Jump to content


Photo

Polystrate Trees


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2015 - 07:30 PM

I am creating a new thread as was requested by Bill Ludlow. I am assuming that he will respond here since it was his request to make a new thread for this subject.

 

 

Is there a topic on polystrate trees?  If not, you should start one. 

 

 

 

Picture11.jpg

 

Lycopsid_joggins_mcr1.JPG

 

polystrate12.jpg

 

 

 

 

So for those who don't see what these pictures demonstrate, they are showing fossilized trees that span multiple strata. The irony is that these strata are (apparently) "millions" of years old. However if that was the case then how could the trees become fossilized due to spending "millions" of years above ground and therefore be subject to rot and decay.

In order for these tree fossils to form they need to be covered by the layers in a short span of time. In fact the vertical position of the trees can also attest to this since dead trees fall, over time, hence if a tree is able to exist for "millions" of years without decay it would surely have fallen over and thus these vertical positions would not occur. This ultimately contradicts the Old Earth interpretation of the age of the Earth and thus can be used as evidence against such a position.


  • Bmaxdlux likes this

#2 Bmaxdlux

Bmaxdlux

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern Oregon

Posted 24 July 2015 - 08:53 PM

I am creating a new thread as was requested by Bill Ludlow. I am assuming that he will respond here since it was his request to make a new thread for this subject.

 

 

 

 

 

Picture11.jpg

 

Lycopsid_joggins_mcr1.JPG

 

polystrate12.jpg

 

 

 

 

So for those who don't see what these pictures demonstrate, they are showing fossilized trees that span multiple strata. The irony is that these strata are (apparently) "millions" of years old. However if that was the case then how could the trees become fossilized due to spending "millions" of years above ground and therefore be subject to rot and decay.

In order for these tree fossils to form they need to be covered by the layers in a short span of time. In fact the vertical position of the trees can also atest to this since dead trees fall over over time, hence if a tree is able to exist for "millions" of years without decay it would surely have fallen over and thus these vertical positions would not occur. This ultimately contradicts the Old Earth interpretation of the age of the Earth and thus can be used as evidence against such a position.

 

 

Great idea.

 

Now for an interesting question.

 

Does the rock strata containing the fossil trees match up with rock strata elsewhere

on the planet?

 

For example, is it the same type of sedimentary rock in composition and layering type?

 

If so, then that would go a long way towards quelling the "it was caused by a local flood

not a world flood" argument.

 

Max ;)


  • Bill Ludlow likes this

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2015 - 09:42 PM

Great idea.

 

Now for an interesting question.

 

Does the rock strata containing the fossil trees match up with rock strata elsewhere

on the planet?

 

For example, is it the same type of sedimentary rock in composition and layering type?

 

If so, then that would go a long way towards quelling the "it was caused by a local flood

not a world flood" argument.

 

Max ;)

 

Good question Max, I'm not too sure of that. How about we both do some research and see what we find :)

I wasn't talking about a flood. Though the "local flood" claim is an ad hoc hypothesis so its not that big an issue ;)



#4 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 24 July 2015 - 09:48 PM

So for those who don't see what these pictures demonstrate, they are showing fossilized trees that span multiple strata. The irony is that these strata are (apparently) "millions" of years old. However if that was the case then how could the trees become fossilized due to spending "millions" of years above ground and therefore be subject to rot and decay.

In order for these tree fossils to form they need to be covered by the layers in a short span of time. In fact the vertical position of the trees can also attest to this since dead trees fall, over time, hence if a tree is able to exist for "millions" of years without decay it would surely have fallen over and thus these vertical positions would not occur. This ultimately contradicts the Old Earth interpretation of the age of the Earth and thus can be used as evidence against such a position.

 

You make some claims here that I believe are at odds with geological explanations of how trees can become preserved this way, gilbo12345.  I've never heard any geologist say a tree would have to spend millions of years above ground in order to fossilize and be covered standing upright..  That is nothing but a strawman.  

