Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 154 (8125 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2014 4:22 PM
114 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Post Volume:
Total: 736,432 Year: 22,273/28,606 Month: 1,360/1,410 Week: 147/415 Day: 38/82 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
22Next
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12751
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 226 of 320 (633012)
09-12-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Re: Polystrate fossils
d.p.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12751
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 227 of 320 (633013)
09-12-2011 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Re: Polystrate fossils
Many Geologists say that the strata layers of the geologic column are representative of millions of years of time.

No-one, anywhere, ever, has claimed that a single distinct sedimentary layer in a sedimentary formation necessarily corresponds to millions of years of time.

Some of them do. A kilometer of unbedded chalk would necessarily take a long time to form. On the other hand, the distinct layers of a turbidite would take about half-an-hour. A doublet in a proglacial lake takes a single year. A lamina in aolian sand, thirty seconds.

In this discussion I will refer to them as uniformitarian geologists ...

Don't you think it'll cause confusion if you refer to the people you've made up in your head by the same name that is sometimes given to real people who actually exist?

The question is, how can forests of trees, dinosaurs, fish and other organisms remain protruding from one layer of strata while waiting the enormously long periods of time for the other layers to eventually cover them and then to later fossilize?

As every geologist in the world will tell you, they did not have to wait enormously long periods of time.

Are you going to suggest that in those areas where fossils cut through several layers of strata, that they were buried quickly, but in areas with the exact same rock and strata and no polystrate fossils are observed, each layer represents millions of years?

No, because we are not the idiotic strawmen that you have constructed in your head.

Some of you have already agreed with me that the tree fossils demonstrate a rapid deposition of the strata. This tells me that the only point we are really seeming to be in dispute over is, if they pose a problem for uniformitarian geological thinking.

And the answer is no, since uniformitarian geological thinking does not pose a problem for uniformitarian geological thinking, and is in fact completely consistent with uniformitarian geological thinking.

---

Now, do you have any point to make about these fossils that contradicts anything whatsoever that geologists actually say? That's actually as in not in the fantasy world in your head.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 809
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


(2)
Message 228 of 320 (633017)
09-12-2011 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Re: Polystrate fossils
I see you didnt even address your sentence in your post 200, that reads:
Just being real writes:

Our clues are coal that we know formed from vegetation being covered "by something", and requiring a lot of pressure, and contains significant amounts of C14, and pulverized by hundreds of forests of pollystrate tree fossils that pierce through "strata" that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart..

Could you please give any real-life example of where fossils that pierce through strata that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart? I simply dont believe you.
When I say an example, I dont mean where creationists claim that uniformitarian geologists say this. I mean an example of where a uniformitarian geologist actually says this.
Just being real writes:

Many Geologists say that the strata layers of the geologic column are representative of millions of years of time. In this discussion I will refer to them as uniformitarian geologists, but with the understanding that not all conventional geologists are strict uniformitarians.

You dont have to give a special name to more than 99.99% percent of all geologists in the world. Just call them geologists. They do science. In my country alone, theres more than 3 000 of them. And I live in a very small country compared to China, India, the USA, Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, Brazil, etc. I wonder how many hundreds of thousand of geologists those countries have?
Just being real writes:

In opposition is a group of geologists who believe that the strata was laid down during a world wide geologically recent global flood. I will refer to them in this discussion as creation geologists or YEC geologists.

I see that your list has only a handful of geologists. Are they all you can muster? They do need a special name, seeing that they dont do science, but religion.
Just being real writes:

The question is, how can forests of trees, dinosaurs, fish and other organisms remain protruding from one layer of strata while waiting the enormously long periods of time for the other layers to eventually cover them and then to later fossilize? .

Setting up a straw man, I see. Could you give me an example of where any geologist has ever said that?
Just being real writes:

Some of you have already agreed with me that the tree fossils demonstrate a rapid deposition of the strata.

