Polystrata fossils

Polystrata fossils is evidence that suggests it does not take long for layers to form and also it suggests that the fossils were rapidly buried.I would like to discuss this topic for it to be understood and to be
pondered.This link from talk.origins does not adequately explain how they transcend through multiple rock strata.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.htmlThis is part of my rebuttal I had posted in this here thread. Also from said website: The inference is probably correct. The original location is questioned. Could it not be reasonable inferred that trees could be carried and redeposited? Also, could it not be reasonably inferred that it could have been a localized rapid layering? And if either of these conclusions are brought into speculation, it calls into question the origin of the other stratas and the time it would take to form.This is the issue I would like to discuss: By having polystrata fossils present in multiple rock strata does this not suggest that rapid burial is plausible?The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

Thanks for the reply first off.The Sleeping Bear Dunes are fascinating for sure, however I noticed it was given a date of about 2000 years. I have no problem with this. I understand the claims that some roots of these polystrate trees are found in paleosols. I haven't been able to find examples of paleosols in the geologic column. I think, with the permission of the Admin's, that we should amend the topic to include paleosols and the how they are labeled and how this relates to polystrate fossils.Paleosols seem to entertain a dichotomy between definitions.
Paleosol - WikipediaAfter reading this:
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
I am wondering if I am missing something. I understand your point somewhat and if I may, I will paraphrase.
Trees now can be buried without water or flooding. Also, rapid burial needs no water or flooding. Sound right?My question is: Are these trees in the Bear Dunes located within multiple strata? It looks to me similar soil. But how do I know?? Upon further investigation, I found no examples of this. Could you help me out? It's not that I don't believe you, it is perhaps I am looking for the wrong thing? The question then is: If it is possible that in areas where there are polystrate fossils found that rapid deposition would be the best explanation, why wouldn't this logic work for the rest of the rock strata?Edit: I was wondering if we could move this to a two party discussion? Perhaps a great debate? dwise seems to just want to argue, whereas I started this thread to learn. If anyone feels they are the most qualified to represent I would appreciate a reply. I would like to request Razd has he seems more willing to put up with me, thanks Edited by Highestevolvedwhiteguy, : No reason given.

Aren't most of the polystrate fossils found in areas that are no longer buried and in contact with the air?http://www.plainscreation.org/...ic/Flood_files/image009.jpg
http://www.ianjuby.org/polystrate2.jpg
Page not found - Creation ResearchTherefore would it be fair to suggest that geology has yet to uncover a majority of the earth, and also that there could be these forests? The reason would be that if they were uprooted prior to deposition, this would indicate a major event...such as a flood. The big deal would be that if creation science can show that it is possible for rapid deposition of multiple layers of sediment to laid down quickly then it would show that it could be possible for this to happen in areas with a similar type of geologic column.

I don't mean to patronize you, however, it seems as if your trying to shrug the topic of uniformity off and to remove the possibility of a world wide flood. I know your reaction will state that there isn't any evidence for a world wide flood, however I think the same evidence you use for uniformity can suggest catastrophic flood.Would you agree that without uniformitariansim the geological "evidence" would be speculation instead of "fact?" Also, would it be reasonable to state that uniformitarian thought reflects the same type of idea that biblical flood thought would suggest; by this I mean that folks like Charles Lyell tried to prove an old earth in the face of young earth fanaticism of the day? And if this is so, why is it that YEC gets accused of using this innocent until proven guilty method? I searched for "Gastaldo, R.A., I. Stevanovic-Walls, and W.N. Ware, 2004," to no avail. It is not that I disbelieve the report, but it seems rather vague in description and could have been an evil evolution conspiracy. Humor me with another example with possibly a detailed description and pics. If the breakdown of my argument rests with Gestaldo I think I might have a case. Varves could be another matter entirely that still rests upon the uniformity principle. However, I have read refutations on paleosols.http://www.creationwiki.net/Varves Missing Link | Answers in Genesis What is your un-biased opinion? I wouldn't assume it would. However, if some type of varves could be shown to be created *by a massive flood, then we might have a discussion. For now, I wouldn't argue against this.Another question and please humor poor ol' me: Let's assume that there are no valves or paleosols found in the rock strata what is to stop anyone from suggesting biblical flood geology isn't possible? I for one would like to stretch the topic to discuss more of these, while continuing with the polystrate discussion.Can you answer this one? You guys left it out.
My question is: Are these trees in the Bear Dunes located within multiple strata? It looks to me similar soil. But how do I know??Edited by Highestevolvedwhiteguy, : oops

