Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 12:08 PM
107 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, ringo, Tanypteryx (4 members, 103 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,526 Year: 3,563/19,786 Month: 558/1,087 Week: 148/212 Day: 15/49 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
22Next
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2011 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 181 of 320 (631827)
09-03-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
09-03-2011 11:19 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
RE- So coal beds are flood deposits?-

Yes, as I believe most of the strata layers are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 09-03-2011 11:19 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-03-2011 1:11 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 09-03-2011 1:22 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 191 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2011 5:35 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 182 of 320 (631828)
09-03-2011 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Just being real
09-03-2011 10:57 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Very well then, I am quite fond of the polystrate fossils in coal beds, and the Green river catfish fossils.

Perhaps you could expand on this. In what way do these localized phenomena suggest to you that the whole Earth was covered in water.

Tress and aquatic life are, after all, being covered with water and with sediment today in various places, and you do not claim that we are now undergoing a global flood.

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/4494371.jpg
Not a global flood.

http://gallery.usgs.gov/...y_exposed_snags_2_w-_Dan_Daly.JPG
Still not a global flood

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Just being real, posted 09-03-2011 10:57 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 183 of 320 (631829)
09-03-2011 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Just being real
09-03-2011 1:06 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Yes, as I believe most of the strata layers are.

And yet we can see layers of sediment being laid down today, and we are not experiencing a global flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Just being real, posted 09-03-2011 1:06 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 184 of 320 (631830)
09-03-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Just being real
09-03-2011 1:06 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Just being real writes:

Yes, as I believe most of the strata layers are.

What is it about coal beds that suggests they are flood deposits from a global flood?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Just being real, posted 09-03-2011 1:06 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1788 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 185 of 320 (631853)
09-03-2011 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Just being real
09-03-2011 10:49 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Just being real writes:

My statement in post 152 started with "My understanding is..." thereby implying that to the best of my knowledge it was true. Not that I had knowledge of the fossils left by every single flood that ever occurred in the entire universe. I know when I make a negative statement that I am only basing it on my own limited knowledge, and all it takes is one example otherwise by someone to disprove it.


But you said:
quote:
The typical local flood events just don't produce these kinds of features.
How do you know this?

If you are just making an unfounded statement or putting forward your hypothesis then that is not evidence.
You said you had evidence, but the quote above is just an unsubstantiated claim.

Please show the evidence.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Just being real, posted 09-03-2011 10:49 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2498 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 186 of 320 (631909)
09-04-2011 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Just being real
09-03-2011 10:57 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Hello Just Being Real,

polystrate fossils in coal beds - consider the existence of polystrate fossils in coal beds for example, which are often separated by layers of lime stone. Each layer is usually said to be several million years old. But this conclusion falls apart by the hundreds of polystrate fossils (like vertically fossilized trees) which pierce through the various layers. (Sometimes several layers) These fossils are so common that they are often a real hazard to coal miners who can suddenly be crushed when one dislodges and falls on him in the mines. These fossils are found in coal world wide. The obvious question of course is, how did the upper portions of these trees remain exposed for several million years while waiting for the other layers to gradually be deposited in around them to preserve them? The fact of the matter is that the accumulation of the different layers must have actually been at least faster than it takes for wood to decay. They have even found animal fossils that penetrate more than one layer of coal.

Can you provide a bit more detail. The only sites that seem to mention polystrate fossils are creationist sites. Can you provide a source so I can have a look at the case that is your favourite. From the reading I have done, there has been a simple explanation for the the existence of "polystrate" fossils for more than 100 years (Dawson, 1868). This makes me believe that I may just be looking in the wrong place. Would you be able to provide a source that is not a creationist website? Also, what makes you believe that polystate fossils are evidence of world wide flooding?

I can point out some basic geology errors in you statement though.

Each layer is usually said to be several million years old.

That is not true. Layers seen in a cliff face can be put down in a very short period of time. There is a new layer over areas in my regioon due to a flood. This layer was put down in less than a fortnight. In some gullies, it is metres thick.

These fossils are so common that they are often a real hazard to coal miners who can suddenly be crushed when one dislodges and falls on him in the mines. These fossils are found in coal world wide.