Yes, some of them do, even by Aeolian deposits.
Just being real writes:

This tells me that the only point we are really seeming to be in dispute over is, if they pose a problem for uniformitarian geological thinking.

They dont pose a problem for uniformitarian geological thinking. Been sorted out in the 1800s.
Just being real writes:

Contrary to claims to the otherwise, most creationists are not ignorant at all to the interpretations of Dawson made a hundred years ago about the fossils.

Probably not, but they really are very ignorant about what geologists actually say.
Just being real writes:

We just think they are as problematic today as they were then.

Theyre not problematic at all for geologists. Been sorted out in the 1800s.
Just being real writes:

These fossils are often observed crossing through layers of different types of rock and different coal deposits.

Even through aeolian deposits!
Just being real writes:

Are you going to suggest that in those areas where fossils cut through several layers of strata, that they were buried quickly,..

Well have to look at the evidence first. Any references to an example? Every little lamination in every part of the world is unique.
Just being real writes:

.. but in areas with the exact same rock and strata and no polystrate fossils are observed, each layer represents millions of years?

Well have to look at the evidence first. Any references to an example? Every little lamination in every part of the world is unique.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3249
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 229 of 320 (633018)
09-12-2011 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Geologic column / Geologic time scale
Your first sentence:

Many Geologists say that the strata layers of the geologic column are representative of millions of years of time.

All of those links go to illustrations of the geologic time scale (aka "THE geologic column").

There are no strata (rock) layers in those illustrations. They say nothing about sedimentation rates.

I refer you to a message of mine in another topic - The geologic time scale (aka the "geologic column"). There's some pretty good discussion of things "geologic column" there and upthread, including some links to very good discussion well upthread.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Turn an "If" into an "I".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Pressie, posted 09-12-2011 3:13 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 68
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(2)
Message 230 of 320 (633021)
09-12-2011 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


"Polystrate" fossils
Just being real writes:

Many Geologists say that the strata layers of the geologic column are representative of millions of years of time. In this discussion I will refer to them as uniformitarian geologists, but with the understanding that not all conventional geologists are strict uniformitarians.


You coin the term uniformitarian geologist without specifically defining it. If a uniformitarian geologist is one who believes that the physical and chemical processes relevant to geology are unchanged over the earths history, then I would have to agree with Pressie that this would include 99.99% of geologists and you would best just call them geologists

Just being real writes:

In opposition is a group of geologists who believe that the strata was laid down during a world wide geologically recent global flood. I will refer to them in this discussion as creation geologists or YEC geologists.


Anecdotally, I have to say that in my 20+ years working as a geologist, I have never met one of these types of geologist.

Just being real writes:

Fossils of single living organisms such as trees (AKA Polystrate fossils) are commonly found piercing through several layers of these strata. These tree fossils (AKA kettlebottoms in mining) are so common in coal beds that they are even a real danger to miners who have been injured or killed by them dislodging and falling on them. They are common enough that in 2000 they came up for review by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. And I even found an article as recent as 2007 in which one fell and killed Brent Reynolds in a mine in Kentucky.

According to your own links (and thank you for providing links) kettlebottoms are A smooth, rounded piece of rock, cylindrical in shape, which may drop out of the roof of a mine without warning. The origin of this feature is thought to be the remains of the stump of a tree that has been replaced by sediments so that the original form has been rather well preserved.

No mention of living organisms piercing several layers of strata here.

Oh and by the way, your link suggests to me that Brent Reynolds was killed by a rock slippage due to a structural weakness along a fracture plane (ie slickensides), not in any way due to kettlebottoms.

Just being real writes:

The question is, how can forests of trees, dinosaurs, fish and other organisms remain protruding from one layer of strata while waiting the enormously long periods of time for the other layers to eventually cover them and then to later fossilize? ... Yet the examples of thousands of polystrate tree and animal fossils I am referring to are found as well preserved at the top portions as they are at the bottom.


