick within a few weeks or months, to account for whales with well-preserved bones and some soft tissues.’1

These burial times are probably a maximum, based on a comparison with modern environments. It could have been even faster than a few weeks.

Remarkably, these rapidly buried fossil whales contradict one of the ruling principles of modern geology, uniformitarianism—i.e. rocks formed slowly in the past similar to what we observe in the present. Interpreted according to that principle, the whales were buried over a period of two million years about 10 million years ago. However, the fact that 80 m of sediment buried 346 whales within months or weeks (or less) creates a problem for those who believe in millions of years. Where do they put the time? There is nowhere for it in the rocks.

From the report in Geology, we know that there were strong water currents in the region, since there are abundant, small channels that have been scoured out and refilled with sediment in the Pisco Formation. There was also time for sharks to scavenge, since the scientists found shark teeth with the skeletons. In fact, they noticed some whale bones embedded with the tips of shark teeth. The team found other vertebrates in the deposit besides sharks and whales. These included marine animals such as fish, turtles, seals and porpoises, and land animals such as ground sloths and penguins.

They suggest the whales and marine vertebrates died when a massive bloom (multiplication) of diatoms, thickened by lateral water currents, poisoned the water.6 There is no evidence that the whales beached. Ash from volcanic eruptions could have provided the nutrients for a diatom population explosion. However, the existence of land vertebrates, especially the ground sloths, seems to be a problem here. A similar post-Flood scenario was applied to a whale found in diatomite at Lompoc, California.7


The 80-90 ft (24-27 m) long fossilised baleen whale found in April 1976 in an inclined position in a diatomite unit in the Miguelito Mine at Lompoc, California, was not buried while 'standing on its tail'(I put this part of the quote so you don't think that I'm using this for evidence of polystrate fossils). An onsite investigation has revealed that the diatomite unit which entombed the whale is also inclined at the same angle, the whale having been buried in the diatomite unit while both were in the horizontal position, and subsequent earth movements having tilted both. Nevertheless, this whale fossil still bears testimony to its catastrophic burial, and thus the catastrophic deposition of the enclosing diatomite.

"The current uniformitarian (slow and gradual) model for diatomite deposition, as seen in the Guaymas Basin of the Gulf of California, is not capable of explaining the purity of the Lompoc diatomite...the deposition rate is too slow to avoid corrosion and scavenging of the bones. both of which are absent from the Lompoc whale bones."



Well, there you have it. Not only are there other fossils within the diatomaceous earth, but there are some of the biggest and most "modern" ones. I don't know why it's rare to find fossils in diamataceous deposits. That seems really strange to me. The fact is, thought, that it does indeed happen. These are just SOME examples. I'm sure I could find quite a few more if you'd like me to look, but this should be sufficient. Just thought you'd like to know.



Paradox -

QUOTE

As Grumpy stated, diatoms and the deep ocean would be ideal for preserving other fossils, cold, lack of light and low O2 take care of that. It wouldn't matter the depth since most marine life occurs in the top layers of the oceans, but in most cases they sink when they die. So they will get to the bottom. Bacteria and such would eat a lot off the ocean floor, but not all, particularly the larger bones from the cetaceans and since you already established that Dinos were also roaming around at the time, then add in a few pleosaurs and the like. The point being, its DIATOMS, DIATOMS ALL THE WAY DOWN, and these deposits are huge and quite widespread across the globe and yet not one of them has ANY evidence of more advanced life forms. This is well established since we mine these for all sorts of things besides use as a pool filter so there have been extensive digs into them and like the Cliffs of Dover, where there are miles of exposed area and as noted, serious erosion, still, nothing but diatoms. Thus there is no logical explanation except that they were the only form of life in the sea at the time that left skeletal remains.