Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)

Edge: That does not explain the issue. In fact, I'd say it is a better model for in situ trees...Randy: Sorry but if the trees were in situ (or buried in the place where they grew), then the sediments around, and/or above the tree should be the SAME as those inside of it. But since they are both different than the sediments that are inside the trees, then this indicates the the different sediments in the tree (along with the tree itself) must have come from somewhere else -- meaning that the trees must have been "Transported" to this location.--------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: And many of the trees we see growing today are not rooted in soils at all. Again, what's the problem?Randy: No problem for the Drift Theory, but MAJOR Problem for the In Situ hypothesis because Missing Roots indicate Transported Trees. Also, large Trees are usually rooted in some type of soil. Also, many of the underclays display Fragmentation of Stigmaria Roots -- indicating that the roots themselves have also been transported.---------------------------------------------------------------------Edge: Of course not. We are talking about deposition not erosion.Randy: Yes but if the two contacts were separated by thousands or Millions of years, then we should see evidence of this in the form of Erosion between the layers. I.E. a Jagged contact as opposed to a flat one -- as we in fact do see in about 95% of the strata today.-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: Soft sediment deformation is not a problem either. Happens all the time.Randy: It happened so much in the past precicely because the strata were (virtually) all deposited withing a One year time frame -- as a result of a worldwide flood. But would never happen if the two layers were separted by (say) 80 Million years. See Below excerpt from:Is the Continental Drift Theory Real? – Earth AgeClastic Dikes: According to Roth, "a clastic dike is a cross cutting body of sedimentary material which has been intruded into a foreign rock mass." 9"These dikes... (may) penetrate horizontal sedimentary strata (or) they may occur... in igneous and metamorphic rocks. The process of formation of a clastic dike is analogous to wet sand oozing up between ones toes, but on a much larger scale." 9Clastic dikes present a problem to the "millions of years" mindset of evolutionary thinking in that "millions of years" older sediments are found intruding up into overlying younger ones while still in a plastic state. This presents a profound and puzzling question:What took these older sediments so long to become hard?One would think that 80--400million years would be more than enough time to turn massive sand-laden sediments into sandstone, 9,10,11 yet these were still in a wet and plastic state when an earth movement caused them to be forced up into "younger" sediments. Such things place serious strain on the evolutionary method of "dating" rock formations. They also provide us with very strong evidence that massive amounts of sediments were laid down rapidly, and suggest that the Earth isn't very old at all.Refs:
9. Roth, A., 1977, "Clastic dikes," Origins, vol. 4, pp. 53-55.
Quoted from "Catastrophes in Earth History," Austin, Steven A.
Ph.D. (Geology), Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA
92021, 1984, pp. 123-124
10. Morris, John D., Ph.D. (geology), The Young Earth, 1994, Creation
Life Publishers, Inc., pp. 109-112.
11. Kelsey, Martin, and Denton, Harold, "Sandstone Dikes Near ockwall,
Texas," University of Texas Bulletin, No. 3201, 1932, pp.Hope that helps,
Randy

Sorry about my last Ref. #11 being incomplete. It is reposted in its entirety below:Kelsey, Martin, and Denton, Harold, "Sandstone Dikes Near Rockwall, Texas," University of Texas Bulletin, No. 3201, 1932, pp. 138-148. See also Contributions to Geology, 1932. 216 pp.; This reference was obtained from Dr. Morris' book "The Young Earth, (ref. # 10 above), p. 111.Cheers.
RB

