• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

What is the best explanation for Polystrate Fossils?

Right Divider

Body part
Sorry RD but discussing science with someone who must trust a Holy Scripture no matter what and who buys Walt Brown's fantasy is doomed from the start because your side needs no evidence for Scripture (other than the self serving document itself--no matter what the particular religious document is) and Brown ignores evidence to lend support to a few Bible verses and makes up the rest.
Typical... you cannot discuss facts that therefore must throw out nonsense like that.

You love to give your opinions, but when actually asked to discuss details you run away like a scared chicken.

Should you ever grow up and like to discuss science, I'm here.

Have a nice life, wear a mask
Thanks so much.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sorry RD but discussing science with someone who must trust a Holy Scripture no matter what and who buys Walt Brown's fantasy is doomed from the start because your side needs no evidence for Scripture (other than the self serving document itself--no matter what the particular religious document is) and Brown ignores evidence to lend support to a few Bible verses and makes up the rest.
Have a nice life, wear a mask

Bye. :wave2:

:loser:
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Actually I was going to bring up something completely different, but that works too. ;)
But it doesn't work. If you try and get sand at a high angle on land, it doesn't get set as a continent sized layer with many layers over the top of it.

You think the flood was magic water that rose on the earth and disappeared by a miracle if it were the global flood that happened ~4000 years ago. But it wasn't. There was a great deal of fast moving water over large flats. And as large flumes show, layers of sand with steep angles is common in that situation.

So it would be a good idea to bring up something completely different.

First thing is layers of sediment that later turn into rock can be formed rapidly.
Only under certain conditions. Those conditions are not continent wide these days, and would only be available in a global flood.

That's the DUH part of the Talk Origins link.
Talk Origins are more often than not grade-school level arguments, but let's see the link.

Fast forming layers = polystrate fossils.
And don't forget, these are layers that are continent sized layers. One layer on top of another adding up to many hundreds of feet thick quickly, based on the evidence of the weight..

The logical step you're failing is that assuming because certain kinds of layers can form rapidly, ALL kinds of layers must only form rapidly.
Where did you get that idea? I only say the layers that formed rapidly are the ones that are large, well demarcated, had the correct conditions to form rock relatively quickly, and are connected via the evidence of their weight.

I'm sure we can find some layers somewhere that don't fit that set. We can look at those if you can find them.

And that clearly does not follow, unless of course you've decided the world must be 6000 years old a priori. :chuckle:
You forget I used to be a deep time believer. But the science of layers (and all kinds of other science fields) required I change my mind to young earth if I wanted to be honest about where the evidence lead.

The problem with this idea are the many layers of sediment that aren't formed by floods or volcanoes but from biological organisms. In many parts of the midwestern USA, we have limestone. And much of that limestone is made of dead organisms. And not just any organisms, dead organisms that don't exist anymore to any appreciable degree (stalked crinoids for an example), layer upon layer upon layer of them. There are old mansions in the area built of essentially solid layers of dead crinoids. Did THOSE layers form all at once?
I don't know. How wide is this layer you are talking about? The one that the mansion is built from?

[/quote]No of course not, because you can't grow that many living organisms all at once and then kill them all at once to make feet of dead critter sediment all at once. They would have to be growing on top of one another in layers already and crinoids are filter feeders so that's not likely to happen. Same thing with the layers of chalk scattered across the world etc. The biggest blooms of the microorganisms that form them create millimetres of chalk (at best) if killed all at once and yet we have meters of it.[/quote]
Ok. Let's look at one of the chalk layers and see how big it is and what else is in the layer and the layers around it.

There are just too many things in the world that can't happen as fast as you YECs would like, lots of things that do exist that wouldn't if there was a global flood etc.
So far you haven't brought up anything that couldn't be explained, scientifically, by YECs in the context of the flood. And you've refused to try and explain the evidence that shows a YE.

[/quote]Early YEC based scientists gave up this sort of thing over a hundred years ago. [/QUOTE]

And those early scientists thought Charles Lyell was correct about a number of things concerning deep time. Turned out he was wrong about a lot of them. So wrong, in fact, that the opposite turned out to be true based on later evidence. You need to update your science information out of the 1800's and into the 21st century.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Are there any examples of polystrate fossils forming right now? Might be a good thing to go check on...
I think there might be out at Mt. St. Helens. But they will show neither the wide layers or the crushing weight of 250 ft. of other layers on top of them.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Actually, they are some forming in a lake a few miles from my house, as trees in a flooded woods are being slowly buried in silt for nearly half a century.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yorzhik said:
I think there might be out at Mt. St. Helens. But they will show neither the wide layers or the crushing weight of 250 ft. of other layers on top of them.
Actually, they are some forming in a lake a few miles from my house, as trees in a flooded woods are being slowly buried in silt for nearly half a century.
So that's a "no". Keep us updated if you find anything.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
So that's a "no". Keep us updated if you find anything.

