Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8950 total)
48 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,372 Year: 22,408/19,786 Month: 971/1,834 Week: 41/430 Day: 41/63 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uniformitarianism and Geology
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 16 of 56 (592502)
11-20-2010 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
11-19-2010 8:53 PM


The Argument Could be Made
It would look like it does now. However, our physics would be very different.

We'd have to have a physics that could explain many correlations that make sense if the stars behave as object do on Earth; i.e., perspective: parallax: distance: size: brightness: temperature: wavelength, but seem to be unrelated properties in space — assuming a field depth of 6 kly.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 11-19-2010 8:53 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 11-20-2010 2:53 PM lyx2no has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31798
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 17 of 56 (592508)
11-20-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by lyx2no
11-20-2010 2:38 PM


Re: The Argument Could be Made
If we crammed all the stars known into that 6KLY sphere, would there be night?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by lyx2no, posted 11-20-2010 2:38 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 11-20-2010 3:11 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 18 of 56 (592516)
11-20-2010 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
11-20-2010 2:53 PM


Re: The Argument Could be Made
There is night; so, yes.

I've been unable to find the source, but I remember something somewhere sometime a story, and it might have been about Richard Feynman, wherein someone was saying to him "It was a rational hypothesis that the Sun went round the Earth as that is what it looks like." And Feynman (?) asked "And what would it look like if the Earth went round the Sun?"

As we are able to look up at the stars at night they must be either tiny things or be contained in a much larger volume. If they are big in a small volume we wouldn't be.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 11-20-2010 2:53 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3911
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 19 of 56 (592578)
11-20-2010 6:17 PM


Topic drift/abandonment alert
Something makes me think that messages should have something to do with a uniformitarianism/geology theme.

Do not reply to this message.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Tweak a sentence and add off-topic banner.


  
alschwin
Member (Idle past 3218 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 11-20-2010


Message 20 of 56 (592672)
11-21-2010 1:31 AM


National Geographic not long ago published a picture of a polystrate fossil, a fossilized tree that extended vertically through multiple layers of the earth's strata in Tennessee. Not surprisingly this fossil was in good company. The fossilized tree was located in a neighborhood of many more. Any advocate of uniformitarianism would claim that it must have taken many, many years for the surrounding strata to accumulate (much longer than it takes for trees to grow, die, and decay considering the oldest tree in the world is only around 5,000 years old. Ex: Methuselah). If evolutions's interpretation of earth history is true than there's no possible scenario that could account for this extraordinary occurrence. Many polystrates are known, however the word polystrate is accepted only by creationists. Odd enough this word is rarely found in standard literature despite its relevance. Creationists quickly recognize the significance of these polystrate fossils while evolutionists continue to deny their existence. By recognizing this worldwide occurrence creationists clearly demonstrate their ability to observe (the first step in the scientific method) while at the same time evolutionist demonstrate their lack of this ability. Creationists also demonstrate their ability to hypothesize by theorizing a global flood. Again evolution does the opposite by refusing to explain this wonderful occurrence. As science continues to uncover more evidence the biblical account of the earth's history becomes more obvious.

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by frako, posted 11-21-2010 3:27 AM alschwin has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-21-2010 4:10 AM alschwin has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 11-21-2010 2:30 PM alschwin has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2010 3:07 PM alschwin has responded
 Message 37 by Theodoric, posted 11-23-2010 9:38 PM alschwin has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Theodoric, posted 11-24-2010 8:05 PM alschwin has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2823
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 21 of 56 (592683)
11-21-2010 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by alschwin
11-21-2010 1:31 AM


The word polystrate is not a standard geological term, and is found most often in creationist materials.

In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.[4] For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull-apart basin,[5] and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments. Contrary to the claims of creationists, these sedimentary basins are considerably smaller than the state of Texas. The specific layers containing polystrate fossils occupy only a very limited fraction of the total area of any of these basins.[6][7]

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

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 these cases, the polystrate trees were clearly alive when they were partially buried by sediments. The accumulated sediment was insufficient to kill the trees immediately because of their size. As a result, some of them developed a new set of roots from their trunks just below the new ground surface.[4] Until they either died or were overwhelmed by the accumulating sediments, these polystrate trees would likely continue to regenerate by adding height and new roots with each increment of sediment, eventually leaving several meters of former "trunk" buried underground as sediments accumulated.

