Polystrate Fossils

[sandwiches]

Too bad Juve gave up so quickly. I was hoping he'd live up to his claim from the other thread:

... or, by arguing about the so-called evidences and are not convinced. What I referred to is this type of creationist. This is the type whom evolutionist SHOULD seriously dealt with.

So far, I, a creationist, am not convinced by a single argument given by evolutionist. I never run and I never shift the goalpost.

 

[juvenissun]

Too bad Juve gave up so quickly. I was hoping he'd live up to his claim from the other thread:

I did not give up on anything. What is your question?
I am only frustrated by the lack of progress. I wish you could tell me something new.

 

[juvenissun]

Seems to me you look at the data provided from the various articles, dismiss it out of hand as somehow "mysterious" and then demand more data to solve a 'mystery' that I'm not really sure is even marginally "mysterious".

So it would get tiring for you.

I honestly do not see how any of this is all that mysterious. It seems just from a few paragraphs cited in this discussion thread that it all makes quite a bit of sense actually.

One actually seems to have to go out of their way to turn it into a mystery.

But if it is important to you that it be "mysterious" then I guess no possible amount of data could ever clear the mystery up.

I'm guessing the only rational explanation for the Joggins formation with the upright trees is that a supernatural being who lives outside of space and time decided to punish his creation and send a global flood which left absolutely no evidence that would indicate a GLOBAL flood during early human history, but did leave some upright trees in a small area of Nova Scotia from a time horizon millions and millions and millions of years before humans ever showed up.

It's the only thing that makes sense.

THAT isn't mysterious at all. That's pretty straightforward.

I don't see the data I like to see (a cross section of the tree). And that is crucial to reach any conclusion. Don't ask me to find the data. If I had the mind and the chance, I would have found it (or made it) two decades ago. Without the critical data, the best I can say is that a normal sedimentary process won't be able to make the standing tree fossil like what we see in the picture.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't see the data I like to see (a cross section of the tree). And that is crucial to reach any conclusion.

ANd that is noble. You could probably contact Dr. Falcon-Lang. (He's the one standing by the fossil tree in the Joggins formation here:

From HERE

Don't ask me to find the data. If I had the mind and the chance, I would have found it (or made it) two decades ago.

That's an interestingly constructed sentence. Earlier you had indicated this had interested you for decades but apparently it was that fascinating.

As a geologist you should either be able to find what you are looking for or...gasp...network with other geologists like Dr. Falcon-Lang (the one standing beside the tree fossil in the Joggins formation up there).

I've written to and gotten information from scientists quite easily, even if I didn't know them. It's the magic of e-mail these days.

Most of them are so happy to talk about their field they will inundate you with more data than you could possibly hope for.

Without the critical data, the best I can say is that a normal sedimentary process won't be able to make the standing tree fossil like what we see in the picture.

Still not sure why that statement sounds necessarily true to you. I haven't seen the cross-sections myself but the descriptions in the articles sited seem pretty simple, straightforward and there's no obvious reason why it wouldn't work the way it appears to be explained.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I did not give up on anything. What is your question?
I am only frustrated by the lack of progress. I wish you could tell me something new.

Maybe you should explain in one simple outlined (grammatically coherent) paragraph why the explanations so far proffered from the various articles cited cannot work.

(I stress grammatically coherent)

 

[Orogeny]

the best I can say is that a normal sedimentary process won't be able to make the standing tree fossil like what we see in the picture.

Throughout this thread you have denied the explanations given by geologists who have actually worked on this problem, yet you refuse to provide an alternative explanation. Why not do this now? You haven't anything to lose; I'd love to discuss the merits and problems of a new solution to this phenomenon.

 

[RickG]

I don't see the data I like to see (a cross section of the tree).

You mean you don't see the data you want to see. In other words, the data presented does not fit your ideology so you either deny it or ignore it. How in situ / upright fossils are formed is not a mystery to geologists. They are not a result of a global flood 4500 years ago no matter how much you want them to be.

 

[juvenissun]

You mean you don't see the data you want to see. In other words, the data presented does not fit your ideology so you either deny it or ignore it. How in situ / upright fossils are formed is not a mystery to geologists. They are not a result of a global flood 4500 years ago no matter how much you want them to be.