No, the question is why do you keep referring to these "thousands of poystrate tree and animal fossils" without providing any evidence for them even existing?

Edited by Boof, : Spelling etc


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2011 5:28 AM Boof has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 809
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 231 of 320 (633025)
09-12-2011 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Minnemooseus
09-12-2011 1:25 AM


Re: Geologic column / Geologic time scale
Ah, now the lights come on why laymen think like they do after reading creationist propaganda.

Just being real, do you think that, for example, the Tournaisian Stage, Mississippi Epoch, Carboniferous Period (shown as one colour and one division in the geologic column), consists of one stratum deposited from around 345 to 359 million years ago at one constant sedimentary rate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 1:25 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12751
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 232 of 320 (633028)
09-12-2011 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Boof
09-12-2011 1:46 AM


Re: "Polystrate" fossils
Anecdotally, I have to say that in my 20+ years working as a geologist, I have never met one of these types of geologist.

It's very strange, isn't it?

If geologists were like creationists, they'd begin their discourse by explaining that creationists believe that a dog cremated the world in six ways, they'd show at length how silly that proposition was, and then they'd sit down under the impression that they'd put forth an argument in favor of geology, a subject that they'd never mentioned.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Boof, posted 09-12-2011 1:46 AM Boof has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 233 of 320 (633030)
09-12-2011 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Re: Polystrate fossils
JBR writes:

Fossils of single living organisms such as trees (AKA Polystrate fossils) are commonly found piercing through several layers of these strata. These tree fossils (AKA kettlebottoms in mining) are so common in coal beds that they are even a real danger to miners who have been injured or killed by them dislodging and falling on them. They are common enough that in 2000 they came up for review by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. And I even found an article as recent as 2007 in which one fell and killed Brent Reynolds in a mine in Kentucky.


I see no reference to kettle bottoms piercing through several layers.
I see references to them being found in mines and that they are dangerous.

But I see no statements regarding your claim: "are commonly found piercing through several layers of these strata."
This completely undermines the rest of your post.

p.s.
I see you have a lot of replies.
I'd rather wait for a reply - or not see one at all - than have a rushed answer that contains mistakes (solely due to rushing).
Remember: this is not a race.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 7:04 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

Pressie
Member
Posts: 809
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 234 of 320 (633036)
09-12-2011 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Re: "Polystrate" fossils
This is not really on topic, but I do have to inform Just being real on the inaccuracy of his sources while trying to formulate arguments.

For example, one of your sources, http://www.examiner.com/...-yec-a-fact-and-evolution-as-bunk , lists Dr. John Morris as a geologist. They certainly are inaccurate. Dr. John Morris is a Civil Engineer with a Ph.D. in Geological Engineering. He is not a geologist, although they list him as one. Why do you refer us to sources who dont tell the truth? Do you think people will believe you if you portray a totally inaccurate reality where you twist the truth. He is an Engineer who lectures geology at a creationist anti-scientific organisation. Not recognised anywhere else but in fundamentalist circles.

It is so easy to find the truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Morris. Morris has never been a geologist. Hes not even trained as one. Why do your sources pretend that he is one? To boost the very small number of creationist "geologists"? To pretend that the number is growing?

Edited by Pressie, : Changed a sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 2 days)
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 235 of 320 (633043)
09-12-2011 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Re: Polystrate fossils
Hi JBR,

I can see that you've already had plenty of replies, so just two brief points;

Yet the examples of thousands of polystrate tree and animal fossils I am referring to are found as well preserved at the top portions as they are at the bottom.

1) As well preserved at the top as at the bottom? That doesn't sound like a flood to me. If there are trees fossilised in situ both at the top and the bottom of the formation, they cannot have deposited in a single event. At least, not unless antediluvian trees grew in mid air. What you describe is only consistent with gradual deposition of layer upon layer. No individual layer would have taken millions of years to form, but nor could it have been formed as quickly as you suggest. Such a formation could not possibly have been caused by a single huge flood.

