Jump to content


Photo

Polystrate Fossils Require Rapid Deposition.


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#41 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 10 March 2009 - 03:30 PM

Thanks and your welcome.
Pdw, some massive dinosaurs, weighing thirty tons or more, were fossilized through rapid burial from a flood. What force of water could have buried and fossilized those dinosaurs if not a flood at least on the scale of the Lake Missoula flood? Is there physical evidence of floods that buried and fossilized these massive creatures like that we see from the Lake Missoula flood?

View Post


There is indeed evidence for localised flooding, and that would surely account for some dinosaur mass death assembledges. However......this is not evidence for a GLOBAL flood.

If indeed there was a global flood, then ALL fossils (including dinosaurs) would have to be found within water-lain sediments. This is simply not the case as I have demonstrated with the Aeolian sediment example. For the flood theory to be true it must be able to account for all fossils........and it plainly cannot.

#42 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 10 March 2009 - 03:39 PM

There is indeed evidence for localised flooding, and that would surely account for some dinosaur mass death assembledges. However......this is not evidence for a GLOBAL flood.

If indeed there was a global flood, then ALL fossils (including dinosaurs) would have to be found within water-lain sediments. This is simply not the case as I have demonstrated with the Aeolian sediment example. For the flood theory to be true it must be able to account for all fossils........and it plainly cannot.

View Post


Not true, Aeolian sediments are first carried by a river, or flood, then the wind shapes the sandstone after it hardens... Sandstone will not harden without water first being in place. Thats also why the sand is spherical because after it hits the harder sandstone.

Also most desert sand is spherical also, but beach sand is not. Anyway's there still isn't any evidence that the sandstone was deposited by the wind.

#43 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 10 March 2009 - 03:47 PM

If indeed there was a global flood, then ALL fossils (including dinosaurs) would have to be found within water-lain sediments. This is simply not the case as I have demonstrated with the Aeolian sediment example. For the flood theory to be true it must be able to account for all fossils........and it plainly cannot.

View Post


No, a global flood does not have to account for all fossils. There may be other circumstances post-flood that could cause fossilisation. (I don't think we would expect to see it pre-flood, even if any pre-flood fossils could survive the flood.) Indeed we have had the example of a fossilised cowboy boot, which no one claims to have been caused by the flood!

If that sandstone is correctly identified as aeolian, one can imagine other causes for the death and fossilisation of various animals. The following text, which I think is about the same site you are referring to, is from a creationist article discussing where to place the post-flood boundary:

Although some fossils were found in 'fluvial' facies (that
is, mudstones), the vast majority occurred in aeolian deposits,
and the most likely cause of death was sandstorms. The
geological context cannot be reduced to the simplicities of
the post-Cretaceous Flood model:
'The presence of fossiliferous aeolian deposits at these
localities has inspired reconstructions of an arid or
semi-arid desert habitat. However, dune deposits are
not necessarily indicators of desert conditions. The
sections at Ukhaa Tolgod, Bayan Mandahu and other
localities suggest a complex and dynamic system
involving dunes, interdune channels, streams and
ponds as well as semi-arid palaeosol profiles of caliche
and hardpan.

Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil Record?

#44 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 10 March 2009 - 04:00 PM

Not true, Aeolian sediments are first carried by a river, or flood, then the wind shapes the sandstone after it hardens... Sandstone will not harden without water first being in place.  Thats also why the sand is spherical because after it hits the harder sandstone.

Also most desert sand is spherical also, but beach sand is not.  Anyway's there still isn't any evidence that the sandstone was deposited by the wind.

View Post


Please.......this is basic Geology. Aeolian sediments are NOT carried by water first, or shall I say they don't have to be. (I'll admit that they may be reworked from previous water lain deposits, but they don't have to be)

Typical desert like Aeolian deposits are in no way water lain. They eventually get buried and lithified by the introduction of connate (i.e. ground water) fluids once they are sufficiently buried at depth. This is basic geology as any elementary text book would reveal.

