Polystrate Fossils

[RocksInMyHead]

I agree not all evidence fits one model to the exclusion of the other

Just want to point out that my model doesn't exclude flooding, which is required due to the evidence that you cited. It just excludes the possibility that everything was deposited by a flood. I'm actually pretty sure that there's nothing mentioned in the paper that contradicts my model (which happens to be the same as Falcon-Lang's). On the other hand, your model flat-out doesn't work unless you can explain the things that I pointed out.

I did not start out as a YEC - not at all - I have the same old-earth uniformitarian background as any geologist and I was an atheist to boot

it was the quality and abundance of missing information that I heard/read from creation geologists after college that forced me to consider their model - if that had not happened I would have never become a Christian

I can no longer accept uniformitarianism and I don't think anyone knows for sure how old the earth is

I wasn't referring to your background - that's irrelevant to our discussion. I was talking about your statement that:

from a YEC model viewpoint the diversity of species, disarticulated-crushed nature of the fauna, the sediments and the condition of the tree trunks all point to a lot of water - there is nothing else that could have done this

This is called "begging the question" because you're staring out with the conclusion that there was a flood and forcing the evidence to fit this conclusion. The fact that I've given you several alternatives that are at least as plausible only for you to reject them out of hand supports this.

what about transported limestone mud dumped in great piles?

Ok, good point; you could get rapid deposition of limestone in this manner. However, it wouldn't form nice, even layers.

what about a rapid deposition and deep burial of very large piles of organic matter?

Would work if there was only one coal bed, but there are multiple beds at different stratigraphic levels. At the very least, there would have to be multiple flooding events to get this.

are you really 100% positive those are terrestrial deposits?

Given that terrestrial animals don't walk under water, redbeds require exposure to air to form, and anastamosing streams aren't going to form under water, yes.

I'll grant that charcoal could be carried by floodwaters though.

 

[valkyree]

I was referring to the article you posted, about the tree stumps in Hungary. It has a whole section devoted to the mummification process for trees, and yet you claim that "it's a mystery for old-earthers."

.

change in elevation and the forest drowned

rapidly emerging/eroding mtns provided sand

large rivers - an enormous delta - huge trees

toppled trees more or less parallel

stratification accentuated by layers of organic debris

he can't decide if sand was deposited in a lake or a delta

stumps remained saturated w water /oxygen free for 7 million years - i can't believe that

then he says area was preserved by catastrophic flooding

this info fits a global flood model and a younger earth - i can't help it - that is what I get from reading it

 

[valkyree]

Just want to point out that my model doesn't exclude flooding, which is required due to the evidence that you cited. It just excludes the possibility that everything was deposited by a flood. I'm actually pretty sure that there's nothing mentioned in the paper that contradicts my model (which happens to be the same as Falcon-Lang's). On the other hand, your model flat-out doesn't work unless you can explain the things that I pointed out.



I wasn't referring to your background - that's irrelevant to our discussion. I was talking about your statement that:


This is called "begging the question" because you're staring out with the conclusion that there was a flood and forcing the evidence to fit this conclusion. The fact that I've given you several alternatives that are at least as plausible only for you to reject them out of hand supports this.


Ok, good point; you could get rapid deposition of limestone in this manner.

1 However, it wouldn't form nice, even layers.


Would work if there was only one coal bed, but there are multiple beds at different stratigraphic levels. At the very least, there would have to be
2 multiple flooding events to get this.


3 Given that terrestrial animals don't walk under water,

4 redbeds require exposure to air to form, and anastamosing streams aren't going to form under water, yes.

I'll grant that charcoal could be carried by floodwaters though.

i gave my background only because that makes it clear i'm not some Bible-thumping nut

1 why not?

2 yes that fits w the global flood model

3 but they get buried in water when they drown

4 good points i can't refute - will think about it


yes I do see flooding - because there had to be given the same set of circumstances over and over again at location after location - it's not because i necessarily want to

the determining criteria boils down to the rapidity or slowness of events

 

[RocksInMyHead]

change in elevation and the forest drowned

rapidly emerging/eroding mtns provided sand

large rivers - an enormous delta - huge trees

toppled trees more or less parallel

stratification accentuated by layers of organic debris

he can't decide if sand was deposited in a lake or a delta

stumps remained saturated w water /oxygen free for 7 million years - i can't believe that

then he says area was preserved by catastrophic flooding

this info fits a global flood model and a younger earth - i can't help it - that is what I get from reading it

You mean it all fits except for where it doesn't (the 7 Ma age)? On the delta/lake thing, you do know that you can have deltas in lakes, right?

