Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 12:22 AM
28 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Pressie (3 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,245 Year: 5,282/19,786 Month: 1,404/873 Week: 300/460 Day: 0/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Polystrata fossils
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4026 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 31 of 50 (420885)
09-10-2007 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Ihategod
09-10-2007 12:13 AM


Flood Geology == Flat Earth
hewg writes:

I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts that polystrate tree fossils were laid down by rapid sedimentation...

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.

Did you read the paper provided?

quote:
Neap-spring-neap tidalite patterns indicate that entombment occurred on the order of a few decades, whereas burial of the mire and forest-floor litter happened on the order of weeks, if not days.

I am really beginning to wonder if you are just pull our leg here.

Root growth rate is a known quantity within a certain range. Even with the fastest growing plants, the roots would take weeks, months and maybe seasons to branch out like shown in the pictures.

Just how do envision these roots expanding several different times at several different elevations while being submerged or during a world wide flood? And how do you dismiss the tidalite patterns?

hewg writes:

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.

Yes yes Geology has absolutely no problem with rapid sedimentation. I have witnessed over 1.5 feet of sedimentation in one dust storm and dozens of feet in land slide event. Floods frequently move large amounts of sediment around and there have been literally millions of major floods over billions of years.

hewg writes:

I tried to point out that if polystrate trees were the only thing holding flood geology back then we had a debate.

Flood geology is not being held back anymore than flat earth geology or earth centered cosmology. They theories are mythic based on data based. They do not fit any of the available evidence and are overwhelmingly falsified by the data.

Flood geology is falsified by dozens and dozens of geological formations. As I have pointed out Angular Unconformities disprove young earth all by themselves.

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Ihategod, posted 09-10-2007 12:13 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 32 of 50 (420926)
09-10-2007 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Ihategod
09-10-2007 12:13 AM


starting over? or a review
I get the feeling that you have said this so many times it has become automaton.

No, I just figure that once a point is covered it shouldn't need to be covered again. If you keep going back and starting over (on tree regeneration in subsequent layers, on geological layers, on modern evidence for the same kinds of formations, etc etc) then I have to wonder if you are really learning anything, or whether you are having trouble with cognitive dissonance that is resolved by rejecting the evidence. I don't mean this pejoratively, but as an observation of something that happens to all people that come into conflict between strongly held beliefs and contradictory evidence. If this is happening then we may need to back down to baby steps to see where the dissonance steps in and see if we can resolve that issue.

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:

Is this a review of the evidence covered to date and your understanding of it?

1) Paleosols. Which are called into question by the article I provided.

Questioned does not mean refuted, nor does it mean that the questions are valid nor readily answered. You can have many paleosol horizons within a single geological column, all you need are ancient soils that show weathering and biological activity (like burrows and root growth) consistent with them being a surface (land or marine bottom) for sufficient time for the organic activity to occur. There are several within the Grand Canyon IIRC from the "bottom up" thread.

2) Dry deposition. Which hasn't been shown to produce multiple strata via my question that was skirted over.

Nor has it been shown NOT to produce multiple strata. If you want evidence of multiple strata with dry deposition we can look at the Quelccaya Ice Cap:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/index20.htm

quote:
(Slide 1) The Peruvian altiplano is a high plateau ranging in altitude from 3500 to over 4000 meters above sea level. Though the altiplano is a cold, harsh environment, large herds of hardy llamas such as these hint at the richness of South America's high grasslands. The Quelccaya ice cap rises in the background, 55 km2 of ice that provides important clues on climatic change and variability in the South American tropics. The ice sheet's summit elevation is 5670 m and its maximum summit thickness is 164 m.

Click to enlarge

(Slide 3) The Quelccaya cap terminates abruptly and spectacularly in a 55 m ice cliff. The annual accumulation layers clearly visible in the photograph are an average of .75 m thick. While snow can fall during any season on the altiplano, most of it (80-90%) arrives between the months of November and April. The distinct seasonality of precipitation at Quelccaya results in the deposition of the dry season dust bands seen in the ice cliff. These layers are extremely useful to the paleoclimatologist because they allow ice core records to be dated very accurately using visual stratigraphyy, which is simply the visual identification of annual dust layers in ice records (in most ice cores, annual layers become indistinct at depth, forcing paleoclimatologists to rely on less-accurate ice-flow models to establish chronologies; at Quelccaya, on the other hand, annual layers are visible throughout the core).

