Polystrate Fossils

[valkyree]

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...

of course rivers are capable

there is such an adundant and widespread distribution of huge petrified tree trunks all across the western states it is hard to imagine rivers depositing them all - it appears more like sheet flooding

 

[valkyree]

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


quote]

so is the genesis flood story wrong then?

is the Bible not a reliable source of information?

I agree the flood is hard to explain but so are a lot of other things that are recorded in the Bible?

 

[valkyree]

1 Polystrate Fossils is a creationist term used to describe the geologic term "in situ" or "upright" fossils.


2 In situ fossils are single organisms (objects) that appear to span one or more layers of geologic strata.

(Rygel, M.C) Specimen is from the Joggins Formation (Pennsylvanian), Cumberland Basin, Nova Scotia.

your definitions are not exactly correct

1 A Polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum according to wikipedia which is not a creationist site

2 In situ fossils are fossils that are found in their natural position or place of origin - plants or animals that have not been transported and deposited away form their place of origin but have been buried in place such as a tree that has not been uprooted


I think a creationist would say the picture above is of a polystrate (vertical) fossil ---but not necessarily extending thru more than one geological stratum

I think a creationist would disagree this is a picture of an in situ fossil tree that remains in it's place of origin -

I think a creationist would say it is a tree that has been transported and broken apart losing its softest parts in the process of being transported and the trunk as shown and the broken root have been redeposited somewhere else and preserved thru rapid and complete burial

if it was not rapidly and completely buried then how did it get preserved?

the reason it is upright is that it was water-logged when deposited

an explanation of something similar can be found here

Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism

snip....... UPRIGHT DEPOSITED LOGS

The landslide generated waves on Spirit Lake stripped the forests from the slopes adjacent to the lake and created an enormous log mat, made up of millions of prone floating trunks that occupy about two square miles of the lake surface. These logs float freely as the wind blows them, and the decreasing size of the log mat indicates that the trees are gradually sinking to the lake floor. Careful observation of the floating log mat indicates that many trees float in upright position, with a root ball submerging the root end of the trunk, while the opposite end floats out of the water. Hundreds of upright floated and deposited logs have been grounded in shallow water along the shore of the lake. These trees, if buried in sediment, would appear to have been a forest which grew in place over hundreds of years, which is the standard geological interpretation for the upright petrified "forests" at Yellowstone National Park........snip​

 

[juvenissun]

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.


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


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


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

RickG thought he knows a lot about geology. Yet he is confused on the basic definition of "mud" which a geology101 student should know. Sorry about my attitude. But he laughed at me so many times and I couldn't help to return a favor when a chance is given.

 

[valkyree]

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.

...

the root ball as well as the roots are clearly missing - except for one broken root

this is not an isolated incidence - this is the norm - for millions of petrified tree trunks all around the world

root balls are just as tough as the tree trunk - the root ball is prob the toughest part of the tree - that's why we find a few truly in situ fossilized (or mummified) tree trunk forests around the world

something caused all of those trees to break off

we find the remains of those broken tree trunks (most of them minus their root balls) all over the planet wherever they got buried fast enough and deep enough to be preserved

en route to their final destinations they had their branches and tops and bark stripped off during transport - the root balls in most cases were already gone

 

[Orogeny]

(Rygel, M.C) Specimen is from the Joggins Formation (Pennsylvanian), Cumberland Basin, Nova Scotia.

I don't mean to intrude, but there's been a lot of discussion of the single root on this tree. There are actually two roots, the other can be seen coming from out of the plane to the lower right of the tree. It lines up quite nicely with the slight flare on the bottom right of the trunk.

 

[valkyree]

I don't mean to intrude, but there's been a lot of discussion of the single root on this tree. There are actually two roots, the other can be seen coming from out of the plane to the lower right of the tree. It lines up quite nicely with the slight flare on the bottom right of the trunk.

do you mean the round radiating rock with a dark spot in the middle - quite possible!

and maybe these giant fossil reeds or whatever they were (not true trees) did not have a root ball at all but shallow radiating roots as seen in many pictures

when I speak of root balls I am speaking of real trees

 

[RocksInMyHead]

First of all valkyree, I recommend making one post to reply to one post, rather than splitting it up into several separate posts. It makes it somewhat difficult to respond to you. The quote commands are [/quote] to end a quote and

to start one.

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

Then you should specify that. You keep talking alternately about global petrified wood deposits and the Joggins Formation - unless you're specific, no one but you knows what you're talking about.

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

Why? Roots are fragile and easily rotted/eaten by insects/smashed into an unrecognizable mass by lithostatic pressure.

of course rivers are capable

there is such an adundant and widespread distribution of huge petrified tree trunks all across the western states it is hard to imagine rivers depositing them all - it appears more like sheet flooding

It's not that broad of an area - think about the Mississipi River system. If you include its tributaries and all of their floodplains, you cover a good portion of the United States. The Chinle Formation covers Utah, and about half each of Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. There isn't petrified wood in all of its members, either.

so is the genesis flood story wrong then?

Yes, in the sense that the Flood wasn't global. It was probably describing a local flooding event. I believe the flooding of the Black Sea around 5600 BC is one candidate.

is the Bible not a reliable source of information?