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

And to be more thurough in the explenation

According to scientists, polystrate fossils are just fossils which were buried in a relatively short time span either by one large depositional event or by several smaller ones. Geologists see no need to invoke a global flood to explain upright fossils. This position of geologists is supported by numerous examples, which have been found at numerous locations, of polystrate, upright, trees completely buried within either late Holocene or historic sediments. These polystrate trees demonstrate that conventional geologic processes are capable of burying and preserving trees in an upright position such that in time, they will become fossilized.

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

Does this solve your un-informa-tism <----- see what i did there

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by alschwin, posted 11-21-2010 1:31 AM alschwin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-21-2010 4:08 AM frako has not yet responded

  
Zubbbra25
Junior Member (Idle past 2451 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-11-2010


Message 22 of 56 (592690)
11-21-2010 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by frako
11-21-2010 3:27 AM


Thanks for responding to that frako, when I woke up and saw polystrate fossils I wanted to cry, it has been rebuted so many times seeing a creationist bring it up makes my eyes bleed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by frako, posted 11-21-2010 3:27 AM frako has not yet responded

  
Zubbbra25
Junior Member (Idle past 2451 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-11-2010


Message 23 of 56 (592691)
11-21-2010 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by alschwin
11-21-2010 1:31 AM


So you say that a 'Global Flood' could have buried these trees and caused them to be polystrate.

How then if you don't agree with uniformitarianism can you even use flood deposition processes that occur today as evidence for a flood that happened in the past. How do you know the processes are the same? In essence, you can't. Polystrate fossils are no problem for geology and if you did any reading you would see why. Frakos post explains it perfectly well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by alschwin, posted 11-21-2010 1:31 AM alschwin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-21-2010 2:37 PM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19121
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 24 of 56 (592724)
11-21-2010 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by alschwin
11-21-2010 1:31 AM


Hi Alschwin,

I tried to track this down. Your claim appears to be based upon this article from ICR:

http://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/

It 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by alschwin, posted 11-21-2010 1:31 AM alschwin has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2332
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 25 of 56 (592725)
11-21-2010 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Zubbbra25
11-21-2010 4:10 AM


non-uniformitarianism and the Anthropic Principle
Zubbra25 writes:

How then if you don't agree with uniformitarianism can you even use flood deposition processes that occur today as evidence for a flood that happened in the past. How do you know the processes are the same? In essence, you can't.

Another thing that strikes me as strange is some of these creationists make wild claims that the laws of physics were different before the flood i.e. radioactive decay was different, and then use the Anthropic Principle to say that the Universe was created perfectly for life on earth; that if any of the physical constants were even a millionth of one percent different life could not exist.

I don't know if it is the same folks saying both things but I would not be surprised.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-21-2010 4:10 AM Zubbbra25 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 11-21-2010 2:50 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 451 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 26 of 56 (592726)
11-21-2010 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tanypteryx
11-21-2010 2:37 PM


Re: non-uniformitarianism and the Anthropic Principle
Another thing that strikes me as strange is some of these creationists make wild claims that the laws of physics were different before the flood i.e. radioactive decay was different, and then use the Anthropic Principle to say that the Universe was created perfectly for life on earth; that if any of the physical constants were even a millionth of one percent different life could not exist.

I don't know if it is the same folks saying both things but I would not be surprised.

Consistency is not a requirement for creation "science."

The only requirement seems that tenets of creation "science" must sound good and not contradict the bible.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-21-2010 2:37 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Iblis, posted 11-21-2010 5:36 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 27 of 56 (592728)
11-21-2010 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by alschwin
11-21-2010 1:31 AM


National Geographic not long ago published a picture of a polystrate fossil [...] Creationists quickly recognize the significance of these polystrate fossils while evolutionists continue to deny their existence.

Funny, I always thought the folks at National Geographic were evolutionists.

This kinda gave me a clue.

Do you not read the stuff you write, or do you simply not think about it?

Any advocate of uniformitarianism would claim that it must have taken many, many years for the surrounding strata to accumulate (much longer than it takes for trees to grow, die, and decay ...

If any advocate of uniformitarianism would claim that, then perhaps you could quote just one of them making this claim.

No?

If evolutions's interpretation of earth history is true than there's no possible scenario that could account for this extraordinary occurrence.

Well, apart from real geological processes that we can watch happening. Which kinda makes it an ordinary everyday occurrence that's going on all the time.

Like this, for example. It's the top of a cottonwood tree sticking out of the sand dune that drifted over it.

No advocate of uniformitarianism would claim that "it must have taken many, many years for the surrounding strata to accumulate (much longer than it takes for trees to grow, die, and decay)". Because any advocate of uniformitarianism would notice that it's still got leaves on it.