Re: The Longest Documented Upright Trees at Joggins:Bill Stated: "Actually, another geologist, whom I know, has been looking into that in great detail and has inquired with the geologists, who have been studying the Joggins outcrop. In the 140-160 since Dawson (1855) wrote about the Joggins locality, none of the numerous geologists, including creationists, Coffin and Rupke, have found an upright trunk anywhere near 40 feet high. The highest one that has ever been observed by them was 5.7 meters (18.5 feet high)."Bill: I don't mean to portray geologists as ignorant, but this information, along with the references, has been on my site now for the past 8 months -- and is available to any and all who care to inquire. But I will list the refs. again below -- along with more details for those who are interested.1. The 25 foot upright tree was mentioned both by Lyell AND Dawson as
being both "erect" and/or "piercing the beds of sanstone." For it
was not only mentioned along with the 40 foot upright tree in
Lyell's book, but also by Dawson in his bed by bed review. For
all of those who care to verify this the references are:22. Dawson, John W., 1855, Acadian Geology, p. 159; See also
Acadian Geology, 1868, p. 188. And Note how few details that
Dawson gives with regard to the 40 foot tree. Note also that
DOES NOT say that it was prostrate or a fallen over log.
23. Lyell, Sir Charles, "Life of Sir Charles Lyell," Vol. II, 1881,
p. 65. See also: Bell, W.A., 1912,"Joggins Carboniferous
Section of Nova Scotia", Can. Geol. Surv. Sum. Report; p. 328.
25. ***ibid. ref. 5, p. 26.***
5. Dawson, 1854, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, Vol. 10, p.26.
Regarding the Drifted Trunk deposits see pp. 4-27. This is
were Dawson gives a bed by bed review of the strata and (in
plain English) mentions a 25 foot erect tree. I can say that
because I looked it up myself.But that's not all Bill, because Schuchert also mentions the 25 foot upright "log" at Joggins:"Standing logs have been admired by all geologists since Richard Brown discovered them in 1929 and the drawings of them by Logan, Lyell, and Dawson have been repeated in most text-books of Geology. They are from all lengths up to 25 feet.From: Pirsson and Schuchert, A Text-Book of Geology, Part II, by Charles Scuchert, p. 784, 1915. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New YorkSo we have Two Geologists and one Lawyer, here who disagree with you and all of the "other geologists" with whom you have been speaking. And in this case, it appears that the Lawyer may have been the one closest to the truth, for he also linked the 25 foot tree to a 40 foot one -- (in the same sentence) with these words:"...and some have been seen of 40 feet, piercing the beds of sandstone and terminating downwards in the same beds, usually coal.."23I also give refererence to a 38 foot upright tree that was found in Enland. The ref is on my web page at Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age See "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia, Part 1
See also: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199702/0115.htmlSee also: Niklas, K.J. Predicting the height of fossil plant remains: An allometric approach to an old problem: American Journal of Botany 1994 vol. 81, pp 1235-1243; where I am told that there is reference to a 12 meter upright fossil tree. I do not have this myself and so I cannot assert with confidence that this is correct. Perhaps someone here would care to look it up and report on it.Bill Continues:
(NOTE: According to informed sources, the report documenting this 12-foot high, 150-year old polystrate tree is in review and will available for purchase in about 3 months, more or less).Or you can simply look up the refs that I have provided above -- Although I must admit that neither Dawson nor Lyell were very interested in giving us many details.Note also that Rupke gives reference to a 25 meter upright tree (or on that was approx. 80 feet long).Good Day,
Randy

That is a silly notion based on a preconceived idea. You have completely disregarded the possibility of depostion at a different time and/or from a different source (which your model seems to show, by the way). If you are going to transport trees by a violent means that would strip the bark and stigmaria, but still containing soft sediment from a different location to their present site, and not somehow disrupt the bedding, you have a lot of explaining to do. Who said they are separated by thousands or millions of years? You've been reading too much Hovindite sources. Randy, I wish you guys would get on the same page. On another thread Faith is telling us that the strata 'all over the world' were basically laid down conformably parallel, without interruption for extended periods of geological time. Here you tell us that 95% are unconformable. Why can't you come together a little bit and then you'd be where mainstream geology is. Some processes are rapid, some are slow; some are conformable, some are not... I have virtually no problem with conformable erosional unconformities in the right type of environment.(Regarding the ubiquity of soft-sediment deformation): That does not necessarily follow. It is completely neutral in discriminating between a one year and much longer timeframes. Add to that the fact that all geologists agree that some processes are rapid and other slow, and your whole point becomes totally irrelevant. See above. Some deposition is rapid, others slow. Lithification likewise: it partly depends on the pace of dewatering the sediments. This is not an issue except for those gullible enough to follow YEC teachings that misrepresent mainstream geology. If you have a specific example, this would be a good time to mention it. Making these general assertions don't carry much water on this site. That is why we prefer to have professionals do the geology. Yes! Indeed! Some deposition is very fast. Particularly on the geological time scale. We have known this for hundreds of years. No, that is not a logical conclusion. You and others may assert so all you wish, but there is other evidence that you choose to ignore. What if there are millions of such events separated by many years at a time? YOu have completely disregarded this likelyhood and, as such, have brought the scientific integrity of your entire essay into serious question.

