Uniformitarianism and Geology

Hi Alschwin,I tried to track this down. Your claim appears to be based upon this article from ICR:A Classic Polystrate Fossil | The Institute for Creation ResearchIt contains some pictures but no specific information, not does the article cite which issue of National Geographic, so with no specific information we can't discuss this case. Can you find a creationist technical article about a polystrate fossil that contains some actual information?--Percy

Hi Alschwin,You can include the pictures in your post. Click on peek to see how I did this, click on the picture itself to see it at full size: So to you this is unambiguously an inverted polystrate tree fossil?Assuming that it is what you think it is, how is this evidence for the flood? Wouldn't you need to know that the layers were of a type deposited by floods, and that the layers were laid down at the same time, geologically speaking?--Percy

No one here doubts that strata can be rapidly deposited beneath water. Here's your picture again: It looks much more like some kind of intrusion rather than a polystrate fossil, but let's say that it's exactly what you think it is, a tree buried upside down in a flood. There's nothing impossible about a tree being buried upside down. One way it could happen is a polyclastic flow from a volcanic eruption uprooting trees and tumbling them down the slope where they become buried in all kinds of orientations. Another way is a large storm uprooting trees and washing them into the sea where they become buried in all kinds of orientations.What we're asking is what is your evidence that your picture is actually a tree buried upside down by a global flood 4500 years ago?Here's the error in your logic: It is possible for a tree to be buried upside down by a flood, therefore this odd looking geological structure must be a tree buried upside down by Noah's flood. Even if Noah's flood actually happened, given all the ways things can happen the only way you could be right is by sheer luck.Added by Edit:Forgot to mention about this: Check your link. It doesn't point to what you think it does.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE

Did you read the next paragraph? The two examples I provided of how this can happen are catastrophes. Mount St. Helen's was a catastrophe, too. No one doubts that catastrophes happen, but as you point out, layers deposited suddenly in a catastrophe have a different appearance and structure from gradually deposited layers, plus the catastrophic layers would all date the same.--Percy

We should also note that uniformitarianism is a term that has long, long fallen out of favor in geological circles, like for at least a half century. The term is still valid and still sees some use in the technical literature but has become uncommon, perhaps because the term is so easily misconstrued. Creationists often think it refers to slow gradual change when it really refers to uniformity in the array of processes operating on the Earth across time. Whenever the term comes up in the creation/evolution debate you can be sure that creationists are misunderstanding the term.--Percy