Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mike the wiz

Polystrate Compression Proves Flood Scenario

Recommended Posts

Polystrate logs/trees can prove a single flood scenario is required with immense weight of desposited sediment for polystrate fossils. I use the term, "prove" because deduction deals in proof, here the creation scientist deduces that polystrate fossils must be created in a large scale deposition event rather than by local flooding;

I have highlighted the most germane points of deductive reasoning which provably favours this evidence as flood evidence rather than uniformity-evidence of eons from local floods; (note local flooding as an explanation is ad-hoc anyway, uniforms didn't predict catastrophism laying down these rocks but had to change their minds by borrowing the logic of flooding from creation).

Quote

There is another couple of interesting observations made at Joggins that support the single Flood hypothesis. Many of the fossil specimens there (the trees and lycopods and their preserved roots) have been crushed flat by extreme pressures. The amount of pressure needed to achieve this would have been immense. As Juby rhetorically asks, “How much pressure does it take to crush a log to half its original thickness?17 But if the weight of overlying sediment only accumulated long after these polystrate specimens had fossilized (turned to stone), the pressure would not crush them. They had to be deformed while they were still relatively soft. Thus, these flattened fossils do not comport with smaller local flash floods, but they certainly do comport with a global flood.

And what of all the lizards? Many lizard fossil remains have been found inside some of the stumps, but these lizard bones are disarticulated (broken apart) and have also been flattened by immense pressure.17 Obviously, all this flattening (both of the lizards and the plants) had to happen before they were fossilized, because rocks do not bend; they break.

Of course Wibble's standard response will be the soils but that doesn't work either. It's a recent article you can read the rest here;

https://creation.com/joggins-polystrate-fossils

Apparently (and amusingly), evolutionists don't even recognise "polystrate fossils", could that be because their heads are polystrate-buried in the sand? :P 

Given the thickness of the beds the article explains pretty much the ONLY thing that can explain such large depositions thicker than grand canyon is a flood of global scale. This correlates with recent evidence of bloat-and-float fossil disarticulation from decompositional gases created buoyancy in dead carcasses. In local flooding the carcasses would break through the surface, but these massive polystrate trees have even been compressed by the weight.

I see no way around the deduction. It's a really powerfully strong argument for the flood and evidence for it.

Also why would the lizards stick around in a flash flood in this manner? It seems more likely with a global scale flood there wasn't time for any escape and it happened quickly, an immense inundation. 

Are evolutionists saying the weight of their conjecture is what caused the compression? :rotfl3:

Conclusion: How can any rational human being PRETEND such evidence fits better with eons? Perhaps Dave has some views on this since his friend Juby seems to be the one in the know here with some good reasoning to season his science with

There are so many little reasonings like this I have been collecting in my head lately from scientists. Another one is that tracks in the record always precede the things that made them, sometimes quite a bit further up in the rocks. Things like trilobites, with very hard shells that should have been fossilised with their tracks. The tracks of many other dinos too, but you don't find them until higher up.

That pattern fits with them escaping the rising waters, then later being buried and we expect something as fragile as tracks if fossilised, to also have their makers fossilised.

Think of it logically again, the tracks are fragile and unlikely to fossilise but the shells are bullet-proof, if it was eons of time the shells would be buried with the tracks but they're only buried higher up

Question: Why does logic combined with science always favour a flood so very well? This stuff just shouldn't exist as evidence in an evolutionary world. 

Evolution is clearly a pile of unmitigated dogs droppings. :gotcha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you said about tracks preceding the fossil in the stratum, was a point that I first heard made JUST TWO DAYS AGO while listening to a lecture by Kurt Wise!

Also the best picture of a polystrate is one that Don Patton has photographed and it was so impressive to Ian Juby that he found the site and somehow made a casting of this particular tree. This page has a picture and you can click on it for high-resolution.

https://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-formation-coal.htm  

What makes this one most impressive is that it passes through intermittent layers of limestone and coal. Somewhere on my computer I have another photo which is the same tree with Don Patton kneeling beside it.

