Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Polystrata fossils
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 16 of 50 (420665)
09-08-2007 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
09-08-2007 11:14 PM


Paper is available

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2007 11:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2007 12:27 AM iceage has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 17 of 50 (420675)
09-09-2007 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Ihategod
09-08-2007 9:30 PM


Re: ghost forests and other means
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.
No, what I am stating is that the existence of incident specific occurrences that don't involve a world wide flood means that one does not need to invoke a world wide flood to explain other similar occurrences.
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?
Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia
quote:
Within scientific philosophy, uniformitarianism ("with a small u") refers to the principle that the same processes that shape the universe occurred in the past as they do now, and that the same laws of physics apply in all parts of the knowable universe. This axiomatic principle, not often referred to as an "-ism" in modern discussions, is particularly relevant to geology and other sciences on a long timescale such as astronomy and paleontology. The leading geologist of Darwin’s era, a Scot named Charles Lyell (1797 - 1875), incorporated James Hutton’s gradualism into a theory known as uniformitarianism. The term refers to Lyell’s idea that geological processes have not changed throughout Earth’s history. Thus, for example, the forces that build mountains and erode mountains and the rates at which these forces operate are the same today as in the past.
What about this is not unreasonable? Do you have any evidence of any of the basic physical properties and processes changing in any way? For instance do you have any - even theoretical - mechanism by which the decay rates of radioactive material can be changed?
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.
You may need to go to a library to find such works.
Doing a google on "Erect forests are evidence for coseismic base-level changes in Pennsylvanian cyclothems of the Black Warrior Basin" I found:
1) Latest Mid-Pennsylvanian tree-fern forests in retrograding coastal plain deposits, Sydney Mines Formation, Nova Scotia, Canada (which presumably cites it as a reference):
quote:
Basal stump diameter measurements, including the root mantle, range from 12 to 89 cm, indicating that the ferns were mostly large forest trees, rather than shrubs. Stump distribution measurements on palaeosols indicate that localized patches of tree-fern-dominated forest attained densities of c. 3850 trees per hectare when scaled up to standard forestry units, much denser than typical Mid-Pennsylvanian lycopsid forests. Tree-ferns dominantly grew in aggrading floodbasin settings, and a few of the largest trees show evidence for post-burial regeneration. Being approximately coeval with the late Mid-Pennsylvanian extinction event, which resulted in tree-fern forests rising to dominate tropical lowlands for the first time, the Cranberry Head fossil forests provide insight into community composition and structure during a critical phase of ecosystem reorganization.
I'm sure a little searching would turn up a lot of similar such evidence.
Varves could be another matter entirely that still rests upon the uniformity principle.
No, it rests on common sense. In the Green River Formation you have 20 million discrete thin layers covering tens of thousands of square miles ... if one layer formed every minute it would still take 30 years to make this formation. Even fantastic departure from known physical behavior of the particles involved does not allow the formation of this feature.
http://www.creationwiki.net/Varves
What is your un-biased opinion?
quote:
Such views as represented by evolution actually rely on assumptions that these varves are layed down consistently year after year. In fact when Mount St. Helens erupted in Washington State it produced 25 feet of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon! Other such catastrophic events such as the Flood of Noah could also imply the action of laying down many layers quite rapidly within a year time-frame. Thus even millions of layers could be formed in just a few years.
Furthermore experiments show that the thickness of the layers in a continuous heterogranular deposition is independent of the rate of deposition, but is related to the difference in grain size. So varves are not really a problem for a young earth, they just show that deposition rates were higher during and immediately following the Biblical flood than they are today.
Except that they don't talk about how varves are formed at all. They substitute two different phenomena instead. What is your unbiased opinion of somebody that does that?
I wouldn't assume it would. However, if some type of varves could be shown to be created, then we might have a discussion. For now, I wouldn't argue against this.
Good idea.
However, I have read refutations on paleosols.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
What is your un-biased opinion?
Of AiG? Honestly I don't have an unbiased opinion - I've read too many articles of theirs with outright falsehoods and blatant misrepresentations of the facts. Perhaps you could summarize what you think are the telling point made in the article and we'll see how they fare for dealing with the issue.
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?
Again the test for validity of a concept is not in finding evidence that can support it but in dealing with all the evidence, including that which counters it.
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??
Probably, but it is hard to tell with sand if the original strata were multiple layers or not (you would need some boundary layer or formation between them to mark the boundary), especially as most of the covering material has been removed by subsequent erosion.
However it is now possible to cover the area again with a second layer from a different source -- say volcanic ash. Erode and repeat with sand, etc. etc. These trees have been around for a while, and they are not going anywhere soon either.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Ihategod, posted 09-08-2007 9:30 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Ihategod, posted 09-09-2007 11:53 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 50 (420676)
09-09-2007 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by molbiogirl
09-08-2007 11:27 PM


