Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Polystrata fossils
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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.
Geology Auto Tour - Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (U.S. National Park Service)
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.
Natural Features & Ecosystems - Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (U.S. National Park Service)
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 Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia
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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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.
Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia
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
Lake Varves
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
The Skeptic Files - SkepticFiles Setting
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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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


Re: ghost forests and other means
I don't mean to patronize you, however, it seems as if your trying to shrug the topic of uniformity off and to remove the possibility of a world wide flood. I know your reaction will state that there isn't any evidence for a world wide flood, however I think the same evidence you use for uniformity can suggest catastrophic flood.
No, what I am stating is that the existence of incident specific occurrences that don't involve a world wide flood means that one does not need to invoke a world wide flood to explain other similar occurrences.
Would you agree that without uniformitariansim the geological "evidence" would be speculation instead of "fact?" Also, would it be reasonable to state that uniformitarian thought reflects the same type of idea that biblical flood thought would suggest; by this I mean that folks like Charles Lyell tried to prove an old earth in the face of young earth fanaticism of the day? And if this is so, why is it that YEC gets accused of using this innocent until proven guilty method?
Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia
quote:
Within scientific philosophy, uniformitarianism ("with a small u") refers to the principle that the same processes that shape the universe occurred in the past as they do now, and that the same laws of physics apply in all parts of the knowable universe. This axiomatic principle, not often referred to as an "-ism" in modern discussions, is particularly relevant to geology and other sciences on a long timescale such as astronomy and paleontology. The leading geologist of Darwin’s era, a Scot named Charles Lyell (1797 - 1875), incorporated James Hutton’s gradualism into a theory known as uniformitarianism. The term refers to Lyell’s idea that geological processes have not changed throughout Earth’s history. Thus, for example, the forces that build mountains and erode mountains and the rates at which these forces operate are the same today as in the past.
What about this is not unreasonable? Do you have any evidence of any of the basic physical properties and processes changing in any way? For instance do you have any - even theoretical - mechanism by which the decay rates of radioactive material can be changed?
I searched for "Gastaldo, R.A., I. Stevanovic-Walls, and W.N. Ware, 2004," to no avail. It is not that I disbelieve the report, but it seems rather vague in description and could have been an evil evolution conspiracy. Humor me with another example with possibly a detailed description and pics. If the breakdown of my argument rests with Gestaldo I think I might have a case.
You may need to go to a library to find such works.
Doing a google on "Erect forests are evidence for coseismic base-level changes in Pennsylvanian cyclothems of the Black Warrior Basin" I found:
1) Latest Mid-Pennsylvanian tree-fern forests in retrograding coastal plain deposits, Sydney Mines Formation, Nova Scotia, Canada (which presumably cites it as a reference):
quote:
Basal stump diameter measurements, including the root mantle, range from 12 to 89 cm, indicating that the ferns were mostly large forest trees, rather than shrubs. Stump distribution measurements on palaeosols indicate that localized patches of tree-fern-dominated forest attained densities of c. 3850 trees per hectare when scaled up to standard forestry units, much denser than typical Mid-Pennsylvanian lycopsid forests. Tree-ferns dominantly grew in aggrading floodbasin settings, and a few of the largest trees show evidence for post-burial regeneration. Being approximately coeval with the late Mid-Pennsylvanian extinction event, which resulted in tree-fern forests rising to dominate tropical lowlands for the first time, the Cranberry Head fossil forests provide insight into community composition and structure during a critical phase of ecosystem reorganization.
I'm sure a little searching would turn up a lot of similar such evidence.
Varves could be another matter entirely that still rests upon the uniformity principle.
No, it rests on common sense. In the Green River Formation you have 20 million discrete thin layers covering tens of thousands of square miles ... if one layer formed every minute it would still take 30 years to make this formation. Even fantastic departure from known physical behavior of the particles involved does not allow the formation of this feature.
http://www.creationwiki.net/Varves
What is your un-biased opinion?
quote:
Such views as represented by evolution actually rely on assumptions that these varves are layed down consistently year after year. In fact when Mount St. Helens erupted in Washington State it produced 25 feet of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon! Other such catastrophic events such as the Flood of Noah could also imply the action of laying down many layers quite rapidly within a year time-frame. Thus even millions of layers could be formed in just a few years.
Furthermore experiments show that the thickness of the layers in a continuous heterogranular deposition is independent of the rate of deposition, but is related to the difference in grain size. So varves are not really a problem for a young earth, they just show that deposition rates were higher during and immediately following the Biblical flood than they are today.
Except that they don't talk about how varves are formed at all. They substitute two different phenomena instead. What is your unbiased opinion of somebody that does that?
I wouldn't assume it would. However, if some type of varves could be shown to be created, then we might have a discussion. For now, I wouldn't argue against this.
Good idea.
However, I have read refutations on paleosols.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
What is your un-biased opinion?
Of AiG? Honestly I don't have an unbiased opinion - I've read too many articles of theirs with outright falsehoods and blatant misrepresentations of the facts. Perhaps you could summarize what you think are the telling point made in the article and we'll see how they fare for dealing with the issue.
Another question and please humor poor ol' me: Let's assume that there are no valves or paleosols found in the rock strata what is to stop anyone from suggesting biblical flood geology isn't possible?
Again the test for validity of a concept is not in finding evidence that can support it but in dealing with all the evidence, including that which counters it.
Can you answer this one? You guys left it out.
My question is: Are these trees in the Bear Dunes located within multiple strata? It looks to me similar soil. But how do I know??
Probably, but it is hard to tell with sand if the original strata were multiple layers or not (you would need some boundary layer or formation between them to mark the boundary), especially as most of the covering material has been removed by subsequent erosion.
However it is now possible to cover the area again with a second layer from a different source -- say volcanic ash. Erode and repeat with sand, etc. etc. These trees have been around for a while, and they are not going anywhere soon either.
Enjoy.

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


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

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

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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


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

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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


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

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


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

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

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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


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

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


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

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

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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


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

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


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

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

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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:
Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
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.

(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:
EO - 404 Error
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. Evaporites could form without evaporation (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
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:
Evaporite - Wikipedia
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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 Kent Hovind - Wikipedia)
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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 50 (422166)
09-16-2007 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Ihategod
09-16-2007 3:01 AM


Re: dealing with evidence
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.
This means nothing. It doesn't explain anything nor does it provide any testable mechanisms. All it amounts to is wishing.
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.
The premise from the "Hovind Theory" was that plant material became coal and animal material became oil. That is what was being tested against the evidence (and found lacking).
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.
But no all animals can run fast, so some would always be caught. Also, if we assume the global flood there is a point at which all those running animals run out of high ground. Therefore there should be piles of animal fossils at the tops of hills. Not found.
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?
Evidence of things not behaving as they do now, whereas we see the opposite -- from the Oklo fossil reactors to Super Nova 1987A.
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.
When you redefine terms to mean things not the way they are used by other, you enter the realm of talking about fantasy and delusion.
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.
Looks like they ruled out a single catastrophic event because they were unable to find any possible evidence for it. If that is bias, then it is in the physical evidence and not in the interpretations based on evaluation of all the evidence.
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Ihategod, posted 09-16-2007 3:01 AM Ihategod has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024