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 6:10 AM
14 online now:
(14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,246 Year: 5,283/19,786 Month: 1,405/873 Week: 301/460 Day: 1/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Polystrata fossils
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4141 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 1 of 50 (419943)
09-05-2007 4:37 PM


Polystrata fossils is evidence that suggests it does not take long for layers to form and also it suggests that the fossils were rapidly buried.

I would like to discuss this topic for it to be understood and to be
pondered.

This link from talk.origins does not adequately explain how they transcend through multiple rock strata.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

This is part of my rebuttal I had posted in this here thread.

I checked the link, and read it all, then came to the conclusion that Dawson and talk.origins has no clue how these things exist in multiple stratas. *If* it wasn't deposited rapidly, how did it just survive long enough to be buried then fossilized? I know first hand what happens to trees that have sediment over the original root level. It won't take long before the micro-organisms eat through the bark and kill the tree. Also too much water will kill trees especially if it's stagnant water. Dawson might have known about geology, but he excludes the basics of horticulture.

Also, I think it is important to notice the reason he gives for this.

"...that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions,"

This in no way suggests that a massive flood couldn't have deposited this. The fact is that roots will bind and hold together soils. Hostas are extremely good plants for this, also most broadleaf grasses. It could have taken a massive chunk of soil with root ball intact.

Also from said website:

"It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition;

The inference is probably correct. The original location is questioned. Could it not be reasonable inferred that trees could be carried and redeposited? Also, could it not be reasonably inferred that it could have been a localized rapid layering? And if either of these conclusions are brought into speculation, it calls into question the origin of the other stratas and the time it would take to form.

This is the issue I would like to discuss: By having polystrata fossils present in multiple rock strata does this not suggest that rapid burial is plausible?

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 8:48 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 4 by iceage, posted 09-05-2007 8:51 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 6 by dwise1, posted 09-06-2007 11:54 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 50 (419979)
09-05-2007 8:06 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 3 of 50 (419987)
09-05-2007 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 4:37 PM


ghost forests and other means
From Message 119 as promised:

Message 115
I checked the link, and read it all, then came to the conclusion that Dawson and talk.origins has no clue how these things exist in multiple stratas. *If* it wasn't deposited rapidly, how did it just survive long enough to be buried then fossilized? I know first hand what happens to trees that have sediment over the original root level. It won't take long before the micro-organisms eat through the bark and kill the tree. Also too much water will kill trees especially if it's stagnant water. Dawson might have known about geology, but he excludes the basics of horticulture.

But that is not the only way such trees get buried.

http://www.nps.gov/slbe/planyourvisit/geologytour.htm

quote:
You may notice some dead trees within the eroded bowl of the dune. This is called a "ghost forest" and tells a story of alternating stability and change. After an initial phase of active sand accumulation, a period of stability followed when trees began to grow on the dune. Later, more sand moved in and buried the trees. Two layers of buried soil within the dune indicate that there was a second period of stability and growth followed by another period of sand build-up and then the final growth of the trees and shrubs that now cover the sheltered portions of the dunes.

http://www.nps.gov/slbe/naturescience/naturalfeaturesandecosystems.htm

quote:

You will notice that these trees were rapidly buried, but have not fossilized, some are still standing (especially as they become uncovered).

You will also notice that this was a dry process, so cannot be associated with a flood geology.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossils

quote:
Geologists have also found that some of the larger polystrate trees found within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata show evidence of regeneration after being partially buried by sediments. In the case of these polystrate trees, they were clearly alive when partially buried by sediments. Because of their size, the sediment, which accumulated around them, was insufficient to kill the trees. As a result, they developed a new set of roots from their trunks just below the new ground surface and grew higher to compensate for the part of the trunk buried by sediment.[1] Until they either died or were overwhelmed by the accumulating sediments, these polystrate would likely continue to regenerate by adding height and new roots with each increment of sediment, eventually leaving several of meters of former "trunk" buried underground as sediments accumulated

Such sediment - growth - sediment - growth - sediment cycles also cannot be explained by a flood scenario. Not all trees die when the roots are covered.

This is the issue I would like to discuss: By having polystrata fossils present in multiple rock strata does this not suggest that rapid burial is plausible?

Nothing in geology says that some instances of rapid formation of multiple layers is not possible - especially under certain conditions. This is a straw man argument to make substance of polystate fossils when it has none.