yeah, I also found another paper that covered the same regeneration issue.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by molbiogirl, posted 09-08-2007 11:27 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 50 (420677)
09-09-2007 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by iceage
09-08-2007 11:28 PM


Re: Paper is available
quote:
Calamites are encountered as either isolated, erect pith casts or in small clusters. Most specimens are oriented at a slight angle from perpendicular to nearly 458 from vertical, and pith casts are surrounded by coalified aerial tissues (wood and bark). Several examples exist where individual plants have undergone regeneration following burial (Gastaldo, 1992), and in these cases, helically arranged roots that originated at buried nodes crosscut entombing primary bedding structures (Figure 5A).
Now we need Gastaldo, 1992 ...
quote:
Gastaldo, R. A., 1992, Regenerative growth in fossil horsetails following burial by alluvium: Historical Biology, v. 6, p. 203-220.
Or do we have enough evidence of regenerative growth for now?
Thanks.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by iceage, posted 09-08-2007 11:28 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by iceage, posted 09-09-2007 1:17 AM RAZD has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 20 of 50 (420692)
09-09-2007 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
09-09-2007 12:27 AM


Re: Paper is available
Robert A. Gastaldo, et al writes:
Several examples exist where individual plants have undergone regeneration following burial (Gastaldo, 1992), and in these cases, helically arranged roots that originated at buried nodes crosscut entombing primary bedding structures (Figure 5A).
These trees were clearly were not buried during a global flood! They show the same character of other polystrate fossils of being vertical through many sedimentation layers. The regeneration of the root growth is clearly visible and we are probably looking at years or decades of sedimentation. The means and methods of trees being buried vertical are many and varied as is expected from an old and active earth.
Reference image is from
Erect Forests Are Evidence for Coseismic Base-level Changes in Pennsylvanian Cyclothems of the Black Warrior Basin, U.S.A.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
Edited by iceage, : Added reference per mod request - thought it was redundant since this it was referenced in two subsequent posts. Sorry but visual evidence is significant to those less likely to do in depth research. Also the image is also wrapped in html with references at No webpage found at provided URL: http://perlworks.com/geology/regrowth.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2007 12:27 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-09-2007 2:56 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 23 by Ihategod, posted 09-09-2007 12:01 PM iceage has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 21 of 50 (420704)
09-09-2007 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by iceage
09-09-2007 1:17 AM


References / Credits please
I presume you work for http://perlworks.com/, where the photograph is stored.
The source of the photo might appreciate you not deep linking to his/her site, but you should still reference/credit the source of the photo. Besides, if and when the photo is no longer at perlworks.com we'll have something available besides a little box with a red x in it.
NO replies to this message in this topic. If you wish to reply, go to "General discussion...", link below. Otherwise, a 24 hour suspension may result.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by iceage, posted 09-09-2007 1:17 AM iceage has not replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6029 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 22 of 50 (420745)
09-09-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
09-09-2007 12:20 AM


Re: ghost forests and other means
So Charles Lyell came up with the theory of relativity?
What about this is not unreasonable?
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.
Do you have any evidence of any of the basic physical properties and processes changing in any way? For instance do you have any - even theoretical - mechanism by which the decay rates of radioactive material can be changed?
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.
What is your unbiased opinion of somebody that does that?
A desperate creationist?
Perhaps you could summarize what you think are the telling point made in the article and we'll see how they fare for dealing with the issue.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2007 12:20 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2007 2:00 PM Ihategod has replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6029 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 23 of 50 (420747)
09-09-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by iceage
09-09-2007 1:17 AM


Re: Paper is available
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by iceage, posted 09-09-2007 1:17 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 09-09-2007 12:15 PM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 28 by iceage, posted 09-09-2007 5:21 PM Ihategod has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 24 of 50 (420749)
09-09-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Ihategod
09-09-2007 12:01 PM


