Polystrate Fossils

[RocksInMyHead]

Don't get me wrong. I would agree that an ICR geology graduate could be under-educated in geology practice. But my point is, given a short period of in-job training, he could be as good as anyone.

It really depends on the job, I think. Industry jobs (i.e. oil companies, environmental, etc) don't really require much in the way of geology training. They actually prefer Masters students over PhDs because a PhD doesn't make the applicant any more qualified (except for a research position) and they don't have to pay Masters graduates as much. The purpose of the degree is more to show that you can take a project and stick with it for a long period of time. However, any research job at an accredited institution/government facility (USGS, for example) wouldn't work out because of lack of publications, unless the student stayed in a field where they could publish without compromising their beliefs. The biggest hurdle would be overcoming the natural bias imposed by having an education from ICR, which isn't accredited and espouses views that are completely at odds with the geologic community (and utterly wrong, but that's not the point of this discussion).

For example, in field mapping, as long as one can identify rock, see structure, and can read topomap, then one can do mapping. So, in ICR, I would expect a geology student learn rock ID, structure ID and map reading as well as one in any other school. These topics do not involve any creation/evolution argument. So, if an ICR student learned well in school, I don't see why should he feel difficult in field mapping. The only difference, might just be the experience.

Kind of like I said - I'd hope that at least these skills would be taught by ICR. But the experience is everything. It's one thing to know the theory, but geology is primarily a field science. There are things that just can't be learned in a classroom. I've seen plenty of intelligent students (myself included) reduced to tears over a confusing outcrop.

And I know, in many so-called accredited schools, students DO NOT do field mapping even up to the Ph.D. level.

It depends on the area of study - my university has a fairly large geomicrobiology program, and they don't get out much, but the structure and tectonics group that I'm a part of has everyone out on field work of some kind or another. Most schools do require some sort of field camp though, and even more Masters programs require at least some field experience. It's pretty rare to find a geologist at the graduate level who hasn't had at least a little mapping experience.

On the other hand, one of my dumbest student (undergraduate, learning disable, will get lost in the field) is now the chief field geologist in an EPA unit in Oregon.

Somehow this doesn't surprise me, give the horror stories I've heard about environmental jobs.

All in all, I don't exactly disagree with you. And I'm genuinely curious about the level of education that the ICR geology degree imparts. I'm not sure that the results would be as skewed as Orogeny seems to think.

 

[RickG]

I'm not sure that the results would be as skewed as Orogeny seems to think.

Oh yes they are. Remember, they teach the earth is only 6,000 years old.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Oh yes they are. Remember, they teach the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Mapping doesn't rely on ages though. Sure, the nomenclature does, and the unit descriptions would as well, to some extent. However, the pen-and-paper map (or GIS, if you want to be modern) would still be the same.

You could throw me out in the middle of nowhere with a map, compass, and all necessary supplies, with no frame of reference at all, and I could still map the geology.

The differences between my (and Orogeny's) geology and juvenissun's geology boils down mainly to disagreement on processes and him clinging to the idea of creation. That doesn't mean that he can't be a capable field mapper.

 

[Orogeny]

I've yet to see a class list for the ICR geology department. Does it include a field camp? Do ICR 'master's students' complete theses that include field work?

I truly don't know a darn thing about the ICR program, but given previous experience with Juve, his endorsement hardly seems like an affirmation of high quality.

 

[RickG]

Mapping doesn't rely on ages though. Sure, the nomenclature does, and the unit descriptions would as well, to some extent. However, the pen-and-paper map (or GIS, if you want to be modern) would still be the same.

You could throw me out in the middle of nowhere with a map, compass, and all necessary supplies, with no frame of reference at all, and I could still map the geology.

The differences between my (and Orogeny's) geology and juvenissun's geology boils down mainly to disagreement on processes and him clinging to the idea of creation. That doesn't mean that he can't be a capable field mapper.

GIS is fun, I took a graduate course in it 6 or 8 years ago, but it isn't physical geology.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I've yet to see a class list for the ICR geology department. Does it include a field camp? Do ICR 'master's students' complete theses that include field work?

I truly don't know a darn thing about the ICR program, but given previous experience with Juve, his endorsement hardly seems like an affirmation of high quality.

I remember seeing something for it a few years ago, but I can't find it anymore. I can't recall seeing anything about field camp though.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

GIS is fun, I took a graduate course in it 6 or 8 years ago, but it isn't physical geology.

Way to miss my point entirely.

 

[RickG]

Way to miss my point entirely.

You're welcome.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Mapping doesn't rely on ages though. Sure, the nomenclature does, and the unit descriptions would as well, to some extent. However, the pen-and-paper map (or GIS, if you want to be modern) would still be the same.

You could throw me out in the middle of nowhere with a map, compass, and all necessary supplies, with no frame of reference at all, and I could still map the geology.

The differences between my (and Orogeny's) geology and juvenissun's geology boils down mainly to disagreement on processes and him clinging to the idea of creation. That doesn't mean that he can't be a capable field mapper.

Yeah, one could probably map an area without even knowing a thing about the age of the rocks or how they got there. It's pattern matching.

But I suspect that ICR doesn't even provide sufficient skill to allow someone to identify rocks above Geology 101 level ("This are igneous --probably melted in the fires of hell--, this are sedumentary, this are thermally metamorphosed, that means it were too close to hell but didn't melt in the lake of fire!")

Bowens Reaction Series is actually a great way to tell how close a rock came to the fires of hell and hence how "evil" the rock is.

This is why Granites are GOOD while basalt is bad. You can tell Basalt is bad because it's ugly and plain and bland, but granites are beautiful. They were formed farther away from the heat of hell and hence further away from Satan.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

But I suspect that ICR doesn't even provide sufficient skill to allow someone to identify rocks above Geology 101 level ("This are igneous --probably melted in the fires of hell--, this are sedumentary, this are thermally metamorphosed, that means it were too close to hell but didn't melt in the lake of fire!")

Bowens Reaction Series is actually a great way to tell how close a rock came to the fires of hell and hence how "evil" the rock is.

This is why Granites are GOOD while basalt is bad. You can tell Basalt is bad because it's ugly and plain and bland, but granites are beautiful. They were formed farther away from the heat of hell and hence further away from Satan.

Haha, ok this made me chuckle a little. It would be funny if that was the case, but I doubt it. Most creationist literature on geology (that I've seen, at least) tends to be right in the basics like rock types - they just misinterpret the processes that form the rock types, or misrepresent radiometric dating, and so on. The fundamentals are pretty hard to screw up since they're based on objective observation - certain characteristics mean that it must be a sandstone, or a conglomerate, or a granite, or a granodiorite, etc.

Oh wow...I just realized that I'm defending creationists. I feel...a tiny bit dirty.

 

[juvenissun]

Here's an example direct form one of the ICR articles on polystrate fossils.

A Classic Polystrate Fossil

"The tree was a mature tree, yet could not have grown in the location where the surrounding shale was deposited, since trees don't live long under the sea. Furthermore, the time required for shaley sediments to accumulate must be added to the tree's lifespan, as must the time to deeply bury the coal precursor and create the pressure to generate enough heat to alter the peat into coal. No scenario possible today could account for this sequence of events if evolution’s interpretation of earth history is true."


Now, let's examine this.

1. They are stating that all shale is deposited in marine environments and not on land. Most shale's are result of river deposits. Burial of a tree can take anywhere from a few minutes (catastrophic flood conditions) to several years (repeated seasonal flooding and subsidence). Why do they ignore that.

2. Why the description about coal? The picture they show is clearly not showing coal deposits.

3. Why the evolution comment? It has nothing to do with the geologic processes being discussed.

Further down in the article they attempt to describe trees being buried by the Mt. St. Helen's volcano like it would in a global flood. They weren't buried by a flood, they were buried by a mud flow of volcanic ash. They also ignore the fact that none of the "polystrate" fossils were formed anywhere near the time of said Noah's flood.

Juve, that is not geology, that's pure unadulterated garbage, absolute rubbish.

You made some arguments and raised some questions. I like to reply. But with the kind of comment at the last line, I think I would rather to save my time.

 

[juvenissun]

Outstanding! You claim to be a faculty geologist. Then you should be more than willing to partake in a mapping challenge! Whata ya say, chap?

No no. To you, I am one who knows nothing about geology. You can be 100% sure about that.

 

[RickG]

You made some arguments and raised some questions. I like to reply. But with the kind of comment at the last line, I think I would rather to save my time.

What I posted above the last line verifies the last line. They made deliberately misleading and false statements. Doesn't that trouble you?

 

[juvenissun]

Mapping doesn't rely on ages though. Sure, the nomenclature does, and the unit descriptions would as well, to some extent. However, the pen-and-paper map (or GIS, if you want to be modern) would still be the same.

You could throw me out in the middle of nowhere with a map, compass, and all necessary supplies, with no frame of reference at all, and I could still map the geology.

The differences between my (and Orogeny's) geology and juvenissun's geology boils down mainly to disagreement on processes and him clinging to the idea of creation. That doesn't mean that he can't be a capable field mapper.

Well said. That summarized it.

Creation is not something which has a lot of content to teach, for example, in a geology curriculum. A geology student in a creation institution still needs to learn the basic geological elements and skills. They should have no difference from those taught in any other schools. Theoretically, a student graduated from ICR could be as good, or even be better than students from other schools.

And, you mentioned publication. It should not be a limitation to a Christian geology worker. One way to look at it in this dominantly secular environment is: If you can work out something that argues a different process or a different origin, you may have done your argument in creation. In particular, if your argument suggested a process which takes a shorter time to accomplish. To my experience, the opportunity is virtually everywhere. There is absolutely no need to raise any banner of creationism in any secular publication. All you need to do is to point out: they are wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

What I posted above the last line verifies the last line. They made deliberately misleading and false statements. Doesn't that trouble you?

You are wrong. So, what you accused does not trouble me much.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You are wrong. So, what you accused does not trouble me much.

No, his points were actually correct. Shale doesn't only form in marine environments. It is also formed (especially thin beds like the ones described in the article) in floodplains and river deltas.

Then they use the oft-refuted "each layer means millions of years" statement. I won't even go into that since it's been discussed in this thread several times.

The statement about a coal bed is confusing, because, as far as I can tell from the pictures, there is no coal at the base. And besides, a thin bed of peat could accumulate in a matter of 50-100 years fairly easily (there are modern documented instances of several feet of peat forming in a matter of 20-50 years), especially with that much vegetation around. Moreover, the peat would not have to be turned into coal before the tree was buried.

The bark at the bottom of Spirit Lake would not turn into coal with just the heat of another eruption. It is texturally different from most coals (though I'm not sure if that would make a difference), but more importantly, coal requires more than a few hundred degrees of heating. It needs heat over a long period of time, accompanied by pressure. It also wouldn't really look like coal due to the abundance of volcanic material mixed in.

They're also presumably using a volcanic eruption as a model for the flood. The degrees of wrongness in that are just too great to quantify.

So yes, the statements in the article are misleading and false. Whether it was deliberate is open to interpretation, but given that Henry Morris was a fully-educated geologist, there's little chance that he didn't know what he was saying.

 

[Orogeny]

No no. To you, I am one who knows nothing about geology. You can be 100% sure about that.

So then you're dismissing my challenge. What a surprise.

You know, it's funny how you talk a big game, but then when someone calls you out you run away shouting 'Oh, you've hurt my feelings so I'm not gonna play anymore!'

You either a gainfully employed geology teacher or you're not. Which is it, Juve?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You either a gainfully employed geology teacher or you're not. Which is it, Juve?

I'm pretty curious about this myself - you've claimed to be one several times, but when pressed about it, you tend to dodge the question.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm pretty curious about this myself - you've claimed to be one several times, but when pressed about it, you tend to dodge the question.

As I said to thaumaturgy, it is pretty easy to tell what level a person knows about a disciplinary knowledge from a professional point of view, by just read a few lines of his discussion. One can fake all his identities to any higher level, but one can not do that to his knowledge. I have no doubt that orogeny is a master student in geology. Not because he claimed so, but because he talked like one. I can also sort of tell that you do not have your Ph.D. degree yet.

No need to wonder who the person is, simply focus on the issue.

 

[juvenissun]

No, his points were actually correct. Shale doesn't only form in marine environments. It is also formed (especially thin beds like the ones described in the article) in floodplains and river deltas.

Then they use the oft-refuted "each layer means millions of years" statement. I won't even go into that since it's been discussed in this thread several times.

The statement about a coal bed is confusing, because, as far as I can tell from the pictures, there is no coal at the base. And besides, a thin bed of peat could accumulate in a matter of 50-100 years fairly easily (there are modern documented instances of several feet of peat forming in a matter of 20-50 years), especially with that much vegetation around. Moreover, the peat would not have to be turned into coal before the tree was buried.

The bark at the bottom of Spirit Lake would not turn into coal with just the heat of another eruption. It is texturally different from most coals (though I'm not sure if that would make a difference), but more importantly, coal requires more than a few hundred degrees of heating. It needs heat over a long period of time, accompanied by pressure. It also wouldn't really look like coal due to the abundance of volcanic material mixed in.

They're also presumably using a volcanic eruption as a model for the flood. The degrees of wrongness in that are just too great to quantify.

So yes, the statements in the article are misleading and false. Whether it was deliberate is open to interpretation, but given that Henry Morris was a fully-educated geologist, there's little chance that he didn't know what he was saying.

As I have made several discussions already in this thread, I simply repeated here that the origin of this polystrate fossil is still a geological puzzle to me, according to classical geology. You mentioned several environments that seem hard to be put together into one which is claimed by ICR to be responsible for the making of the fossil trees. But conditions provided by these unrelated environments are all sort of needed to make it happen. That is why it is a hard problem. Since you are a working geologist with a good attitude, let me summarized it for you:

* The fossil standing tree is buried in sand-rich, thin to median bed layers. This includes the roots of the tree. The standing trunk is about 10 feet tall on the showed image. The top of the tree is not seen in that environment.
* The tree itself, include the roots, is petrified. I don't know what is the secondary mineral. But, the surface texture of the tree is clearly seen and the species of the tree can be identified.
* There are coal beds up and below the sand-rich layer. Of course, coal related strata should also exist.
* The environment is identified as deltaic. May be swampy. People suggested that it was a eustatic cyclic depositional basin. So, I assume there was little fresh volcanic material involved.
* What shown in the image is not the only tree, there are many many others. Some taller, some shorter, distributed across strata, and all are petrified and standing.

Now, you tell me how did it happen according to your model.