And just because you think that the data supports a young Earth doesn't mean that it automatically becomes a mystery for anyone who doesn't agree. The explanation also works in an old-Earth context. In fact, it works better because you don't have to discount the age.

Incidentally, why don't you believe the 7 Ma figure? The paper indicates that they have pretty good constraints on the age from borehole data. Are you just disagreeing on principle, or do you have data to suggest that it is flawed?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

i gave my background only because that makes it clear i'm not some Bible-thumping nut

Never thought you were.

1 why not?

Depends on the transport mechanism and the source, I suppose. If it's transported by the floodwaters, I guess it could make even beds, but it would be mixed with sand, silt, and anything else in the water. The unit description says that it has organic material (consistent with being deposited in shallow, brackish water with plants nearby), but it doesn't say anything about it being sandy.

There's not much evidence in either direction on this one.

2 yes that fits w the global flood model

I'm obviously not up on my flood models, but I was under the impression that it was just one giant flood. At least, there's nothing in the Bible about the floodwaters receding more than once.

3 but they get buried in water when they drown

Do they walk around and leave footprints though?

 

[RickG]

Ok, good point; you could get rapid deposition of limestone in this manner. However, it wouldn't form nice, even layers.

Limestone mud? Are you sure you don't mean siltstone or shale?

 

[juvenissun]

Limestone mud? Are you sure you don't mean siltstone or shale?

Ha, here we see the tail of the fox.

 

[juvenissun]

thanks i will look at it

here's one for you - from Hungary - unfossilized in situ tree stumps found in ''miocene'' coal

only the stumps remain - the tops were broken off and disappeared

a mystery to old earthers but not to yec's

http://ipolytarnoc.kvvm.hu/uploads/File/pdf/Kazmer_2011_Bukkabrany_forest_structure_JpJHistBiol.pdf

This article is interesting. Thanks.

While the reducing depositional environment explained most part of the tree preservation. I do find one interesting depositional model for these polystrate fossil: The sand showered down from the top of the water in a large deep lake. This is quite a different picture than the dynamic situation found in a common flood.

Should this depositional model be applied to the "trees" talked about in the Jogging Fm? It might solve the problem of burial mechanism, except that the non-reducing chemical environment might not allow the preservation of the buried trees. People suggested that the "hollow weeds" in Jogging Fm was "sand filled". If the sand came down as a shower, this description could become a very reasonable one.

One of critical thing needed in this scenario is: a very quick, but relatively quiet rising of water. (by the way, what is the origin of the Lake Pannon? It looks something like the Black Sea today.)

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Limestone mud? Are you sure you don't mean siltstone or shale?

Think you quoted the wrong statement. But to answer your question, perhaps "mud" was the wrong term to use, but unlithified limestone does resemble mud. It would still have to be sourced from somewhere, but it could conceivably be transported and deposited fairly rapidly. I don't think that this was the case in the area, but I was acknowledging the possibility.

Ha, here we see the tail of the fox.

It's really frustrating when people make cryptic statements like this without explaining them. If you disagree, then say so and explain why.

Should this depositional model be applied to the "trees" talked about in the Jogging Fm? It might solve the problem of burial mechanism, except that the non-reducing chemical environment might not allow the preservation of the buried trees. People suggested that the "hollow weeds" in Jogging Fm was "sand filled". If the sand came down as a shower, this description could become a very reasonable one.

It could be similar, though the trees in the Joggins (not Jogging) Formation are preserved in a different manner.

One of critical thing needed in this scenario is: a very quick, but relatively quiet rising of water. (by the way, what is the origin of the Lake Pannon? It looks something like the Black Sea today.)

Sea level rise (on the coast) or melting of glaciers (inland) would be the two most likely scenarios.

 

[Split Rock]

I did not start out as a YEC - not at all - I have the same old-earth uniformitarian background as any geologist and I was an atheist to boot

What does atheism have to do with a conclusion based on the physical evidence? It was Christian geologists who rejected flood geology back in the 19th century, not atheists.

it was the quality and abundance of missing information that I heard/read from creation geologists after college that forced me to consider their model - if that had not happened I would have never become a Christian

How did the physical evidence lead you to Christianity? Why would an atheist, for example, have trouble accepted flood geology, if that was where the physical evidence led? Does accepting that a global flood once shaped the geological column require faith in Chrsitianty?