Re: Paper is available
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.
I'm sorry but gotta call bullshit on that one. Please present the model that explains it.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Ihategod, posted 09-09-2007 12:01 PM Ihategod has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 50 (420765)
09-09-2007 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Ihategod
09-08-2007 9:30 PM


Evaporites
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?
Off the top of my head ... evaporites are pretty damning. These are strata of minerals which dissolve in water (salt, for example). According to conventional geology, they're deposited when a shallow sea dries up.
They couldn't have been deposited by the flood, 'cos they're water-soluble, and they couldn't have been deposited during the drying-up period after the flood, because then they'd all be on top, which they aren't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Ihategod, posted 09-08-2007 9:30 PM Ihategod has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 50 (420766)
09-09-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Ihategod
09-09-2007 11:53 AM


Re: ghost forests and other means
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.
The idea that layers represents age flourishes because it matches the evidence, as seen on the geology thread (from the ground up) you have participated on.
The reason that uniformitarianism flourishes is because there is no valid alternative that stands up to testing.
The bible has nothing to do with it.
To directly answer your question, uniformitarianism isn't unreasonable. Apply it beyond the flood, and we have a debate.
Provide a date for the flood so that we can discuss the cut-off.
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.
Which Hovind theory is this? You need some kind of evidence for no pre-flood decay to entertain the concept: there is none, it's that simple (btw - you might want to review the Creation Museum Age of the Earth is False (Simple and RAZD)(Simple and RAZD)[/color](Simple and RAZD)[/color]< !--UE--> before stepping further off topic in this direction).
A desperate creationist?
Without a leg to stand on.
Sounds like paleosols are interpreted.
Sounds like you got the impression they were trying to convey.
Geology at 200 d
quote:
Tas Walker conducts what is perhaps one of the best examples of poor scholarship I've ever seen (other examples of equally poor analysis are given below14).
Joe posts on this forum, and you coult invite him to help you with a thread on paleosols to go over this off topic issue further.
SO.
Have you looked at the picture and the evidence for regeneration of roots in to multiple deposited layers?
Do you agree that such multiple layer growth is evidence of the tree living through several repeated flooding\sedimentation events (as would occur on a normal floodplain)?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Ihategod, posted 09-09-2007 11:53 AM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Ihategod, posted 09-09-2007 5:17 PM RAZD has replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6029 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 27 of 50 (420818)
09-09-2007 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
09-09-2007 2:00 PM


Re: ghost forests and other means
The idea that layers represents age flourishes because it matches the evidence, as seen on the geology thread (from the ground up) you have participated on.
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.
The reason that uniformitarianism flourishes is because there is no valid alternative that stands up to testing.
"...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.
You need some kind of evidence for no pre-flood decay to entertain the concept: there is none, it's that simple
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?
Do you agree that such multiple layer growth is evidence of the tree living through several repeated flooding\sedimentation events (as would occur on a normal floodplain)?
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.
Which Hovind theory is this?
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
The one that says hovind theory, perhaps you will enjoy this.
Provide a date for the flood so that we can discuss the cut-off.
around 4500 years give or take. Now you'll talk at me about tree rings, so lets save this until we get done here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2007 2:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2007 7:04 PM Ihategod has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 28 of 50 (420823)
09-09-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Ihategod
09-09-2007 12:01 PM


Just-so stories
Jar was just being polite.
While creative thinking is certainly of value, you also have to temper the imagination with reality, established facts and reasoning.
What you provided is an unreasoned just-so story without any grounding in the empirical data or other established facts!
I am chuckling slightly, as here is a comment of yours awhile back....
Vashgun writes:
You assume I think like you. I do not. I am much clearer in my reasoning and not weighed down by just-so stories.
While you maybe clearing in your reasoning, I am still reading and trying to digest the prior referenced paper instead of making up just-so stories that are contrived to cohere to some bronze-age religious myths instead of the data.
Vashgun writes:
air was still saturated with higher levels of oxygen
FYI, most plants are harmed by high O2 atmospheric concentrations. Second electromagnetic fields is pure bunk and new-age woo and the past earth magnetic fields can be estimated via the field paleomagnetism.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Ihategod, posted 09-09-2007 12:01 PM Ihategod has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 29 of 50 (420852)
09-09-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Ihategod
09-09-2007 5:17 PM