And as I stated, there is evidence that sandstone was deposited by the wind. dune cross bedding for starters. I also mentioned mineral content - Dry environments allow the precipitation of iron rich minerals - haematite for example. This is what gives most palaeo desert deposits their red colour e.g. the Old Red Sandstone beds of the Devonian, and the New Red Sandstones of the Triassic.

#45 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 10 March 2009 - 04:05 PM

Please.......this is basic Geology. Aeolian sediments are NOT carried by water first, or shall I say they don't have to be. (I'll admit that they may be reworked from previous water lain deposits, but they don't have to be)

Typical desert like Aeolian deposits are in no way water lain. They eventually get buried and lithified by the introduction of connate (i.e. ground water) fluids once they are sufficiently buried at depth. This is basic geology as any elementary text book would reveal.

And as I stated, there is evidence that sandstone was deposited by the wind. dune cross bedding for starters. I also mentioned mineral content - Dry environments allow the precipitation of iron rich minerals - haematite for example. This is what gives most palaeo desert deposits their red colour e.g. the Old Red Sandstone beds of the Devonian, and the New Red Sandstones of the Triassic.

View Post


No, the hard sandstone that was shaped by the sand was not brought by the wind, I am not going to believe that a 100 ton bolder was held together and produced simply by wind deposits... quite frankly it's not even possible.

You need to actually think about what your looking at when you look at these deposits, and from what I've seen and what the evidence points toward is water laid, then wind shaped.

#46 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 10 March 2009 - 04:10 PM

No, a global flood does not have to account for all fossils.  There may be other circumstances post-flood that could cause fossilisation.  (I don't think we would expect to see it pre-flood, even if any pre-flood fossils could survive the flood.)  Indeed we have had the example of a fossilised cowboy boot, which no one claims to have been caused by the flood!

View Post


But I was discussing Dinosaur fossils in aeolian sediments. If indeed the dinosaurs were made extinct due to the flood i.e. they didn't manage to get on Noah's ark, then all Dinosaur fossils should be found and only found in water lain deposits. The fact that they are found in other sediments suggests that the mass death assembedges were not part of a Global event only a series of local ones.

#47 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 10 March 2009 - 04:14 PM

But I was discussing Dinosaur fossils in aeolian sediments. If indeed the dinosaurs were made extinct due to the flood i.e. they didn't manage to get on Noah's ark, then all Dinosaur fossils should be found and only found in water lain deposits. The fact that they are found in other sediments suggests that the mass death assembedges were not part of a Global event only a series of local ones.

View Post


But I was discussing that aeolian sedimants are sandstone that have been shaped by the wind, not deposited by the wind. I have seen no evidence that these 100 ton bolders, and larger ones were deposited by the wind... simply not possible.

Now, we have witnessed these rocks being shaped by sand in the wind, that is without question, but the sandstone itself is incorrectly believed to have been deposited there soley by wind. Quite frankly that isn't possible.

#48 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 10 March 2009 - 04:23 PM

No, the hard sandstone that was shaped by the sand was not brought by the wind, I am not going to believe that a 100 ton bolder was held together and produced simply by wind deposits... quite frankly it's not even possible.

You need to actually think about what your looking at when you look at these deposits, and from what I've seen and what the evidence points toward is water laid, then wind shaped.

View Post


The wind brought the individual sand grains which were deposited and eventually lithified within the arid environment (after burial/heat/pressure and the help of connate water). The "boulders" that you see today are simply erosive blocks of a once extensive sandstone rock deposit.

I assume that you hav'nt taken any qualifications in geology, because if you had written that as an answer to an exam question you would have failed.

As I previously said, the present is the key to the past - just look at what is going on in the world today and see how these Aeolian and other terriginous deposits are being laid down. A water dominant environment is not always required.

#49 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 10 March 2009 - 04:27 PM

The wind brought the individual sand grains which were deposited and eventually lithified within the arid environment (after burial/heat/pressure and the help of connate water). The "boulders" that you see today are simply erosive blocks of a once extensive sandstone rock deposit.