Now you may be able to argue that these are not annual layers, but there can be no question that they are multiple layers formed at different times and that the dust layers are dry depositions. There are approximately (55/0.75) 73 such layers visible in the cliff face.

Those same dust layers would be deposited in lower areas that did not accumulate snow cover as well.

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.

The Lake Suigetsu shows alteration between biological and clay layers, where the clay takes much longer than the diatoms to settle, demonstrating that there must be a time break between the diatom layers to allow the clay layers to form. There are some 37,000 pairs of those layers (a varve = pair of alternating layers). These layers are also carbon-14 dated by over 250 bits of organic debris buried in the varves, and as these specimens had different levels of carbon-14 they had to come from different years, regardless of what you think of carbon dating or radioactive decay. Thus this had to form over a period exceeding 250 years minimum.

The Green River varves cover tens of thousands of square miles with thin layers of alternating particle fineness. Again there must be a time break between the coarse layers to allow the fine layers to form. There are 20 million pairs of those layers. Making a pair of layers at the fantastically incredible (if not impossible) rate of 1 a minute (30 seconds each layer) means that the total deposit still took a minimum of 38 years to form ... in calm water (thin layers cover tens of thousands of square miles with no evidence of turbulence).

The rational conclusion is that these varves show multiple layers of deposition formed over long periods of time, and that they are not associated with a catastrophic flood.

4) Uniformitariansim. Which is an easy out, as we say in poker, but hardly a scientific fact.

No it is not a fact, not the way varves and regeneration of tree growth in annual flood plains is a fact. That would be why it is called a theory. The problem with dismissing it is to provide an alternative explanation that covers the evidence in a consistent manner. Provide a mechanism to explain radoiactive decay changes, for instance that also explains the evidence we see from stellar phenomena that show radioactive decay. Provide a mechanism to explain change in gravity and how that would not affect the orbits of all the planets and asteroids such that they would still be there today. Provide a mechanism to create annual season patterns in less than a year, together with growth to match, in a manner that would not be directly observed by the people living at the time.

It may be a theory, but there is no competition.

The problem you have is that when you can explain a geological formation (or any other formation) with observations made today showing the same kinds of formation, that you cannot logically argue that those same processes involved today were not the cause of the ancient formations. This holds for tree rings, tree root generation, multiple sedimentary layer formation, radioactive decay, etcetera, etcetera.

Perhaps we need a thread on just this topic, as it seems to be a common creationist issue.

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.

You do realize that roots don't grow instantly, yes? You do realize that you are positing that this occurred simultaneously with the trees being buried entirely and killed? That is not a logically consistant hypothesis.

You also must be aware of river flood plains that flood on an annual basis, like the Nile delta, but also like virtually the whole country of Bangladesh:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/shownh.php3?img_id=13197

quote:
Low-lying Bangladesh floods often. The country is built over the flood plains of three major rivers, the Brahmaputra, Meghna, and Ganges Rivers. The three rivers converge in Bangladesh and empty into the Bay of Bengal through the largest river delta in the world. The flat land within each flood plain is fertile, and the country is densely populated.

The land is fertile because of the annual flooding depositing sedimentary layers. The land is normally covered in jungle that has adapted to the annual flooding by being able to survive flooding and sedimentary deposits and by growing roots into new soil (because it is fertile soil eh?). The link has arial photos of one flood and one non-flood time.

6) Evaporites. I'm not really sure how this applies but I did some homework. http://creationwiki.org/Evaporites_could_form_without_evaporation

quote:
Many now think the salt was extruded in superheated, supersaturated salt brines from deep in the earth along faults. Once encountering the cold ocean waters, the hot brines could no longer sustain the high concentrations of salt, which rapidly precipitated out of solution, free of impurities and marine organisms.

The problem is that most evaporites are not free of impurities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporite

quote:
Evaporite formations need not be composed entirely of halite salt. In fact, most evaporite formations do not contain more than a few percent of evaporite minerals, the remainder being composed of the more typical detrital clastic rocks and carbonates.