Edge Said: "You and others may assert so all you wish, but there is other evidence that you choose to ignore."Randy: You mean like you just ignored almost everything I said?Edgea: "What if there are millions of such events separated by many years at a time?"Randy: What if they were NOT separated by "years" but rather only minutes or hours? Since they could -- at the time of their formation -- virtually all be bent over and twisted like slices of swiss cheese, then it is also quite logical to conclude that they were NOT separated my much time at all. This is not rocket science.Edge: "You have... brought the scientific integrity of your entire essay into serious question.Randy: My paper is well documented, and makes a LOT more sense than the oft-repeated evolutionary "dogma" being forced upon the past 5 generations of geologists -- who are, just now (in recent times) beginning to see it for what it is: I.E. A bankrupt theory that is based more on fanciful imaginations and wild speculation than on hard facts. There is also a ZERO chance that life (or anything close to it) could have "evolved" without the AID and DIRECTION of a CREATOR /GOD.Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age
Evolution Theory vs Creationism – How Old Is The Earth? – Earth Age
How Simple Can Life Be? | Answers in Genesis
Page not found – Earth Age
Page not found – Earth Age
Page not found – Earth Age
Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood – Earth Age:
Sedimentation Experiments: Is Extrapolation Appropriate? Reply From Video Creator - Part 2 | Answers in Genesis
http://www.creationtruth.com/Bookstore/Video/V-022.htm
www.icr.org/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen...
Page not found – Creation In The CrossfireGood Day,
Randy shortened url length to fix page width - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-21-2005 20:32 AM

Well, then, show that they ARE only separated by seconds or minutes. Something that tells us this would be called 'evidence.' I'm sure you've heard of it. Correct. It is geology. Now, the point is that mainstream geologists have been saying that some processes are rapid, and others are slow (am I repeating myself here?). We have know this for hundreds of years why can you not follow this argument? LOL! I cann document holocaust denial as well. The point is that you don't have the background to critically analyze what your sources tell you. Ah, so that's why you have this vendetta against geology. I never would have guessed. Kind of slipping off topic, however.What particular dogma are you talking about by the way? That some geological processes are rapid while others are slow? That has been my only real point in this entire thread. Only to a YEC would that seem dogmatic...

I know it is a lot of work for very little gain but I don't think I've seen your critical analysis of the references that you were given Edge. Perhaps this needs to slow down and have more detailed analysis.

Actually not true. Randy's main reference is his website of which I have done a short critical analysis of some of the contained comments. Most of the following posts devolved from that. Basically, he follows the old YEC operating procedure of exclusively using YEC sites, except to quote-mine a few mainstream geologists, seemingly with the objective of ridiculing them. I think we all know what his most recent list of references will say. This has been hashed over on this board several times in the recent past. However, perhaps I shall look into some of them, but I was hoping that he accurately portrayed their contents.This message has been edited by edge, 02-21-2005 22:36 AM

Okay, here is one of Randy's references:(Adde by edit: This is an ICR reference,
www.icr.org/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen...
First of all they can't even get this right. It is 'Colorado State University'... Okay, anyone want to pick on this one? For starters:First of all, the tract does not tell us that all of these experiments were conducted on uniform, sand-sized particles in a flume. They have nothing to do with variable sedimentary sequences or finer-grained deposits occuring below base level.Second, the phenomena produced by Berthault is known as cross-bedding which has been explained by geologists for at least a hundred years. The question Berthault should be asking is how long does it take for a set of cross-beds to form, and be preserved. The experiment does not tell us this.Third, in every case, any vertical sample through the section will be explained accurately by the principle of superposition. If one wants to compare different sites along the bed, that would not be normal geological reasoning.Fourth, as I have presented to Randy, there is NOTHING in geology that is against rapid processes, including some sedimentary ones. Cross-bedding is KNOWN to occur rapidly. The question, as indicated above, is how long does it take to deposit the Navajo Sandstone, not one of its cross-laminations.This message has been edited by edge, 02-21-2005 22:56 AM shortened url to fix page width - the QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-21-2005 22:36 AM