There are many ways in which trees might become buried upright or even upside down.  Pyroclastic flows and rock avalanches are a couple of examples.  There is a well known "polystrate" tree fossil in Nova Scotia often brought up by creationists that has a very easy explanation.  It is located in a fluvial flood plane subject to massive annual flooding.  Each annual flood created a distinct layer, and it took only a few years for the tree to be covered upright  It fossilized slowly over thousands of years after becoming completely buried.  Geologists figured this out in the 1800's.  It might be one of the trees in your pictures.   

I need more data to help you understand how the these trees could have been fossilized in this way.  Location, depth of layers, age of layers, age of tree fossil, etc.  A pencil drawing won't do either.  Why not pick one, do some research and then explain exactly why it cannot have been fossilized the way it has been explained by geologists?  Posting a couple pictures of unknown origin and a line drawing won't do.  You make the claim and therefore the burden of proof is on you.  Posting pictures of unknown origin is easy.  Proving your claim will not be. 



#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2015 - 10:08 PM

You make some claims here that I believe are at odds with geological explanations of how trees can become preserved this way, gilbo12345.  I've never heard any geologist say a tree would have to spend millions of years above ground in order to fossilize.  That is nothing but a strawman. 

 

Sigh... It is YOU who has created a strawman.. I never said that geologists said that trees need to be above ground to fossilize.. I said that if you assume that the layers, the tree runs trough, are "millions" of years old then you must also assume that the tree stood in that position for the amount of time it took for those layers for form...

Unless of course you want to admit that the layers aren't millions of years old?

Please try READING my points.
 

 

There are many ways in which trees might become buried upright or even upside down.  Pyroclastic flows and rock avalanches are a couple of examples.  There is a well known "polystrate" tree fossil in Nova Scotia often brought up by creationists that has a very easy explanation.  It is located in a fluvial flood plane subject to massive annual flooding.  Each annual flood created a distinct layer, and it took only a few years for the tree to be covered upright  It fossilized slowly over thousands of years after becoming completely buried.  Geologists figured this out in the 1800's.  It might be one of the trees in your pictures.  

 

Firstly that is an ad hoc hypothesis...

The problem is not that they are buried upright is that the AGE OF THE LAYERS implies that the trees were there for millions of years without rotting or decay, I clearly stated this so again please read my post.
 

If you want to use your explanation then you are concluding that the layers forming around the tree are not "millions" of years since you stated it was caused by annual floods... So which is it?

Do you attempt to explain the polystrate trees and debunk the "millions" of years for the formation of each strata?

 

I need more data to help you understand how the these trees could have been fossilized in this way.  Location, depth of layers, age of layers, age of tree fossil, etc.  A pencil drawing won't do either.  Why not pick one, do some research and then explain exactly why it cannot have been fossilized the way it has been explained by geologists?  Posting a couple pictures of unknown origin and a line drawing won't do.  You make the claim and therefore the burden of proof is on you.  Posting pictures of unknown origin is easy.  Proving your claim will not be. 

 

Firstly I need to remind you that science isn't about proving... Its about supporting a claim. Please try to understand the difference, it is a technical one but is important none-the-less.

 

Burden of proof to do what?... You're asking me to debunk your "explanation" despite it not doing what you think it does, and not addressing my point... In fact I predict, (again I am saying this about a future event ;) ), that you will retract your "explanation" due to it debunking your assumed "millions" of years.

 

Here is some more info for you.
 

