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

quote:

---

I have personally looked into the fossil trees of Joggins, Nova Scotia and came to the conclusion that most likely NONE of the upright trees in all of this 14,000 feet of strata are in situ -- meaning that it seems quite likely that they were entombed in this strata as a result of a great flood, such as what we read about in the book of Genesis. For those who want to know more about why (or how) I came to this conclusion, go to Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age and click on the Polystrate Fossil Trees link.

​

...

---

I take it then, that someday you will continue to defend your position over at T-Web? If you think it was too hot for you over there, I don't know what to tell you.

quote:

---

Here is another (much Shorter) "paper" I wrote on Evidences for a Worldwide Flood:
Addr.com

---

Okay, let's check this one out...Here is one evidence:

quote:

---

11. Marine Fossils In The Mountains: In Mountains all over the world one can find sea shells and other marine fossils. These include the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more. 37,38,39,40,41 This
is also discussed in a video by Dr. Walter Brown.

---

That's it? This is your entire explanation of marine fossils in the geological record? And one of your main references is Walt Brown? I'm stunned at the magnitude of your work. You obviously have an advanced degree.Truly, if this is your understanding of marine fossils in the mountains you are going to have a hard time here. Just a guess, of course. Maybe you'll win us all over to your side...

quote:

---

I take it that you didn't like my paper?
Or my last message?

---

No, they were actually quite entertaining. Fiction, of course.

quote:

---

Maybe if I were to agree with you then you would be happy?

---

Seem like you need to lighten up a bit, Randy. And maybe you could thank us for making you think harder about these things.

quote:

---

Would that make you happy?

---

Personally, I couldn't be happier than right now. You make evolution look unassailable.

quote:

---

Don't you want people to come to their own conclusions?

​

Oh, Now I see! You ONLY want people to come to YOUR conclusions?

---

Is that a question or a statement? Actually, I don't care what your conclusions are.

quote:

---

I suppose you also want me to believe that we "evolved" from life that began in a primordial slime pool?

---

I don't care what you believe. Neither do I know how life began. All I can say for sure is that your understanding of science is pathetic.

quote:

---

Happy Days are here again!

---

Again, thank you for providing the entertainment.

quote:

---

I take it that you disagree with my conclusions.
That's OK. I don't agree with everything I read either.

---

Thanks for permission to disagree with you. I feel much better now.

quote:

---

I am curious though as to what you think about the
40 foot upright tree that I uncovered?

---

YOU uncovered it? Well, that changes EVERYTHING!

quote:

---

The one that
Dawson and Lyell didn't want the public to know about?

---

THen why do they mention it in the quotes you reference?

quote:

---

The one that went through a coal seam?

---

This is YOUR conclusion. And, let's see, how much credibility should we give to someone who claims Velikovsky as an authority?

quote:

---

Or what did you think about the other upright tree that
is shown crossing a two foot thick coal seam? The one
that is pictured on my Home Page at Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age?

---

I do not see this. Where is it?

quote:

---

Or what did you think of all those upright trees that
I show that don't have any roots attached? Or the ones
that Brown even admitted that didn't have roots attached:
the ones that Dawson chose to ignore in his books?

---

Not much. I've seen this in modern forests. On the other hand, maybe there is a conspiracy to hide the truth. Did you ever follow up on those black helicopters camouflaged as pterodactyls during the Civil War?

quote:

---

Or what did you think about the other Tree that Dawson
did depict (from the Sydney area) from Brown's writings
-- (In Part Two of my paper) the one that was filled
with White sandstone, yet surrounded above and below with
sediments other than sandstone?

---

Randy, without having even seen the specimen, I can confidently say that it was NOT white sandstone.

quote:

---

Or what did you think of those Quotes that I have on my
page titled "More Flood Evidences" that tell us that there
must have been a Worldwide Flood?

---

You mean Velikovsky? Not much.

quote:

---

Or how about the evidence I give that goes against the
Flooding River scenario in favor of Marine influence one
where the ocean swept over the land? You did read that
part of my paper didn't you? It is in Part Two. I think
it is the Section titled: "Evidence for Marine Influences"
or something like that.

---

Didn't make sense. If you had some training and experience in geology, you would understand.

quote:

---

You need to lighten up and maybe even (God Forbid) THANK ME
for looking a little deeper than what others have done.

---

Riiight. Bill needs to lighten up! Suuure. RAndy, I have read your next post. I can see that you are angry and frustrated. Face it, you have no credibility.

quote:

---

Perhaps it is just possible that the SAME OCEAN CURRENT THAT DEPOSITED THE MARINE SEDIMENTS IN THE COAL STRATA (also with Stigaria, and Lepidodendrons and Sigillaria) in Tennesee and Kentucky and Pensylvania was the same event that also deposted the strata in Nova Scotia??? Perhaps even the Grand Canyon as well.

---

Randy, are you reading your own posts befer submitting them? This is wishful geology on your part. It makes no sense at all. Do you mean the entire GC sequence?

quote:

---

I also predict that in the next few years that there will be other papers published that support the same conclusions that I have come to.