When I showed this picture in a discussion group 25 years ago, the resident atheist said that he did not believe that actually existed and if I could show him the site where he could confirm that it was real, he would be baptized in my church right away. Later I found out that he only was offering to get wet, not to be converted. Somehow I found his recent email address and wrote to him about 3 years ago and he could not remember making that offer. I'm not sure that he even remembered the discussion. He may be dead by now. If so, then he got converted too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tracks-petrified-tree.jpg

Also notice that although the tree trunk is quite well preserved, there is no sign of any root system. The evolution model would say there should be roots because this tree was standing upright when it was gradually covered... which is absurd.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2020 at 6:02 PM, mike the wiz said:

Polystrate logs/trees can prove a single flood scenario is required with immense weight of desposited sediment for polystrate fossils. I use the term, "prove" because deduction deals in proof, here the creation scientist deduces that polystrate fossils must be created in a large scale deposition event rather than by local flooding;

I have highlighted the most germane points of deductive reasoning which provably favours this evidence as flood evidence rather than uniformity-evidence of eons from local floods; (note local flooding as an explanation is ad-hoc anyway, uniforms didn't predict catastrophism laying down these rocks but had to change their minds by borrowing the logic of flooding from creation).

Quote

There is another couple of interesting observations made at Joggins that support the single Flood hypothesis. Many of the fossil specimens there (the trees and lycopods and their preserved roots) have been crushed flat by extreme pressures. The amount of pressure needed to achieve this would have been immense. As Juby rhetorically asks, “How much pressure does it take to crush a log to half its original thickness?17 But if the weight of overlying sediment only accumulated long after these polystrate specimens had fossilized (turned to stone), the pressure would not crush them. They had to be deformed while they were still relatively soft. Thus, these flattened fossils do not comport with smaller local flash floods, but they certainly do comport with a global flood.

And what of all the lizards? Many lizard fossil remains have been found inside some of the stumps, but these lizard bones are disarticulated (broken apart) and have also been flattened by immense pressure.17 Obviously, all this flattening (both of the lizards and the plants) had to happen before they were fossilized, because rocks do not bend; they break.

Of course Wibble's standard response will be the soils but that doesn't work either. It's a recent article you can read the rest here;

https://creation.com/joggins-polystrate-fossils

Apparently (and amusingly), evolutionists don't even recognise "polystrate fossils", could that be because their heads are polystrate-buried in the sand? :P 

Given the thickness of the beds the article explains pretty much the ONLY thing that can explain such large depositions thicker than grand canyon is a flood of global scale. This correlates with recent evidence of bloat-and-float fossil disarticulation from decompositional gases created buoyancy in dead carcasses. In local flooding the carcasses would break through the surface, but these massive polystrate trees have even been compressed by the weight.

I see no way around the deduction. It's a really powerfully strong argument for the flood and evidence for it.

Strangely enough, I can see a way around the deduction. If the logs really are flattened (I don't see any evidence that they are and it certainly isn't obvious from the photo in the article), why do you suppose that the log would fossilise so quickly under the secular scenario ? What's wrong with a scenario where a log is washed into position that may have already decomposed to a certain extent and therefore lost much of its rigidity. Following initial burial in anoxic conditions the initial deposition would cease. After successive deposition from local floods over years or decades or maybe even much longer, the weight of sediment and further burial could work to compress the log. Fossilisation would happen over a much longer period of time. You don't need a single mighty burial to achieve what you are claiming so your deduction  of proof is incorrect.

I'm not sure I understand what your case is with floating dead carcasses. As I've said many times, almost all vertebrate fossils are disarticulated (for example, as I recall our best T Rex is about 70% complete), as you might expect if they aren't immediately buried after death.

On 4/16/2020 at 6:02 PM, mike the wiz said:

Also why would the lizards stick around in a flash flood in this manner? It seems more likely with a global scale flood there wasn't time for any escape and it happened quickly, an immense inundation.