Based on the rock texture/structure, and on the traditional depositional model, I agree with you on that.

However, a quick burial of the whole trunk (alive) is also a favorable model, particularly if we consider that the roots of tree are also petrified. It is not likely that the roots and the trunk were petrified at different time (this will defeat the sand casting model). However, this model would not fit the coal making depositional environment unless it was a super storm which moved that much sand to this particular place. Even so, this would not explain the distribution of these standing tree across major strata.

 

[juvenissun]

ANd that is noble. You could probably contact Dr. Falcon-Lang. (He's the one standing by the fossil tree in the Joggins formation here:

From HERE

I just wonder about these people. They took a picture with these trees, but did not bother to study its origin. Well, not blaming them. I would take a picture with a big dinosaur skull, but won't think too much about it either.

Thanks for the digging. If you found anything from him, please let me know.

 

[RickG]

Based on the rock texture/structure, and on the traditional depositional model, I agree with you on that.

However, a quick burial of the whole trunk (alive) is also a favorable model, particularly if we consider that the roots of tree are also petrified. It is not likely that the roots and the trunk were petrified at different time (this will defeat the sand casting model). However, this model would not fit the coal making depositional environment unless it was a super storm which moved that much sand to this particular place. Even so, this would not explain the distribution of these standing tree across major strata.

Up right fossils in coal deposits are formed in an entirely different and much slower process.

Future coal deposits, some of which may become in situ fossils.

 

[Orogeny]

I just wonder about these people. They took a picture with these trees, but did not bother to study its origin. Well, not blaming them. I would take a picture with a big dinosaur skull, but won't think too much about it either.

Thanks for the digging. If you found anything from him, please let me know.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I just wonder about these people. They took a picture with these trees, but did not bother to study its origin.

I honestly don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. Honestly.

Didn't Rick and I and others cite quite a few articles in detail about this topic?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thanks for the digging. If you found anything from him, please let me know.

I actually thought about writing to the guy (his e-mail is at the bottom of the article this is from), but then decided that I wasn't really mystified by much of this since it all seems to make pretty good sense.

So I figured you can write him if it has mystified you for decades.

Remember, Juvenissun, real scientists aren't afraid to do their own research. Many of us make our livings doing just that.

 

[juvenissun]

Up right fossils in coal deposits are formed in an entirely different and much slower process.

Future coal deposits, some of which may become in situ fossils.

Thanks for showing this image. It might be the one in everyone's mind.

If this image implied the origin of the polystrate fossil, then we should have many many more examples. Somehow I think NONE of these trees in the image could be preserved in a upright position during the sedimentary process. They will die, and the whole tree will deteriorate. In the future, people would only see a bunch of carbon films in the rock.

IF, these trees were to be preserved as polystrate fossil, then we SHOULD see them be included in alternating shale-sand layers, or all shale layers. Unfortunately, that is not the rock in which the standing tree fossils were found.

So, this image looks good. But it probably won't interpret.

 

[Cromulent]

Thanks for showing this image. It might be the one in everyone's mind.

If this image implied the origin of the polystrate fossil, then we should have many many more examples. Somehow I think NONE of these trees in the image could be preserved in a upright position during the sedimentary process. They will die, and the whole tree will deteriorate. In the future, people would only see a bunch of carbon films in the rock.

IF, these trees were to be preserved as polystrate fossil, then we SHOULD see them be included in alternating shale-sand layers, or all shale layers. Unfortunately, that is not the rock in which the standing tree fossils were found.

So, this image looks good. But it probably won't interpret.

If it was easy for trees to be turned into polystrate fossils by a global flood, we should have many more examples as well. You haven't provided any evidence as to why a global flood is a more likely physical mechanism for creating these than anything else suggested.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If it was easy for trees to be turned into polystrate fossils by a global flood, we should have many more examples as well. You haven't provided any evidence as to why a global flood is a more likely physical mechanism for creating these than anything else suggested.

The real problem with the "Global Flood Model" accounting for "polystrate fossils" is that it assumes that the smaller local flood event possiblity is built into it!