Here we see trees being buried in layers of volcanic ash. Note that the tree in the mid-distance has undergone burial of its entire trunk, and has not decayed.

Creationists quickly recognize the significance of these polystrate fossils ...

Would this involve a magic flood?

If so, why?

By recognizing this worldwide occurrence creationists clearly demonstrate their ability to observe ...

Specifically, to observe things published in magazines by evolutionists. Well done.

Unfortunately, what you have apparently failed to observe are the real processes which bury trees.

Again evolution does the opposite by refusing to explain this wonderful occurrence.

If by "evolution" you mean evolution, then you have inadvertently told the truth.

If by "evolution" you mean geology then you are of course wrong.

As science continues to uncover more evidence the biblical account of the earth's history becomes more obvious.

And yet as science continues to uncover more evidence, the scientists who actually do the science and actually uncovered the evidence (as opposed to people who occasionally glance at bits of it in magazines) have become more and more convinced that the biblical account of the Earth's history is rubbish. Why do you think that is?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by alschwin, posted 11-21-2010 1:31 AM alschwin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by alschwin, posted 11-22-2010 3:46 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 2241 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


(1)
Message 28 of 56 (592739)
11-21-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coyote
11-21-2010 2:50 PM


Re: non-uniformitarianism and the Anthropic Principle
The only requirement seems that tenets of creation "science" must sound good and not contradict the bible.

That's it right there. That's why this prattaata about the "vapor canopy" keeps coming around in this context. In the real world, such a thing, even if technically possible, would simply produce venus conditions inimicable to any form of life. But in the world inside the book, it obviously must prolong life 1000%, safely accelerate radioactive decay more than a million %, and cause trees to generate hundreds of rings a year. Furthermore, when this Miracle Water stops being supported by sheer grace, whoosh, it produces millions of levels of strata and nested fossilization identical to the nesting we see genetically and cladistically.

I much prefer the notions that all this corroborating evidence is either a trick of the devil or an opportunity for disbelief provided by god to strengthen the faith of the true believer. At least that line of persuasion doesn't pretend to be science.

But to someone who doesnt understand the basics, the "vapor canopy" sounds as scientific as any only vaguely difficult concept like self-organizing carbon compounds, extra dimensions, or metric fields and vaccum energy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 11-21-2010 2:50 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
alschwin
Member (Idle past 3218 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 11-20-2010


Message 29 of 56 (592862)
11-22-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dr Adequate
11-21-2010 3:07 PM


Inverted polystrate trees?
All of you failed to agnowledge inverted polystrate tree fossils and hypothesize how they are formed. Rapped deposition or not no uprooted tree would ever survive long enough to be buried by strata: it would decay long before this. If the evolutionary theory is to ever be proven you all need to accept the facts, and if you cant than you are truly brainwashed. Evolution is a cult religion don't kid yourself.

If you still in denial check out the pictures for yourself
http://ianjuby.org/jogginsb.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2010 3:07 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2010 4:14 PM alschwin has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 11-22-2010 4:14 PM alschwin has responded
 Message 32 by frako, posted 11-22-2010 5:40 PM alschwin has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-22-2010 6:19 PM alschwin has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


(1)
Message 30 of 56 (592867)
11-22-2010 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by alschwin
11-22-2010 3:46 PM


Re: Inverted polystrate trees?
All of you failed to agnowledge inverted polystrate tree fossils and hypothesize how they are formed.

I will if you like. Let's assume for the sake of argument that your creationist source is right about inverted trees.

There are real events that can bury trees and alter their orientation, such as landslides.

Or, if you believe that a magical fictitious flood can produce such effects, then obviously you must acknowledge that a real non-magical flood could do the same thing. Real floods happen, you know.

Or, alternatively, an tree could fall into an anoxic lake, become waterlogged, and sink top-first. Anoxic lakes exist, unlike magic floods.

Or a tree could fall on the side of a hill, inverting it, and then be covered by one of the same processes that cover trees in normal orientation. These processes also exist, as we have seen.

Rapped deposition or not no uprooted tree would ever survive long enough to be buried by strata: it would decay long before this.

Could you explain your reasoning, if you have any?

We have seen that rooted trees manage to get themselves buried without decaying first. Why should uprooted trees be any different?

If the evolutionary theory is to ever be proven you all need to accept the facts ...

Done and done.

Evolution is a cult religion don't kid yourself.

Why is it that religious people use "religion" as a term of abuse? It seems paradoxical. If I wanted to insult creationism, I wouldn't do so by calling it science.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by alschwin, posted 11-22-2010 3:46 PM alschwin has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019