Evaporites also incorporate any objects that were in the water, while crystalized salt cannot.

So that is the evidence I have viewed.

So the question is whether the evidence has made any impression on you, or are we back to talking about denial and cognitive dissonance?

Yet you say:
None of the evidence shown reflects this. Did I miss something?

I thought you were up to speed on the geoplogy from the bottom up thread. No? Message 83 says so.

We have the same evidence you do, yet prescribed to a different assumption to interpret the data.

There is a difference between an interpretation of evidence and a denial of it. Denial is not an alternative explanation. An alternative explanation involves mechanisms that produce the phenomena involve in a different, logically consistent manner and that is supported by evidence of actual being able to occur. Then we can test that alternative explanation to see how well it covers all the evidence.

I go with the classic 4350 give or take 10 years.

Ok. Noted for future reference.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : link to msg 83


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 30 by Ihategod, posted 09-10-2007 12:13 AM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Ihategod, posted 09-10-2007 1:08 PM RAZD has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4141 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 33 of 50 (420965)
09-10-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
09-10-2007 10:42 AM


Re: starting over? or a review
Is this a review of the evidence covered to date and your understanding of it?

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.

1) Paleosols. Which are called into question by the article I provided.

Questioned does not mean refuted, nor does it mean that the questions are valid nor readily answered. You can have many paleosol horizons within a single geological column, all you need are ancient soils that show weathering and biological activity (like burrows and root growth) consistent with them being a surface (land or marine bottom) for sufficient time for the organic activity to occur. There are several within the Grand Canyon IIRC from the "bottom up" thread.

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?

2) Dry deposition. Which hasn't been shown to produce multiple strata via my question that was skirted over.

Nor has it been shown NOT to produce multiple strata. If you want evidence of multiple strata with dry deposition we can look at the Quelccaya Ice Cap:

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.

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.

The Lake Suigetsu & The Green River varves; do these contradict the global flood deadline?

Let's open a thread about Uniformitariansim.

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.

You do realize that roots don't grow instantly, yes? You do realize that you are positing that this occurred simultaneously with the trees being buried entirely and killed? That is not a logically consistant hypothesis.

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.

So the question is whether the evidence has made any impression on you, or are we back to talking about denial and cognitive dissonance?

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.

There is a difference between an interpretation of evidence and a denial of it. Denial is not an alternative explanation. An alternative explanation involves mechanisms that produce the phenomena involve in a different, logically consistent manner and that is supported by evidence of actual being able to occur. Then we can test that alternative explanation to see how well it covers all the evidence.

So this proves your uniformitarianism true? Or does it suggest that it is the best available to do science of the past?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2007 10:42 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2007 2:39 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 35 by iceage, posted 09-10-2007 4:14 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2007 7:26 PM Ihategod has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 34 of 50 (420974)
09-10-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Ihategod
09-10-2007 1:08 PM


Re: starting over? or a review
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.

But as I've pointed out once or twice already, this "assumption" is testable. If scientists saw something in the geological record which could not be explained by the laws of nature, then they would notice. They'd be the first to notice, because they know what these laws are. Whereas you, and I mean this kindly, wouldn't recognise actual geological evidence for a miraculous universal flood if it bit you in the ass.

So we must either conclude:

(a) The supposed miracle never happened.

(b) God decided to jerk us all around by performing a miracle in such a way that it would look like completely normal geology even to experienced geologists.

Option (b) is known as the "Omphalos" hypothesis, and has widely been dismissed as silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Ihategod, posted 09-10-2007 1:08 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by bdfoster, posted 09-10-2007 4:38 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4026 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 35 of 50 (420996)
09-10-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Ihategod
09-10-2007 1:08 PM


Re: starting over? or a review
hewg writes:

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.

I am beginning to believe you're trolling or are committed to intellectual dishonesty to a degree that I have not witnessed before.

When presented with visual evidence that goes counter to your claims you make the most absurd statements. I have to ask, did you at least peruse the paper provided or just look at the pictures. They provide convincing detailed evidence that this "polystrata" fossil was decades in the making. To suggest electromagnetic influences or imply that root growth can occur radially of several inches and simultaneously at several different elevations during the execution of a global flood is absurd, especially when normal everyday earth processes can account for the evidence very nicely.