In fact for a "polystrate" fossil like an upright tree to exist it would have to buried relatively rapidly (as in the case of local flood plain deposits infilling with sandy sediments).

The only difference between this scenario and a "global Noachian flood" as an explanation and the more generalized local flooding is the scale.

Since the Noachian Flood would suggest far more of these to be in existance across the world and generally correlatable to about the same time horizon, that would seem to mean there is currently more evidence for local flooding than Noachian Global Flooding.

 

[RickG]

Thanks for showing this image. It might be the one in everyone's mind.

If this image implied the origin of the polystrate fossil, then we should have many many more examples. Somehow I think NONE of these trees in the image could be preserved in a upright position during the sedimentary process. They will die, and the whole tree will deteriorate. In the future, people would only see a bunch of carbon films in the rock.

IF, these trees were to be preserved as polystrate fossil, then we SHOULD see them be included in alternating shale-sand layers, or all shale layers. Unfortunately, that is not the rock in which the standing tree fossils were found.

So, this image looks good. But it probably won't interpret.

Delta swamp environment, subsiding land, seasonal flooding and sedimentation fostering anaerobic conditions. One of the formulas for fossilization.

Why do you think it won't interpret? Do you somehow have better insight to geologic process than those who actually have credentials and work in the field? Accusations are easy to make, but where is the supporting evidence?

 

[juvenissun]

Delta swamp environment, subsiding land, seasonal flooding and sedimentation fostering anaerobic conditions. One of the formulas for fossilization.

Why do you think it won't interpret? Do you somehow have better insight to geologic process than those who actually have credentials and work in the field? Accusations are easy to make, but where is the supporting evidence?

The best model is: The tree was quickly buried by sandy sediments. And, here is the key: It should be kept buried and let the mineral replace the tree gradually. Unfortunately, I don't see how could this model be realistic.

A storm surge in a deltaic environment probably won't work. Because the buried tree (by the storm) will soon be exposed again as the sediments been eroded away after the storm. The rate of subsidence is at an entirely different scale than the rate of erosion. (in case you can not see, think this: no matter how much sand piled up by a storm in a coastal area, the pile will soon be leveled again after the storm passed.) Storm sediments are preserved "in the sea", not on land, where the tree grows.

 

[RickG]

The best model is: The tree was quickly buried by sandy sediments. And, here is the key: It should be kept buried and let the mineral replace the tree gradually. Unfortunately, I don't see how could this model be realistic.

A storm surge in a deltaic environment probably won't work. Because the buried tree (by the storm) will soon be exposed again as the sediments been eroded away after the storm. The rate of subsidence is at an entirely different scale than the rate of erosion. (in case you can not see, think this: no matter how much sand piled up by a storm in a coastal area, the pile will soon be leveled again after the storm passed.) Storm sediments are preserved "in the sea", not on land, where the tree grows.

Might I suggest you enroll in a couple of courses in basic geology and then sedimentology, your assumptions are way off base.

I don't know why you keep talking about sand. Not all in situ trees are buried by sand. Early on in this thread I outlined several different environments and methods in which burial takes place. Nevertheless, storm surge can deposit huge amounts of sediment on land quickly, especially sand. Subsidence can be very quick, slow are anywhere in between.

Doing a search in a scientific search engine using the phrase, "in situ fossils", I came up with over 31,000 hits on published research. Contrary to what you think, the subject is well studied and understood.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

In-situ. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Sorry, always wanted to use that line. But it is true; not all "polystrate" fossils are in-situ fossils, and not all in-situ fossils are "polystrate." An in-situ fossil is just one that formed in place, with no transport. And honestly, I have no problems with the term "polystrate" - it means what it says: crossing multiple (poly) strata (strate).

For example, the trees that you mentioned in relation to Mt. St. Helens (the ones that wound up vertical on the bottom of a lake) would not be considered in-situ since they were transported into the lake. They meet the definition of "polystrate" though. On the other end of the spectrum, and insect trapped in amber would be considered an in-situ fossil, but could not be described as "polystrate" because the amber is a solid mass, with no strata.

That doesn't invalidate what you've said though; I just wanted to correct the terminology.