Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fishtank

So the prints were made in soft sedimentary material by something or someone. Soft mud.

And that soft mud imprint lasted millions of years.

Okay.


22 posted on 09/05/2017 9:54:00 AM PDT by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: lurk

Yea, because successive layers covered them and it was subsequently lithified and then later exposed by either preferential weathering along bedding planes or with a rock hammer..


25 posted on 09/05/2017 10:13:09 AM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: lurk
"Soft mud imprint lasted millions of years"

That always sounds improbable, doesn't it? But fossilized remains seem equally improbable with creatures dying in water or muck, getting covered quickly in mud, that mud or sea sediment remaining undisturbed and remaining so for hundreds of millions of years. I used to find these all the time in the shale in upstate NY.


26 posted on 09/05/2017 10:20:11 AM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: lurk

“So the prints were made in soft sedimentary material by something or someone. Soft mud. And that soft mud imprint lasted millions of years. Okay.”

Barring an asteroid impact Neil Armstrong’s footprints on the moon will be there for millions and maybe even billions of years. And they were made in soft dust.


32 posted on 09/05/2017 10:59:37 AM PDT by MeganC (Democrat by birth, Republican by default, conservative by principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson