Polystrate Fossils

[Jimlarmore]

The mainstream paradigm of science today says that the stratas of earth's geological columns accumulated over millions/billions of years using what is called "the principle of uniformitarianism". Additionally, fossils are sorted in predictable areas or layers. This is known as "The principle of superposition". For this to be valid we need to answer some basic questions about fossils in general and in this thread specifically "polystrate fossils".

Polystrate fossils are fossils that are aligned so that they go laterally or vertically thru several layers of the geological column. If it took several millions of years for these columns to accumulate then the animal or plant that makes the polystrate fossil would have decayed away long before the first layer was deposited. So how can we justify the evidence with the accepted paradigm of today?

Here's a small article on this:

http://www.icr.org/article/1144/

Here's a longer one that tells even more about polystates and fossils in general.

http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil Trees of Nova Scotia.htm

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

No geologist alive to day is arguing that ALL strata were deposited over millions of years, Jim. Some were; some weren't. This is another strawman argument.
Moreoever, polystrate fossils are a bigger problem for neocreationists than they realize. Many polystrate trees are rooted in single layers and show repeated sequencing like this:

This sort of pattern isn't reconcilable with a single 40-day flood explanation because entire forests cannot regenerate in that timeframe. Not only that, but if you do some googling around, you'll find some instances of modern trees and sign posts in the process of becoming polystrate fossils themselves... proof that it doesn't take a single massive flood to account for them.

 

[Jimlarmore]

One of the most compelling examples of polystrates is the ones we see from the MT.St. Helens eruption. Some of these look nearly identical to the ones we see in the geological columns. Of course we know that they were made from a sudden rapid flood called a lahar. We also stratifications produced in that lahar.

Also, giving your example above I would love to examine that site and see exactly what you are talking about. Chances are what is interpreted as entire growth is a wash in put there hydrodynamically.

Here is a You-Tube on Joggins a place where many polystrates are found.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=56bd9VxTpQ8

Click on the sub-site for joggins.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

One of the most compelling examples of polystrates is the ones we see from the MT.St. Helens eruption. Some of these look nearly identical to the ones we see in the geological columns. Of course we know that they were made from a sudden rapid flood called a lahar. We also stratifications produced in that lahar.

Lahar is a mix of mud and pyroclastics. It is produced by a very different source than sedimentary rock and behaves very differently (it percolates out of air, rather than water). I would highly advise against using volcanoes as a model for sedimentary deposition in flood conditions.

Also, giving your example above I would love to examine that site and see exactly what you are talking about.

It's in Joggins, if you want to visit. There are similar palaeoforests in Australia and elsewhere.

Chances are what is interpreted as entire growth is a wash in put there hydrodynamically.

Not possible, since the trees are rooted in paleosols (which also cannot be produced by a giant flood).

 

[Jimlarmore]

Lahar is a mix of mud and pyroclastics. It is produced by a very different source than sedimentary rock and behaves very differently (it percolates out of air, rather than water). I would highly advise against using volcanoes as a model for sedimentary deposition in flood conditions.

The flood associated with the lahar is what I was speaking of. Spirit lake was nearly totally filled in with them. Today we can go and look at the stratifications in that sedimentary fill that look identical to the geological column. In the global flood there was a lot of volcanic activity as well with the fountains of the great deep breaking up and massive hydroplates moving carrying continents with them.

It's in Joggins, if you want to visit. There are similar palaeoforests in Australia and elsewhere.


Not possible, since the trees are rooted in paleosols (which also cannot be produced by a giant flood).

Says who? Are you saying paleosols are incapble of the work of hydrodynamics?

Look at this article about paleosols
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosols.asp

God bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

Today we can go and look at the stratifications in that sedimentary fill that look identical to the geological column.

No they don't. Can you point to anything in the way of ichnofossils or lagerstatten that were produced in the strata of Spirit Lake? Because these are found throughout the rock record and cannot be accounted for by the kind of catastrophic flood model you are advocating.

In the global flood there was a lot of volcanic activity as well with the fountains of the great deep breaking up and massive hydroplates moving carrying continents with them.

The Bible doesn't say any of that.

Says who? Are you saying paleosols are incapble of the work of hydrodynamics?

Look at this article about paleosols
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosols.asp

One link deserves another. Here's a detailed resonse to the article you linked to:

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walker.htm

In short, there is no evidence that any paleosols were deposited as a result of Noah's Flood. The kind of erosive forces you advocate carved the Grand Canyon cannot also deposit paleosols.

 

[philadiddle]

The flood associated with the lahar is what I was speaking of. Spirit lake was nearly totally filled in with them. Today we can go and look at the stratifications in that sedimentary fill that look identical to the geological column.

It looks very different from the geologic column. Vast amounts of sedimentary rock are not produced by volcanoes. But I don't really feel the need to rebuttle what you said yet. Since you made the initial assertion I'll leave the burden of proof on you. Please explain all the ways the strata from Mt.St. Helens is identical to what we observe in the geologic column.

 

[Molal]

What an erroneous statement to make:

Polystrate fossils are fossils that are aligned so that they go laterally or vertically thru several layers of the geological column. If it took several millions of years for these columns to accumulate then the animal or plant that makes the polystrate fossil would have decayed away long before the first layer was deposited. So how can we justify the evidence with the accepted paradigm of today?

As Mallon stated, this makes a blatant assumption that all deposition rates are slow.....which is clearly incorrect.

Additional reading concerning polystrate fossils can be found in the following references, available at your local library:

Falcon-Lang, H.J., 2003b, Early Mississippian lycopsid forests in a delta-plain setting at Norton, near Sussex, New Brunswick, Canada, Journal of the Geological Society, London 161:969–981.

Yamaguchi, D.K., and R.P. Hoblitt, 1995, Tree-ring dating of pre-1980 volcanic flowage deposits at Mount St. Helens, Washington, Geological Society of America Bulletin 107(9):1077-1093.

Here is a website discussing the error that creationists frequently stumble upon when discussing polystate fossils:

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199702/0123.html

The above website response is by our christian geologist friend Glenn Morton (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm)

 

[LewisWildermuth]

The flood associated with the lahar is what I was speaking of. Spirit lake was nearly totally filled in with them. Today we can go and look at the stratifications in that sedimentary fill that look identical to the geological column. In the global flood there was a lot of volcanic activity as well with the fountains of the great deep breaking up and massive hydroplates moving carrying continents with them.



Says who? Are you saying paleosols are incapble of the work of hydrodynamics?

Look at this article about paleosols
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosols.asp

God bless
Jim Larmore

I am sorry, but I lived up in Washington for a while and been up to Mt St Helens a few times, and who ever told you that the layers there look identical to the geological column has lied to you. The ash deposits look like ash deposits, they are nothing like, say, the walls of the Grand Canyon. Not in scale, not in type of material, not in deposition characteristics, not even in color. You might as well say the Bible and a playboy magazine are identical since both have pages.

 

[Assyrian]

You might as well say the Bible and a playboy magazine are identical since both have pages.

No similarity at all. The bible just has naked people in the first three chapters.

 

[Assyrian]

Here is a website discussing the error that creationists frequently stumble upon when discussing polystate fossils:

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199702/0123.html

A very interesting accusation from John Morris there.
John Morris ... accused Morton of sounding like an anticreationist, raising more problems than his critics could respond to in the time available.
Isn't that actually the standard creationist debating tactic fondly known as "Gish Gallop"or "Hovind Hustle"?

 

[Jimlarmore]

Here's the bottom line with polystrates. They could not have been put there by slow accumulation as many say. When I personally was involved in a polystrate we were in a mixed company of atheists and creationists looking at the stratas. When we came across the polystrate the atheists got real quiet because all of a sudden the belief that the millions of years it took to accumulate this layer or that layer suddenly got refuted.

Polystrates are the result of nearly the entire geological column and that is rapid hydrological deposition of sediments around them.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

Here's the bottom line with polystrates. They could not have been put there by slow accumulation as many say.

When you use the words "many say", what are you referring to? Can you please cite some geology sources that insist polystrate fossils had to be formed over millions of years? Because if you can't, I have to assume you're putting words into peoples' mouths, Jim.
I've already told you that, yes, polystrate fossils can form rather quickly. But they can also accumulate over tens of thousands or even millions of years, as evidenced by the in situ fossil forests I pointed out to you earlier.

When I personally was involved in a polystrate we were in a mixed company of atheists and creationists looking at the stratas. When we came across the polystrate the atheists got real quiet because all of a sudden the belief that the millions of years it took to accumulate this layer or that layer suddenly got refuted.

Where were you? Who organized the event? How do you know which people were atheists and which were creationists? Can I hear one of the atheist's take on the trip?

Polystrates are the result of nearly the entire geological column and that is rapid hydrological deposition of sediments around them.

No, they're not. If "nearly the entire geolgoical column" was a result of the Flood, then we would not find ichnofossils, lagerstattens, aeolian deposits, mammilary coatings or varves throughout. The violent floodwaters alluded to in the Bible and creation "science" could not have produced these features, let along in a matter of weeks. Neocreationists are always very quick to attribute the fossil record to the Flood, but when asked exactly which layers was deposited by the Flood, they're left scratching their heads because the exceptions are so numerous.

 

[Molal]

Here's the bottom line with polystrates. They could not have been put there by slow accumulation as many say. When I personally was involved in a polystrate we were in a mixed company of atheists and creationists looking at the stratas. When we came across the polystrate the atheists got real quiet because all of a sudden the belief that the millions of years it took to accumulate this layer or that layer suddenly got refuted.

Polystrates are the result of nearly the entire geological column and that is rapid hydrological deposition of sediments around them.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Sources, sources, sources. Please provide evidence for your assertions.....

And still you maintain that sediment deposition rates should be fast......why? Deposition rate is dependent upon the depositional environment. It can be easily demonstrated in the field how polystrate fossils are formed.

And yet again you assert something with no evidence. PLease provide peer reviewed, published data to support your assertion that the geological column is formed by "rapid hydrological deposition of sediments ". Remember, if you think you are right, you should be able to provide evidence to the same calibre that I have provided you.

 

[Jimlarmore]

When you use the words "many say", what are you referring to? Can you please cite some geology sources that insist polystrate fossils had to be formed over millions of years? Because if you can't, I have to assume you're putting words into peoples' mouths, Jim.
I've already told you that, yes, polystrate fossils can form rather quickly. But they can also accumulate over tens of thousands or even millions of years, as evidenced by the in situ fossil forests I pointed out to you earlier.

I don't have to cite anyone but you, you just said they can accumulate over tens of thousands or even millions of years as it is interpreted at Joggins. Please explain how an organic plant can stay prestine over that amount of time as the sediments slowly accumulate around it? I'd say the interpretation of what is being seen with the so-called paleosols is the problem. Did you read the article I provided on paleosols?

Where were you? Who organized the event? How do you know which people were atheists and which were creationists? Can I hear one of the atheist's take on the trip?

We were on a dig in an area around some coal mines here in N.E. Oklahoma, not exactly in the coal mine itself. The reason I know they were atheists is because I know them personally. As far as you speaking with the atheist's on the dig, I'll talk to him and see if he wants to talk to you or get on this web-site to debate here or not. The other one is out of the area and I don't know where he is right now.

No, they're not. If "nearly the entire geolgoical column" was a result of the Flood, then we would not find ichnofossils, lagerstattens, aeolian deposits, mammilary coatings or varves throughout.

Varves are no problem with the global flood and knowing what I have found in the past the other things you mentioned like ichnofossils won't be either.

The violent floodwaters alluded to in the Bible and creation "science" could not have produced these features, let along in a matter of weeks. Neocreationists are always very quick to attribute the fossil record to the Flood, but when asked exactly which layers was deposited by the Flood, they're left scratching their heads because the exceptions are so numerous.

What you seem to refuse to consider is the flood did some things that cannot be reproduced. Also, right after the flood as the waters sought equilibrium a lot of things happened that were after math events that placed things the way we see them today. Also, you have the event in Peleg's day when the whole world's continental plates were moved around. When you say things like it is impossible for things like the ichnofossils to form what you have to do is proove that fossils form outside of catastrophy in the first place. Certainly animals that die and fall to the ground do not become fossils. It takes very special conditions for fossils to form. The flood provided those conditions.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

Sources, sources, sources. Please provide evidence for your assertions.....

And still you maintain that sediment deposition rates should be fast......why? Deposition rate is dependent upon the depositional environment. It can be easily demonstrated in the field how polystrate fossils are formed.

And yet again you assert something with no evidence. PLease provide peer reviewed, published data to support your assertion that the geological column is formed by "rapid hydrological deposition of sediments ". Remember, if you think you are right, you should be able to provide evidence to the same calibre that I have provided you.