Re: ghost forests and other means
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.
But the evidence of this thread shows this is not the case -- 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.
"...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.
Uniformity theory now? There is no uniformity theory. The Uniforitarianism Theory is based on consistent behavior of physics and nothing more.
"Creationists have to admit the implausiblity of reconstructing the pre-flood world because of the differences of the pre-flood world" because they (a) don't have any evidence for a basis of a flood event and (b) don't have any evidence for a different kind of world\universe at any time in the past.
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?
We can do that.
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.
The arrows point to where the root clusters are (fine filaments) in the picture. Try higher magnification.
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
The one that says hovind theory, perhaps you will enjoy this.
I also googled it and got:
kent-hovind.com -
Which refutes the major points, and
Kent Hovind - Wikipedia
Which is an article about Kent that mentions the theory
quote:
Hovind summarizes his highly controversial version of the argument for Young Earth creationism into the self-titled “Hovind Theory."[28] He acknowledges many contributors to his theory, but says that if it is proven false then he will personally take the blame. The theory includes a literal reading of the Biblical account of Noah: Noah's family and two of every "kind" of animal (including dinosaurs[29]) safely boarded the Ark before a minus 300 F (~-184C) ice meteor came flying toward the earth and broke up in space. Some of the meteor fragments became rings and others caused the impact craters on the moon and some of the planets. The remaining ice fragments fell to the north and south poles of the earth.
The resulting "super-cold snow" fell near the poles, burying the mammoths standing up. Ice on the North and South pole cracked the crust of the earth releasing the fountains of the deep, which in turn caused certain ice age effects, namely the glacier effects. Also this made "the earth wobble around" and it made the canopy collapse that used to protect the earth.
During the first few months of the flood, the dead animals and plants were buried, and became oil and coal, respectively. The last few months of the flood included geological instability, when the plates shifted. This period saw the formation of both ocean basins and mountain ranges and the resulting water run-off caused incredible erosion ” Hovind says that the Grand Canyon was formed in a couple of weeks during this time.[30] After a few hundred years, the ice caps slowly melted back retreating to their current size and the ocean levels increased, creating the continental shelves. The deeper oceans absorbed much of the carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere and thus allowed greater amounts of radiation to reach the earth's surface. As a result, human lifespans were shortened considerably in the days of Peleg.
The vast majority of the scientific community rejects Young Earth Creationism.[31][32] Furthermore, the plausibility of Hovind's theory has been criticized by both scientists and other Young Earth Creationists.[33][34][35]
Velikovsky move over.
Notice this from the wikipedia:
quote:
Hovind has come into conflict with other young earth creationists, who believe that many of his arguments are invalid and, consequently, undermine their cause. One in particular, Answers in Genesis (AiG), has publicly criticized Hovind[48] after he had criticized AiG's article, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".[49] In their response, Carl Wieland, Ken Ham, and Jonathan Sarfati stated that some claims made by Hovind are "fraudulent" and contain "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good."[48] AiG also criticized Hovind for using "fraudulent claims" made by Ron Wyatt in his claims.[9]
That would make him a rather questionable resource for anything imh(ysa)o.
around 4500 years give or take.
Give or take how much? 100 years? +5500/-500? BCE? or years ago?
Now you'll talk at me about tree rings, so lets save this until we get done here.
Not yet. Let's keep it simple for now. First let's establish max and min possible ages for this event.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Ihategod, posted 09-09-2007 5:17 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Ihategod, posted 09-10-2007 12:13 AM RAZD has replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6029 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 30 of 50 (420881)
09-10-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
09-09-2007 7:04 PM


Re: ghost forests and other means
But the evidence of this thread shows this is not the case -- 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.
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 science
So 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?
Creationists have to admit the implausiblity of reconstructing the pre-flood world because of the differences of the pre-flood world" because they (a) don't have any evidence for a basis of a flood event and (b) don't have any evidence for a different kind of world\universe at any time in the past.
We have the same evidence you do, yet prescribed to a different assumption to interpret the data.
That would make him a rather questionable resource for anything imh(ysa)o.
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.
Give or take how much? 100 years? +5500/-500? BCE? or years ago?
I go with the classic 4350 give or take 10 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2007 7:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by iceage, posted 09-10-2007 1:32 AM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2007 10:42 AM Ihategod has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024