Jump to content


Photo

Polystrate Fossils Require Rapid Deposition.


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#1 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 01 June 2007 - 12:20 AM

Excellent article from the latest issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly.
http://www.creationr...ate_fossils.htm


Polystrate fossils are one of numerous evidences for the rapid deposition of strata, as opposed to the uniformitarian belief in slow deposition over millions of years. They are briefly described from the Joggins Formation, Nova Scotia; Yellowstone National Park, Montana and Wyoming; Ginkgo Petrified Forest State Park, Washington; the Geodetic Hills of Axel Heiberg Island; the Lompoc diatomite, California; and a diatomite from Peru. Uniformitarian geologists usually ignore polystrate fossils or claim that they represent only local rapid deposition, but they rarely supply any supporting evidence. A new location with polystrate petrified trees is described from open-pit coal mines in Alaska. About twenty upright trees at many different levels support rapid deposition of the strata there. The upright trees can be explained by the creationist log mat model, and evidence from the coal mines supports that interpretation.



#2 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 01 June 2007 - 10:43 AM

Excellent information. Here's another link:


http://64.233.167.10...clnk&cd=1&gl=us


There appears to be only one reason why this evidence is ignored. Promotion of an unGodly worldview.



God bless,
Al

#3 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 01 June 2007 - 05:04 PM

Excellent article from the latest issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly.
http://www.creationr...ate_fossils.htm

View Post

Polystrate fossils are certainly a problem for any theory of geology that states that all sets of layers are millions of years apart. It isn't so much of a problem, as I understand it, for the commonly accepted theory of geology that states that some sets of layers can be deposited quickly and others deposited gradually. I think the difference can be determined objectively by radiometric dating. Take a sample from the top layer containing a polystrate fossil, a sample from the bottom layer, send them both to a lab, and, if the dates are returned with a large million+ difference (with no overlapping margins of error), then there is a problem for uniformitarian geology. I am not so sure that the "log mat" model and global flood proposition is equally effective at explaining polystrate trees. If all strata are explained by a worldwide flood, then I would kinda expect polystrate trees in almost all fossil sites all over the world. For example, the Solnhofen Limestone layers in Germany are thought to have been deposited gradually over a few million years more or less. Over 500 fossils have been found in it, exceptionally preserved from the theorized lack of oxygen in a late Jurassic lagoon. An Archaeopteryx with clearly visible feathers was found in it. No polystrate trees have been found in it, despite the global flood proposition, which would be expected to distribute uprooted trees everywhere on the planet.

#4 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 01 June 2007 - 07:38 PM

I have to ask the question....just how many layers have been misidentified by the geologist..that is believing there are millions upon millions years of seperation between the strata when in fact they have deposited rapidly?

Are only the layers with polystrate fossils in them deposited rapidly?

TempestTossed argument seem to be to easily fabricated.

Still, check this out:
From what I read the evos claim that about 75% of the species were wiped out at the K/T boundary during and shortly after an asteroid or meteor slammed into the earth depositing iridium around the globe.

My question, shouldn't we find fossils in the iridium layer? Shouldn't we find footprints on it's surface and many fossils just above this layer?
I ask this because if 75% of the species were killed during this event, I would think most of them died as the iridium was settling or shortly after. Shouldn't we find poly-strata fossils in this layer due to the relatively quick deposit? Shouldn't we find an over abundance of fossilized "victims" such as dinosaurs just above and below the iridium strata?

It seems as if the fossil population just above and below the iridium layer compared to the rest of the geological column comes up short. Would not such an earth changing event that caused a mass extinction provide an opportunity to create a lot of fossils?
Could it be that the iridium strata is not the smoking gun that the evo would like it to be?

#5 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 01 June 2007 - 11:18 PM

I have to ask the question....just how many layers have been misidentified by the geologist..that is believing there are millions upon millions years of seperation between the strata when in fact they have deposited rapidly?

That is a good question, and I don't know--I figure probably a few. Gradual sedimentary rock tends to be deposited in well-ordered linear layers like a wedding cake, and quick deposits tend to be ordered in a somewhat chaotic fashion like ingredients thrown one at a time into a mixing bowl. Also, I would expect that quick depositions would have blurred boundaries between layers, as opposed to sharp boundaries between gradual sedimentary rock, because in sedimentary layers one layer hardens before the next is deposited. If there are mistakes, then at least two radiometric dating tests are all that are needed to know for sure. Creationists have the funding for such a test--a sample from the top layer of a polystrate fossil, a sample from the bottom layer, send it to an appropriate dating lab without any details, and see what dates are returned. If the dates returned are hugely different, then doubt will be thrown on the whole science of geology.

Are only the layers with polystrate fossils in them deposited rapidly?

They tend to be, although an upright tree can be slowly buried over like a hundred years or so.

TempestTossed argument seem to be to easily fabricated.
Still, check this out:
From what I read the evos claim that about 75% of the species were wiped out at the K/T boundary during and shortly after an asteroid or meteor slammed into the earth depositing iridium around the globe.