2) Thousands of examples? That's not very many. Surely if the whole of the world was flooded, there would have been entire forests of trees buried by the sediment? We could reasonably expect to see hundreds of millions of such fossils. They would be everywhere, great forests of them. That is not what we see.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Pressie, posted 09-12-2011 8:37 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 237 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2011 8:38 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 241 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 7:45 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 809
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 236 of 320 (633049)
09-12-2011 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Granny Magda
09-12-2011 8:05 AM


Re: Polystrate fossils
Thanks Granny Magda, I missed this.
Just being me writes:

Yet the examples of thousands of polystrate tree and animal fossils I am referring to are found as well preserved at the top portions as they are at the bottom.

Jbm, could you provide an example, with references to trees of course, of one of these occurrences?

Edited by Pressie, : Edited a sentence

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Granny Magda, posted 09-12-2011 8:05 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12751
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 237 of 320 (633050)
09-12-2011 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Granny Magda
09-12-2011 8:05 AM


Re: Polystrate fossils
1) As well preserved at the top as at the bottom? That doesn't sound like a flood to me. If there are trees fossilised in situ both at the top and the bottom of the formation, they cannot have deposited in a single event.

I think he means at the top and the bottom of the tree. Which is in fact not usually true --- the roots are well-preserved and the leaves are not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Granny Magda, posted 09-12-2011 8:05 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

Percy
Member
Posts: 13217
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 238 of 320 (633053)
09-12-2011 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Re: Polystrate fossils
Just being real writes:

Many Geologists say that the strata layers of the geologic column are representative of millions of years of time. In this discussion I will refer to them as uniformitarian geologists, but with the understanding that not all conventional geologists are strict uniformitarians.

I think you're confusing uniformitarianism with gradualism, plus uniformitarianism is not a modifier modern geologists normally apply to themselves, for good historical reasons.

I like Wikipedia's wording, and they say that, "...the uniformitarianism assumption is that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe."

So I guess that means that your non-uniformitarian YEC geologists believe that different natural laws and processes operated at times in the past, during the flood, for example. Any evidence of this?

The reason modern geologists do not normally apply the term uniformitarian to themselves is because historically it included the concept of gradualism, and modern geologists no longer accept strict gradualism. Since an extremely common confusion is to assume that a uniformitarian is a strict gradualist, geologists don't often use the term anymore.

I think what you really mean when you call modern geologists uniformitarians is that they are strict gradualists, which they are not.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Pressie, posted 09-12-2011 9:09 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 809
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 239 of 320 (633056)
09-12-2011 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Percy
09-12-2011 8:57 AM


Actualism
We call ourselves actualists! (Although I haven't heard the terms "actualists" or "uniformatists" or "gradualists" while I was studying. We only studied those rocks. I only heard those terms later from creationists on the net when discovering that some people still think the world is 6 000 years old).

Edited by Pressie, : Added the last part in brackets

Edited by Pressie, : Added another word

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle from "Re: Polystrate fossils" to "Actualism".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Percy, posted 09-12-2011 8:57 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3249
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 240 of 320 (633144)
09-12-2011 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Panda
09-12-2011 5:47 AM


Kettle bottoms and underground mine safety
quote:
Kettle bottoms are smooth, rounded pieces of rock within the mine roof which may drop without warning.

His source

I see no reference to kettle bottoms piercing through several layers.

The kettle bottom discussion is really just a side note about how the so called polystrate trees effect underground mine safety. While that article doesn't specifically say that the kettle bottom rock crosses through strata, I think that such is indeed the case.

While that was indeed an interesting side note (I have worked underground, not in coal), that mine safety reference would have been best left out of the message. It is a distraction, not really added information.

Or something like that.

No replies to this message needed. And this is not the place to discuss working in underground mines.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Panda, posted 09-12-2011 5:47 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
22Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014