Hmm, sounds like a yes to me. But I guess without a world wide floodcaused by explosions of hbomb equivalent energy release around the world for weeks we won't get any more fossils?
is that your position?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
So that's a "no". Keep us updated if you find anything.

Actually, that's a "yes." We see a lot of such polystrate fossils of trees:

Most trees that protrude through various strata have certain things in common.
  • They have a root system in clay. This was once river sediment and was the ground when the trees were growing. Later the trees either were immersed in water by the river and slowly covered with river sediment, or they were rapidly buried in a river flood or mudslide.
  • The layer above the clay, the hardened river sediment, is usually a coal seam, formed by the plant life that grew there with the trees.
  • Above that is more hardened sediment, where part of the trunks of trees and a lot of foliage was buried by a river flood.
https://www.proof-of-evolution.com/polystrate-fossils.html
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Actually, that's a "yes." We see a lot of such polystrate fossils of trees:

Most trees that protrude through various strata have certain things in common.
[*]They have a root system in clay. This was once river sediment and was the ground when the trees were growing. Later the trees either were immersed in water by the river and slowly covered with river sediment, or they were rapidly buried in a river flood or mudslide.

Oh, you mean like these ones?

Spoiler


* Polystrate Trees: Examples abound around the world of polystrate trees:
Photo of a polystrate tree
- Yellowstone's petrified polystrate forest (with the NPS exhibit sign removed; see below) with successive layers of rootless trees demonstrating the rapid deposition of dozens layers of strata.
- A similarly formed polystrate fossil forest in France demonstrating the rapid deposition of a dozen strata.
- In many locations, polystrate fossils such as trees span many strata, including famously in the Fossil Cliffs of Joggins, Nova Scotia, which expose sections of 14,000 vertical feet of sedimentary strata, with 49 out of 50 such trees completely lacking their roots, or containing truncated roots, or roots with their rootlets lopped off, indicating that all of these trees were growing elsewhere and transported here in floodwaters.
- These trees lack erosion: Not only should such fossils, generally speaking, not even exist, but polystrates including trees typically show no evidence of erosion increasing with height. All of this powerfully disproves the claim that the layers were deposited slowly over thousands or even a million years. In the experience of your RSR radio hosts, evolutionists commonly respond to this hard evidence with mocking. See also articles in ICR Impact and at CRSQ.

1983 photo of Yellowstone Specimen Ridge exhibit sign
* Yellowstone Exhibit: David Coppedge took these photographs in 1983 in Yellowstone National Park and confirmed to RSR after his 2015 trip that today there are no such signs at Specimen Ridge. Instead, wildlife, etc., exhibits are currently on display there. And near Roosevelt Junction at the fenced-in petrified tree site, the park service presents a sign attributing these tree remains to catastrophic mudflow, which explanation is much closer to reality than their old "successive forests" story. The old, incorrect "Fossil Forest" exhibit claimed that dozens of layers of petrified trees were still standing "where they grew". As explained on Real Science Radio's List of Not So Old Things program, these trees have no root system and were hydraulically transported to their current location. See rsr.org/list#yellowstone. [The second photo below is an RSR composite.]

Yellowstone erroneous petrified tree exhibit: stumps standing upright where they grew...


After Bob Enyart's Trading Genesis theistic evolution presentation (see it below) in May 2015 in Malibu, California on the Pepperdine University campus, David Coppedge wrote to Bob Enyart at Real Science Radio:

"The book Roadside Geology of the Yellowstone Country by [geology professor] William J. Fritz (1985, 6th printing 1994), on pp 25-26, also talks about the change. He says, 'When I visited the Mount St. Helens area shortly after the eruption, it was just like Yellowstone!.... Both the mudflows and the appearance of the trees is identical.' (p. 25). On page 26, though, he points out differences between the two sites. Nice to meet you in person today [Bob]."

Close-up of 1983 Specimen Ridge exhibit sign


Erroneous Yellowstone petrified tree exhibit


Close-up of 1983 Specimen Ridge exhibit sign


Erroneous Yellowstone petrified tree exhibit


Erroneous Yellowstone petrified tree exhibit


* 1891 Drawing of Similar Polystrate Trees in France: From Hermann Credner's text Elemente der Geologie, page 479 on the "Upright trunks in carbon sandstone of St. Etienne in France". (Click image to enlarge.)