My question, shouldn't we find fossils in the iridium layer? Shouldn't we find footprints on it's surface and many fossils just above this layer?

Yes, I would expect that you would find just as many in that range of layers as any other.

I ask this because if 75% of the species were killed during this event, I would think most of them died as the iridium was settling or shortly after. Shouldn't we find poly-strata fossils in this layer due to the relatively quick deposit? Shouldn't we find an over abundance of fossilized "victims" such as dinosaurs just above and below the iridium strata?

It seems as if the fossil population just above and below the iridium layer compared to the rest of the geological column comes up short. Would not such an earth changing event that caused a mass extinction provide an opportunity to create a lot of fossils?

Not really. All organisms eventually die, whether from old age, illness, or getting eaten. The asteroid killed off many species likely because of the change in climate it caused, cutting off sunlight and killing foliage. They likely didn't die directly from any burial of the comet collision. So fossils in the KT boundary would be no more likely than fossils anywhere else, I would figure. It takes other special circumstances, like getting stuck in a tar pit, getting buried in sediment, getting buried in a mudslide, and that sort of thing.

Could it be that the iridium strata is not the smoking gun that the evo would like it to be?

View Post

I don't think of it as a smoking gun. The complete geologic column provides a detailed history of the planet, and the iridium-laced KT boundary is just one small part of the entire picture. If young-Earth creationism demands to be taken seriously, then it should explain such patterns. What is the YEC explanation for the abnormal abundance of iridium found in a single thin layer all over the world? Maybe there is one, I don't know.

#6 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 02 June 2007 - 12:17 AM

Polystrate fossils are certainly a problem for any theory of geology that states that all sets of layers are millions of years apart.  It isn't so much of a problem, as I understand it, for the commonly accepted theory of geology that states that some sets of layers can be deposited quickly and others deposited gradually.

That explanation sounds legitimate but the problem arises because it is so generalized without any detailed explanation of the specific cases mentioned. As was pointed out in the article:

"Their resistance to contrary evidence suggests a strong “faith” component to uniformitarianism. Young follows the example of other uniformitarian geologists and dismisses polystrate trees with the magic wand of local rapid burial, even in situations where the trees are allocthonous, or transported into place! Other than the existence of polystrate trees, uniformitarian geologists do not provide evidence for local rapid burial within their paradigm."

It is also interesting to point out that the local rapid deposition explanation is only called on when the standard geology may be challenged. Many of these petrified trees appear in strata that show no evidence of local rapid sedimentation, these layers of strata are also consistent with sediment that contain no polystrate fossils.

"We document another example of polystrate trees that show little or no evidence of locally rapid sedimentation...We examined four open-pit coal mines located about 7 km north of Sutton, Alaska, which is 80 km northeast of Anchorage...One of the mines that we examined had no polystrate trees, and the second mine had only one (Figure 3). We observed eleven polystrate trees at different elevations along the excavated cliff face in the third mine (Figures 4–6). The face of the cliff was about 30 m high. Some of the petrified logs had rings, while others did not. The strata are generally contorted adjacent to the logs, but the bedding is undisturbed beyond 2 m from the logs."




I think the difference can be determined objectively by radiometric dating.  Take a sample from the top layer containing a polystrate fossil, a sample from the bottom layer, send them both to a lab, and, if the dates are returned with a large million+ difference (with no overlapping margins of error), then there is a problem for uniformitarian geology.

That seems like an artificial distinction for several reasons. One would be that the layers that contain petrified trees are entirely consistent with the layers that have no petrified trees in them. Another reason would be that, according to most geologists, these are local events that do not effect the geologic timescale. In other words there is no need to date anything because it fits well within the paradigm. Just a lot of hand waving and not much substance.

#7 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 02 June 2007 - 08:52 AM

It seems as if the evos want it both ways.

See those layers over there? They are old. Took millions of years to deposit.

But look. A polystrate fossil is part of that formation.

My bad. It took a short time to deposit those layers.

#8 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 02 June 2007 - 06:03 PM

willis, you have a very good objection, and I posted a question about it on talk.origins. I will let you know if I get some answers. I am not a geologist, and I would love to know more about this myself.

#9 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 02 June 2007 - 07:01 PM

It seems as if the evos want it both ways.

See those layers over there?  They are old. Took millions of years to deposit.

But look. A polystrate fossil is part of that formation. 

My bad.  It took a  short time to deposit those layers.

View Post

Seems like you want it only one way. Are layers only deposited quickly?

#10 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 02 June 2007 - 07:12 PM

Jason78,
The layers that were deposited during the flood were deposited quickly.

#11 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 June 2007 - 08:40 AM

Jason78,
The layers that were deposited during the flood were deposited quickly.

View Post


I agree. I have seen no old earther to be able to explain how a tree gets covered in layers before it rots.

I just got finished watching part of the video from Robert Gentry. And it was interesting his conclusion, and tests showing how coal and oil are made. And how the existence of Polystrate Fossils actually confirms it.

Video can be seen here: http://www.halos.com...nglish-103k.htm

If you have high speed internet: http://www.halos.com...nglish-214k.htm

#12 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 03 June 2007 - 11:15 AM

Jason78,
The layers that were deposited during the flood were deposited quickly.

View Post

Nice sidestep. I asked if they were only deposited quickly.

#13 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 03 June 2007 - 06:32 PM

jason78, I would say that all the strata you see was a result of the flood.

Therefore, they were deposited quickly. Millions of years were not necessary.

In one of these threads...somewhere... I even posted a link to some video showing how layers are made quickly in flowing water.

#14 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 04 June 2007 - 10:36 AM

They tend to be, although an upright tree can be slowly buried over like a hundred years or so.


unfortunetly that isn't true. If you add about 6 inches of dirt around the base of a tree you essentially kill it. I've had several projects at work where I would of liked to increase the grade around existing trees, but the landscape architects keep telling me I can't add more than 3" to a large well established tree. ;)

#15 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 04 June 2007 - 04:23 PM

unfortunetly that isn't true.  If you add about 6 inches of dirt around the base of a tree you essentially kill it.  I've had several projects at work where I would of liked to increase the grade around existing trees, but the landscape architects keep telling me I can't add more than 3" to a large well established tree.  ;)

View Post

I think you are right. A tree may die and still remain standing. See the pictures here: http://www.admin.mtu...000/forest.html

#16 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 05 June 2007 - 05:33 PM

How does a dead tree stand for 100 years and not rot and fall?...let alone millions of years?

#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 June 2007 - 04:14 AM

I think you are right. A tree may die and still remain standing.  See the pictures here: http://www.admin.mtu...000/forest.html

View Post


I notice that it was not said that the trees were dated by any dating method. So the age is assumed age. Also, unless the tree dates the same from top to bottom, it means that there was cross contamination with the layers in which the trees was found in. Because if the tree dates older as you go down, that means that the older layer, further down, contaminated the evidence.

#18 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 06 June 2007 - 03:35 PM

I notice that it was not said that the trees were dated by any dating method. So the age is assumed age. Also, unless the tree dates the same from top to bottom, it means that there was cross contamination with the layers in which the trees was found in. Because if the tree dates older as you go down, that means that the older layer, further down, contaminated the evidence.

View Post

I don't know what dating method they used. They said 10,000 years. If it is really just 100 years, then it still solves the problem. You can tell they are over 100 years old just by looking at the pictures.

How does a dead tree stand for 100 years and not rot and fall?...let alone millions of years?

View Post

They say it took burial in sand and water.

#19 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 June 2007 - 07:34 PM

If they had went to all the trouble to date the trees, I am sure they would have mentioned it. Not mentioning it is like coming to a conclusion about something, but hiding how you did this for no reason. To what point would you leave out that information? After all, if they did not, it will sooner or later be asked. So all they did here was put themselves in a position to be doubted about their claims.

For if I found a tee buried, took a picture of it. then claimed it was 100 years old. And said you can tell this by how the tree looks. Would you take me at my word of assumption? Or would you want more accurate proof of my claim?

You see, by taking them by their word. You are assuming that what they are saying is true regardless. And the only reason I can figure is because what they claim supports your view of what you want to be true. This type of assumption breaks the first step of the scientific method which say that you are not supposed to assume that anything is true. Unless you already know it to be so. Which in this case, only the people who are on the website know. Because they failed to mention how they came to their conclusions about the tree.

So ask yourself: Would you believe this if it were on a creation website?

#20 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 07 June 2007 - 11:12 PM

If they had went to all the trouble to date the trees, I am sure they would have mentioned it. Not mentioning it is like coming to a conclusion about something, but hiding how you did this for no reason. To what point would you leave out that information? After all, if they did not, it will sooner or later be asked. So all they did here was put themselves in a position to be doubted about their claims.

For if I found a tee buried, took a picture of it. then claimed it was 100 years old. And said you can tell this by how the tree looks. Would you take me at my word of assumption? Or would you want more accurate proof of my claim?

You see, by taking them by their word. You are assuming that what they are saying is true regardless. And the only reason I can figure is because what they claim supports your view of what you want to be true. This type of assumption breaks the first step of the scientific method which say that you are not supposed to assume that anything is true. Unless you already know it to be so. Which in this case, only the people who are on the website know. Because they failed to mention how they came to their conclusions about the tree.

So ask yourself: Would you believe this if it were on a creation website?

View Post

You are almost right. I think you would be completely right if the point of the article was to refute creationism. It isn't. It is just to report an interesting study of oddly-preserved standing trees. Dating methods are not important to a normal reader, so they don't seem to be trying to hide anything. I would expect that creationists would explain the whole thing with the Noachian flood and not deny the age of it. I did a Google search and found out that the original study was published online freely (I love it when they do that). You can find it here (PDF). I briefly scanned it. Apparently they used C-14 to date the age, which corresponded with the stopping of a glacier and a rise in climate temperature, melting the water that buried the trees.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users