One of the things to consider is that it is easy to find evidence that supports a certain position -- such as a flat earth, for instance -- but that is not sufficient to validate that position when there is evidence that contradicts the position. Good explanations deal with all the known data and evidence, not just the items that support it.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : spling

Edited by RAZD, : added last p


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 1 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 4:37 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Ihategod, posted 09-06-2007 12:42 PM RAZD has responded

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


Message 4 of 50 (419988)
09-05-2007 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 4:37 PM


Rapid Burial
vash writes:

By having polystrata fossils present in multiple rock strata does this not suggest that rapid burial is plausible?

Rapid burial is plausible - yes.

Why is rapid burial such a problem. This is often repeated strawman that creationist build. Depositions can and do happen quickly and slowly. Creationist trying to implant the idea in peoples minds that if they can demonstrate that depositions can happen quickly then the flood must have done it all!

Rapid burial happens in (regional) floods, volcanic episodes, mass wasting events, etc.

Look here is a recently uncovered forest that is a "polystrata" fossil in the making. These trees are 10000 years old....

http://www.admin.mtu.edu/urel/breaking/2000/forest.html

Further creationist like to point out the submerged trees in Spirit Lake next to Mount Saint Helens. If the submerged trees in Spirit Lake someday produce "polystrata" fossil trees what does that prove other than the fact that nominal earth processes produces vertically buried tress on occasions.

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 4:37 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by bdfoster, posted 09-06-2007 11:31 AM iceage has not yet responded

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


Message 5 of 50 (420131)
09-06-2007 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by iceage
09-05-2007 8:51 PM


Re: Rapid Burial
Like most YEC arguments, polystrate fossils are a big so what. Like Iceage said rapid sedimentation happens. So what?

You want, rapid sedimentation, you got it!

Yes it happened in a flood. No it wasn't a global flood.

Polystrate fossils, and other examples of rapid sedimentation don't explain lake varves, pelagic ooze deposits (deep-water limestone and chert), evaporites etc.


Brent
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by iceage, posted 09-05-2007 8:51 PM iceage has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3409
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 6 of 50 (420136)
09-06-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 4:37 PM


Largely moving to here my post from where this topic was raised.

Do you believe that evidence of rapid depositation invalidates modern geology? Could you please explain why you would believe that? I believe that this will require you to define precisely which meaning of "uniformitarian" it is that you keep denying. Typical creationist misrepresentation is to have it mean that geologists believe that strata are laid down gradually at a constant uniform rate (I read a article by Steve Austin, then using his pseudonym of "Stuart Nevins" [double-check the spelling], making that exact claim, this while he was a graduate student in geology at a real university), whereas what it does mean in modern geology and science is that the physical laws and processes that exist and operate today also existed and operated in the past.

We see both gradual sedimentation and rapid depositation operating in the present and we know what evidence to look for to determine whether an ancient deposit was laid down gradually or rapidly. This was covered (and ignored by Steve Austin) in that article I mentioned: Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures, American Journal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869.

As I said, for the past 20 years I have seen this polystrate fossil claim used repeatedly and yet it has proven to be one of the worst-documented and supported creationist claims. In those 20 years, I've only seen one creationist actually try to support or defend it and that was by citing Steve Austin's quoting of the above-mentioned Broadhurst article, which in fact refuted that creationist's and Austin's claims.

In another more recent case, a local creation-science activist demanded that I explain away polystrate fossils, to which I requested that he provide an example of one, something that he admitted that he could not do: http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/q_polystrate_fossils.html.

So, Vashgun or whatever you're calling yourself now, in addition to explaining what exactly you mean by "uniformitarian" and why exactly you believe that polystrate fossils would present a problem for geology, do please also cite specific polystrate fossils along with their references, including scientific sources that also examine those fossils. That way, we will be able to examine the evidence.

I almost wish that you will present the story of the "polystrate" whale fossil found in Lompoc, Calif. You'll find it mentioned in Ackermann's "It's a Young Earth After All".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 4:37 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

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


Message 7 of 50 (420149)
09-06-2007 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
09-05-2007 8:48 PM


Re: ghost forests and other means
But that is not the only way such trees get buried.

Thanks for the reply first off.

The Sleeping Bear Dunes are fascinating for sure, however I noticed it was given a date of about 2000 years. I have no problem with this. I understand the claims that some roots of these polystrate trees are found in paleosols. I haven't been able to find examples of paleosols in the geologic column. I think, with the permission of the Admin's, that we should amend the topic to include paleosols and the how they are labeled and how this relates to polystrate fossils.