I asked my brother (coal industry 15 years), a geologist friend of the family (mining industry 20 years, coal for 10 years) and one of my scientist friends (coal industry 8 years) if they had ever seen one of these fossils. None of them had. I mentioned your claim. The general consensus is that your claim is ridiculous. I dispute your claim that these fossils are common. Coal miners are very rarely exposed to an open face that has not been checked for safety (in Australia anyway). Do coal mines where you are from allow miners to wander around at the cutting face or in unsafe regions that have not been inspected? I googled a number of variations of 'causes of coal mine rock falls' and could not find a single article discussing this issue that you say is common. Basically, can you provide a source for the claim you are making? Where in the world are they actually found. Considering it was a world wide flood, they should be all over the place. Australia has huge coal reserves, in every state, where are the Australian examples?

The obvious question of course is, how did the upper portions of these trees remain exposed for several million years

The simplest answer, and the one I suspect is true is that they dont. I will need to see your specific examples before making the call though. We already know that your 'millions of years' issue is not accurate.

The fact of the matter is that the accumulation of the different layers must have actually been at least faster than it takes for wood to decay.

This is true. But layers can be put down at different rates and depths depending on the conditions and wood can decay at many different rates, depending on the conditions.

They have even found animal fossils that penetrate more than one layer of coal.

Who is they? What did they find? Where did they find it? Where is your source?

Green river catfish fossils - consider how at the Green River Formation, many fossilized catfish have been found with skin and soft parts preserved. Many are even oriented to traverse through several laminations of shale deposits. The kind of deposits that Uniformitarians normally interpret as being representative of several season cycles of sediment. How's it possible for the upper portions to survive several season cycles before being covered?

Again, cant find a single source for this apart from Creationist websites. Are there any scientific sources for this? As far as I can tell from the pages I have read that deal with the issue, the whole issue is the creationists interpretation of the word preserved. The way the creationist sites are going on, they are suggesting the soft tissue was preserved as if it had been in the fridge. What the original paper actually discusses is preserved in the fossilised sense. There was no soft tissue actually found, there was just the fosslised imprint of soft tissue. The same way that fossils of jellyfish are found. Their soft tissue has been preserved. Here is a quote from wiki -

The limestone matrix is so fine-grained that fossils include rare soft parts of complete insects and fallen leaves in spectacular detail. More than twenty-two orders of insects are represented in the Green River collection at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., alone.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation)

Notice it discusses soft parts being preserved as well. This does not mean what you suggest in your list.

Many are even oriented to traverse through several laminations of shale deposits.

hmmm. Cant find any referense to this on any site that discusses these fossils. Quite the opposite in fact. This is another wiki quote. I dont want to search too much more in case this is not the actual issue you are referring to -

Within the Green River Formation of southwest Wyoming in the area known as Fossil Lake, two distinct zones of very fine-grained lime muds are particularly noted for preserving a variety of complete and detailed fossils. These layers are an Eocene Lagerstätte, a rare place where conditions were right for a rich accumulation of undisturbed fossils. The most productive zone—called the split fish layer—consists of a series of laminated or varved lime muds about 6 ft (1.8 m) thick, which contains abundant fish and other fossils. These are easily split along the layers to reveal the fossils. This thin zone represents some 4000 years of deposition. The second fossil zone, the 18 inch layer, is an unlaminated layer about 18 in (46 cm) thick that also contains abundant detailed fossils, but is harder to work because it is not composed of fissile laminae.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation)

The sites I have looked at all mention those two layers being filled with fossils. I can find any mention of any fossils found being seperated by different shale deposits.

How would these fossils in one very small part of the world come close to indicating a world wide flooding event?

In truth, the only real mention I can find of either of your issues are from the major creationist websites. The polystrate tree issue is not really discussed because it is a non issue in the geological community. The consensus there is that the problem was solved more than a century ago. As for the catfish, it seems that it is a misinterpretation of the word preserved in an early study. This mistake would not have been made by any geologist.

After we have discussed your list, seeing as this is a topic you have mentioned you are quite keen to cover, would it be possible for you to explain some issues the non creationist side have with the Global Flood idea?

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Just being real, posted 09-03-2011 10:57 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by fearandloathing, posted 09-04-2011 12:31 PM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-04-2011 5:43 PM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply
 Message 190 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2011 4:48 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


(1)
Message 187 of 320 (631913)
09-04-2011 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Butterflytyrant
09-04-2011 11:22 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
The only sites that seem to mention polystrate fossils are creationist sites

I couldn't find anything other than this site.

quote:
- page 14 -

Question: Creationists like Dr. N. A. Rupke, a geologist of the State University of Groningen in the Netherlands, claim that certain fossil trees (which they call "polystrate fossils") extend vertically through many meters of strata. Rupke says they are found in such coal-producing areas as the Ruhr region of Germany, Lancashire in England, and Joggins in Nova Scotia. How do you reply?

