Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uniformitarianism and Geology
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 31 of 56 (592868)
11-22-2010 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by alschwin
11-22-2010 3:46 PM


Re: Inverted polystrate trees?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by alschwin, posted 11-22-2010 3:46 PM alschwin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by alschwin, posted 11-23-2010 8:11 PM Percy has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 383 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 32 of 56 (592882)
11-22-2010 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by alschwin
11-22-2010 3:46 PM


Re: Inverted polystrate trees?
If you still in denial check out the pictures for yourself
Page not found - IanJuby
I looked at the site and now im a firm believer Alelujjjjaaa praise Odin for carving us out of trees and giving us life
I read the whole site and found nothing that would convince me in the slightest of a global flood there are 1000 explenations that could account for a tree being found burried upside down.
And on a noter note in no pitcure there did i see a tree being pettrefied upside down in every pitcure you can clearly see the bottom part of the tree being in the right place at the bottom.
Though i am no geologist the lines that he drew on the picture make no sense to me.
and for this statement found on the site :
Colorado that was coalified at the top, petrified at the middle, and wood at the bottom.
I'm gonna need something more then his word.

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

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3946
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 33 of 56 (592897)
11-22-2010 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by alschwin
11-22-2010 3:46 PM


Polystrate trees? - A flood happened? - So what
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.
Short response version:
Even if mainstream science totally granted the above as correct, it would still have no real significance in the big picture of geologic history.
Long version:
Mainstream geologic thought does not deny that rapid deposition can happen. Rather than refuting uniformitarianism, it is part of uniformitarianism. Processes that happen in the present have also happened in the past.
Now I don’t know the details of the deposits, but I suspect they are indeed from some variety of flood or series of floods, probably relatively small scale. The time frame of the deposition? — It could be a day, a year, a decade or more. Depending on the type of tree and the oxygen present, a tree could take a long time to decompose. So, even granting a flood, it doesn’t strongly support the more or less year long flood as described in the Bible.
You seem to be invoking your own extreme variety of uniformitarianism. That is, since rapid deposition is possible, then all deposition is rapid. There is strong evidence to the contrary, both in the present and the past.
Now, if you had very widely found such deposits, at various elevations, that could be correlated as having happened at about the same time (possibly within a year), then you would be getting somewhere in documenting a really big flood. Alas, such does not exist in the real world.
Even if such did exist within the geologic deposits as we know them, it would still not account for the vast amount of time consuming deposition and other geologic processes found elsewhere in the geologic record (all those various rocks, eroded rocks, folded rocks, faulted rocks, metamorphosed rocks, etc.). What you would have is a big flood in the context of an old Earth. Young Earth creationism is a dead concept right from the word young.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added a bit more.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-25-2010 2:54 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
alschwin
Member (Idle past 4950 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 11-20-2010


Message 34 of 56 (593025)
11-23-2010 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
11-22-2010 4:14 PM


Re: Inverted polystrate trees?
Yes Percy, I would and I do. Plenty of research has been done to show how layers of strata can quickly and simultaneously be deposited under water. The following 10 min video covers such research. Note this is only one part of a 4 part video. I recommend watching all 4 parts if you have not already heard of this. Also, if it's not too much trouble could you briefly explain how I include your post above my response.
Video titled experimenting with stratification below
YouTube

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 11-22-2010 4:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2010 8:21 PM alschwin has not replied
 Message 36 by Panda, posted 11-23-2010 8:28 PM alschwin has replied
 Message 39 by frako, posted 11-24-2010 5:01 AM alschwin has replied
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 11-24-2010 7:56 AM alschwin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 35 of 56 (593026)
11-23-2010 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by alschwin
11-23-2010 8:11 PM


Re: Inverted polystrate trees?
Yes Percy, I would and I do. Plenty of research has been done to show how layers of strata can quickly and simultaneously be deposited under water.
So ... you admit that this can happen under non-magical circumstances? Or did the experiments only work if the researchers prayed really really hard and sacrificed a goat?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by alschwin, posted 11-23-2010 8:11 PM alschwin has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 36 of 56 (593027)
11-23-2010 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by alschwin
11-23-2010 8:11 PM