Paleosols seem to entertain a dichotomy between definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleosols

After reading this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosols.asp
I am wondering if I am missing something.

You will notice that these trees were rapidly buried, but have not fossilized, some are still standing (especially as they become uncovered).

You will also notice that this was a dry process, so cannot be associated with a flood geology.

I understand your point somewhat and if I may, I will paraphrase.
Trees now can be buried without water or flooding. Also, rapid burial needs no water or flooding. Sound right?

My question is: Are these trees in the Bear Dunes located within multiple strata? It looks to me similar soil. But how do I know??

Such sediment - growth - sediment - growth - sediment cycles also cannot be explained by a flood scenario. Not all trees die when the roots are covered.

Upon further investigation, I found no examples of this. Could you help me out? It's not that I don't believe you, it is perhaps I am looking for the wrong thing?

Nothing in geology says that some instances of rapid formation of multiple layers is not possible - especially under certain conditions. This is a straw man argument to make substance of polystate fossils when it has none.

The question then is: If it is possible that in areas where there are polystrate fossils found that rapid deposition would be the best explanation, why wouldn't this logic work for the rest of the rock strata?

Edit: I was wondering if we could move this to a two party discussion? Perhaps a great debate? dwise seems to just want to argue, whereas I started this thread to learn. If anyone feels they are the most qualified to represent I would appreciate a reply. I would like to request Razd has he seems more willing to put up with me, thanks :frazzled:

Edited by Highestevolvedwhiteguy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 8:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2007 3:47 PM Ihategod has responded

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


Message 8 of 50 (420153)
09-06-2007 12:58 PM


Polystrata Trees Problem for Flood Geology
Actually the more I think about it Polystrata Fossilized Trees is a huge problem for Flood geology!


Why are there not vast fossilized forests of vertical entombed trees?

As I was driving down the highway today i looked out across an expansive and broad forested plain. I thought that if this area was flooded and subjected to a rapid sedimentation these trees would be buried in place. I realize that this condition is true of a significant parts of the world like the flat land jungles of South America and Africa and the boreal forest of the northern hemisphere. A similar situation occurs when a newly constructed dam floods a forested area the trees will remain rooted for decades maybe longer in cold water allowing for some portion of the trunks to become buried.

So the question I have for the budding Young Earth Geologist why are Polystrata (or is polystrait) fossils only found in isolated regions and appear to be the exception and not the rule? It has been very well established that trees are occasionally buried in the growth and vertical deposited position by everyday natural geological processes such as subsidence, tsunamis, volcanic events, catastrophic failures of ice or land slide dams, river and lake breaches, etc. Search the literature if you disagree.

The over here and other there examples, of vertical tree fossils is exactly what one would expect from a traditional geological view of an old and restless earth.

For some unstated reason the Creationist publications on Polystrata trees (or is polystait) take great pains to show that the roots are not in growth position and that the tree was uprooted and deposited. So big deal! that is what one would expect on occasions.


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 09-06-2007 1:03 PM iceage has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Ihategod, posted 09-08-2007 9:01 PM iceage has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6532
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 9 of 50 (420157)
09-06-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by iceage
09-06-2007 12:58 PM


Re: Polystrata Trees Problem for Flood Geology
Why are there not vast fossilized forests of vertical entombed trees?

Vertical trees can run uphill faster than horizontal ones.

Or something like that.


I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by iceage, posted 09-06-2007 12:58 PM iceage has not yet responded

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


Message 10 of 50 (420186)
09-06-2007 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ihategod
09-06-2007 12:42 PM


Re: ghost forests and other means
Trees now can be buried without water or flooding. Also, rapid burial needs no water or flooding. Sound right?

And there is no reason that this did not apply in the past as well, certainly it can explain the existence of "polystrata trees" without need to invoke a flood scenario. They only become evidence for a flood (and then we need to distinguish between local or regional from other data) if no other explanation - and evidence for it - is available.

Upon further investigation, I found no examples of this. Could you help me out? It's not that I don't believe you, it is perhaps I am looking for the wrong thing?

It is mentioned in the article I quoted.