Probably the most widely recognized of the polystrate fossils are tree trunks that extend vertically through two, three, four or more sections of rock—rock that supposedly was deposited during vast epochs of time. However, organic material (like wood) that is exposed to the elements will rot, not fossilize. Thus, the entire length of these tree trunks must have been preserved very quickly, which suggests that the sedimentary layers surrounding them must have been deposited rapidly—possibly (and likely) during a single catastrophe (see Ham, 2000, p. 138). As Leonard Brand explained, even if the trees had been removed from oxygen, “anaerobic bacteria cause decay unless the specimens are buried rapidly” (1997, p. 240). Consequently, it is irrational to conclude from such evidence that these formations built up slowly over millions of years. The logical explanation for such formations is that they must have been formed quickly under cataclysmic conditions. Ken Ham has observed: “For example, at the Joggins, in Nova Scotia, there are many erect fossil trees that are scattered throughout 2,500 feet of layers. You can actually see these fossil trees, which are beautifully preserved, penetrate through layers that were supposedly laid down over millions of years” (p. 138). In what surely must be a classic case of understatement, Rupke wrote concerning the Joggins polystrate fossils: “Only a wholly uncommon process of sedimentation can account for conditions like these” (1973, p. 154). [For reviews of the Joggins polystrate fossils, see: Corliss, 1990, pp. 254-256; Rupke, 1973, p. 154.] In other words, these erect fossil trees required a speedy burial to be preserved fully. What better evidence for a catastrophic event than trees fossilized in an upright position and traversing multiple layers of the geologic column? As Paul Ackerman remarked, the polystratic tree trunks “constitute a sort of frozen time clock from the past, indicating that terrible things occurred—not over millions of years but very quickly” (1986, p. 84).

 

This type of phenomenon is not an isolated one. Rupke wrote about “a lofty trunk, exposed in a sandstone quarry near Edinburgh [Scotland], which measured no less than 25 meters and, intersecting 10 or 12 different strata, leaned at an angle of about 40°” (1973, p. 154). Thus, this particular tree must have been buried while falling down! In fact, one scientist who examined the tree, George Fairholme, commented on the fact that an inclined trunk constitutes a much stronger testimony for rapidity in deposition than an upright one because

....while the latter might be supposed to have been capable of retaining an upright position, in a semi-fluid mass, for a long time, by the mere laws of gravity, the other must, by the very same laws, have fallen, from its inclined to a horizontal position, had it not been retained in its inclined position by the rapid accumulation of its present stony matrix (1837, p. 394, emp. added)

 

https://www.apologet...y=9&article=213

 

 

The book it mentions for the falling tree is this.

 

Rupke, N.A. (1973), “Prolegomena to a Study of Cataclysmal Sedimentation,” Why Not Creation, ed. Walter E. Lammerts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker)



#6 Bmaxdlux

Bmaxdlux

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern Oregon

Posted 24 July 2015 - 10:16 PM

Good question Max, I'm not too sure of that. How about we both do some research and see what we find :)

I wasn't talking about a flood. Though the "local flood" claim is an ad hoc hypothesis so its not that big an issue ;)

 

 

Ian Juby put together a show pertaining to rock strata that was
so consistent across a vast portion of North America the only
logical conclusion was that it had to have been laid down as a
result of the same catastrophe.

 

However, I'm unable at this time to locate that particular video.

Perhaps you may have already seen it.

 

Max :)



#7 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 24 July 2015 - 10:30 PM

I already explained the fossilized trees in Nova Scotia.  Your author is simply wrong if he claims the layers there were deposited over long periods of time.  Geologists I know don't believe that. 

Here is Neil deGrasse Tyson standing next to one of them on an episode of Cosmos.  

Neil%20Polystrate%20Tree%20Fossil_zpsm8t
 

"These fossils are reasonably common, and have been mentioned in the scientific literature for well over a century, under the name upright fossils or in situ trees. No well-read geologist finds them surprising, and no geologist has ever claimed that it took millions (or even thousands) of years to bury them. Science is perfectly happy with the idea that deposition is occasionally rapid."  Don Lindsay, CEG, PE Engineering Geologist/Civil Engineer, California Geological Survey

^^^  Not an argument from authority, just showing you this is common and no mystery to geologists.



#8 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 24 July 2015 - 10:32 PM

Ian Juby put together a show pertaining to rock strata that was
so consistent across a vast portion of North America the only
logical conclusion was that it had to have been laid down as a
result of the same catastrophe.

 

However, I'm unable at this time to locate that particular video.

Perhaps you may have already seen it.

 

Max :)

 

Is that the video where he erroneously claims the same layer of sandstone extends across the US into northeastern Canada?  Andrew Snelling makes the same claim, that's probably where Juby got it.  If you find it I can show where they are wrong.  



#9 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 24 July 2015 - 10:45 PM

Ask yourself this, gilbo12345.  If polystrate trees are such great evidence for a worldwide flood, why do we only find them in just a few places and why are they so easily explained by geologists?  Also, creationists claim that ALL the horizontal sedimentary layers, even the one's below where the fossil trees are located, were laid down by a single flood.  How did they end up in the middle? 



#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2015 - 10:48 PM

I already explained the fossilized trees in Nova Scotia.  Your author is simply wrong if he claims the layers there were deposited over long periods of time.  Geologists I know don't believe that. 

Here is Neil deGrasse Tyson standing next to one of them on an episode of Cosmos.  

Neil%20Polystrate%20Tree%20Fossil_zpsm8t
 

"These fossils are reasonably common, and have been mentioned in the scientific literature for well over a century, under the name upright fossils or in situ trees. No well-read geologist finds them surprising, and no geologist has ever claimed that it took millions (or even thousands) of years to bury them. Science is perfectly happy with the idea that deposition is occasionally rapid."  Don Lindsay, CEG, PE Engineering Geologist/Civil Engineer, California Geological Survey

^^^  Not an argument from authority, just showing you this is common and no mystery to geologists.

 

Umm yeah this IS an argument to authority... When you claim the following

Your author is simply wrong if he claims the layers there were deposited over long periods of time.  Geologists I know don't believe that.

 

It is an argument to authority. Saying it isn't doesn't change that fact... Or do you think that when a person claims he / she is a dog that means he / she is a dog... As I keep reminding you, saying things means nothing.

 

 

Aren't you concerned of the back-flip that geologists are forced to take? First it was assured that layers formed over "millions" of years. Now geologists admit that perhaps sometimes they can form very rapidly... Yet another chink in the armour I guess.

 

Also what about when radiometric analysis determines that one layer is supposed to be millions of years older than the other... Then it seems you have a complete contradiction, which demonstrates that the radiometric method is prone to error since the polystrata trees cannot have formed over millions of years due to being exposed and thus decaying before the first layer having been created. Therefore the dating for the layers is incorrect.... Hmmm... Well I guess that is to be expected since your criteria for the falsification of those methods was provided ;)

 

 

Ask yourself this, gilbo12345.  If polystrate trees are such great evidence for a worldwide flood, why do we only find them in just a few places and why are they so easily explained by geologists?  Also, creationists claim that ALL the horizontal sedimentary layers, even the one's below where the fossil trees are located, were laid down by a single flood.  How did they end up in the middle? 

 

You are shifting the goal posts Bill, as I said to Max I am not talking about a flood, local or otherwise... If you want to discuss floods I suggest you create your own thread, (for someone who complains about people shifting topics, you seem quite the hypocrite)...

I AM talking about how these trees debunk the "millions" of years tag you prescribe to different layers of rock....



#11 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2015 - 10:51 PM

Ian Juby put together a show pertaining to rock strata that was
so consistent across a vast portion of North America the only
logical conclusion was that it had to have been laid down as a
result of the same catastrophe.

 

However, I'm unable at this time to locate that particular video.

Perhaps you may have already seen it.

 

Max :)

Yeah I think I've already seen the one you are talking about. Perhaps this could be a new topic, I'd rather stick to polystrate fossils here.

 


  • Bill Ludlow likes this

#12 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 24 July 2015 - 10:58 PM

I'm getting kind of sick of being accused of a fallacy every time I state a well known fact or quote an expert.  Is it your opinion that all well known facts and expert opinions should be dismissed?  Have you ever heard of the fallacy fallacy?  

https://yourlogicalf...fallacy-fallacy

 

I find your throwing around debate terms on almost every post slightly annoying.  I argue with scientific facts and through direct observation, not nit picky "Oh look at the fallacy" stuff.  It seems to be your #1 defense. Show where I am wrong instead of throwing around high school debate terms. 



#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2015 - 11:32 PM

I'm getting kind of sick of being accused of a fallacy every time I state a well known fact or quote an expert.

 

Not every time... Its when you say that something is wrong because X person said it is... Then that is the argument from authority fallacy...

 

 

Is it your opinion that all well known facts and expert opinions should be dismissed?

 

Nope.. Just that claiming X person says Y is not an argument... Its an appeal to that person's authority and thus is the logical fallacy, argument from authority.

 

 

Have you ever heard of the fallacy fallacy?  

https://yourlogicalf...fallacy-fallacy

 

Pointing out when you commit logical fallacies is not a "fallacy fallacy" since I haven't stated that you are wrong due to your use of logical fallacies... I have demonstrated where you are wrong AND demonstrated your use of logical fallacies...

 

There is a difference and I assumed you would be able to understand it... My bad, sorry.
 

 

I find your throwing around debate terms on almost every post slightly annoying.  I argue with scientific facts and through direct observation, not nit picky "Oh look at the fallacy" stuff.  It seems to be your #1 defense. Show where I am wrong instead of throwing around high school debate terms. 

 

So you are going to completely ignore like 70% of my post in order to focus on where I pointed out that you were using a logical fallacy, and then claim that all I've done is point out your logical fallacies...

Perhaps this may be the case if you spent 5 seconds reading my post, (and thus only read the first line) however IF you had read the whole post you'd have found this....

The red part is pointing out your logical fallacy, the black is where I explain how you are incorrect... notice how I don't commit the "fallacy fallacy", since I have never stated 'because you use X fallacy you are incorrect'...

If you want to claim I have used the "fallacy fallacy" then please DEMONSTRATE IT, just as I demonstrate your logical fallacies.

 

Umm yeah this IS an argument to authority... When you claim the following

Your author is simply wrong if he claims the layers there were deposited over long periods of time.  Geologists I know don't believe that.

 

It is an argument to authority. Saying it isn't doesn't change that fact... Or do you think that when a person claims he / she is a dog that means he / she is a dog... As I keep reminding you, saying things means nothing.

 

 

Aren't you concerned of the back-flip that geologists are forced to take? First it was assured that layers formed over "millions" of years. Now geologists admit that perhaps sometimes they can form very rapidly... Yet another chink in the armour I guess.

 

Also what about when radiometric analysis determines that one layer is supposed to be millions of years older than the other... Then it seems you have a complete contradiction, which demonstrates that the radiometric method is prone to error since the polystrata trees cannot have formed over millions of years due to being exposed and thus decaying before the first layer having been created. Therefore the dating for the layers is incorrect.... Hmmm... Well I guess that is to be expected since your criteria for the falsification of those methods was provided ;)
 

 

You are shifting the goal posts Bill, as I said to Max I am not talking about a flood, local or otherwise... If you want to discuss floods I suggest you create your own thread, (for someone who complains about people shifting topics, you seem quite the hypocrite)...

I AM talking about how these trees debunk the "millions" of years tag you prescribe to different layers of rock....

 

I'm very much interested to see the excuses you come up with for the following two paragraphs
 

Aren't you concerned of the back-flip that geologists are forced to take? First it was assured that layers formed over "millions" of years. Now geologists admit that perhaps sometimes they can form very rapidly... Yet another chink in the armour I guess.