So Charles Lyell came up with the theory of relativity? It isn't a question of is it reasonable, more does it contradict what is accepted at the time when this uniformitarian thought emerged. People believed in the flood, this uniformitarian idea suggested nothing in contrast. The idea that layers represents ages coupled with this uniformitarian idea poses a contradiction. Why was this allowed to flourish? I have three hypotheses.1) There was no contradictory evidence.
2) People saw no reason to try to contradict the Bible and thus did nothing.
3) There were no proponents of this ideal.To directly answer your question, uniformitarianism isn't unreasonable. Apply it beyond the flood, and we have a debate. The Hovind theory is pretty convincing. Also, if there were no decaying properties in the garden of eden or pre-flood this would affect the decay rates. A desperate creationist? From: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

The alleged soils did not form by subaerial weathering over a long time, but by in situ ”weathering’ during and after the global Flood. In the final analysis, unless it has been historically attested, the concept of a paleosol is merely an interpretation, not an observed scientific fact.

---

Sounds like paleosols are interpreted.

The flood waters could excess and recede over certain areas multiple times. By the time it deposited a certain layer, it could have started to re-root, as the air was still saturated with higher levels of oxygen, the trees still had all the elements and nutrition it would need for rapid re-rooting and the electromagnetic field was greater which would aid in healing.The electromagnetic healing theory is mine, and is based on my experience in Quantum Touch. It really works even when someone is asleep so it isn't a magical mind trick. Also, I can change the taste of wine and beer and take the carbonation out of coke. Even my skeptical science friend even admits its power. Check it out, it's a great skill:Energy Healing | Quantum-Touch Techniques | Healing Power of Love Edited by Highestevolvedwhiteguy, : No reason given.

It doesn't match the evidence when polystrata fossils are introduced. It only fits the evidence when willed to. The basic principles of geology doesn't suggest that each layer is a certain age. "...that stands up to testing" is the key phrase. Creationists have to admit the implausiblity of reconstructing the pre-flood world because of the differences of the pre-flood world. Your uniformity theory makes science relatively easy, by just supposing that everything has always worked the same based off of an old earth premise. I do have evidence. Personal experience evidence. It's too bad you won't ask for the same evidence it's easy. Wait until your by yourself, ask Jesus to show you the truth, but you have to do this in honesty and faith. Just take a small leap, and it will change you.I reviewed the link and I agreed somewhat with your asking for another explanation of tree rings. I will battle that as soon as I get a chance and will open up my own thread so we can discuss it in all its detail. Sound good? I looked at that pic close and I did not see any evidence of roots, and baby i've planted alot of trees. There has to be another explanation because the picture tells an interesting story. If it was a slow progression like you suggest, then why isn't there more of the tree before it reroots? It looks like rapid deposition. http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
The one that says hovind theory, perhaps you will enjoy this. around 4500 years give or take. Now you'll talk at me about tree rings, so lets save this until we get done here.

I get the feeling that you have said this so many times it has become automaton. I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts that polystrate tree fossils were laid down by rapid sedimentation. I read that since the original roots were in a specific layer this proved slow sedimentation. Then it was stated that geology has no problem with rapid sedimentation as long as we don't invoke a WW flood because it could be caused by local flooding. I tried to point out that if polystrate trees were the only thing holding flood geology back then we had a debate. It was made clear that there were other areas where rapid sedimentation could be contradicted in strata not containing polystrate fossils. I recieved these things:1) Paleosols. Which are called into question by the article I provided.
2) Dry deposition. Which hasn't been shown to produce multiple strata via my question that was skirted over.
3) Varves. Which don't contradict flood geology and also can't be shown to provide a constant rate as a minimal deposition has been observed.
4) Uniformitariansim. Which is an easy out, as we say in poker, but hardly a scientific fact.
5) Regenerative growth of roots. Looks to me like rapid sedimentation, the evidence from the picture clearly looks (if they are in fact roots) like it branched out in a quick fashion while deposition was occurring.
6) Evaporites. I'm not really sure how this applies but I did some homework. Evaporites could form without evaporation (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceSo that is the evidence I have viewed. Yet you say:

quote:

---

polystrata fossils form naturally in a number of ways. That the layers are a "certain age" or have relative age differences is irrelevant to them being laid down at different times.