The evidence is staring you in the face you just refuse to look at it with the proper perspective. I used to be the same way. Sedimentary stratas have all the appearance of rapid deposition by hydrological dynamics and here is a few reasons why.

1. There is little or no evidence of erosion between layers. Layers being deposited slowly would not be perfectly paralell or sharply defined like they are but show erosional dips. Also, in some cases adjacent parallel layers have vastly different fossils destroying the idea of superpositional theory.

2. Huge deposits of fairly pure minerals such as halite or lime/chalk. Some salt domes are over a mile thick and almost prestine and pure. Slow accumulations wouldn't not produce this type of deposit especially almost impermeable halite. It would be very hetergenous.

As far as limestone goes there is simply too much of it on our planet to be formed by slow biological entities. Again, much of it nearly pure. Slow accumulations would produce impure sediments.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Molal]

The evidence is staring you in the face you just refuse to look at it with the proper perspective.

If it's staring you in the face, then gives us some evidence.

Also, It's not a refusal to look at it. I have looked at it and found it wanting in evidence. It simply fails at a very basic level.

I used to be the same way.Sedimentary stratas have all the appearance of rapid deposition by hydrological dynamics and here is a few reasons why.

Is evidence forth coming???

1. There is little or no evidence of erosion between layers. Layers being deposited slowly would not be perfectly paralell or sharply defined like they are but show erosional dips. Also, in some cases adjacent parallel layers have vastly different fossils destroying the idea of superpositional theory.

Alas, no evidence. No citations, no peer reviewed published data for us all to review.

Unfortunately, I am not sure where to begin with this simple sentence since it is so wrong on a basic and intuitive level.

You so badly want to force fit reality into a narrow biblical interpretation that you fail to observe the real world. You fail to understand depositional environments, tectonics, facies, etc.

I highly recommend you attend a basic geology course.

2. Huge deposits of fairly pure minerals such as halite or lime/chalk. Some salt domes are over a mile thick and almost prestine and pure. Slow accumulations wouldn't not produce this type of deposit especially almost impermeable halite. It would be very hetergenous.

This is even more wrong than your statement in number 1. Where do you think halite comes from? I'll give you a clue - halite is a salt - it is normally dissolved in water and is precipitated due to increasing concentration through evaporation........

Google messinian salinity crisis. I have visited the gypsum cliffs in Spain - I have a 2 foot gypsum crystal at home from these cliffs.....

As far as limestone goes there is simply too much of it on our planet to be formed by slow biological entities. Again, much of it nearly pure. Slow accumulations would produce impure sediments.

Far too much compared to what?? Pure limestone - what's a pure limestone? WOuld that be fossiliferous limestone (no?), or oolitic limestone (no?) then what is pure limestone? Do you understand how limestone forms - you clearly do not.

You lack simple geologic knowledge. This isn't bad, it's good - it means you can attend a basic geology course and learn all about geology and the earth.

God Bless

 

[Mallon]

I don't have to cite anyone but you, you just said they can accumulate over tens of thousands or even millions of years as it is interpreted at Joggins.

The entire stratigraphic column of the Joggins Formation was deposited over a period of about a million years. You don't have to take my word for it, you can read about it here:

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_91204.htm

This timeframe, once again, is further evidenced by the fact that Joggins preserves successive in situ fossil forests. The individual trees themselves may may be burried over a period of a few hundred years (a very fast geological event), but the succession of forests, rooted in palaeosols, cannot be accounted for within the 40-day timeframe you're espousing. I don't know how I can make this any more clear. If you're going to advocate a sudden deposition of the Joggins strata virtually at once, you're going to have to deal with these specifics.

I'd say the interpretation of what is being seen with the so-called paleosols is the problem.

In that case, feel free to do the science and write up the paper showing that there are no palaeosols at Joggins. I take it you're a geologist, too?

As far as you speaking with the atheist's on the dig, I'll talk to him and see if he wants to talk to you or get on this web-site to debate here or not.

Great!

Varves are no problem with the global flood and knowing what I have found in the past the other things you mentioned like ichnofossils won't be either.

I know you're just going to reference another AiG article with regards to varves, so I'm just going to post this link in response now:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD241.html
Yes, varves are a problem for neocreationists, as are the millions of ichnofossils found throughout the fossil record. Take the Coconino sandstone footprints found in the neocreationist's favourite spot in the world, the Grand Canyon, for example. The violent waters that neocreationists claim carved the Grand Canyon could not also have deposited those repilian footprints, which require extremely calm depositional environments (to say nothing of the fact that the Coconino is primarily aeolian in origin anyway).