Edge: Well, then, show that they ARE only separated by seconds or minutes. Something that tells us this would be called 'evidence.' I'm sure you've heard of it.Just order either of the videos that I posted links to and you can see it with your own eyes -- how different stata layers can be formed (and have been demonstrated to form) spontaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------Edge: Ah, so that's why you have this vendetta against geology.RB: No vendetta against geology, just against slanting it in order to "prove" something that CANNOT be true -- i.e. evolutionary fairytales.Edge: I never would have guessed. Kind of slipping off topic, however.RB: You mean providing Solid proof that Evolution Cannot be true?Edge:What particular dogma are you talking about by the way?RB: The "dogma" that the upright trees are "in situ" and that the coals were formed over "mythions of years." And the "dogma" that Radiometric Dating "proves" that the Earth is "bythions of years old."Good Day,
RB

I've just looked at this thread and see the paralells. I was in that thread with Faith and did what I thought I wouldn't which was lose my temper.Its one thing to get mad when speaking, but having to type out replies should give one time to get 'cooly academic' again, particularly while hunting and pecking like I do. Apologies to all there here, as that thread is closed.Differences in debate style favor Randy here; he at least has a lot of material and references and isn't afraid to quote them.The similarities are telling though, and ignoring information of the quality of Bill B is to be expected. Holding on to the 'river formation' argument of the Joggins fossils when it has been explained that the area is prone to fresh/brackish/salt water cycling of environments seems to be glaring.Ned is probably right that it is a lot of work for little gain to discuss Randy's sources, but it seems to me Bill B covered this by use of his sources, even if it doesn't always explicitly refute specific Randy sources. I guess someone must do it, but I'll await another Bill B. post as he seems to be an expert here, and my formal geology was freshman level some years ago.What I have enjoyed from these threads are the excellent links from several posters. Some of the stratigraphical info about the Grand Canyon were good info and Bill's link to forminafera were very instructive.Also, a number of Randy's links are to his webpage which seem to have a lot of Hovind flavor to them. Answers to many questions here are in the previously mentioned How Good are those Young-Earth ArgumentsAt least its a change of pace, being in Randy B's blizzard as opposed to Faith's fog.Hopefully Bill will soon find enough oil, time and patience to get back to us as I find his posts fascinating.ABB

Edge: Fourth, as I have presented to Randy, there is NOTHING in geology that is against rapid processes, including some sedimentary ones.RB: That should be "including virtually ALL sedimentary ones" -- as the best evidence seems to indicate that Not only the whole 14,000 foot sequence at Joggins, but also that of the Grand Canyon itself, was laid down -- and eroded quite rapidly, just as the WHOLE (as least) 30 mile wide Valley at Monument Valley (North East of the Grand Canyon) was as well - leaving behing the large sandstone pillars, as Monuments to the MASSIVE Amount of water that poured through that area in a (almost certainly) a VERY short time period, and very likely eroding the whole Grand Canyon area as well (at the same time) as the Water rushed rapidly off of the Continent.Edge: Cross-bedding is KNOWN to occur rapidly. The question, as indicated above, is how long does it take to deposit the Navajo Sandstone, not one of its cross-laminations.I point out a 7 foot thick layer of homogeneous sandstone (i.e. one "layer" that is 7 feet thick) in my paper on the Nova Scotia "Fossil Forests" -- in which a 15 foot upright tree is seen crossing this layer -- thus indicating that the layer was (very likely) deposted rapidly (in my opinion less than a day). Otherwise, if it were over many year, or even months, it would be laminated. And the fact that an upright tree is crossing it tells us that it definitely wasn't deposited over long period of time.I also have (in my possession) a drawing of a (as I seem to recall) 48 (or thereabouts) foot inclined tree that was found to cross (diagonally) about ten different lamina (each from about 1-3 feet in thickness). The only logical explanation for this is that it was buried while it was floating in a partially upright (inclined) position. This would only occur under extremely rapid sedimentation circumstances. This is also what occurred with the 25 meter tree (that's 80 feet long) that was documented by Fairholm. See Part 1 of my paper on Polystrate Fossils -- for a link with more details.RB