Answer: The creationists again mishandle their sources. The evidence shows that the vertical trees were really buried by flooding rivers.

For instance, Scientific Creationism (p. 108) quotes F. M. Broadhurst (1964, p. 866) as saying:

It is clear that trees in position of growth are far from being rare in Lancashire (Teichmuller, 1956 reaches the same conclusion for similar trees in the Rhein-Westfalen Coal Measures), and presumably in all such cases there must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation.

However, Broadhurst has some evidence that river floods buried these trees, evidence that the creationists do not mention. He continues:

... there must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation. This sedimentation occurred, without doubt, in water that could not have been fast-flowing, since the trees were left in a standing position. It is possible that the land surface with its trees was inundated by flood water (possibly on numerous occasions) from adjacent waterways, the flood water bringing with it large amounts of sediment.

He goes on to say that fossil polystrate trees are found only in the coarse-grained rocks, but not in the fine-grained ones. The reason is that the sediments of the latter probably did not settle fast enough to bury the trees before they rotted away:

The most likely explanation of the apparent absence of such trees from these sediments is that the latter accumulated too slowly; any trees decayed and collapsed before they could be enclosed by sediments.

Hence the river flood theory can explain why the trees are found upright and why trees were preserved in some rocks but not others; the creationist catastrophe theory cannot.

Also Stearn, Carroll, and Clark mention the polystrate lycopsid trees in the Pennsylvanian coal deposits of Joggins, Nova Scotia. Their point is simply this: Every so often one or more river floods would bury a forest of lycopsid plants up to ten meters deep in sediment. After each flood, a new lycopsid forest would grow out of the newly deposited sediments. Eventually, as the tops of the trees rotted away, the pulpy interior of the trees would also rot away, leaving the more resistant outer wood surrounding a pit as deep as ten meters.

Primitive reptiles fell into these pits, died of starvation there, and were buried when fresh flood sediments and plant matter filled the pits. Superficially, these trees look as though they support the Noachian flood theory, but ordinary geology explains the evidence much more easily.


This seems like a reasonable explanation, Coyote would be better able to critique it. Makes more sense than a global flood.

The above link is from the National Center for Science Education. Seems like a pretty informative site.

Edited by fearandloathing, : Added link to NCSE home page.


"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
— Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-04-2011 11:22 AM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 188 of 320 (631936)
09-04-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Butterflytyrant
09-04-2011 11:22 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
The only sites that seem to mention polystrate fossils are creationist sites.

That's 'cos polystrate is a word creationists made up, not a term in real geology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-04-2011 11:22 AM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2011 1:37 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 189 of 320 (631984)
09-05-2011 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dr Adequate
09-04-2011 5:43 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
I also think that they are the only people who claim that "geologists say that these sediments were deposited over millions of years".

I am a geologist and I don't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-04-2011 5:43 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 190 of 320 (631993)
09-05-2011 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Butterflytyrant
09-04-2011 11:22 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Sorry to interfere, but I’ve never understood creationist “arguments” on the so-called “polystrate” fossils. Maybe Just Being Real could enlighten me on this.
Just Being Real writes:

Each layer is usually said to be several million years old.

If the dating methods indicate that a “layer” is millions of years old, then that “layer” is millions of years old.
Just Being Real writes:

But this conclusion falls apart by the hundreds of polystrate fossils (like vertically fossilized trees) which pierce through the various layers. (Sometimes several layers)

This is the piece of creationist “argument” I really don’t understand. Why couldn’t a “layer” be deposited in a few days or weeks or years and is millions of years old now? Please Just Being Real, explain it to me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-04-2011 11:22 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2011 9:35 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 191 of 320 (631995)
09-05-2011 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Just being real
09-03-2011 1:06 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Just being real, I looked at your source here. Your source claims, in the second paragraph:
AIG writes:

Some geologists have claimed that even if all the vegetation on earth was suddenly converted to coal this would make a coal deposit only 1-3% of the known coal reserves on earth.

I see that there’s no reference to these “some geologists”. Do you have any reference, or is this a straw man being set up?
AIG writes:

Hence at least 33 Noah’s Floods are needed, staggered in time, to generate our known coal beds. Therefore a single Noah’s Flood cannot be the cause of coal formation.

I doubt that any scientist would even look into Noah’s flood, as there’s absolutely no empirical, objective evidence for it. The only people who would do this, would be Christian-creationists who abandoned the scientific method, but pretend to do science by using sciency-sounding terms.

Oh, and by the way, I see that your source didn’t even discuss the geology of coal deposits in any form in his religious article. He didn’t even mention the word “layers” (I might be mistaken, could you direct me to the word “layer” in that article?).

The word “layer” is a very bad layman’s term for some strata, anyway. How do you get to the words “strata layers” from that article? How does coal relate to "most" strata layers? In my country we have hundreds of thousands of strata, just in the coal-bearing sequences, with only very thin zones of coal-bearing strata dispersed amongs them.

Edited by Pressie, : Changed a lot of sentences and spelling!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Just being real, posted 09-03-2011 1:06 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 192 of 320 (632016)
09-05-2011 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Pressie
09-05-2011 4:48 AM


polystrate fossils
Hi Pressie

Sorry to interfere, but I’ve never understood creationist “arguments” on the so-called “polystrate” fossils. Maybe Just Being Real could enlighten me on this.

Message 189: I also think that they are the only people who claim that "geologists say that these sediments were deposited over millions of years".

I am a geologist and I don't.

Nice to see another geologist on the forum.

In essence what they are doing is (a) finding fossils that extend through several layers of deposition, and (b) claiming that each layer was formed "over millions of years" thus creating an apparent paradox for the preservation of the fossil.

The problem is that (b) hasn't been shown to apply to the cases that involve (a), AND there are other explanations for preserved fossils extending through many layers of sediment.

A fossil specimen can be buried by soft materials\sediments during the fossilization process, and this softer material can subsequently be eroded away before the next layer of sediment is deposited -- creationists often ignore (or are ignorant of) erosion as part of the process. There are preserved trees in Michigan that are covered by sand dunes and periodically uncovered and recovered. They are still standing upright.
http://michpics.wordpress.com/...-forest-sleeping-bear-point
Several layers of sediment have and can continue to form around these trees, and if buried by subsequent processes, this can lead to the formation of polystrate fossils in these cases.

Alternatively, a fossil specimen can be deposited on the bottom of an anaerobic pond or streambed and become mummified before it is fossilized, this then keeps the specimen intact as various layers of fine sediment are deposited in several layers around it. The fossils of fish in the green river varves show the characteristics of fossilized mummies with subsequent sedimentary deposits around them.

See http://www2.asa3.org/archive/asa/199801/0011.html for and ex-YEC article on the Green River varves.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2011 4:48 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Pressie, posted 09-06-2011 12:44 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 193 of 320 (632068)
09-05-2011 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Just being real
09-01-2011 8:58 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
JBR writes:

Really? I didn't know they could tell by looking at a fossilized bone exactly how old something was when it died. Or maybe you are implying that they could look at a sample of my DNA and genetically tell how old all my great great great grandparents were? Seriously though, I'd like to see the research work that demonstrates this "absolute proof." If you would kindly link us to something?

To mention "fossils" when talking about the Biblical Flood is of course simply silly. The Biblical Flood, if it had happened, was far too recent to have anything to do with fossils.

But even there you are simply wrong. Yes, by looking at fossilized bones you can tell how old the critter was when it died.

But none of those have anything to do with the potential evidential proof of the flood I presented.

The Biblical Flood, if it had happened, would have been a very recent event. And nothing in the example I presented has anything to do with how long any critter lived.

The Biblical Flood myths say that all the critters on land and in the air with the exception of those critters on the fictional ark were killed during a very short period.

If that were true, then every land and air critter living today, plant or animal, would be descended from the few critters on the ark.

That would leave a genetic bottleneck marker in EVERY single living species of plant of animal, and the marker would be only a relatively few generations back.

If the Biblical Flood happened, then that marker MUST be there.

It ain't.

Case closed.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Just being real, posted 09-01-2011 8:58 PM Just being real has not yet responded

Just being real
Member (Idle past 2011 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 194 of 320 (632141)
09-05-2011 11:00 PM


Percy: What is it about coal beds that suggests they are flood deposits from a global flood?

I would say that since coal beds and oil deposits have been shown not to require the millions of years of time originally thought needed to form, and that since the plant and animal debris needed to form them had to have been buried quickly, this in itself is a good indicator. Also as I said earlier, the polystrate fossils found in them are another good clue to the fact that they did not form slowly.

Since we are talking about a world wide catastrophic event, I think expecting evidence to show up in various forms and to be accumulative rather than singular is more of a reasonable approach. That being said, I think that if there really were in fact a geologically recent WWGF, in almost every geographic region there would be some feature present that is only best explained by a catastrophic flood.

Panda: If you are just making an unfounded statement or putting forward your hypothesis then that is not evidence.

I make no secret that I am riding on the shoulders of much greater men than I who have much more knowledge than I in those fields. So it's not just little o'l me taking some wild stab at it, but rather an observation by qualification. Again Panda, it is a negative statement, and if you know it is false, all it would take is one example to demonstrate so.

Butterflytyrant: The only sites that seem to mention polystrate fossils are creationist sites.

That is odd. The very first site that shows up when I Google the word is this (non-creationist) one from Wikipedia. But I guess if a creationist mentions something it must not be real ...huh?

Butterflytyrant: I asked my brother (coal industry 15 years), a geologist friend of the family (mining industry 20 years, coal for 10 years) and one of my scientist friends (coal industry 8 years) if they had ever seen one of these fossils. None of them had. I mentioned your claim. The general consensus is that your claim is ridiculous... ...Considering it was a world wide flood, they should be all over the place. Australia has huge coal reserves, in every state, where are the Australian examples?

Again a very interesting puzzle... considering that same Wikipedia article says:

quote:
Entire "fossil forests" of such upright fossil tree trunks and stumps have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata

Obviously someone besides us little o'l creationists are aware of the fossils. Here is a map of some other locations they have been excavated in "Australia."


Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-05-2011 11:51 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2011 12:42 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 199 by Pressie, posted 09-06-2011 1:23 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 203 by Panda, posted 09-06-2011 7:26 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2498 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 195 of 320 (632146)
09-05-2011 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Just being real
09-05-2011 11:00 PM


Hello JBR,

Did your reply actually cover any of the relavent material?

Butterflytyrant: The only sites that seem to mention polystrate fossils are creationist sites.

your reply - That is odd. The very first site that shows up when I Google the word is this (non-creationist) one from Wikipedia. But I guess if a creationist mentions something it must not be real ...huh?

This is quote from the Wiki page -

The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically only found in creationist publications.

So the Wiki page itself is not a Creationist page. It just parrots Creationist statements and advises the readers that the information is typically only found in creationist publications.

How does that support your arguement for a global flood?

Butterflytyrant: I asked my brother (coal industry 15 years), a geologist friend of the family (mining industry 20 years, coal for 10 years) and one of my scientist friends (coal industry 8 years) if they had ever seen one of these fossils. None of them had. I mentioned your claim. The general consensus is that your claim is ridiculous... ...Considering it was a world wide flood, they should be all over the place. Australia has huge coal reserves, in every state, where are the Australian examples?

Your reply - Again a very interesting puzzle... considering that same Wikipedia article says:

quote: Entire "fossil forests" of such upright fossil tree trunks and stumps have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata

My comment is a reply to the following statement made by you in Message 134

quote:
These fossils are so common that they are often a real hazard to coal miners who can suddenly be crushed when one dislodges and falls on him in the mines. These fossils are found in coal world wide.

I refuted that these fossils are "so common that they are often a real hazard to coal miners who can suddenly be crushed when one dislodges and falls on him in the mines." My brother actually rang me today and said that he did ctually recall one fossilised tree. It was horizontal, inside a coal seam. I refute your claim that they are common. I also refute your claim that they are a common danger to miners. If they were common, or a common danger to miners, then the combined 30 years cutting coal experience of the miners I have asked would have come up with more than 1 example wouldnt it? I am not saying that fossilesed trees do not exist. I am saying that the polystrate fossils you claim are common and a common danger to miners are in fact not common at all. Do you actually have any credible sources as this one does not support your claim.

Also, be careful using wikipedia as your primary source of information. The quote you have provided is sourced. The title of the source claiming the fossils are found "in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia" is "Pennsylvanian fossil forests' in growth position" (http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/handle/10088/15971). The word Australia does not appear in the body of the document at all. There is no verification of this claim at all.

Again, how does this arguement support your global flood?

Obviously someone besides us little o'l creationists are aware of the fossils. Here is a map of some other locations they have been excavated in "Australia."


The map appears to show coal mining activity. How does a map of coal mining activity illustrate polystrate fossils? Does is show any indication of fossils at all? All it seems to show is that you 'little o'l creationists' can locate an image of coal mining activity. Is there a source for this image? Can you illustrate the connection between the image and polystrate fossils? Can you tell me how the image you have provided relates to a global flood?

Would you care to discuss any of the important questions and points made in my post?

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Just being real, posted 09-05-2011 11:00 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Just being real, posted 09-06-2011 7:06 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
22Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019