What you seem to refuse to consider is the flood did some things that cannot be reproduced.

If the conditions cannot be reproduced, then you shouldn't be arguing that there is scientific evidence for a global flood.
If I were to tell you that, a thousand years ago the world was covered in purple jelly but could not demonstrate it scientifically, wouldn't you write me off as a kook, too?

Also, right after the flood as the waters sought equilibrium a lot of things happened that were after math events that placed things the way we see them today.

Talk, talk, talk.

Also, you have the event in Peleg's day when the whole world's continental plates were moved around.

You should read your own sources:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
Search for "Peleg".

When you say things like it is impossible for things like the ichnofossils to form what you have to do is proove that fossils form outside of catastrophy in the first place.

Let's be sure: the burden of proof is on you to show how the Flood can account for the distribution of ichnofossils. Scientists already have a working model to account for them. If you're going to insist that it's wrong, then it's up to you to show how it's wrong in each individual circumstance, and to come up with a better model that explains more than the previous one.

Certainly animals that die and fall to the ground do not become fossils. It takes very special conditions for fossils to form. The flood provided those conditions.

So does the worldwide distribution of rivers, lakes, ponds, lagoons, marshes, dunes, estuaries, deltas, oceanic shelfs, etc., etc., etc. All of which we can identifiy by lithology, I might add.
The only thing the Flood model has going for it is that, on the surface, it would indeed seem like it might be a good explanation of the sediment and death represented in the fossil record. But when we look beyond the superficiality -- and we don't have to look very far -- we see that the Flood, in fact, cannot account for any of it. Christian geologists recognized this hundreds of years ago.

Sorry if I seem a bit short-tempered today, Jim, but these demonstrably false neocreationist arguments keep coming up time and again.

 

[Jimlarmore]

So does the worldwide distribution of rivers, lakes, ponds, lagoons, marshes, dunes, estuaries, deltas, oceanic shelfs, etc., etc., etc. All of which we can identifiy by lithology, I might add.
The only thing the Flood model has going for it is that, on the surface, it would indeed seem like it might be a good explanation of the sediment and death represented in the fossil record. But when we look beyond the superficiality -- and we don't have to look very far -- we see that the Flood, in fact, cannot account for any of it. Christian geologists recognized this hundreds of years ago.

Sorry if I seem a bit short-tempered today, Jim, but these demonstrably false neocreationist arguments keep coming up time and again.

The world wide distribution of rivers, lakes, deltas ,and lagoons etc. cannot account for the fossil evidence we see in the stratas. Fossil production requires sudden burial and pressure where mineral infusion can take place to replace the soft tissue and bone in a fairly O2 free environment. When an animal dies and falls into a river it is seldom buried but most likely bloats up after a few days and becomes part of the river as putrified organic chemicals. We can account for very few fossils that were made apart from hydrodynamic actions or catastrophe. Some were made in avalanches or lahars.

I don't consider myself a neocreationists per se' but if I didn't really believe what I was saying I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time doing this.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

The world wide distribution of rivers, lakes, deltas ,and lagoons etc. cannot account for the fossil evidence we see in the stratas. Fossil production requires sudden burial and pressure where mineral infusion can take place to replace the soft tissue and bone in a fairly O2 free environment. When an animal dies and falls into a river it is seldom buried but most likely bloats up after a few days and becomes part of the river as putrified organic chemicals. We can account for very few fossils that were made apart from hydrodynamic actions or catastrophe. Some were made in avalanches or lahars.

All demonstrably false. We can see fossils in the making today in such environments, and these were not deposited by a global flood. There's an entire field dedicated to this subject (taphonomy), incuding several books:

http://www.amazon.com/Fossils-Making-Vertebrate-Paleoecology-Prehistoric/dp/0226041530/http://www.amazon.com/Fossils-Making-Vertebrate-Paleoecology-Prehistoric/dp/0226041689

http://www.amazon.com/Taphonomy-Process-Approach-Cambridge-Paleobiology/dp/0521598338/

http://www.amazon.com/Forensic-Taphonomy-Postmortem-Human-Remains/dp/0849394341/