---

THe Great Randy sees all and knows all. Did you consult with Jean Dixon on this?

quote:

---

In fact, it is my hope that Geology students will look into this again for themselves and even challenge their Professors (especially if it turns out -- as I strongly suspect -- that they are wrong).

---

As I said, "hopeful geology". That's all you've got going for you. Your interpretations have been shredded on this board and others and yet you blindly cling to your belief system rather than facts and evidence.

quote:

---

"Emiliani's findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett and Shackleton, who concluded that there was a 'massive inpouring of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River system. At the time of maximum inpouring of this water, surface salinities were...reduced by about ten percent."1

---

So sorry. Doesn't sound like a global flood. In fact, it appears that the Gulf of Mexico is still flooded. What is your point?

quote:

---

The Black Sea Speaks:

​

"Science... has found evidence for a massive deluge that may ... have inspired Noah's tale. About 7,500 years ago, a flood poured ten cubic miles of water a day--130 times more than flows over Niagara Falls - from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea, abruptly turning the formerly freshwater lake into a brackish inland sea."2

​

"In 1993, William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory dug up cores of sediment from the bottom of the Black sea. The cores showed that the sea's outer margins had once been dry land, indicating it had been two-thirds its present size. Furthermore, over the entire sea bottom was a thin, uniform layer of sediment that could only have been deposited during a flood. The researchers also found that within that layer saltwater mollusks appear, all from the Mediterranean and all dating
from around 7600 years ago." 2

---

Yes, more evidence that there is still a flood going on... in the Black Sea.So far, you have shown nothing of significance regarding a global flood, Randy. You are wasting our time.

quote:

---

'Evolution is above all very uneven. Certain periods were outstandingly productive of new and verile forms which often seem to have sprung into existence from nowhere... and to have become dominant almost simultaneously over a large part of the world... How such sudden multiple creations were brought about is a task for the future to determine.'" 3,4

---

Sounds like evolution to me. What do the authors say? YEC or evolution? Seems like you kind of leave that part out.

quote:

---

In that case, then please don't ask me any more questions...

---

Very well. Your inability to answer them is noted.

quote:

---

... -- as I think I would be "wasting my time."

---

The question is, can you provide ANY actual evidence, so that we do not waste any more time here.The problem is that you have extracted your points from a much larger body of evidence, most of which you completely ignore. You talk about a single 40'tree whereas Lyell discusses 'some trees' of 40' length; and then subscribe to some conspiracy to hide evidence from us. And moreover, you say that the tree must extend through a coal bed, even though there is zero evidence for this. Your essay makes no sense at all.

Seems like more of the same, Randy.

quote:

---

The fact that many upright trees in this strata have different bedding than that which surrounds them suggests that they were transported before burial.

---

No explanataion? Why would this indicate transport? To me it just indicates s different mode of sedimentation.

quote:

---

It also appears (from the drawings above) that these two trees do not have attached roots-- again suggesting that they are not in situ.

---

Only if you ignore any possible mechanism for detachement. I can think of a couple.

quote:

---

Note also that Lyell's stump has its base directly over a bed of shale, as opposed to coal.

---

Meaning exactly what?

quote:

---

At first glance, the tree in fig. 2 does appear to be (buried) in growth position, since it has both roots and rootlets attached. Closer inspection reveals that it is probably not in (its original) growth position. For example, the "dark slaty gritty shale" (f in Fig. 1) surrounding the roots appears to extend half-way up the two trees on the left. This suggests that it may not be an ancient soil but rather simply the type of strata (i.e. layered mud) that entombed these trees.

---

Not very convincing, Randy. Many of the soils that these trees grew in were not well developed and often indistinguishable from sediments to the casual observer.

quote:

---

Note also that the "slaty gritty shale" (h) above it buried not only the stumps, but also (what appears to be) their (flattened) tops as well. This suggests that their burial may have been quite rapid.

---

No problem, Randy. Many beds are deposited abruptly in the geological record. We have know this for probably hundreds of years. How did you miss that?Anyway, what does rapid burial have to do with transport? After all, you guys keep telling us how brachipods are buried in life position... Why should this be any different?

quote:

---

In other words, the sediment inside this tree is different than that which surrounds it. Even more significant is the fact that none of the sediments above the tree consist of greyish white sandstone. This is evident from the list of strata types given above (next to Fig. 2). This strongly suggests that this tree is not in its original position of growth, but rather has (also) been uprooted and transported to this location where it sank to the bottom and was buried in two beds of shale and a thin layer of clay. Some may say that since it was filled with sandstone then it could not have been transported -- because it would have been too heavy. However, if we look closely at Fig. 1, we can see what appear to be the tops of these trees still intact and attached. This is significant and may explain how such a heavy tree could have been transported by strong currents (see Part 1: Horizontal Shear).

---

And you guys talk about evolutionists having fanciful stories! Somehow, I don't see how your model wouldn't work as well or even better for an in situ tree...

This is getting silly. So where is the problem? Lyell says 'most of the trees.' To me that indicates that some are rooted elsewhere. That does not explain the issue. In fact, I'd say it is a better model for in situ trees... And many of the trees we see growing today are not rooted in soils at all. Again, what's the problem? Of course not. We are talking about deposition not erosion. Soft sediment deformation is not a problem either. Happens all the time. So, you are making two points then. I see. Interesting though that archeologists can find them in the soil.

quote:

---

By the way, in case anyone is interested. I seem to have found a few drawings of some of those "local" incursions by the sea. See Link below.

---

Ah, a reference from 1894! Very timely. Interesting scale also, at which to see local incursion, that is.

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.

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...

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

You have not posted any such evidence. If you have, please explain. The Berthault 'experiment' is completly bogus. I have explained why, but you have very conveniently ignored it. Randy, when most of the sedimentary section is made of sediments of finer grain-size than sand and deposited in open waters, why would we model the entire sedimentary record with sand flowing down a flume? This is not a rhetorical question. This requires currents (such as in the flume exercize of Brethault), that cannot deposit shales, to deposit the entire Palezoic section in a matter of days. And yet we see numerous shale units such as the Bright Angel and the Hermit along with limestones such as the Mauv, Temple Butte, Redwall and Kaibab to be deposited by Brethault's mechanism for sandstones.And that is only the Paleozoic section, omitting the entire Precambrian, Mesozoic and Tertiary rock sequences, which also include numerous depositional environments which include swamps, fluvial and deserts. This is getting to be a very interesting flood? Add to this complexity, the presence of several unconfomities, one of which is a distinct angular unconformity and we are fast running out of the flood timeframe.Here are a couple of websites regarding the Grand Canyon that I have found interesting over the years:Origin of the Grand Canyon - Index PageThis one describes how the actual carving of the canyon probably occurred. http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/This one is more of a geophysical look at the Grand Canyon area. I don't think you want to go here, Randy. How did these rocks not only become deposited, but also lithify so that a canyon could actually form? If the rocks were soft, as many YECs claim, then the walls of this canyon would be impossible to hold. Yes there was a lot of water here. However, there was also dry land. How do you explain eolian sands and fluvial deposits in the middle of a global flood. Not to mention the terrestrial trace fossils? Check out the Coconino Sandstone section at this site along with descriptions of the tracks:http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm" . . . we should state clearly that the evidence for flooding is nonexistent. The protomammal tracks [in the Coconino - ed] are often found in association with with countless trackways of spiders, scorpions, and other desert arthropods that could not have been walking around underwater" (p. 69). (Lockley et al. (1994). The Distribution of Sauropod Tracks and Trackmakers. Gaia, v. 10., December, and Lockley, M., and Hunt, A. (1996). Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States.) Why? You do not make this clear. What evidence do you have that explicitly states very short periods of time as opposed to longer periods that most people accept? What will you use to convince us? Where is the evidence for such a phenomenon? Do you have an analogy? Why are there meanders in the Colorado River channel if the waters 'rushed off'? Check out my first reference above. As I have said, repeatedly, this is not unrecognized by geologists. Some processes are rapid, some are slow. And individual bed can be deposited during a single storm. I really think you are disregarding my posts, please try reading them. Again, this is not outside of mainstream geology. I have seen trees tilted by mudflows and volcanic flows and still remain in position for the next event. Besides, this is excellent evidence for an in situ origin. Do you really think that a tree with its roots abraided away and settled into a soft sediment will stay upright when these rapidly developing currents and sand deposits occur? I don't think so. No, it could be tilted from an in situ position. In fact, this is more likely. But remember, Brethault tells you that this happens under higher flow regimes. How does the tree settle much less become planted in the bottom of the river? It is? You KNOW this? Were you there? Don't you think you are being a bit dogmatic here? Sorry, been there, done that. Some of it several times. It makes no sense (as I have explained before, and you have apparently ignored before). I shortened yet another long url to fix the page width. I know some of you have been here long enough to know about this issue. Please look in Peek to see how I fixed this. - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-22-2005 21:05 AM

Interesting comment. How then, do you rationalize these statements from you website? Quoting Calder: Pray tell, then, just what an inland aquatic community is if it does not include rivers and lakes which both imply emergent land? Have you ever read anything about the Supai Group in the GC?And from the Nova Scotia DNR website where you are arguing for rapid flooding: My first question is, "what is the source of abundant sediments"?My second question is, "if this model is 'unusual' then why do you wish to indiscriminantly apply it to the entire Phanerozoic section of North America"? You NEED to explain this.It seems to me that you have given a perfect mainstream explanation for the Joggins rocks.

Oh sure. We see this all the time. The upper parts of logs being dry while floating on the ocean.... Especially in a violent flood, 'the big one' as you like to say. And burning, too. Sure.By the way, what do you suppose happened to that ark when volcanic ash fell on it? I guess Noah was just lucky, eh? You're not really touting the 'floating forest' business are you? And guess what... We see trees not firmly rooted in soil laying around in forests today! Did a flood deposit them also? And just how do you explain the soils, anyway? Randy, a brief logic class is in order. You are saying that because some logs in channel deposits are 'drift logs' that all logs are 'drift logs'? Sorry, it doesn't follow. We can find 'drift' logs along many rivers today with standing, in situ trees nearby. If drift logs are related to a flood, then... where's the flood?