 

Also what about when radiometric analysis determines that one layer is supposed to be millions of years older than the other... Then it seems you have a complete contradiction, which demonstrates that the radiometric method is prone to error since the polystrata trees cannot have formed over millions of years due to being exposed and thus decaying before the first layer having been created. Therefore the dating for the layers is incorrect.... Hmmm... Well I guess that is to be expected since your criteria for the falsification of those methods was provided ;)


 



#14 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 24 July 2015 - 11:48 PM

Aren't you concerned of the back-flip that geologists are forced to take? First it was assured that layers formed over "millions" of years. Now geologists admit that perhaps sometimes they can form very rapidly... Yet another chink in the armour I guess.

 

Also what about when radiometric analysis determines that one layer is supposed to be millions of years older than the other... Then it seems you have a complete contradiction, which demonstrates that the radiometric method is prone to error since the polystrata trees cannot have formed over millions of years due to being exposed and thus decaying before the first layer having been created. Therefore the dating for the layers is incorrect.... Hmmm... Well I guess that is to be expected since your criteria for the falsification of those methods was provided

 

 

I haven't done any back flips and haven't seen geologists do any either.  We've known for a long time some layers form rapidly and others take millions of years.

You need to give an example of 
 "when radiometric analysis determines that one layer is supposed to be millions of years older than the other" and demonstrate how it applies to the topic being discussed before I respond to that.  
 



#15 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 July 2015 - 12:14 AM

I haven't done any back flips and haven't seen geologists do any either.  We've known for a long time some layers form rapidly and others take millions of years.

 

Come off it... I was taught in school and university that the layers of the Earth only form over millions of years... I guess that shoots down the whole 'assumption of uniformity' made by Charles Lyell.... Hence the entire area of study has been founded on a debunked assumption.... Ooops...

 

In fact it brings me to an important question. How do you determine which layers are "millions" of years old and which formed over a small amount of time? Or is this arbitrary, (similar as to how evolutionists determine which similarities are ancestral and which are convergent)?
 

 

 

 

You need to give an example of  "when radiometric analysis determines that one layer is supposed to be millions of years older than the other" and demonstrate how it applies to the topic being discussed before I respond to that. 

 

Fair enough. I am currently trying to track down the example I used the last time this topic came up.



#16 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 July 2015 - 06:01 AM

I'm going to be adding examples of polystrate trees that have been dated, I'll continue to find more and post them here when I find them.
 

Axel Heiberg Island at 80°N latitude in the Queen Elizabeth Islands of northeast Canada is a fourth classic example of polystrate fossils (Oard, 1995a). Mummified vertical trees and leaf litters were discovered at a number of levels within lignite (weakly developed coal) seams in the Geodetic Hills of Axel Heiberg Island. The paleoflora is exceptionally well preserved and well studied (Christie and McMillan, 1991). Although dated from the Eocene period in the uniformitarian classification (approximately 45 million years ago), some of the wood is not petrified and can be cut with an ax and burned! Upright trees are up to one m high and one m in diameter. They are water logged and often hollow. The trees have a root mass that flares out at the bottom, providing an in situ appearance. Horizontal logs up to 11.5 m long also are observed. Mummified, as well as petrified, trees also occur on other sites in the Queen Elizabeth Islands.

 

https://www.creation...ate_fossils.htm

So here we have a tree that is partially petrified and some of the wood can be cut and burned, yet it is dated as being from the Eocene period.....

Whilst not the article used by the link above this article was written by the same researcher and discusses the partial petrification, whilst the link notes it shouldn't be considered "fresh wood", however when we read
 

The site is remarkable for the unusual condition of the
specimens that are commonly described as “mummified”: the
majority of the fossil leaves, trees, cones, etc. are not miner-
alized (i.e., there has been negligible mineral replacement of
the vegetable tissue) and coalification has occurred only to a
limited extent. The ash content of a sample of mummified
wood, a useful indicator of the degree of mineralization, is
reported as being about 1% by weight by Grattan (1991) and
up to 5% by Obst et al. (1991). This compares with approxi-
mately 0.2% to 0.5% for fresh wood. Petrified wood can have
mineral content up to 100% (i.e., complete replacement of
organic material with minerals) with correspondingly high
ash content, depending on the minerals present. Although
these fossils represent some of the best-preserved Eocene
specimens known, it is incorrect to consider them
undeteriorated or like “fresh wood.” Much of the cellulose
fraction (the main component of fresh wood) is missing, and
the molecular weight of what remains is less than one-tenth
that of fresh wood (Grattan, 1991). Furthermore, the wood is
typically crushed (Grattan and Drouin, 1987) and the cell

structure distorted (Young, 1991).

 

http://pubs.aina.uca...tic48-4-342.pdf

 

 

So whilst the degree of mineralization is over twice what is considered in "fresh" wood... (1% compared to .5 to .2%). It is still 1/100th of what is considered usual for petrified wood.

Now to support this I found this article stating the following.
 

Cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin account for over 95% of the dry weight of wood (Leo & Barghoorn, 1976). The average density of 43 species of extant softwoods and 96 species of extant hardwoods examined by Hoadley is 0.53 g/cm3 (Hoadley, 1990). The average density of the softwoods alone was 0.43 g/cm3, while for the hardwoods it was 0.57 g/cm 3. Silicified wood generally contains more than 90%, by weight, of silica (Leo & Barghoorn, 1976; Sigleo, 1978; Furuno et al., 1986 II; Mustoe, 2008). Woods mineralized with opal have densities of 2.04 g/cm3 or less. Woods permineralized with quartz have densities of 2.34 g/cm3 or greater (Mustoe, 2008). Leo and Barghoorn (1976) note that many mineralized woods preferentially fracture toward a radially longitudinal plane as do non-mineralized woods. They hypothesized that this is due to retention of wood in the permineralized specimen or to discontinuities in silica deposition predetermined by the original wood structure at the time of petrifaction. How much of the original wood is present? The first well documented attempt to answer this question was carried out by St. John (1927). St. John examined 25 prepared sections of various silicified wood specimens for cell structure under a light microscope. The sections were treated with a solution of one third hydrofluoric acid and two-thirds alcohol to remove silica and then reexamined under the microscope. Some specimens retained most or some of the structure indicating the presence of organic matter. Other specimens lost all of their structure with no trace of organic matter. Mustoe (2008 and written personal communication, 2011) employed a more quantitative method to determine the presence of organic matter utilizing heat to destroy residual organic matter and measuring loss in mass. Mustoe concluded that most of the plant tissue is destroyed during silicification. Sigleo (1978) isolated lignin derivatives from
200 Ma Araucarioxylon arizonicum specimens demonstrating that small traces of relic organic matter can persist after many millions of years. Overall, evidence suggests that very little of the original organic matter remains in silicified wood.
 
 

So essentially petrified wood has very little or no original material left, hence having a mineralization of 1% is extremely low for something dated to have come from the Eocene period... Hence the radioactive method is debunked... again... :)


 



#17 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 July 2015 - 06:50 AM



I haven't done any back flips and haven't seen geologists do any either.  We've known for a long time some layers form rapidly and others take millions of years.

 

Yes, but you should be. Just like you should be doing back flips over the monumental unconformity in the Alps, a point you never bothered to answer.

 

(definition: "An unconformity typically results when earlier sediments are eroded before being buried under sediments deposited during a later episode of sedimentation. In general, the term unconformity describes any break in the sedimentary geologic record.") http://bio-geo-terms...conformity.html

 

Aug09262.jpg

 

There are many of these in the world that, pardon the expression, back flips geologic evolution theory into a tangled mess.



#18 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 July 2015 - 06:57 AM

Gilbo:

 

Quote: " Although dated from the Eocene period in the uniformitarian classification (approximately 45 million years ago), some of the wood is not petrified and can be cut with an ax and burned!"

 

 

 

Holy splitwood, Batman! 

 

We may have to wait a week to find out if Ludlow will answer this one or avoid it as he has so many things we've laid before him. Shades of Mary Schweitzer's T-Rex soft tissue, eh?



#19 Paul79

Paul79

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 25 July 2015 - 09:38 AM

Axel Heiberg Island at 80°N latitude in the Queen Elizabeth Islands of northeast Canada is a fourth classic example of polystrate fossils (Oard, 1995a). Mummified vertical trees and leaf litters were discovered at a number of levels within lignite (weakly developed coal) seams in the Geodetic Hills of Axel Heiberg Island. The paleoflora is exceptionally well preserved and well studied (Christie and McMillan, 1991). Although dated from the Eocene period in the uniformitarian classification (approximately 45 million years ago), some of the wood is not petrified and can be cut with an ax and burned! Upright trees are up to one m high and one m in diameter. They are water logged and often hollow. The trees have a root mass that flares out at the bottom, providing an in situ appearance. Horizontal logs up to 11.5 m long also are observed. Mummified, as well as petrified, trees also occur on other sites in the Queen Elizabeth Islands.

 

As an aside, what's really cool about Axel Heiberg Island is the fact that temperate animals and fauna lived on that island and the island next to it even though it they would not be able to survive living there in the current environment because of how cold it is. Dr Walt Brown does a good job explaining how that happened if anyone is interested.

 

http://www.creations...eOverview7.html

 

The direction and magnitude of the roll are also shown by fossils found inside the Arctic Circle of animals and plants that today live at specific temperate latitudes. Remains of a camel,83 horse, bear, beaver, badger, shrew, wolverine, rabbit, and considerable temperate vegetation are found on Canada’s Ellesmere Island, inside the Arctic Circle. Today, these animals and plants require temperatures about 27°F warmer in the winter and 18°F warmer in the summer.91 Also found are remains of “large lizards, constrictor snakes, tortoises, alligators, tapirs, and flying lemurs—now found only in Southeast Asia.”92 Isotopic studies of the cellulose in redwood trees on Axel Heiberg Island, just west of Ellesmere Island, show that they grew in a climate similar to that of today’s coastal forests of Oregon (35° farther south in latitude).93

Ellesmere Island and Axel Heiberg Island may have the largest known contrast between current temperatures and inferred ancient temperatures based on fossils. Both islands straddle 85°W longitude. Therefore, regions near this longitude experienced large northward shifts after the flood. On the opposite side of the earth, the preflood North Pole rolled south near 95°E longitude while, points along 85°W longitude (including today’s North Pole) rolled to the north. Also implied is a roll of at least 34°. Physics,78 geology,79 and biology8093 give a similar picture.

An ancient historical record tells of a catastrophic flood and an apparent earth roll. Famous linguist Charles Berlitz reports that early Jesuit missionaries in China located a 4,320-volume work “compiled by Imperial Edict” and containing “all knowledge.” It states,

The Earth was shaken to its foundations. The sky sank lower toward the north. The sun, moon, and stars changed their motions. The Earth fell to pieces and the waters in its bosom rushed upward with violence and overflowed the Earth. Man had rebelled against the high gods, and the system of the Universe was in disorder.94

 



#20 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 25 July 2015 - 10:50 AM

Come off it... I was taught in school and university that the layers of the Earth only form over millions of years... I guess that shoots down the whole 'assumption of uniformity' made by Charles Lyell.... Hence the entire area of study has been founded on a debunked assumption.... Ooops...

 

In fact it brings me to an important question. How do you determine which layers are "millions" of years old and which formed over a small amount of time? Or is this arbitrary, (similar as to how evolutionists determine which similarities are ancestral and which are convergent)?
 

 

 

I don't think this is necessarily true, gilbo.  Also, I believe that many of the timelines applied to the layers come from one of your favorite methods .... radiometric dating.

Attached Files






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users