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

quote:
Geologists have also found that some of the larger polystrate trees found within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata show evidence of regeneration after being partially buried by sediments. In the case of these polystrate trees, they were clearly alive when partially buried by sediments. Because of their size, the sediment, which accumulated around them, was insufficient to kill the trees. As a result, they developed a new set of roots from their trunks just below the new ground surface and grew higher to compensate for the part of the trunk buried by sediment.[1] Until they either died or were overwhelmed by the accumulating sediments, these polystrate would likely continue to regenerate by adding height and new roots with each increment of sediment, eventually leaving several of meters of former "trunk" buried underground as sediments accumulated

Color and bold for emphasis. Note the reference number [1]. The reference is:

quote:
1. ^ a b Gastaldo, R.A., I. Stevanovic-Walls, and W.N. Ware, 2004, Erect forests are evidence for coseismic base-level changes in Pennsylvanian cyclothems of the Black Warrior Basin, U.S.A in Pashin, J.C., and Gastaldo, R.A., eds., Sequence Stratigraphy, Paleoclimate, and Tectonics of Coal-Bearing Strata. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology. 51:219–238.

The question then is: If it is possible that in areas where there are polystrate fossils found that rapid deposition would be the best explanation, why wouldn't this logic work for the rest of the rock strata?

Because it does not explain multiple varves and paleosols. In particular it does not explain varves like in Lake Suigetsu which alternate between diatom layers and clay layers.

This is off-topic to polystrate fossils, BUT

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html

quote:
One of the products of the continuing cycles of the seasons can be found on the bottoms of some lakes. Each spring, tiny plants bloom in Lake Suigetsu, a small body of water in Japan. When these one-cell algae die, they drift down, shrouding the lake floor with a thin, white layer. The rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle on the bottom. At the bottom of Lake Suigetsu, thin layers of microscopic algae have been piling up for many years. The alternating layers of dark and light count the years like tree rings. The sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform, typically 1.2 mm per yr for present conditions in Lake Suigetsu which is located near the coast of the Sea of Japan.

The clay settles too slowely for the clay layers to be formed except for extended periods of no diatoms. Some 37,000 layers were counted at Lake Suigetsu.

Similar varves are found in what is called the Green River Formation

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/greenriv.htm

quote:
The famous Green River Formation (including shale and limestone) covers tens of thousands of square miles. In at least one place, it contains about twenty million varves, each varve consisting of a thin layer of fine light sediment and an even thinner layer of finer dark sediment. According to the conventional geologic interpretation, the layers are sediments laid down in a complex of ancient freshwater lakes. The coarser light sediments were laid down during the summer, when streams poured run-off water into the lake. The fine dark sediments were laid down in the winter when there was less run-off. (This process can be observed in modern freshwater lakes.) If this interpretation is correct, the varves of the Green River formation must have formed over a period of about twenty million years.

The problem is that if this is not correct there needs to be some way to form those thin distinct alternating layers, all twenty million of them, in such a consistent manner over the tens of thousands of square miles. It may be that several layers were formed in a year, however that still leaves you with a lot of years and layers, and there is a limit to how fast some of the layers can form (fine material only settles at relatively slow rates). If one layer formed every day, this formation would still take 54,758.5 years to form. If one layer formed every hour it would still take 2,281.6 years to make this formation.

The Lake Suigetsu varves also pose a problem, because there were also over 250 organic samples buried in the varves that have been dated by C-14 methods. Even without the implications of decay and the C-14 ages from these samples the evidence is that they had different levels of C-14 in them and thus could not come from the same year of formation, so the formation of those layers must have occurred over many many years.

This gets into the evidence for an old earth, and that is another topic altogether. See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) for some more on this.

Now the cool thing is that you can experiment with soils matching the diatoms and clay or with soils matching the two fine light and dark layers, and see if you can get multiple layers to form without having to wait for one or the other to settle out enough material for the layer in question.

Bottom line, these varves cannot be explained by rapid deposition of layers.

There are many other formations that cannot be formed by rapid processes.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : hours


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 7 by Ihategod, posted 09-06-2007 12:42 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Ihategod, posted 09-08-2007 9:30 PM RAZD has responded

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


Message 11 of 50 (420644)
09-08-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by iceage
09-06-2007 12:58 PM


Re: Polystrata Trees Problem for Flood Geology
Why are there not vast fossilized forests of vertical entombed trees?

Aren't most of the polystrate fossils found in areas that are no longer buried and in contact with the air?

http://www.plainscreation.org/Scientific/Flood_files/image009.jpg
http://www.ianjuby.org/polystrate2.jpg
http://www.creationresearch.net/research/photos/flood%20tree%20fossil.jpg

Therefore would it be fair to suggest that geology has yet to uncover a majority of the earth, and also that there could be these forests?

