Excellent article from the latest issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/artic...ate_fossils.htm

Excellent information. Here's another link:


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:FU5mD...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

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.

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?

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.
They tend to be, although an upright tree can be slowly buried over like a hundred years or so.
Yes, I would expect that you would find just as many in that range of layers as any other.
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.
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.

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."





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.

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.

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.

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

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

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/videos/0004-TheYoungA...nglish-103k.htm

If you have high speed internet: http://www.halos.com/videos/0004-TheYoungA...nglish-214k.htm

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

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.

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.

I think you are right. A tree may die and still remain standing. See the pictures here: http://www.admin.mtu.edu/urel/breaking/2000/forest.html

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

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.

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.
They say it took burial in sand and water.

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?

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.

I was making a point on applying the scientific method. You assumed it was true even without the data you dug up in a search. Which breaks the first rule, or step of the scientific method. I was trying to get at is as to why you would accept this as being true without this information.

Accepting one source over another, when neither show testing evidence. Is showing bias, and prejudgement of what you prefer to be true. Then actually wanting to find truth. For can you lay out a process of how the presenter of evidence from one source should always be accepted, while the other always rejected? One that would be within the scientific method.

It can't be done without showing bias on some level. Which is what the scientific method is trying to avoid.

My only claim was that a tree may die and remain standing, and that seemed apparent just from the pictures. I think you are right this time regardless, about me believing such articles without studying the science in detail, and I can excuse myself only by lacking the claim of being a geologist. I do have bias, and I think that is normal and necessary too. I am biased against the scientific minorities in favor of the majority. I think it is hard to function in modern society without blindly accepting many scientific authorities. Maybe you can do it, and if you can, then good on you.

Everyone has bias to a certain extent. But you have to check the bias if you are truly looking for truth. For when it goes across a certain line, it can cloud your judgement on what truth is on any subject.

Example (on a side note): I used to reject anything that dated over 10,000 years old because of my strong belief in YEC only. Now would you say I was bias because I looked at my belief before I looked at the evidence? Of course you would.

This is also how evolution works in the opposite manner. They are bias towards any evidence that may support a young earth. It is rejected before even considered. Why? There is really no scientific explanation as to why both young and old earth evidence exists together.

So to try and figure out how things look both young and old at the same time. I figured that the bible would have an explanation that most were missing. Including myself. So instead of being totally bias towards old earth dating, I pondered it to test it. Because if you do not test what you believe, and accept majority view of what truth is. Then you are accepting someone Else's version of truth as your own truth. Which also means that their truth controls your life, and how you will look at everything. A free thinker never accepts truth until he tests it. Or ponders it. A free thinker thinks as an individual.

A brain washed truth requires you to close your heart and mind to any other possibilities. And becoming narrow minded is a quality a lot of people do not like.

Leaving the door open for the possibility of a biblical explanation for old earth evidence "mixed" with young earth evidence. Kept me open minded towards this subject. Ready for God's word to show it to me. You see as long as I had accepted one truth, and rejected another possible truth. My mind would not allow an explanation, even from what I base all my truth around (God's word). So if I read the bible with that in mind, the only thing I would see would be what I wanted to see.

So upon allowing this pondering, and waiting for what I would be shown reading the bible. It suddenly hit me one day that the first six days of creation was done in a eternal time-line. This got me to wondering how this would affect how creation was done. But since we cannot experience eternity yet, the only way I could figure it out was to subtract from eternity time what cannot exist according to God's word.

Sin, death, and aging cannot exist in eternity. From there I had to figure out how time would pass without these processes being a part of it. To make a long story short, from that I figured out how things were created old, but was mixed with young earth evidence.

I never would have seen this if I did not leave the door open for a possibility and allowed myself to think freely. I still test this truth. I won't accept it totally until I'm convince that it explains the unexplainable. And can be confirmed by God's word, and evidence that science accepts (old earth) and ignores (young earth). Because young earth evidence could not hold it's ground against old earth evidence if there was not good evidence to support it. Because these debates would have died a long time ago if young earth evidence was as weak as old earthers imply that they are.

But every year science turns up an unexplainable find that absolutely does not fit in their old earth beliefs. But because they have narrowed their minds towards only old earth thinking. They ignore the young earth find, and basically will not have the answers to explain why one type of evidence is found mixed with another.

The finds are evidence for two parallel time-lines. Science will never see this because they will never ponder it. I can start another thread if anyone wants to discuss this further. So this does not derail this one.

Might I suggest a rapid burial...something lke a flood would produce?

Perhaps a slow burial like those in spirit lake Washington. They were felled and deposited in the lake from the Mt St Helens eruption in 1980. Many ended up at the bottom of the lake and are now embedded in several feet of silt and dirt. One day they too will become polystrate fossils but it won't have been quick. Creationists tell us that trees rot too fast for it to be a slow process, yet the trees at the bottom of the lake as well as the ones still floating on the lake surface have been there for 27 years. This does tend to disprove that all trees must deteriorate quicly and that only a massive flood can account for polystrate fossils.