Re: Inverted polystrate trees?
alschwin writes:
Also, if it's not too much trouble could you briefly explain how I include your post above my response.
How to quote people...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by alschwin, posted 11-23-2010 8:11 PM alschwin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by alschwin, posted 11-23-2010 9:58 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9274
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 37 of 56 (593038)
11-23-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by alschwin
11-21-2010 1:31 AM


Nat Geo issue?
How about providing the issue of Nat Geo this was in?
I find it hilarious that fundies and YEC's have this need to appeal to authority but usually fuck it up
Your statement
National Geographic not long ago published a picture of a polystrate fossil
ICR says
Years ago, National Geographic published a remarkable photograph of a polystrate fossil
Was it not long ago, or was it years ago?
What the hell does Nat Geo publishing the photo have to do with anything? How does that help your position?
Polystrates have been explained by others already so I will not kick that dead horse. I am sure you have ignored all of the evidence and instead are going to believe what Ian Juby has to say.
I love this statement from Juby.
This page is reserved for brief, easy to read scientific studies.
Care to present his scientific credentials since you seem to have a need to appeal to authority. By what reason should we listen to anything Ian has to say?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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

  
alschwin
Member (Idle past 4950 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 11-20-2010


Message 38 of 56 (593043)
11-23-2010 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Panda
11-23-2010 8:28 PM


Re: Inverted polystrate trees?
Panda writes:
How to quote people...
Just checking thanks Panda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Panda, posted 11-23-2010 8:28 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 383 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 39 of 56 (593078)
11-24-2010 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by alschwin
11-23-2010 8:11 PM


Re: Inverted polystrate trees?
Video titled experimenting with stratification below
YouTube
Hahaha that link got me 4 videos
Agents of Secret Stuff Trailer (Official)
Bella and "THE MUSHROOM" Incident
VlogVember: [HOLIDAY] TREE!
And the reason why i ROFLD
Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 18)
Something all creationist should watch from part 1 to part thirty-sh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by alschwin, posted 11-23-2010 8:11 PM alschwin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by alschwin, posted 11-24-2010 2:59 PM frako has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 40 of 56 (593089)
11-24-2010 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by alschwin
11-23-2010 8:11 PM


Re: Inverted polystrate trees?
alschwin writes:
Plenty of research has been done to show how layers of strata can quickly and simultaneously be deposited under water.
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:
Video titled experimenting with stratification below
YouTube
Check your link. It doesn't point to what you think it does.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by alschwin, posted 11-23-2010 8:11 PM alschwin has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3973 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 41 of 56 (593096)
11-24-2010 10:19 AM