I wish the facilities here had a kill file because you would be in it. This is my last response to your nonsense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Ihategod, posted 09-10-2007 1:08 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 36 of 50 (421001)
09-10-2007 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dr Adequate
09-10-2007 2:39 PM


Re: starting over? or a review
But as I've pointed out once or twice already, this "assumption" is testable. If scientists saw something in the geological record which could not be explained by the laws of nature, then they would notice.

Ooo, I don't know about this. Science is obliged to find natural explanations. If God decided to throw a miracle out there, truly break the natural chain of cause and effect, how could science distinguish this event from a natural event that simply can't be explained by our current understanding of natural laws? If something happens that science can't explain, then the only valid conclusion from a scientific standpoint is to say that it is unexplained. Unexplained phenomena have a way of becoming explained after rigorous scientific inquiry. But if the explanation remains elusive, explanation by miracle is illegal for the scientist.

But it is ridiculous to suggest that the basics of geology change because of a flood.

Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2007 2:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2007 4:53 PM bdfoster has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 37 of 50 (421002)
09-10-2007 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by bdfoster
09-10-2007 4:38 PM


Okay, let's phrase this more carefully.

If there was evidence of a universal flood 4000 years ago, inexplicable by the laws of nature as they are presently known to geologists, then geologists would notice.

My point is merely that they would notice if something violated their "assumptions", whether this anomaly was supernatural or inexplicable yet natural.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by bdfoster, posted 09-10-2007 4:38 PM bdfoster has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by bdfoster, posted 09-10-2007 5:15 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:45 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 38 of 50 (421006)
09-10-2007 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Adequate
09-10-2007 4:53 PM



Okay, let's phrase this more carefully.
If there was evidence of a universal flood 4000 years ago, inexplicable by the laws of nature as they are presently known to geologists, then geologists would notice.

My point is merely that they would notice if something violated their "assumptions", whether this anomaly was supernatural or inexplicable yet natural.

Absolutely. Virtually all of the YEC objections I have seen are easily explainable by presently understood geologic principles. Like any other science there is plenty that is poorly understood. In fact a great way to find research topics in geology or anyother subject is to Google the phrase "poorly understood".

Sorry for the nit-picky response on my part. I am involved with a discussion with somebody else on the concept of being able to identify a miricle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2007 4:53 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 39 of 50 (421023)
09-10-2007 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Ihategod
09-10-2007 1:08 PM


dealing with evidence
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.

Okay, what we have here is a consistent pattern or relying on any flimsy excuse to avoid the evidence. It doesn't matter what the evidence is, the pattern is the same.

... do these contradict the global flood deadline?

Yes. Each piece of evidence in one way or the other contradicts the catastrophic world destroying flood scenario.

So let's stick to polystrata fossils, the topic of this debate, until we can sort out the proper way to deal with this evidence. Then we can get back to the other issues or move on to another thread.

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.

If you are going to invoke magic processes to explain the evidence then we might as well call it quits, as this means god-did-it-that-way is the explanation for everything. This point of view essentially means that all evidence that does not say what you want it to is lies, and thus that the god-that-did-it is a liar, having made the evidence appear that way.

The alternative is to view the evidence as truth and see what information you can conclude from it.

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.

However when we deal with the evidence that we think may be from beyond a hypothetical cut-off point where it behaves differently, AND we assume that the evidence is telling us the truth of what happened, then we need to provide:

(a) theoretical mechanism for changing the behavior,
(b) some testable means to determine such behavior and distinguish it from known later behavior.
(c) testing of the parameters for the time of change in many locations to see if the different behavior markers show up
(d) evaluation of the evidence based on the mechanism and predicted distinguishing markers to see if they are consistent with the theoretical mechanism and time period.

The flood mechanisms must also be consistent with other hypothesis for "flood geology" ... for instance in the "Hovind Theory" that you said was "pretty convincing" it says:

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind)

quote:
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.

