Polystrate Fossils

[Split Rock]

That's right. We don't use carbon dating.

We use radiometric dating for older objects.

Radiometric dating is fairly accurate, it's reliable, and a creationist's worst nightmare. Which is why they disregard it, and instead have a strange fixation with carbon dating that I'll never understand.

You seem to be implying that carbon dating is not a form of radiometric dating. It is.

 

[RickG]

Unfalsifiable statement of faith (ergo: NOT SCIENCE)

Unevidenced statement based on your personal ignorance of how science works in general and how specifically geologic dating works (ergo: NOT SCIENCE, but actually accusation of wrong doing WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP. However since you are so ignorant of the actual science it is not technically "bearing false witness". But I'm curious if this is an activity your God approves of? Do you like it when people make fun of your ideas without researching them? I don't think so. We've heard you whine so many times about that very thing. So I'll just assume that Luke 6:31 was part of the Bible you "skipped".)

You skipped my post clearly.

Do do that a lot? Just ignore the stuff that is "inconvenient" for you?

Very good and thorough description Thaumaturgy. Actually, I'm suggesting his source is bearing false witness, not him.

AV's source: Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

And....the actual paper I was talking about that his source cited as supporting their views, which do not in the least support them. Oh, btw; the links given to that paper encounter a paywall. Here's a direct link to
it provide by the Smithsonian.

http://si-pddr.si.edu/jspui/bitstre...ichele_Falcon_Lang_T0Assemblages_JGeolSoc.pdf

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I don't want to discuss the age of anything, as I believe God embedded age into His creation, as well as the fact that I believe scientists only use dating methods that give them the desired results they are looking for.

So let's just "pretend" everything we are looking at is the same age; and with that, I contend you cannot explain polystrate fossils all over the globe sans a global catastrophe.

You can pretend all you want... although, I tend to prefer reality. It's much more elegant and amazing than anything man can dream up.

 

[juvenissun]

Polystrate Fossils is a creationist term used to describe the geologic term "in situ" or "upright" fossils. In situ fossils are single organisms (objects) that appear to span one or more layers of geologic strata.

Creationists claim that these types of formations disprove an old earth stating that geologists claim layers of strata take thousands and millions of years to form, so objects that span strata formations cannot have formed over such long periods.

To the layman who knows noting about geology and geologic processes this sounds reasonable. However, the formation of these upright/in situ fossils is well known and even observable in the present. It is true that most stratigraphic formations do form over thousands and millions of years, however, some form quite rapidly.

In situ fossils occur in subsiding coastal plains, swamps, river deltas and flood plains where rapid sedimentation can take place. Volcanic ash can also cause local rapid sedimentation, especially from periodically erupting stratovocanoes.

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

I was puzzled by this and similar view for decades and I still don't have a reasonable geological answer to it.

The Joggins Formation is made of delta deposits (sand, silt and clay) together with coal layers. So, interpretations related to volcanic activity do not apply. I guess you may have experience on how fast could the delta sediments stack up vertically in a swampy environment (see this example). We should agree that the rate of deposition was "slow". Those trees stand in the water would have no chance to be preserved in standing position. Also, I don't know what is the material of the tree now (my guess is chert, but I am not sure what caused it), but I can see that it is not turned into coaly material, which is what we expected if the tree was buried slowly in that environment.

So, geologically, the existence of this standing tree is a puzzle. What else can you say?

What I like to say is: something is fundamentally wrong with the geological interpretation.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I was puzzled by this and similar view for decades and I still don't have a reasonable geological answer to it.

The Joggins Formation is made of delta deposits (sand, silt and clay) together with coal layers. So, interpretations related to volcanic activity do not apply. I guess you may have experience on how fast could the delta sediments stack up vertically in a swampy environment (see this example). We should agree that the rate of deposition was "slow". Those trees stand in the water would have no chance to be preserved in standing position. Also, I don't know what is the material of the tree now (my guess is chert, but I am not sure what caused it), but I can see that it is not turned into coaly material, which is what we expected if the tree was buried slowly in that environment.

So, geologically, the existence of this standing tree is a puzzle. What else can you say?

What I like to say is: something is fundamentally wrong with the geological interpretation.

Why would you automatically assume "slow deposition" just because a great deal of the formation is deltaic?

I would guess that there could be....ummm...localized flooding in places?

Here's an important point from a description of the formation:

The predominance of flooding surfaces and the apparent absence of lowstand exposure surfaces reflect the rapid subsidence of the Cumberland Basin

Davies, S.J., 2005, The Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation of Noava Scotia: sedimentological log and stratigraphic framework of the historic fossil cliffs, Atlantic Geology, v41, no. 2 &3
(SOURCE)

further....

The strata were deposited in wetlands akin to those of the modern Mississippi Delta (Coleman and Prior 1980; Tye and Coleman 1989), although the geomorphic form of the coastal system is not known. Small distributary channels traversed the coastal plain and brought sand and mud to the adjacent fresh to brackish bays during repeated flood events, depositing characteristically heterolithic sediment as interdistributary crevasse splays and bay fills. These sedimentation events entombed the standing trees (Calder et al. in press) and created scour hollows and vegetation shadows around the trunks (Rygel et al. 2004)(ibid)

 

[RickG]

I was puzzled by this and similar view for decades and I still don't have a reasonable geological answer to it.