Polystrate trees in France likely formed by the same model of those at Yellowstone, as revealed by Mt. Saint Helens...
















Photo of two of Yellowstone's approx. 5k-year-old petrified trees.


* These Trees Did Not Grow Here: The old-earth biased National Park Service cannot be trusted when it contradicts biblical chronology. For example, creationists worked to correct the NPS' false claim that Yellowstone's petrified trees grew in up to 50 successive forests, each leaving behind one or more individual trees which became petrified, all of this at Specimen Ridge (and Creek).

* Collectively, they form a Polystrate Fossil Forest: Creationists have worked hard to correct the historical record. Yellowstone's petrified trees lack root systems. So, they do not stand where they grew. Instead, they were all deposited during a catastrophic event that was rapidly laying down wet sediments (which lithified into today's strata). These trees, after getting waterlogged and sinking vertically (upright floaters), settled onto what was, at their moment of settling, the topmost layer. They were then soon buried (in days to months; not millennia) by subsequently deposited sediments, and joined by other trees vertically sinking and settling into the successive layers of sediments that were burying the trees that had sunk just days and weeks previously. Thus, the entire system of the fossil forest forms a single polystrate fossil that compresses the formation event from allegedly tens of thousands of years down to mere months. See this also in RSR's 3-minute YouTube video:





Polystrate trees of Nant Llech river in Swansea, Wales, UK


(from rsr.org/polystrate)
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Actually, that's a "yes." We see a lot of such polystrate fossils of trees:
Most trees that protrude through various strata have certain things in common.
  • They have a root system in clay. This was once river sediment and was the ground when the trees were growing. Later the trees either were immersed in water by the river and slowly covered with river sediment, or they were rapidly buried in a river flood or mudslide.
  • The layer above the clay, the hardened river sediment, is usually a coal seam, formed by the plant life that grew there with the trees.
  • Above that is more hardened sediment, where part of the trunks of trees and a lot of foliage was buried by a river flood.
https://www.proof-of-evolution.com/p...e-fossils.html

:rotfl:

Show us that. How does a river flood or a mudslide bury an upright tree?

Here's a mudslide:



Feel free to point to where you think the buried, upright trees are.

After that, you can explain how mudslide deposits got layered and massive. :chuckle:
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
:rotfl:

Show us that. How does a river flood or a mudslide bury an upright tree?

Here's a mudslide:



Feel free to point to where you think the buried, upright trees are.

After that, you can explain how mudslide deposits got layered and massive. :chuckle:

To Stripe all mudslides are the same. And as usual he thinks the entire universe is only a few thousand years old. Oh well.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
To Stripe all mudslides are the same.

Is this an argument?

Are you trying to lend support to Barbarian's stupid Web site?

A mudslide has distinctive characteristics that are easily identifiable in the rock record. And guess what, they never have forests of upright, fossilized trees in them. :chuckle:

Mudslides — even the largest ones — are very localized events. They require steep inclines. The strata we look at can be continent-sized and are flat if they are that big.

Trees in mudslides will either be knocked over or will remain standing and continue growing, with roots intact. Fossilized trees are typically shorn of their roots. Mudslide deposits are easily washed away. If a tree survives a mudslide, its situation will quickly revert to pretty much how it was before. Another slide would be acting on a clean slate. We do not get layers of mudslides, especially not with sharp, horizontal boundaries that extend for hundreds of kilometers. Moreover, once a slide has affected a hillside, the possibility of another slide that puts sediment on top of the previous one reduces dramatically.

And the death knell for the mudslide theory is that sediment does not make rocks. Three things are needed.

Just wait till the Darwinists try to comprehend underwater landslides. :chuckle:

And as usual he thinks the entire universe is only a few thousand years old.

As usual, you have absolutely nothing to contribute. Oh well.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
A huge problem that Darwinists have is matching the rock record up with things that are seen today. We simply do not see processes that would generate huge sheets of horizontal strata with sharp boundaries containing dead things. We don't see events today that could ever hope to produce fossil forests, although there are contemporary events that have deposited a few trees.

The same goes for mudslides. Darwinists look at "fossil mudslides" and see them happening on slopes as shallow as 3° to 4°. Naturally, this seems to be a physical impossibility given what we see happening on hills.

Unfortunately, the average Darwin-lover is not interested in understanding physics, geology ... heck, even simple logic. Otherwise they would open their eyes and see.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yep. As you now see, lamina form at different rates in different places. The ones forming near my house will, if all goes right, will be less than 200 years in forming. Others can be millions of years, or anything in between.

Nope. As you willingly ignore, three things are needed to make a rock. You've only got one.
 
Top