I assume that you hav'nt taken any qualifications in geology, because if you had written that as an answer to an exam question you would have failed.

As I previously said, the present is the key to the past - just look at what is going on in the world today and see how these Aeolian and other terriginous deposits are being laid down. A water dominant environment is not always required.

View Post


Sorry but the Geologist who make up those tests, are in absolutely no position, neither is anyone on planet earth in the position to say that those boulders were produced by wind... That is a load of crap.

Why??? Because no one was there to witness this supposed hilarious idea that these boulders were placed by wind... quite frankly thats a real dumb idea.

No I'm absolutely against the idea of Aeolian sandstone... because it doesn't exist. It's been assumed to have been placed by wind, not tested or witnessed so again you fail to understand this.

Offcourse extensive sandstone rock that was deposited by water, and thats where you find the fossils.

Oh yes, and since you helped me with spelling boulders I shall help you with spelling also. Haven't isn't spelled as hav'nt.

Edit: I'm sorry if I have sounded a bit too harsh, but this is what my view is on Aeolian sandstone is, and I know for many unbelievers out there that a Global Flood sounds rediculous, but I only ask that doubters take a look at the evidence first.

#50 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 10 March 2009 - 04:42 PM

But I was discussing Dinosaur fossils in aeolian sediments. If indeed the dinosaurs were made extinct due to the flood i.e. they didn't manage to get on Noah's ark, then all Dinosaur fossils should be found and only found in water lain deposits. The fact that they are found in other sediments suggests that the mass death assembedges were not part of a Global event only a series of local ones.

View Post


But dinosaurs were not made extinct by the flood, since pairs of each kind would have been in the ark. They have become extinct (probably) since then, although there are reports in the 20th century of possible dinosaur sightings in inaccessible areas of the Congo. The bible appears to describe something like a diplodocus and a plesiosaur in the book of Job (which is probably the oldest in the bible) -- behemoth and leviathan.

The wide extent of tales about dragons, and carvings in various parts of the world apparently depicting dinosaurs, suggest that they did succeed in reestablishing themselves for a time. It seems that the climate and predation have by now combined to render them extinct or almost so.

#51 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 11 March 2009 - 02:32 AM

No I'm absolutely against the idea of Aeolian sandstone... because it doesn't exist. It's been assumed to have been placed by wind, not tested or witnessed so again you fail to understand this.

View Post


The evidence for Aeolian sandstones is clear and straight forward. If you choose to ignore it then please be aware that you are in disagreement with practically every Geologist on this entire planet. It is also clear that I will not be able to change your mind on this issue despite the wealth of facts......

May I also point out that in order for something to be demonstrated as true it does not have to be witnessed first hand. By this analogy, the earth was only proven to be a spheroid in 1961.

#52 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 March 2009 - 05:46 AM

If you choose to ignore it then please be aware that you are in disagreement with practically every Geologist on this entire planet.

View Post

Personally, being in agreement with current geology Dogma would be embarrassing especially after realizing that hard conclusive tests like these below are ignored for the fairytale:

http://www.evolution...387

#53 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 11 March 2009 - 07:09 AM

Personally, being in agreement with current geology Dogma would be embarrassing especially after realizing that hard conclusive tests like these below are ignored for the fairytale:

http://www.evolution...387

View Post


I'm afraid I will have to leave this argument. It's clear that you do not possess an open mind and are simply ignorant to the science of the natural processes of geology of which there is hundreds of years of emperical evidence and agreement.

Thanks - this debate has been an interesting although fruitless excercise. Unfortunately you have not demonstrated any capacity to understand a well structured argument and I cannot waste any more time on this.

Cheers

#54 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 March 2009 - 07:22 AM

How about looking at the evidence?

#55 Crispus

Crispus

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Florida

Posted 11 March 2009 - 07:50 AM

There is indeed evidence for localised flooding, and that would surely account for some dinosaur mass death assembledges. However......this is not evidence for a GLOBAL flood.

But what amount of force would it take to bury and fossilize huge dinosaurs such as argentinosaurus, apatosaurus (brontosaurus), diplodocus, auroposeidon and spinosaurus?

If indeed there was a global flood, then ALL fossils (including dinosaurs) would have to be found within water-lain sediments. This is simply not the case as I have demonstrated with the Aeolian sediment example. For the flood theory to be true it must be able to account for all fossils........and it plainly cannot.

View Post

Isn't it possible that other creatures could have been fossilized later by volcanic ash, mud slides or big floods which buried creatures rapdily?

The wide extent of tales about dragons, and carvings in various parts of the world apparently depicting dinosaurs, suggest that they did succeed in reestablishing themselves for a time.  It seems that the climate and predation have by now combined to render them extinct or almost so.


Hi, Oliver. I have heard of cave drawings which depict dinosaurs. Do you if there are any webpages with some good photos of these? One remarkable illustration is on a Mesopotamian Cylinder Seal believed to have been made about 3300 B.C.

http://s8int.com/meso-cylinder.html

#56 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 March 2009 - 07:57 AM

Do you if there are any webpages with some good photos of these?

View Post

I'm sorry to butt in again. I hope I don't chase you off too. <_<

Here is a good thread right here at EFT on the subject:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1436

BTW, Thanks for the link, that cylinder seal is really cool.

#57 Crispus

Crispus

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Florida

Posted 11 March 2009 - 08:37 AM

Your welcome and thank you.

#58 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 March 2009 - 05:52 PM

The evidence for Aeolian sandstones is clear and straight forward. If you choose to ignore it then please be aware that you are in disagreement with practically every Geologist on this entire planet. It is also clear that I will not be able to change your mind on this issue despite the wealth of facts......

May I also point out that in order for something to be demonstrated as true it does not have to be witnessed first hand. By this analogy, the earth was only proven to be a spheroid in 1961.

View Post

If the evidence is clear and straightforward, someone should be able to explain it clearly.

Sand by itself doesn't turn to stone. A cementing agent is required. A couple of hours' worth (I read slowly) of google research revealed a couple of patterns. First, water and flooding are strongly associated with the formation of sandstone, "aeolian" or otherwise.

Best links so far:

http://findarticles....ag=content;col1

http://www.absolutea...olian_sandstone

http://www.ingentaco...000005/art00149

The second pattern I find is that the consensus about these things is not altogether firm, and new interpretations are being offered in "the literature".

#59 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 10 April 2009 - 12:54 PM

Wood does not rot as fast as that!

On the other hand it does not last for thousands of years.  Polystrate fossils are found going through layers that are said in evolution mythology to be laid down over hundreds of thousands of years.  That is not credible.  At the very least one would expect the tops of the trees to be significantly damaged or reduced through their longer exposure, which is not generally seen, I believe.  Just look around the world and try to find an example of surviving trees that are being gradually buried after being dead for centuries.  I do not think you will find a single one.

The mechanism that has broken and displaced those trees from Mt St Helens is the same one that will have operated on a vastly larger scale during the flood.  With millions of cubic kilometres of sediment being rapidly deposited, these trees will have been rapidly buried, while the water created the layers surrounding them.  At Mt St Helens, layered deposits many metres thick are known to have been laid down in a matter of hours or days.

View Post



There is no proof that the polystrate fossils were dead for centuries before being buried. That is an unprovable assumption. Spirit lake is an example of the process happening at a much slower rate than suggested possible, yet it is happening.

The second part of your argument has major flaws. Sediment of that magnitude would have covered every bit of plant life, so not only should there be polystrate trees, but bushes, vines, flowers as well and with every tree made into a polystrate fossil, you should be able to dig in your back yard and find quite a few, but you can't

Of course, even if they weren't all encased in sediment, being underwater for that length of time would kill all the plant life thus cutting off all oxygen manufacture for the planet, not to mention the entire food supply for all herbivores.

There's also the fact that polystrate fossils go through different layers of different types of sediment, but the flood would have mixed everything together and made one type of sediment, not many.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users