religion vs science
Dr A writes:
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.
I'ts a rhetorical trick for preaching to the choir. If you were a simple-minded person, you would only be able to get use out of one religion. (Only one answer can be "literally true".) If science, or some inconvenient aspect of it, is a "religion", then the followers of religion "C" must automagically plug up their ears to any information from religion "E".
This isn't a new tactic.
Nietzche writes:
Has any one ever clearly understood the celebrated story at the beginning of the Bible--of God's mortal terror of science? . . . No one, in fact, has understood it. This priest-book par excellence opens, as is fitting, with the great inner difficulty of the priest: he faces only one great danger; ergo, "God" faces only one great danger.--
The old God, wholly "spirit," wholly the high-priest, wholly perfect, is promenading his garden: he is bored and trying to kill time. Against boredom even gods struggle in vain. What does he do? He creates man--man is entertaining. . . But then he notices that man is also bored. God's pity for the only form of distress that invades all paradises knows no bounds: so he forthwith creates other animals. God's first mistake: to man these other animals were not entertaining--he sought dominion over them; he did not want to be an "animal" himself.--So God created woman. In the act he brought boredom to an end--and also many other things! Woman was the second mistake of God.--"Woman, at bottom, is a serpent, Heva"--every priest knows that; "from woman comes every evil in the world"--every priest knows that, too. Ergo, she is also to blame for science. . . It was through woman that man learned to taste of the tree of knowledge.--What happened? The old God was seized by mortal terror. Man himself had been his greatest blunder; he had created a rival to himself; science makes men godlike--it is all up with priests and gods when man becomes scientific!--Moral: science is the forbidden per se; it alone is forbidden. Science is the first of sins, the germ of all sins, the original sin. This is all there is of morality.--"Thou shalt not know"--the rest follows from that.--God's mortal terror, however, did not hinder him from being shrewd. How is one to protect one's self against science? For a long while this was the capital problem. Answer: Out of paradise with man! Happiness, leisure, foster thought--and all thoughts are bad thoughts!--Man must not think.--And so the priest invents distress, death, the mortal dangers of childbirth, all sorts of misery, old age, decrepitude, above all, sickness--nothing but devices for making war on science! The troubles of man don't allow him to think. . . Nevertheless--how terrible!--, the edifice of knowledge begins to tower aloft, invading heaven, shadowing the gods--what is to be done?--The old God invents war; he separates the peoples; he makes men destroy one another (--the priests have always had need of war....). War--among other things, a great disturber of science !--Incredible! Knowledge, deliverance from the priests, prospers in spite of war.--So the old God comes to his final resolution: "Man has become scientific--there is no help for it: he must be drowned!". . . .
Not new at all.
First Corinthians 1:18-29 writes:
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Paul is at least honest about what he is doing here.
Percy writes:
No one here doubts that strata can be rapidly deposited beneath water.
Can you explain this process better, or link to such an explanation. I am pretty sure such a deposition would be recognizable as catastrophic. These upside down trees look pretty catastrophic to me, totally unlike the wonderful linear strata we see in English coal mines and the Grand Canyon and so forth. But more detail is always good?
Edited by Iblis, : more paul
Edited by Iblis, : less Friedrich

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 11-24-2010 11:01 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 42 of 56 (593104)
11-24-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Iblis
11-24-2010 10:19 AM


Re: religion vs science
Iblis writes:
Can you explain this process better, or link to such an explanation. I am pretty sure such a deposition would be recognizable as catastrophic.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Iblis, posted 11-24-2010 10:19 AM Iblis has not replied

  
alschwin
Member (Idle past 4950 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 11-20-2010


Message 43 of 56 (593140)
11-24-2010 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by frako
11-24-2010 5:01 AM


Re: Inverted polystrate trees?
Than type Experiments in Stratification Part 3 into YouTube search. Don't look for excuses not to watch something you don't want to agree with

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by frako, posted 11-24-2010 5:01 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 11-24-2010 3:19 PM alschwin has not replied
 Message 45 by frako, posted 11-24-2010 3:27 PM alschwin has not replied
 Message 46 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-24-2010 4:05 PM alschwin has not replied
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 11-24-2010 4:14 PM alschwin has not replied
 Message 54 by frako, posted 11-25-2010 5:23 AM alschwin has not replied
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 11-25-2010 3:10 PM alschwin has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 44 of 56 (593144)
11-24-2010 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by alschwin
11-24-2010 2:59 PM


the silly Stratification experiments
I'm going to try to keep this as close to on topic as is possible.
The reason that experiments such as those included in your examples are at best, considered worth a small chuckle or two, is that they simply do not reflect what is seen in the real world. They are cute little elementary school level demonstrations of how one process works.
But the real world is far more complex.
For example, if we look at the Green River varves what we see is the same process getting repeated for millions of cycles. Yes, the experiments you point to might explain one of the cycles, but what about the other three million nine hundred ninety nine thousand, nine hundred ninety nine cycles?
The little experiments you point to don't answer the questions like how to make sand, how to make salt beds, how to build the Grand Canyon (not how to carve it away but how to build the structure in the first place).
Uniformitarianism rules because no one has EVER been able to present a model that explains what is seen better.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by alschwin, posted 11-24-2010 2:59 PM alschwin has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 383 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 45 of 56 (593148)
11-24-2010 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by alschwin
11-24-2010 2:59 PM


Re: Inverted polystrate trees?
Than type Experiments in Stratification Part 3 into YouTube search. Don't look for excuses not to watch something you don't want to agree with
Now that i have the title i can look at the video you did not expect me to go trough all creo videos on youtube and guess which one you wanted me to look at. Some time tomorrow though im off to bead.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by alschwin, posted 11-24-2010 2:59 PM alschwin 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