SImilar things have been said by other creationists, but we'll use this as an example. One would expect in a catastrophic flood of the parameters given, that any sudden rapid burial such as is posited above would trap both plant and animal remains in the same layers, so there should either be (a) oil mixed in with coal deposits (and vice versa) or (b) animal fossils mixed with the plant fossils in the sedimentary layers containing the polystrata fossils. We can use this as a sample "test" to distinguish this catastrophic flood from what we see as normal process today: the existence of oil or animal fossils with plant material.

Thus we look at all the evidence for polystrata fossils and see what is the same and what is different, and can we distinguish a different mechanism at any time in the evidence.

We look at living polystrata depositions in places like Bangladesh
We look at incipient "pre-fossils" of polystrata depositions at Sleeping Bear Dunes and other locations where the material has not fossilized yet (too young) and
We look at fossil polystrata depositions from each of the different geological time periods

For instance, taking the paper previously referred to:

http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/RAG_reprints/RAG2004d.pdf

We can look for what it says about plant fossils in the deposits:

quote:
The plant debris consists of randomly oriented trunks, stems, and branches of canopy and subcanopy elements (lycophytes and calamiteans); juvenile and mature foliage of canopy elements and their reproductive cones either terminally attached to branches or disseminated (lycophytes and calamiteans); mature foliage of subcanopy taxa and occasional bare rachial elements (pteridophytes and medullosan pteridosperms), as well as reproductive structures (pollen organs, fruits, and seeds); and ground cover/liana forms consisting of small-diameter axes with attached leaves [sphenophyllaleans, lyginopterid pteridosperms, medullosan and callistophytalean(?) pteridosperms, and pteridophytes; Table 1].

When it comes to evidence for animals we find:

quote:
Trace fossils include horizontal burrows (Paleophycus, Treptichnus), vertical dwelling (Rosselia) and resting (Lingulichnus, Lockiea) traces, feeding burrows (Parahaentzschelinia, Helminthopsis), surface trails (e.g., Kouphichnium, Cincosaurus), and grazing traces (Happlotichnus) (Rindsberg, 1990).

We have dwellings but no occupants.

We do not see any evidence of animal fossils mixed with the plant material from one site to another, and this fails the test parameter we set as an example of the process.

We do not see any evidence of any different processes involved from one site to another.

This means that there is no way to conclude that some different process was involved, without going back to the god-of-lies theory.

This isn't uniformitarianism, this is just treating the evidence as being honest evidence of what happened, able to tell the story of what happened to those willing to look into it with as much depth and skepticism and open-mindedness as one wants to use. This is looking at all the evidence, not just that which supports a single viewpoint.

{abe}
We can also look to see what the authors of the above paper thought about the relative catastrophic nature of the sediment covering the polystrata fossils:

quote:
... Hence, it is not necessary to invoke a single, short-term event to account for 11 m (36 ft) of subsidence to bury the peat body and the forest; instead, total subsidence would be less than this requisite base-level change, but would still be on the order of 5 m (16 ft) to account for burial of the tallest in situ trees.

Rapid, coseismic subsidence, however, can significantly change base level on local (e.g., Weisenfluh and Ferm, 1984; Staub and Gastaldo, 2003) or regional scales (Plafker, 1965; Plafker and Savage, 1970; Fortuin and de Smet, 1991). ... Depending on the magnitude of any single tectonic event, subsidence may be less than 1m(3.3 ft) (e.g., Phillips and Bustin, 1996) or as much as 4 m (13 ft) (Prince William Sound, Alaska; Plafker, 1969) of vertical displacement. Evidence exists in the Mary Lee cycle for tremor-induced liquifaction of sand bodies (Demko, 1990a, b), indicating that effects of tectonic loading associated with the Appalachians and Ouachitas (Thomas, 1988, 1995) are recorded in this sedimentological record. Therefore, it is most parsimonious that earthquake-induced subsidence was responsible for the documented dramatic change in the elevation of the Blue Creek mire, reducing it to several meters below base level, and allowing for tidal processes operating in a freshwater regime to bury and preserve this forest. The model proposed by Gastaldo (1990) and discussed by Demko and Gastaldo (1996) for the burial and preservation of the Blue Creek forest via catastrophic high-magnitude fluvial processes for leaf-litter burial and preservation is untenable.


