Fossil

Question: #1: If a fossil has survived 100 million years to befond one day. How could it possibly still be intact?
What I'm thinking is no fossil could possiblysurvive that long. With rates of erosion,volcanoes, earthquakes shaking them violentlyhundreds, maybe thousands of times over that timeperiod no fossil could survive that long. MaybeI'm wrong but how could anything that long agoeven a fossil stay in tact until now. - asked by kevin s

As was already pointed out, fossil have becomerock, and so are not going to decay. The problemis that at the rate the continents are eroding,they would be washed into the ocean in just 10million years. So if the fossils are really thatold, they should be long gone, and the continentswith them. Geologists don't have an answer forthis problem so they just ignore it. The logicalanswer is that the continents are simply not thatold, but logic seems to have little to do with theage of the earth. - answered by: nabal
View All Answers (5)

Question: #3: When we burn fossil fuel we produce a harmfulbyproduct. What would be a good biological way toreduce the?
When we burn fossil fuel we produce a harmfulbyproduct. What would be a good biological way toreduce the amount of that byproduct? - asked by Julie E

CO2 and H2O are the products of combustion. Plantscould use the former before too much CO2 was addedto the greenhouse layer and the water has manyuses every where. - answered by: jonmcn49
View All Answers (1)

Question: #5: Essay help!We as a world burn are fossil fuelslike crazy how will we manage when their gone?
I want your opinoin.Its gonna go some time.Do youthink using part of the profits earned from fossilfuels(oil,natural gas,coal,)to fund research forunused renewable resources like solar wind andboifuels is a good Idea?I think so.It would alsogive as a backup and stop being dependent onfossil fuels and stop global warming.Enough of myopinoin, whats yours? - asked by klsrps

You asked for opinion, so keep in mind that iswhat I am giving. It's likely to make some peopleuncomfortable, and even offend some who aren'tsecure in their thoughts on the subject.Part ofthe problem is that any good solution will requiresome sort of sacrifice by the public, commerce,and industry, and that will make it unpopular andpolitical suicide. So no politician is going totake the steps to implement a good solution beyondwhat the general population and the powerfulcorporations are happy with. The corporations willonly do what is most profitable for them. Not thatyou can hold them at fault for that, because,after all, that is their only reason for existing.So it's going to take widespread public opinion tomake any difference. But what is the general waythe leading nation in the world thinks aboutthings? A huge percentage believes in asupernatural being that created the world soleyfor us to have dominion over, and who willultimately save his followers from bad things ifwe just believe and pray hard enough. Some of themfully believe that before long, the faithful willbe whisked away and none of this will matteranyway, so we don't need to worry about it. Thereis also a strong push to discredit science (justask any Creationist about how good science worksfor figuring out things). So all in all, a hugenumber will never even believe there is a problemneeding to be addressed due to their religion. Theway we teach is also an issue. Critical thinkingskills take a back seat in school when compared topolitical correctness, social networking,information technologies, and entertainment(sports, etc). Most things in our society teach usto compete and beat the other guy at all costs,not to work together for a beneficially mutualsolution. Even in team sports, the only purpose ofthe team is to beat the other team. Looking outfor #1 is not going to solve this problem.Most ofthe public's information comes from the newsmedia. They tell what sells. They are corporationsalso, so they are going to tell the stories thatpeople want to hear in the way they want to hearthem, because that is more profitable. So you cancount on the news to trend toward sensationalismthat gives people a trill. Much like thepopularity of horror films like Nightmare on ElmStreet, a good scare is popular, but not if youhave to think about it too much or if it's toorealistic.Right now, global warming is a mediadarling. Things are getting warmer worldwide, yes.But it has been turned into a popularity contestand a political catchphrase that is sure to hideany good science being done on the matter. Forinstance, you list coal among your fossil fuels.We are not anywhere near to running low onlow-sulfur, easily mined coal. New technologiesare making it reasonably clean to produce powerfrom, but there is still a stigma against burningcoal in popular opinion. Face it, even if we gotpopular opinion behind finding enough alternativesources for fossil fuel, it's going to take a longtime to make the switch, just due to the time ittakes to get a powerplant or refinery up andrunning. We need to use coal until that can bedone. Yes, work as hard as we can to convert tomethane, solar, wind, and hydrothermal. The realproblem? Too many people wanting too much. Andthose are two of the "basic human rights" to mostpeople. The right to have as many children as youwant, and the right to live as good of a life asyou can. Unfortunately, "good" is usually definedin a way that it means something close to "consumeas much as you can".Sure, we can manage.But firstwe need to change our basic way of thinking. - answered by: Hi Speed Low Friction
View All Answers (4)

Question: #7: What are the benefits of burning fossil fuels?
I know theres not much benefits on burning fossilfuels but we have to write a pros and cons essayon burning fossil fuels. Can you list 5 facts onburning fossil fuels? Thanks.... " ) - asked by ♥ be happy ♥

5 pros are:1) plentiful2) relatively cheap on theshort run3) Simple and easy to use4) not sure ifthis pertains to a definite pro, but whenseparating fuel (gas, natural gas, and gasoline)from the tar used in plastics, the fuel is abyproduct with nowhere else to go but to beburned; so it's a use or be wasted resource5) easyto gather/ profitable (stimulates economy) - answered by: Flaming Pope
View All Answers (3)

Question: #9: Where can I see the fossil of a shellfish with apartially, developed shell?
IF EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED, THE FOSSIL RECORDSHOULD CLEARLY SHOW INTERMEDIATE STAGES IN THEDEVELOPMENT OF DISTINCT, ANATOMICAL FEATURES. SUCHAS PARTIALLY DEVELOPED:- BONES, SHELLS OF SNAILS &SHELLFISH ETC. AS BILLIONS OF CREATURES WITHINTERMEDIATE FEATURES WOULD HAVE LIVED AND DIED INTHE MILLIONS OF YEARS REQUIRED FOR THESESTRUCTURES TO BE ACQUIRED AND PERFECTED, SUCHFOSSILS SHOULD BE EXTREMELY ABUNDANT. PARTICULARLYIF CREATURES WITH HARD PARTS EVOLVED FROMSOFT-BODIED CREATURES, THEN THE GRADUALACQUISITION OF HARD PARTS BY SOFT-BODIED CREATURESSHOULD BE ABUNDANTLY DOCUMENTED IN THE FOSSILRECORD. ESPECIALLY AS THESE HARD PARTS, SUCH ASSHELLS AND BONES ARE SO EASILY AND FREQUENTLYPRESERVED AS FOSSILS. SO WHERE CAN I SEE SUCHFOSSILS? - asked by A.M.D.G

Typical Creationist dishonesty. What use wouldhalf an arm bone be?? Of course you don't get"transitional fossils" when you dishonestly definethem as such. Nothing in Evolutionary Theory saysthat you would. Either you have no idea of whatyou are talking about and you are repeatingdishonesty heard elsewhere, or else you areoutright dishonest yourself. And of course no-onerespects such disgraceful dishonesty.The fossilrecord shows nothing but macroevolution -incremental change from one morphotype to thenext. Take your hateful head out of the sand andtake a look for yourself. - answered by: timeponderer
View All Answers (6)