For some unstated reason the Creationist publications on Polystrata trees (or is polystait) take great pains to show that the roots are not in growth position and that the tree was uprooted and deposited. So big deal! that is what one would expect on occasions.

The reason would be that if they were uprooted prior to deposition, this would indicate a major event...such as a flood. The big deal would be that if creation science can show that it is possible for rapid deposition of multiple layers of sediment to laid down quickly then it would show that it could be possible for this to happen in areas with a similar type of geologic column.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by iceage, posted 09-06-2007 12:58 PM iceage has not yet responded

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


Message 12 of 50 (420646)
09-08-2007 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
09-06-2007 3:47 PM


Re: ghost forests and other means
And there is no reason that this did not apply in the past as well, certainly it can explain the existence of "polystrata trees" without need to invoke a flood scenario. They only become evidence for a flood (and then we need to distinguish between local or regional from other data) if no other explanation - and evidence for it - is available.

I don't mean to patronize you, however, it seems as if your trying to shrug the topic of uniformity off and to remove the possibility of a world wide flood. I know your reaction will state that there isn't any evidence for a world wide flood, however I think the same evidence you use for uniformity can suggest catastrophic flood.

Would you agree that without uniformitariansim the geological "evidence" would be speculation instead of "fact?" Also, would it be reasonable to state that uniformitarian thought reflects the same type of idea that biblical flood thought would suggest; by this I mean that folks like Charles Lyell tried to prove an old earth in the face of young earth fanaticism of the day? And if this is so, why is it that YEC gets accused of using this innocent until proven guilty method?

Upon further investigation, I found no examples of this. Could you help me out? It's not that I don't believe you, it is perhaps I am looking for the wrong thing?

It is mentioned in the article I quoted.

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. :rolleyes: 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.

Because it does not explain multiple varves and paleosols. In particular it does not explain varves like in Lake Suigetsu which alternate between diatom layers and clay layers.

Varves could be another matter entirely that still rests upon the uniformity principle. However, I have read refutations on paleosols.

http://www.creationwiki.net/Varves

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosols.asp

What is your un-biased opinion?

Bottom line, these varves cannot be explained by rapid deposition of layers.

I wouldn't assume it would. However, if some type of varves could be shown to be created *by a massive flood, then we might have a discussion. For now, I wouldn't argue against this.

Another question and please humor poor ol' me: Let's assume that there are no valves or paleosols found in the rock strata what is to stop anyone from suggesting biblical flood geology isn't possible?

There are many other formations that cannot be formed by rapid processes.

I for one would like to stretch the topic to discuss more of these, while continuing with the polystrate discussion.

Can you answer this one? You guys left it out.
My question is: Are these trees in the Bear Dunes located within multiple strata? It looks to me similar soil. But how do I know??

Edited by Highestevolvedwhiteguy, : oops


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2007 3:47 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by molbiogirl, posted 09-08-2007 9:58 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2007 12:20 AM Ihategod has responded
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-09-2007 1:58 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 753 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 13 of 50 (420650)
09-08-2007 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Ihategod
09-08-2007 9:30 PM


HEWG can't google
I searched for "Gastaldo, R.A., I. Stevanovic-Walls, and W.N. Ware, 2004," to no avail.

Yet another creo who can't google.

Funny.

I just cut n paste the authors into google and here's the first hit:

Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gastaldo, R.A., I. Stevanovic-Walls, and W.N. Ware, 2004, Erect forests are evidence for coseismic base-level changes in Pennsylvanian cyclothems of the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2007 11:14 PM molbiogirl has responded

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


Message 14 of 50 (420662)
09-08-2007 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by molbiogirl
09-08-2007 9:58 PM


cut some slack?
I just cut n paste the authors into google and here's the first hit:

Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, but that was where the original source reference was found -- he's looking for the actual article, not a reference to it.

The question is whether the article is available on-line or whether he'll have to go to a (gasp) dead wood library.

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 13 by molbiogirl, posted 09-08-2007 9:58 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by molbiogirl, posted 09-08-2007 11:27 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 16 by iceage, posted 09-08-2007 11:28 PM RAZD has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 753 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 15 of 50 (420664)
09-08-2007 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
09-08-2007 11:14 PM


Ah.

Well. In that case.

It took me another couple minutes of googling to figure out that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology has a website:

aapg.org

And that one can register for FREE to get access to their publications.

HEWG. Take note.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2007 12:21 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019