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)
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)