(color for emphasis)

Looks like they ruled out a single catastrophic event through examining the evidence.
{/abe}

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added example

Edited by RAZD, : {abe section}

Edited by RAZD, : engliss


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 33 by Ihategod, posted 09-10-2007 1:08 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Ihategod, posted 09-16-2007 3:01 AM RAZD has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4141 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 40 of 50 (421448)
09-12-2007 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Adequate
09-10-2007 4:53 PM


DOUBT THAT
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2007 4:53 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2007 9:05 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 09-12-2007 10:59 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-13-2007 3:41 AM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 44 by bdfoster, posted 09-13-2007 11:53 AM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 47 by bluegenes, posted 09-16-2007 7:51 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 41 of 50 (421485)
09-12-2007 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Ihategod
09-12-2007 6:45 PM


the world-wide science conspiracy theory again ...
You think these scientists are objective truth telling machines ...

No, I think science is an objective truth telling machine, as there are always others to correct any mistakes or misrepresentations of those that make them. The annals of science are full of such stories.

You, on the other hand reject evidence, and to do so you need to portray the people as liars and charlatans and members of some super secret science conspiracy that covers the world and permeates all science.

Fortunately the world of reality does not revolve around your approval.

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 40 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:45 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 42 of 50 (421499)
09-12-2007 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Ihategod
09-12-2007 6:45 PM


HEWG It's easy for you then.
If you think the scientists aren't being truthful HEWG it's easy for you. You use the methods of science that RASD talks about above and you show them up as being very wrong.

Name calling accomplishes nothing. All you have to do is show what is wrong. It's funny that the attempts by YEC "scientists" haven't produced the evidence that shows how wrong this all is.

Maybe I just missed it and you will bring it here for us now?

We wait.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:45 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 43 of 50 (421533)
09-13-2007 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Ihategod
09-12-2007 6:45 PM


Re: DOUBT THAT
If geologists ran into something supernatural they would use ways to naturally explain it, or they would deny it.

Do you have any evidence for this fantasy?

You think these scientists are objective truth telling machines who are massively equipped with the highest state of morals and ethics.

As this fantasy is about my opinions, I am well-placed to point out that you are deluded.

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.

If you are trying to say that acceptance of creationism would lead to a complete cessation of scientific research ... then this is unusually frank of you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:45 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 44 of 50 (421614)
09-13-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Ihategod
09-12-2007 6:45 PM


Re: DOUBT THAT
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.

They would use use ways to naturally explain it, or leave it unexplained. Denying it s not an option, nor is offering a supernatural explanation. Although both of these are YEC standard proceedure, in science they would incur the wrath of peers. Science is very competitive. Occasionally individuals do try to deny eveidence or offer conclusions that violate the bounds of science. Science as an institution is intolerant of such individuals, although they do persist.


Brent
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:45 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4141 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 45 of 50 (422142)
09-16-2007 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
09-10-2007 7:26 PM


Re: dealing with evidence
Okay, what we have here is a consistent pattern or relying on any flimsy excuse to avoid the evidence. It doesn't matter what the evidence is, the pattern is the same.

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.

If you are going to invoke magic processes to explain the evidence then we might as well call it quits, as this means god-did-it-that-way is the explanation for everything. This point of view essentially means that all evidence that does not say what you want it to is lies, and thus that the god-that-did-it is a liar, having made the evidence appear that way.

The alternative is to view the evidence as truth and see what information you can conclude from it.

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.

that any sudden rapid burial such as is posited above would trap both plant and animal remains in the same layers, so there should either be (a) oil mixed in with coal deposits (and vice versa) or (b) animal fossils mixed with the plant fossils in the sedimentary layers containing the polystrata fossils.

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.

We do not see any evidence of animal fossils mixed with the plant material from one site to another, and this fails the test parameter we set as an example of the process.

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.

We do not see any evidence of any different processes involved from one site to another.

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?

This isn't uniformitarianism, this is just treating the evidence as being honest evidence of what happened, able to tell the story of what happened to those willing to look into it with as much depth and skepticism and open-mindedness as one wants to use. This is looking at all the evidence, not just that which supports a single viewpoint.

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 through examining the evidence.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2007 7:26 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Vacate, posted 09-16-2007 4:28 AM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 09-16-2007 9:06 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019