Raindrop impressions Trace fossil -- raindrops - The Panda's Thumb

Where to start?!? First, I should point out to azjones that he really needs to read more carefully. Matt Young posted this image with the caption "Trace fossils Raindrop impressions," but this was quickly modified when he crossed out "Trace fossils" after it was pointed out that raindrop impressions are not trace fossils. Matt Young did not hesitate or cringe (I don't think) when this mistake was pointed out to him by other scientists, he simply updated his caption. Later I posted a comment <a href="http://www.authenticjerseysbuy.com/nfl-jerseys-oakland-raiders-nfl-jerseys-c-10_83.html"><strong>Oakland Raiders NFL jerseys</strong></a> and pointed out some inconsistencies I noticed with these features being called raindrop impressions, and several other geologists/earth science types quickly agreed with me. We have more training in recognizing raindrop impressions in the rock record; it's not "rocket science" or "brain surgery" as the sayings go, but clearly our training helped us make this call. We did not "pull this stuff out of our A**" as you so eloquently put it. We simply observed the image and recalled past experiences with raindrop impressions, both in the rock record and in Recent examples. There is always a bit of uncertainty in extrapolating from past experiences, <a href="http://www.authenticbagsonline.com/coach-purses"><strong>coach purses for cheap</strong></a> and I am sorry if you mistook the statements by us (me, N. Wells, the members of the Colorado Scientific Society, and the person at Dinosaur Ridge who communicated with Matt Young) as hubris or out-of-control speculation. Pointing out that these are not raindrop impressions was not such a tough call – not nearly as tough as figuring out what they really are. Pondering whether these might be gas bubbles or concretions is just that, pondering. In other words, I don't see any cause for you rant; this is not "science run amok" as you seem to imply; and your fossil extrapolation example is more than a bit off base. I do not know you by any previous posts you have made on this site, so I might be in error thinking that you are more inclined to a Bible-based explanation for these features. I will just <a href="http://www.5fingerrunningshoes.com/vibram-five-fingers-kso-trek-c-11.html"><strong>Vibram Five Fingers KSO Trek</strong></a> work with this assumption, and you can tell me I am wrong if that is the case. At any rate, taking one text (i.e., the Bible) and basing a worldview on it entirely leads to more <a href="http://www.xinzhouba.com/view.php?id=35226"><strong>Cheap Wholesale Online - U Could Not Without Moncler Down Jacket</strong></a> instances of "wild assuptions (sic)," "speculation," and "differnt (sic) spin" than I care to think about. If you want to use these features as some sort of proof of flood-based geologic concepts, than you are guiltier by far of using these to "prove a pre conceived (sic) belief or notion" than anyone else posting here. Finally, no one here ever claimed to be smarter than anyone else; we just commented on the image based on our past experiences with raindrop impressions. I will give you a chance, though, to show us what you got. You claim that you "could think of many other explanations," and I would like to hear some of them. Convince me azjones: what are these things?