My 4004 Challenge

[Subduction Zone]

So you make claims, but fail scientifically......

Polystrate fossils have been shown to extend through many layers. How long to form your shale and sandstone layers along with compression?????

Your own science tells you the truth, but you ignored it....

• A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum. ...
• In geology, such fossils are referred to as either upright fossil trunks, upright fossil trees, or T0 assemblages.

Not just through many layers of one stratum, but through more than one geological stratum.....

If you would prefer we call them upright fossil trunks, upright fossil trees, or T0 assemblages that is fine with me. Just realize your claims on only one stratum is documented as a false claim....

Again, they are not denying their existance through more than one geological stratum, just the rate the stratum are deposited, contradicting their own claims of how entire layers are formed into stratum over time.... or claim uplift and deposition to try to explain them away in their "geological time frame"

I already understand all sedimentary layers and fossils were laid down within a year. Explaining these polystrate fossils is not difficult for me at all, just you. But that's why you ignored they have been found extending through more than one stratum and tried to play it off as just layers.....

And I think the only one that has failed to provide any valid links, is you.......

I see that you still can't find valid sources that support your claims. Since you can't support your claims all it takes to refute them is my little buddy here:

And no, we know that the sediments could not have been laid down over a year. Flood sediments are never well sorted. Floods can't sort fossils down to the microscopic level. It takes an absolute lack of education in geology to make the errors that you have made or a willingness to lie, as shown by Snelling who sold out his reputation to lie for Jesus.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I see that you still can't find valid sources that support your claims. Since you can't support your claims all it takes to refute them is my little buddy here:

And no, we know that the sediments could not have been laid down over a year. Flood sediments are never well sorted. Floods can't sort fossils down to the microscopic level. It takes an absolute lack of education in geology to make the errors that you have made or a willingness to lie, as shown by Snelling who sold out his reputation to lie for Jesus.

You were given a source, you ignored it.... But I'll repeat it like I have to repeat everything on here 500 times before you all finally accept it as fact.


Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia

"A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum......

Notice they never contest the more than one stratum, because it is fact. This is there only protestation: "The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically found in creationist publications.....

In geology, such fossils are referred to as either upright fossil trunks, upright fossil trees, or T0 assemblages."

And what is their claim? Rapid burial, to which we all agree. Despite being through more than one stratum....

Your argument fails. Their only protestation is that polystrate fossil is not a standard geological term, but the never protest the fact that they are found extending through more than one stratum... there excuse for this is that: 'According to mainstream (actualistic) models of sedimentary environments, they are formed by rare to infrequent brief episodes of rapid sedimentation separated by long periods of either slow deposition, nondeposition, or a combination of both"

And I agree. Brief rapid sedimentation brought about by the flood, not millions of years for the separate stratum......

 

[Subduction Zone]

You were given a source, you ignored it.... But I'll repeat it like I have to repeat everything on here 500 times before you all finally accept it as fact.


Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia

"A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum......

Notice they never contest the more than one stratum, because it is fact. This is there only protestation: "The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically found in creationist publications.....

In geology, such fossils are referred to as either upright fossil trunks, upright fossil trees, or T0 assemblages."

And what is their claim? Rapid burial, to which we all agree. Despite being through more than one stratum....

Your argument fails. Their only protestation is that polystrate fossil is not a standard geological term, but the never protest the fact that they are found extending through more than one stratum... there excuse for this is that: 'According to mainstream (actualistic) models of sedimentary environments, they are formed by rare to infrequent brief episodes of rapid sedimentation separated by long periods of either slow deposition, nondeposition, or a combination of both"

And I agree. Brief rapid sedimentation brought about by the flood, not millions of years for the separate stratum......

That is because your own source refuted your claims:

"The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically found in creationist publications.[1][3]"

All of the examples that they give appear to be in one stratum. Vertical does not mean "polystrate"

And we know that there never was a flood as told in the Bible.

A flood predicts only unsorted beds. No sorting of fossils. No explanation for where over 5 vertical miles of water came from or went to or an explanation why no evidence at all can be found for it. The Earth was known to be many millions of years old long before Darwin's time, and long before radiometric dating. This is middle school level science here. Why are you having such a hard time understanding it?

 

[46AND2]

Both have ocean features and both have trees.....

Um...no they don't.

I agree, relatively quickly in a matter of months during the flood.....

Oh please. That is such a strawman. Radiometric dating can not be performed on sedimentary strata....

Strawman...I think this word does not mean what you think it means.

Of course radiometric dating can be performed on sedimentary rock...it just doesn't tell you when the sediment lithified. But scientists can, and do, date sedimentary rock for reasons other than determining the age of that sedimentary rock.

Furthermore, there can be, and often are, layers of igneous rock from volcanic activity, which can be dated, sandwiched between the sedimentary layers.

I just did, you want to ignore it.

No you didn't. You simply assert that the German tree fossil extends through millions of years of rock...but what you THINK scientists say about it isn't good enough. You claimed that all scientists state that the trees pass through millions of years worth of rock.

You have continually failed to find a single example to support your original claim that scientists explain polystrate trees by the tree remaining exposed and buried over millions of years. Not one scientist claims this. All you have to do is find one peer reviewed paper, or the statement of one reputable scientist to show that I am wrong.

Instead, you posted a picture of a polystrate tree, and invented a story about what you think scientists say about it. But they don't. And you can't show that they do.

Notice how only the fossils that extend through multiple layers are said to have been deposited relatively quickly, while everywhere else it's claimed to take millions of years for those layers to form.

Wrong. There are plenty of examples, besides polystrate fossils, where scientists have determined rapid deposition is the best explanation. Because floods happen. And volcanoes erupt.

Just got to love their inconsistency.....

Why would we expect it to be consistent? The earth has a complex history. Of COURSE there are examples of BOTH long and short deposition events.

[

we will ignore as always the coal layer through which the tree is passing through, because of course coal was laid down quickly..... sigh......

Don't get me wrong, I am glad to see you are beginning to realize it happened quickly and the layers solidified into rock in a matter of months instead of millions of years.....

What are you talking about? I said no such thing. I said the DEPOSITION happened relatively quickly in some cases. The solidification of that sediment took a long time; as did the fossilization of the tree itself.

Scientists Turn Sand to Stone

Now if we can just get you to correct your other faulty beliefs about all the layers that don't have fossils extending through them.....

You see, I agree with you that the layers are not millions of years old, but were formed in months by the flood.....

No...the layers ARE millions of years old. The relatively quick burial happened a LONG time ago. But the layers encompassing the tree do not SPAN millions of years. You see the difference?