The Bible isn't a reliable source of scientific information.

I agree the flood is hard to explain but so are a lot of other things that are recorded in the Bible?

And I'm uncertain of how much of the Bible is meant to be taken literally. More importantly, a global flood is something that should have left widespread evidence. As far as millions of geologists can tell, it hasn't.

an explanation of something similar can be found here

Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism

snip....... UPRIGHT DEPOSITED LOGS

The landslide generated waves on Spirit Lake stripped the forests from the slopes adjacent to the lake and created an enormous log mat, made up of millions of prone floating trunks that occupy about two square miles of the lake surface. These logs float freely as the wind blows them, and the decreasing size of the log mat indicates that the trees are gradually sinking to the lake floor. Careful observation of the floating log mat indicates that many trees float in upright position, with a root ball submerging the root end of the trunk, while the opposite end floats out of the water. Hundreds of upright floated and deposited logs have been grounded in shallow water along the shore of the lake. These trees, if buried in sediment, would appear to have been a forest which grew in place over hundreds of years, which is the standard geological interpretation for the upright petrified "forests" at Yellowstone National Park........snip​

I already explained why using Mt. St. Helens and Spirit Lake as an analogue doesn't work before you first posted in this thread. It's back a few pages, but it's in here.

The polystrate vs. in situ definitions have also been discussed at length already - it might be helpful to read the whole thread.

the root ball as well as the roots are clearly missing - except for one broken root

As Orogeny already pointed out, there's more than one root. And as I already pointed out, you're looking at one tree that isn't fully exposed.

this is not an isolated incidence - this is the norm - for millions of petrified tree trunks all around the world

Except those are lying horizontally, with other bits of petrified wood mixed into the matrix in what can clearly be interpreted as a fluvial system.

root balls are just as tough as the tree trunk - the root ball is prob the toughest part of the tree - that's why we find a few truly in situ fossilized (or mummified) tree trunk forests around the world

We find fossilized stumps because the roots are the hardest part of a tree to remove - they're stuck in the ground after all.

something caused all of those trees to break off

I (and everyone else) disagree that they've broken off.

Also:

Roots circled in red. At least, what I would interpret as roots based on the picture.

 

[Orogeny]

That's the one I meant. Thanks.

 

[RickG]

RickG thought he knows a lot about geology. Yet he is confused on the basic definition of "mud" which a geology101 student should know. Sorry about my attitude. But he laughed at me so many times and I couldn't help to return a favor when a chance is given.

Oh really? Darn those things they teach in geology classes in fully accredited institutions. Care to expound on my confusion? I always like learning new things.

 

[juvenissun]

Oh really? Darn those things they teach in geology classes in fully accredited institutions. Care to expound on my confusion? I always like learning new things.

So, you still do not know what is mud?

 

[RickG]

So, you still do not know what is mud?

Again, Really? Suppose you render your ICR definition, and while you are at it please render the age of the formation in question and how you arrive at that age. I expect supporting evidence along with published peer review citations.

 

[juvenissun]

Again, Really? Suppose you render your ICR definition, and while you are at it please render the age of the formation in question and how you arrive at that age. I expect supporting evidence along with published peer review citations.

What ICR definition? What age?

I am talking about "mud", because you questioned the term "limestone mud" (wrong name anyway). Do you know what is "mud"?

Get the basics first. Forget things like citation at this time. If you forgot what your question was, and have no more interest of knowing it, then simply quit.

 

[RickG]

What ICR definition? What age?

I am talking about "mud", because you questioned the term "limestone mud" (wrong name anyway). Do you know what is "mud"?

Get the basics first. Forget things like citation at this time. If you forgot what your question was, and have no more interest of knowing it, then simply quit.

I think RocksInMyHead probably described it best, "unlithified" limestone. That doesn't necessarily describe "mud", especially in the context you vision.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

To clarify, "mud" implies a certain range of particle sizes mixed with water. The particles that makes up this unlithified limestone material may or may not fit into that range.

But we're off topic...as usual.

 

[RickG]

To clarify, "mud" implies a certain range of particle sizes mixed with water. The particles that makes up this unlithified limestone material may or may not fit into that range.

But we're off topic...as usual.

Agreed on both, "mud and off topic". What I had in mind was the actual terminology and process that describes lithification which has nothing to do with particle size or transport.

 

[RickG]

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

All uniformitarianism states is that younger sediments are deposited on top of older sediments. What is so hard to grasp the reality of that?

As for the age of the Earth, one has to completely ignore a plethora of independent dating methods to believe the Earth is only 6,000 years of so old.

 

[AV1611VET]

As for the age of the Earth, one has to completely ignore a plethora of independent dating methods to believe the Earth is only 6,000 years of so old.

And how many methods that say otherwise are rejected?

 

[Cromulent]

And how many methods that say otherwise are rejected?

How many methods say the world is 6,000 years old?

Give me one that's not riddled with flaws and you win the argument.

 

[RickG]

And how many methods that say otherwise are rejected?

All because they have zero supporting evidence and ignore all the evidence that doesn't support their position.

You can provide evidence to the contrary?