Banana: The similarities are telling though, and ignoring information of the quality of Bill B is to be expected. Holding on to the 'river formation' argument of the Joggins fossils when it has been explained that the area is prone to fresh/brackish/salt water cycling of environments seems to be glaring.Randy: I'm sorry to inform you but the "River formation" argument simply doesn't hold water. According to Calder (who is one of the most knowledgable geologists on this area) -- the Strata at Joggins was deposited continously. In other words, as the ground was subducting, the layers were continually being added. This also, along with the "glaring" missing root problem, and Fragmented Stigmaria Problem, leave very little, if any, time or evidence for the growth of "in situ" trees. Below are a few more links that you may or may not have already checked out.Also, I am sorry to inform you (and Bill) but Rivers simply DON"T deposit continous Strata over 45 km wide areas -- at least not ANY rivers that we have today on plantet Earth. See previous post, or my Fossil Forest paper.
See also:Page not found – Earth Age
Page not found – Earth AgeSee also: Extensive Roots Systems Or Root Systems Extensively Missing ? at:
The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth AgeCheck out Some of the "local" floods from the past: "local" as in almost all of North America, -- if you haven't already: See Link Below:Page not found – Earth AgeIn His Service,
Randy

I'll have to be brief in response to the first three links and first few points, as the Joggins material are new to me and I'm starting to read the links and google some others.A quick perusal of message 21 by Bill talks about 'rhythms' of layers that alternate between brackish water deposits and costal plains,with periodic subductive episodes that cause the alternations. Continuous deposition doesn't seem inconsistent here.As to river strata formation, some googling led me to this site http://www.cox-internet.com/coop/deltawebpage.html
where in figure 12 one sees that several lobes of Mississippian deltic material approach 45km and exceed that figure in total. Rivers deposit alot of material in their deltic fans.I didn't research this, so perhaps I'll be corrected, but that freshman geo course taught that many oil deposits are found in these deltic areas because of the accumulation of organic materials that are capped by deposited sediments.I'll have to study on the root problem so no comment there yet.As to the last link I have no problem with the info,as old as it is. It is probably accurate as far as it goes because I'm pretty sure that geologic mapping of rock layers in North America was probably well under way by then. Another research topic for me there. And as to its interpretation vis-a-vis a global Flood I really don't have a problem. The area reresents a large inundation relative to present, but using conventional geological dating the Silurian/ Carbon Age boundry was about 400 million years ago and while lacking expressed detail of the area involved, the site Dinosauria On-Line shows the positions of the continental masses at that time. I note that North America was much smaller then and that large land masses existed elsewhere in the world. And even with the large inundation there are still large parcels of North American land in the figures from 1894. I consider this a large but regional influx of the seas then present and far from worldwide.Rhetorically it is better to know a lot about a few subjects than virtually nothing at all. And far be it from me to steer you from a subject that you have looked at extensively, yet to look at many different situations in their context says more than completely focusing on one. It seems to me that focusing on the Joggins fossils exclusively is a tactic I've seen before. By focusing on one involved or highly technical issue one can try to cast doubt on the whole(polonium halos come to mind).But again, far be it from me...I look forward to my education on Joggins.ABB

For all the discussion about catastrophic deposition I always wonder why all the discussion about overtly non-catastrophic deposition is ignored. My favorite example of non-catastrophic deposition is evaporite deposits. I have yet to find a creationist who is able to provide even a remotely plausible explanation of how alternating and/or massive evaporite layers can form under water.All quotes taken from: Oops! We ran into some problems. | Internet Infidels Discussion Board The only creationist explanation that I could find in the article and elsewhere online talks about underwater hydrothermal vents. They claim that the purity of certain evaporite deposits necessarily negates the possibility of formation via the classical model of alternating wet/dry climate conditions. The "fact" of this impurity suggests that these deposits were formed under water via the interaction of hot and cold sea water.What this explanation ignores is that many evaporite deposits are not pure in the slightest. Many evaporite formations contain contaminants and are even part of alternating sedimentation layers necessarily incompatible with a hydrothermal origin. If that isn't enough, most evaporite deposits are not found near areas that evidence hydrothermal activity. Also, current hydrothermal systems are acting in a manner that does not support the formation of evaporites via hydrothermal reaction. More examples of how evaporite deposits are incompatible with a hydrothermal origin are listed at that link including how evaporite deposits are often associated with trace fossils of subarial environments.So while all the cataclysmic stuff is going on over at Joggins Cliffs we have slow deposition happening in arid environments all over the place. It is one thing to show how one location's geologic history is that of quick burial and another to show that the rest of the geologic record can be explained by cataclysm. In particular, evaporite deposits among other slow forming sedimentary layers are utterly irreconcilable with a global flood.Thanks,

---

By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show