I can no longer accept uniformitarianism and I don't think anyone knows for sure how old the earth is

Its pretty clear that the earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.5-4.6 byo. Do you have issues with radioisotope dating as well as uniformitarianism?

 

[valkyree]

You mean it all fits except for where it doesn't (the 7 Ma age)? On the delta/lake thing, you do know that you can have deltas in lakes, right?

And just because you think that the data supports a young Earth doesn't mean that it automatically becomes a mystery for anyone who doesn't agree. The explanation also works in an old-Earth context. In fact, it works better because you don't have to discount the age.

Incidentally, why don't you believe the 7 Ma figure? The paper indicates that they have pretty good constraints on the age from borehole data. Are you just disagreeing on principle, or do you have data to suggest that it is flawed?

preservation thru water-soaked embalming for 7 million years is hard to believe

 

[valkyree]

Interesting - never knew that about Lycopods. However, they're still not reeds. More fragile than modern trees perhaps, but hardly as fragile as a horsetail. And Equisetum was in reference to the Calamites, not the Lycopods. Nothing in your link suggests that they are related.

Edit: In fact, do a Google search for "equisetum, lycopods" and you'll see that there's no relationship. I couldn't really give you a specific reference because they're scattered through several books, but the Google results page shows it pretty clearly. Horsetails are of the genus Equisetum, while Lycopods are of Lycopodium (also Lycopodiuni and Lycopodiurri, but I think these might be mistakes with the text translator).

a modern horsetail yes - but fossil equisetum was much larger

I'll take your word for it - the specific genera are not that important to me but I did find the hollow core interesting



it is the extreme difference in size of fossil flora and fauna as compared to their modern counterparts and what caused this reduction in size that is of interest to me

 

[valkyree]

This is called "begging the question" because you're staring out with the conclusion that there was a flood and forcing the evidence to fit this conclusion. The fact that I've given you several alternatives that are at least as plausible only for you to reject them out of hand supports this.


.

aren't you starting out with the conclusions that the earth is very old and present processes and rates of processes are applicable to the past?

that model does not explain some things as well as the model of a younger earth (I'm not claiming how young because I don't know) that has seen cataclysm in the past that cannot be seen today

 

[RocksInMyHead]

preservation thru water-soaked embalming for 7 million years is hard to believe

Remember that it was in an anoxic environment. Not much happens when there's no oxygen.

it is the extreme difference in size of fossil flora and fauna as compared to their modern counterparts and what caused this reduction in size that is of interest to me

Changes in environment, out-competition by better adapted species. Typical evolutionary pressures.

aren't you starting out with the conclusions that the earth is very old and present processes and rates of processes are applicable to the past?

No, I didn't start out with the conclusion that the Earth was old. I started out with no idea of its age and have been convinced by the evidence that I've seen and produced over the past ten years that it is in fact around 4.5 billion years old.

And present processes and rates being similar to past processes and rates isn't a conclusion. It's a well-founded assumption, based on observations.

that model does not explain some things as well as the model of a younger earth (I'm not claiming how young because I don't know) that has seen cataclysm in the past that cannot be seen today

How so? When you make a claim like this, you need to back it up with evidence. How does your model explain it better?

And I'm still waiting for your response to the problems I presented last night.

 

[valkyree]

.


Depends on the transport mechanism and the source, I suppose. If it's transported by the floodwaters, I guess it could make even beds, but it would be mixed with sand, silt, and anything else in the water. The unit description says that it has organic material (consistent with being deposited in shallow, brackish water with plants nearby), but it doesn't say anything about it being sandy.

There's not much evidence in either direction on this one.


?

rapid deposition of all units above and below this one particular unit provides the sand

 

[RocksInMyHead]

rapid deposition of all units above and below this one particular unit provides the sand

What?

That doesn't address the problem that I presented: that any limestone mud transported by floodwaters would mix with silt and sand and would be described as a sandy limestone or a limey sandstone depending on proportion.

If you're claiming that there were separate pulses of sand and limestone mud, it still doesn't work. Turbulence would stir up the sand beneath (it wouldn't be sandstone yet) and they would still mix.

 

[RickG]

Think you quoted the wrong statement. But to answer your question, perhaps "mud" was the wrong term to use, but unlithified limestone does resemble mud. It would still have to be sourced from somewhere, but it could conceivably be transported and deposited fairly rapidly. I don't think that this was the case in the area, but I was acknowledging the possibility.

The only rapid mechanism I can think of would be a tsunami. But if that were the case I would think it would be rather siliceous along with assorted comingled debris. Just my thoughts. Cheers!