 

On 4/16/2020 at 6:02 PM, mike the wiz said:

There are so many little reasonings like this I have been collecting in my head lately from scientists. Another one is that tracks in the record always precede the things that made them, sometimes quite a bit further up in the rocks. Things like trilobites, with very hard shells that should have been fossilised with their tracks. The tracks of many other dinos too, but you don't find them until higher up.

That pattern fits with them escaping the rising waters, then later being buried and we expect something as fragile as tracks if fossilised, to also have their makers fossilised.

So there is time for escape when it suits you but not when it doesn't ? I'm not sure how you can rationalise anything escaping this inundation which "propelled across continents". Have you got any research sources that backs up your claim that tracks "always" precede the animals that made them ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, wibble said:

Strangely enough, I can see a way around the deduction. If the logs really are flattened (I don't see any evidence that they are and it certainly isn't obvious from the photo in the article), why do you suppose that the log would fossilise so quickly under the secular scenario ? What's wrong with a scenario where a log is washed into position that may have already decomposed to a certain extent and therefore lost much of its rigidity. Following initial burial in anoxic conditions the initial deposition would cease. After successive deposition from local floods over years or decades or maybe even much longer, the weight of sediment and further burial could work to compress the log. Fossilisation would happen over a much longer period of time. You don't need a single mighty burial to achieve what you are claiming so your deduction  of proof is incorrect

I would have to take issue with this imaginative escape. You see, the scientist says many trees were flattened, and it's poisoning the well fallacy to imply the source isn't trusted. I have no reason to mistrust the source just because you don't see the fossils with your own eyes and you've played this, "prove it" game before. You of course know that creationist material is limited and know that we won't get to go there and see the fossils ourselves which is likely why you employ this tactic.

But also under your imagined scenario, I'm not sure the log would be compressed because the weight would be evenly distributed, slowly. Too slowly.

But for your scenario, there is science which basically disallows a slow compression over a long time because of radiohalos. The problem basically is, radiohalos happen in a sequence whereby we can calculate the compression event because when the logs are compressed so are the halos into an eliptical shape, but because the half-lives for each type of halo are known we can measure the approximate time for the compression event because new halos if there is still decay, are not eliptical meaning they have to happen AFTER the compression event. So we can measure how long the compression took, which for three formations would be about four years.

Evidence such as this, where we find eliptical radio-halos, are found throughout the record. 

Basically each ring in a radio-halo represents a chain of decay and the half-lives for some of these things are even seconds or hours. So in compressed wood found in three geologic formations ranging from 50 to 80 million years we find which ones had decayed. 

https://creation.com/the-collapse-of-geologic-time

So if compression events through very slow anoxic conditions occur as you say for very long times, compressing the wood slowly, then obviously all of the halos would be eliptical, the fact some are round shows compression had to be quick because of the decay rates;

Quote

But the solutions must have penetrated the logs relatively quickly, certainly within a year or so. How do we know that? Because the half-life of polonium-210 is only 138 days. That is, within 138 days, half the polonium-210 present would have decayed into the next ‘daughter’ isotope in the chain. In other words, the solution had saturated the wood within two or three half-lives, about a year. It could not have taken very long, because in 10 half-lives (less than four years) virtually all of the polonium-210 would have gone.

Only one of the three radioactive isotopes of polonium was deposited in the tiny radioactive specks in the logs. We know because only one ring formed. The other isotopes from the decay chain (polonium-214 and polonium-218) were missing. Why? Because they had already decayed away. Their half-lives are very short (164 millionths of a second and three minutes respectively). So all polonium-214 would have disappeared within a thousandth of a second, and all polonium-218 would have gone in an hour—long before the uranium-rich solutions could saturate the logs.

Significantly, the halos were mainly elliptical, not circular (Figure 2). Obviously, after the halos formed, the wooden logs were compressed, squashing the originally-circular halos into ellipses.

Sometimes a circular halo could be seen together with an elliptical halo (Figure 3). This indicated that radioactive polonium-210 continued to decay from the same core after the wood was compressed. Thus, because of the 138-day half-life of polonium-210 as discussed above, there was less than four years between when the solution first infiltrated the wood and when it was compressed.