---

None of the evidence shown reflects this. Did I miss something? We have the same evidence you do, yet prescribed to a different assumption to interpret the data. Well I'm glad you at least got the gist. Everyone will disagree with someone on some point sometime. Hovind criticized the creationist establishment on backing down on issues he still believed to be relevant instead of pandering to the opposition. You seem like the type of person who would do the same, so? Should I stop interacting with you or people who disagree with the established "fact?" As much as you would like to poison my well I will admit there are a few things I disagree with Hovind on, as I'm sure you disagree with somethings that Darwin said or did. I go with the classic 4350 give or take 10 years.

Both. You point at this "evidence" and expect me to just believe that it can't be refuted and it is a universal fact. Just by telling me it is a fact, and yet I find refutations on it, it makes me wonder if your really reading anything I'm typing. How do we know the layers are actually sub-aerial? How do we know that the erosion took place? How do we know that exposed rock represents the respective layer throughout? Is there pictures of columns containing more than one paleosol layer? How long does it take for this particular organic activity to occur? Could the organic activity occurred whence buried? This particular instance still has the same type of material in the strata and by this it seems something of this magnitude can happen rather quickly. The Lake Suigetsu & The Green River varves; do these contradict the global flood deadline?Let's open a thread about Uniformitariansim. Perhaps the roots don't grow instantly today. and perhaps they didn't during the flood. I didn't suggest the trees were buried entirely if you read my just-so story, it was eventually buried entirely within a month or so. also, it could be pre-flood rock.As for the evaporites, could someone explain how they fit into this discussion. I seem to be lost on the subject. I'm not disagreeing with anything so far, yet I was under the impression most of the evidence was based on interpretation and not universal fact. No, the evidence hasn't made any impression on me other to say that science believes this to be true so should I.___
The basics of geology apply to what can be observed, but assumed that the earth has operated the same way always for billions of years. Basic geology for catastrophism only goes so far back before it is erroneous. So this proves your uniformitarianism true? Or does it suggest that it is the best available to do science of the past?

If geologists ran into something supernatural they would use ways to naturally explain it, or they would deny it. You think these scientists are objective truth telling machines who are massively equipped with the highest state of morals and ethics. If they ain't getting no grant money fo' day work cuz uncle bob thinks Godidit, well hell, theys goin' ta find nother way of splainin' things.

Your the one who is showing me a red picture and then calling it blue, so to speak. Your twisting the "evidence" to support your conclusions. I'm not avoiding any evidence. But, yes let us stick to polystrata fossils. What I am suggesting in one way, is that if the physics and/or physical relationships were different in any way it could be suggested that it couldn't be under any but the exact same circumstances to be validated by accurate testing. My hypothetical example would be an air tight room filled with pure oxygen (old world) then something caused the door to open and the result would be a mixture of elements that is testable now. If you want to call that magic, thats fine. Although I loosely suggested it, I would rather discuss the evidence within modern parameters. Why would we expect this? And what evidence is there to suggest that this isn't the case? I was under the impression that coal was made up of organic material which could include animals. I've never seen a plant run, but I have seen animals run. Why couldn't we assume that the animals headed for higher shelter during the flood? This would explain this quite well. What do you think would be evidence for a differing set of physical laws, if that were the case? Also, why would any scientist claim something like supernatural causes even if they did find "evidence" for it? It is uniformitarianism. The treatment of the evidence, no matter how you spin it, is still based off of uniformitarianism. Now, I don't know how anyone could verify a contrary claim to this idea, but it doesn't mean uniformitarianism is a fact. This evidence does in fact support a single viewpoint because it relies on fundamental flawed assumptions. And some would argue for atheistic reasons. Looks like they ruled out a single catastrophic event because they interpreted the data in way agreeable with the modern view of geologic time scale.