------------------------------
Ha! Just noticed your above post recognized the same problem. I should have read ahead.

 

[valkyree]

What?

That doesn't address the problem that I presented: that any limestone mud transported by floodwaters would mix with silt and sand and would be described as a sandy limestone or a limey sandstone depending on proportion.

If you're claiming that there were separate pulses of sand and limestone mud, it still doesn't work. Turbulence would stir up the sand beneath (it wouldn't be sandstone yet) and they would still mix.

that makes sense

I can't explain how all the earth sediment and fossils and coal-oil-etc got here

the explanations of prograding and retrograding this and that are so localized and complicated and slow -
how could they carry big tree trunks?
what caused them all to break?
how could they bury them in situ and break all their branches and tops and strip their bark and roots and destroy their root balls? - one remaining root that looks broken at the end of a trunk with no root ball is not good enough


a great flood would move a lot of sediment and all of the other debris buried in the sediments and could carry big tree trunks and break off their tops and and branches and strip off their bark etc

but it would not be able to create it all from hard rock in such a short period of time - it requires pre-existing sediment - pre-flood earth sediment - a lot of it - but that is no answer to where it all came from if the earth is young

on the other hand I don't see how slow processes and small local floods occurring over great lengths of time making one small deposit of mud then another small deposit of sand then another etc could bury rapidly and deeply enough so much organic material to produce so much coal-oil-natl gas-oil shale and preserve so many other critters all disarticulated and embedded and mixed up with it

so how can you explain all of the huge petrified tree trunks found all around the world in the condition they are found in without needing a lot of water?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

that makes sense

I can't explain how all the earth sediment got here - the explanations of prograding and retrograding this and that are so localized and complicated and slow - how could they carry big tree trunks? how could they bury them in situ and break all their branches and tops and strip their bark and roots and destroy their root balls - one remaining root that looks broken at the end of a trunk with no root ball is not good enough

You're the only one suggesting that the trees were transported.

a great flood would move a lot of sediment and all of the other debris buried in the sediments and could carry big tree trunks and break off their tops and and branches and strip off their bark etc

I've already given you perfectly good explanations for this that don't require a flood. Tops break off of trees all the time (they're more fragile than the rest of the trunk, after all). Roots are rather fragile as well - furthermore, you're only working with a couple of photos. There may be better examples of roots, or, as I said, the roots may not be excavated yet or could have already eroded away as the cliff retreated.

Also, you're the only one suggesting that the bark was stripped off. Bark is not often preserved, and some has been found in place.

but it would not be able to create it all from hard rock in such a short period of time - it requires pre-existing sediment - pre-flood earth sediment - but that is no answer to where it all came from if the earth is young

Well, at least you recognize that. You're already better off than any other flood geologist I've ever discussed this with.

on the other hand I don't see how slow processes and small local floods occurring over great lengths of time making one small deposit of mud then another small deposit of sand then another etc could bury rapidly and deeply enough so much organic material to produce so much coal-oil-natl gas-oil shale and preserve so many other critters all disarticulated and embedded and mixed up with it

Why not? We see floods now that deposit several feel of mud at a time. You're also forgetting sea level rise, which is probably what caused the Joggins Fmn.

so how can you explain all of the huge petrified tree trunks found all around the world in the condition they are found in without needing a lot of water?

From a previous post I made in this thread, two pages back:

And in most cases, you'd be right. Most petrified wood that I've seen has been in fluvial deposits (i.e. the Chinle Formation). They're not vertical though.

Rivers are perfectly capable of transporting large logs all over the place. We see this all the time now; why would it work any differently in the past?

And I'm still not sure what you mean by "a lot of water." You keep using that phrase - do you mean a flood? Or would a large river satisfy the requirements? Because the Mississippi has a lot of water in it...

 

[valkyree]

You're the only one suggesting that the trees were transported.


I've already given you perfectly good explanations for this that don't require a flood. Tops break off of trees all the time (they're more fragile than the rest of the trunk, after all). Roots are rather fragile as well - furthermore, you're only working with a couple of photos. There may be better examples of roots, or, as I said, the roots may not be excavated yet or could have already eroded away as the cliff retreated.

Also, you're the only one suggesting that the bark was stripped off. Bark is not often preserved, and some has been found in place.


...

I'm speaking more generally of petrified tree deposits - not just one deposit

in situ trees that had not been uprooted would most likely atleast have more root balls preserved

oh well no point in going around in circles