 

17 hours ago, wibble said:

I'm not sure I understand what your case is with floating dead carcasses. As I've said many times, almost all vertebrate fossils are disarticulated (for example, as I recall our best T Rex is about 70% complete), as you might expect if they aren't immediately buried after death.

Yes but, you have "said many times" but I have given an answer many times. Just repeating something doesn't give it veracity. I gave examples of large whale fossils VERY articulated, found in a desert, in the other thread. I also have given many examples of very large fossils and fossil graveyards, well articulated such as with Ichthyosaurs of which they could even tell one was giving birth.

The point is in the fossil record we find very large well articulated organisms such as with fossil graveyards, but in experiments with crocs which are a lot smaller, the crocs bloated and broke through their burial-sediment because the buoyancy created by decompositional gases within the crocs acted so that they broke through the surface anf floated where they would be scavanged, bacterial action, and so forth meaning you need a large amount of sediment to bury them quickly, even more so with large organisms such as whales or dinosaurs.

If you go with unlithified anoxic conditions, so that the trunks don't harden and crack then obviously buoyancy will be an issue.

But are you going to say that these strange anoxic conditions were later to lithify into all sorts of rock such as coal, since as with Dave's link the polystrate tree penetrates three layers. Just how does this work exactly? That no matter what type of rock a polystrate trunk penetrates each was some weird anoxic compound from a Star trek story? What about soil and all of the things that occur over slow compaction, millions of years? Just why do you get all types of rock under your slow conditions? Do we see this today? 

(I am now mostly reading rather than writing, for the moderator role, perhaps Dave can continue at this point.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2020 at 12:47 PM, wibble said:

I'm not sure I understand what your case is with floating dead carcasses. As I've said many times, almost all vertebrate fossils are disarticulated (for example, as I recall our best T Rex is about 70% complete), as you might expect if they aren't immediately buried after death

Shouldn't we conclude that disarticulation, when there is no evidence of scavenging, strongly argues for a very violent and sudden burial? The typical deposition scenarios of the conventional view would not be consistent with ripping apart a huge creature like a T-Rex.

 

On 4/25/2020 at 6:10 AM, mike the wiz said:

You of course know that creationist material is limited and know that we won't get to go there and see the fossils ourselves which is likely why you employ this tactic.

As I previously mentioned, this was the evasive tactic that was used by an atheist in the late 1990s when I showed him the above photo. He denied that it could possibly exist and until he saw it with his own eyes he would not believe it. For a while it seemed to be that this fossil no longer existed because it was at the top of a mountain that was destroyed with coal mining (as someone told me). So I gave up on finding it. But then later I asked Don Patton about it and he sent me a picture of him kneeling beside that same polystrate log. And later Ian Juby was able to locate it and he did a casting of it himself and uses it in his presentations now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2020 at 6:10 AM, mike the wiz said:

So if compression events through very slow anoxic conditions occur as you say for very long times, compressing the wood slowly, then obviously all of the halos would be eliptical, the fact some are round shows compression had to be quick because of the decay rates;

I believe I recall seeing a photo of a radiohalo where there were two. One was elliptical and the other was round, both surrounding the same radiocenter. I have Gentry's book right here and I believe that's where I saw it. If someone thinks it is important I could probably find it and upload a photo.

I'd like for Wibble to explain the ABSENCE OF A ROOT SYSTEM under most if not all of the polystrate tree photos. The absence certainly is strong evidence that these trees were involved in a gigantic flood rather than the typical conventional fossilization scenario.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another photo of the same tree taken many years later...with Don Patton. I have a much higher resolution photo. (I'm trying to save my upload limitation.)

 

IMG_20200513_163643_396.jpg.857dd55234a641496d423a8c5dda27e3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the root system, in fairness I should mention that this is probably a gigantic fern, and I'm not sure if they would be expected to have a root system similar to a tree. But I would think if it is that tall it would have to have something similar in order for it to not fall over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms