Fossil flour bags (really!)

[bbbaldie]

This may boggle your mind, I brought it up over at Fossil Forum a couple years ago, I was told it was impossible.

There's a place near Eureka Springs, AR called Blue Spring. It had an old grist mill there. http://www.bluespringheritage.com/history_mill.shtml

Anyhoo, found buried in the creek gravel were FOSSILIZED bags of flour! I'm talking solid calcium carbonate.

Amazing, huh? I raised the issue at FF with a respectful question: since this CAN happen, how sure can we be that fossil bones found in, say a creekbed might not be ancient. No young earth theorizing here, just how do you know that it might not be from the 19th century, like these flour bags, instead of the pleistocene era?

Basically, I was told that the fossilized bags of flour were impossible, that a thin veneer of rock might have formed on them.

So here are the pics (attached). What do y'all think?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[shaun7]

I've seen bags of plaster and cement fossilize overnight

 

[bbbaldie]

LOL! I assumed about the exact makeup, but it's most certainly stone.

Think about it: a fossil in an alluvial location might be quite recent, especially if something like a mammalian bone frag or tooth. Possible?

 

[Harry Pristis]

Bones and teeth are seldom made of wheat flour. But, in your mill-stream, the Cookie Monster would be petrified in hours!

This is so transparently young-earther!

 

[ohio]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......................................

 

[bbbaldie]

Bones and teeth are seldom made of wheat flour. But, in your mill-stream, the Cookie Monster would be petrified in hours!

This is so transparently young-earther!

Harry, I remember you from Fossil Forum. You seemed reasonable. God (ooh, maybe I shouldn't use that word?) knows not everyone was (and I really don't feel comfortable there any more as a result). I'm disappointed in the stand you're taking here.

For pete's sake, the very fact that we have Cambrian soft-bodied fossils screams that the process of petrification, while undeniably usually ancient, doesn't necessarily have to take eons of actual time.

I find shells that wash up on Florida beaches with what appears to be CaCO3 matrix holding smaller pieces of shell to them, as in the photos attached. Are they ancient? The matrix doesn't look ver y ancient to me, I apologize for having failed to research this particular possibility.

I have a killer example I keep on my desk at work (next to lower Mississippian crinoids, Cretaceous ammos, and upper Mississippian nautiloids), I'm sorry to not be able to photograph it, it wasn't until I got home that I learned that I was accused of being a young-earther.

This is what makes me crazy about the whole "scientific" community. The deep-seated fear of being forced to accept ANYTHING outside of their comfortable Darwinian universe, in which they've already figured out every single teeny tiny little detail about how everything came to be, and dammit, nothing else will be accepted until we're told it's okay by the esteemed publishers of scientific papers. And to think they have the gall to make fun of anyone who might possibly believe that there's more going on to the universe than meets the eye. They accuse anyone who disagrees of narrow-mindedness, and OTOH respond to non-agenda-related questions as if they were a laughing matter.

Here's what I suggest: take a trip to Eureka Springs. It's a fun place, very eclectic, a Victorian atmosphere that's funky to the extreme. VERY liberal. I'm thinking that might matter in your case.

Anyhoo, this place (Blue Spring) doesn't have any dogs in the fight you've brought up, as far as I can tell. But ooh, maybe I'm just another gullible young-earther? They just exhibit what they dug up from the creek. There's a crapload of other stuff to see, you'll probably find it fascinating. Indian runes on the bluffs, too. This was an important gathering spot in ancient times (not denying that there was life on the earth millions of years ago). There are no handouts telling you evolution doesn't exist, no "DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES!!!" signs, anything else. Just this modest display of what are quite obviously flour bags that have transformed into mineral in a blink of a geological eye. You have to look closely to even find them, they are stuck in between other 19th century artifacts.

I've vented long enough. Just because something seems implausible according to popular belief doesn't mean it may not be true. And I would still like to now if a young fossil might sneak its way into a riverbed, throwing the scientific community into chaos.

 

[Solius Symbiosus]

... the very fact that we have Cambrian soft-bodied fossils screams that the process of petrification, while undeniably usually ancient, doesn't necessarily have to take eons of actual time.

You are trying to extrapolate from a very rare process, under very specific conditions(Konservat Lagerstatten), and impose those conditions to the formation of concretions-which is what was found in the spring. Go to Youtube, and stick "rapid fossilization" into the search engine for a through debunking of the claims made by AiG(which you, intentionally or not, are parroting), and a clear demonstration of rapid concretion formation,

Soft tissue preservation can occur relatively fast, but only in very anaerobic conditions, in deep basins, in which the environment is saturated with iron or phosphate ions. Hence, only phosphates and iron oxide are preserved in that environment. Though, carbonate replacement of hard parts do occur(for example chitinous carapaces).

I find shells that wash up on Florida beaches with what appears to be CaCO3 matrix holding smaller pieces of shell to them, as in the photos attached. Are they ancient? The matrix doesn't look ver y ancient to me, I apologize for having failed to research this particular possibility.

I guess that depends on one's definition of ancient, but once again, you are conflating mineralization with fossilization.

This is what makes me crazy about the whole "scientific" community. The deep-seated fear of being forced to accept ANYTHING outside of their comfortable Darwinian universe, in which they've already figured out every single teeny tiny little detail about how everything came to be, and dammit, nothing else will be accepted until we're told it's okay by the esteemed publishers of scientific papers.

You have it exactly backwards. The whole foundation of the sciences is the concept of the falsifiable hypothesis in which one works to refute a hypothesis, not confirm it- that is how the religionists do things!

And too, no one in the scientific community has ever claimed to have all the answers... that would be dogma.

And to think they have the gall to make fun of anyone who might possibly believe that there's more going on to the universe than meets the eye. They accuse anyone who disagrees of narrow-mindedness, and OTOH respond to non-agenda-related questions as if they were a laughing matter.

Some do treat fringe theorists with contempt, but sometimes that and ridicule, while not changing the mind of the fringe, while enlighten others to the ridiculousness of ridiculous claims. Almost without exception, those making claims that contradict centuries of repeated observations, done millions of times, have no expertise in the subject matter at hand.

I have said it a thousand times, and it bears repeating- " would you trust a plumber to do a coronary by-pass, or would you consult a cardiologists?"

Anyhoo, this place (Blue Spring) doesn't have any dogs in the fight you've brought up, as far as I can tell. But ooh, maybe I'm just another gullible young-earther? They just exhibit what they dug up from the creek. There's a crapload of other stuff to see, you'll probably find it fascinating. Indian runes on the bluffs, too. This was an important gathering spot in ancient times (not denying that there was life on the earth millions of years ago). There are no handouts telling you evolution doesn't exist, no "DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES!!!" signs, anything else. Just this modest display of what are quite obviously flour bags that have transformed into mineral in a blink of a geological eye. You have to look closely to even find them, they are stuck in between other 19th century artifacts.

Just because they have displayed these objects doesn't mean their interpretation is correct. For an example, look no farther than that monument to ignorance in northern Kentucky.

Just because something seems implausible according to popular belief doesn't mean it may not be true. And I would still like to now if a young fossil might sneak its way into a riverbed, throwing the scientific community into chaos.

I can answer that with an unequivocal no! Though, a young fossil could be transported into a stream, but it wouldn't cause any chaos among those that study such things.

 

[bbbaldie]

Solius, thanks for the informative, respectful reply. I know you're one smart cookie, but let me tell you, it gets my dander up when someone makes a condescending remark that casually lumps others into the young-earth believers. It happens WAY too much among discussions of ancient things, fossils in particular. And you imply that ridicule sometimes has a useful purpose. I believe that others should be treated with a measure of respect. Not to say that I haven't gone off myself a time or two, but ridicule, particularly of someone you barely know, is unacceptable.

Now, I'll grant you that I didn't word the question very well. A better way would have been "Hey, gang, what caused these bags of flour to mineralize (a better choice of words than fossilize)." I didn't even ask that, I asked if it happens to bags of flour, why can't it happen to bones? Obviously, unless the ingredients of the concretion fill the marrow chamber, it's not going to happen.

Seeing's how I didn't word things that way, perhaps I asked for it. I still don't see it that way. Nuff said.

It's a bit mind-boggling that the concretion process would go so far as to preserve stitching. What I'm hearing you say is that mud filled the empty bag and it hardened, correct assumption?

One last thing, you did state this: "Just because they have displayed these objects doesn't mean their interpretation is correct."

Actually, they referred to petrification, not fossilization, as I inadvertently did. I think they pretty much nailed the description of the event, just didn't use the "c" word. ;-)

Again, thanks for the explanation.

 

[jeff a]

more than likely bags of concrete,i know where there is an old barn that fell in that had a few bags left in it now they are solid masses in the shapes of bags

 

[Solius Symbiosus]

It's a bit mind-boggling that the concretion process would go so far as to preserve stitching.

In my previous post, there was a recommendation to plug "rapid fossilization" into the search engine at YouTube. I didn't provide a link because some might find the video offensive(contempt for YECs), but there are ample examples of rapid mineralization, there. Some are pretty darn cool!

What I'm hearing you say is that mud filled the empty bag and it hardened, correct assumption?

No. I haven't seen the "bags", and I am unfamiliar with the geology of the area, So, I will withhold judgement until those more knowledgeable of local conditions, with relevant expertise, chime in.

Cheers.

 

[bbbaldie]

In my previous post, there was a recommendation to plug "rapid fossilization" into the search engine at YouTube. I didn't provide a link because some might find the video offensive(contempt for YECs), but there are ample examples of rapid mineralization, there. Some are pretty darn cool!

Thanks for the food for thought, Solius. Checked out some of the vids. The concretion process seems to coat, not replace, still weird in this case.

jeff a, I hear what you're saying, but the marbling on the "sack" looks quite un-concrete-like to me. Besides, it seems strange that a museum with no apparent sidetaking would put common hardened concrete bags up among genuine stream artifacts. The water IS quite heavily mineralized.

Anyhoo, thanks to all for the input. I'll keep an eye out for concretions, keeping in mind that they're different from fossils.

 

[Tylocidaris]

Ron(?), not sure who determined these were sacks of flour; but unless they were placed there, left for a while, and removed all under controlled conditions, I'm not buying they were full of flour. I paddle a lot and have seen the remains of several old mills. Almost all of them have solidified bags that look just like those displayed. Some were solidified mortar and others cement. Apparently, the mills would use the same bags they had on hand to fill with mortar/cement to make repairs to their foundations, dams, and bulkheads after sustaining flood damage. The 'bag' would rot away leaving a hard replica.

Seems like a flawed presumption by the sign maker to think they were full of flour.

 

[bbbaldie]

Thanks, John, that sounds like a very plausible explanation.