The Joggins Formation is made of delta deposits (sand, silt and clay) together with coal layers. So, interpretations related to volcanic activity do not apply. I guess you may have experience on how fast could the delta sediments stack up vertically in a swampy environment (see this example). We should agree that the rate of deposition was "slow". Those trees stand in the water would have no chance to be preserved in standing position. Also, I don't know what is the material of the tree now (my guess is chert, but I am not sure what caused it), but I can see that it is not turned into coaly material, which is what we expected if the tree was buried slowly in that environment.

So, geologically, the existence of this standing tree is a puzzle. What else can you say?

What I like to say is: something is fundamentally wrong with the geological interpretation.

From the OP: "In situ fossils occur in subsiding coastal plains, swamps, river deltas and flood plains where rapid sedimentation can take place."

It is not a puzzle and there is nothing wrong with the geological interpretation.

http://sites.google.com/site/howardfalconlang/Home/publications/2006-JGSb.pdf

 

[juvenissun]

Why would you automatically assume "slow deposition" just because a great deal of the formation is deltaic?

I would guess that there could be....ummm...localized flooding in places?

Here's an important point from a description of the formation:



further....

My interest is not on how slow or how fast these trees were buried. According to the petrographic appearance, even the so-called flood did not generate obvious massive, thick or even median bed sand/silt layers. So, it should not be large flood if it ever happened. The rate of regional subsidence or transgression would even be slower.

My interest is on the process in which the shape of tree is preserved. From the article quoted by RickG, it appears that people think the tree was buried, hollowed, and then sand-filled (the so-called: sand casted tree). That article did not talk about the burial and preservation process at all. To me, the suggested process is unheard of.

 

[juvenissun]

From the OP: "In situ fossils occur in subsiding coastal plains, swamps, river deltas and flood plains where rapid sedimentation can take place."

It is not a puzzle and there is nothing wrong with the geological interpretation.

http://sites.google.com/site/howardfalconlang/Home/publications/2006-JGSb.pdf

Thanks for the article. Unfortunately it is not a right one to answer the problem we talked about. The article said nothing about how could the trees stand. However, one thing made clear to me is that this fossilized standing tree seems to be common in occurrence, and can be found through the vertical distribution of the strata. If so, there should be tens or hundreds of them exposed. I am not sure if it is indeed the case.

Let me give you a question to think about (I do not know the answer): According to the article, the tree was much higher (5 to 10 times higher?) than the preserved part. If so, what happened to the missing part of the tree? Rock laid on top of the fossil tree is the same kind of deltaic sediments. The environment seems did not change. If so, what happened to the majority part of the tree?

An imagination is that the top part was snapped (by storm?) and was drifted away. Does it make sense? By an unusually big storm? What should be left (deposited) on top of the buried part after that big storm?

What I feel is that if we do not have a good answer to this seemingly simple sedimentary feature today, then that, should be a much bigger problem.

 

[thaumaturgy]

My interest is not on how slow or how fast these trees were buried.

That would seem to be of primary importance here.

My interest is on the process in which the shape of tree is preserved.

Really? Seems pretty straightforward taphonomy. Once buried percolating waters can replace the original organic material and permineralized.

What's so mysterious about this?

From the article quoted by RickG, it appears that people think the tree was buried, hollowed, and then sand-filled (the so-called: sand casted tree). That article did not talk about the burial and preservation process at all. To me, the suggested process is unheard of.

But you just said you aren't interested in how fast or slow the tree was buried, now you are saying you don't see anything about the burial and preservation.

I seem to recall quoting this particular passage from the cited article:

The strata were deposited in wetlands akin to those of the modern Mississippi Delta (Coleman and Prior 1980; Tye and Coleman 1989), although the geomorphic form of the coastal system is not known. Small distributary channels traversed the coastal plain and brought sand and mud to the adjacent fresh to brackish bays during repeated flood events, depositing characteristically heterolithic sediment as interdistributary crevasse splays and bay fills. These sedimentation events entombed the standing trees (Calder et al. in press) and created scour hollows and vegetation shadows around the trunks (Rygel et al. 2004)(SOURCE: Davies, S.J., 2005, The Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation of Noava Scotia: sedimentological log and stratigraphic framework of the historic fossil cliffs, Atlantic Geology, v41, no. 2 &3
(SOURCE)

emphasis added

Now as for your listed "order of events"

From the article quoted by RickG, it appears that people think the tree was buried, hollowed, and then sand-filled

In the article I cited (about the Joggins formation) the hollowing out appears to be before the entombment:

Within this assemblage, Lyell and Dawson made their remarkable discovery of fossils within tree trunks, mainly from the lower reef ("Lesser Reef" of Dawson 1882) at Coal Mine Point. The tree-stump fauna is highly diverse, including eleven tetrapod genera, abundant coprolites, and a variety of invertebrates - land snails (Dendropupa), millipedes, arthropod fragments, and calcareous shells of the annelid Spirorbis (Carroll et al. 1972). Charcoal fragments are abundant within and adjacent to some trunks, testifying to wildfires that swept the forests (Falcon-Lang 1999). The organisms may have taken refuge within hollow trees or may have become entombed accidentally, and some fragments may have been swept in by floods (Lyell and Dawson 1853; Carroll et al. 1972; Scott 2001).(ibid)

adain emphasis

 

[RickG]

Let me give you a question to think about (I do not know the answer): According to the article, the tree was much higher (5 to 10 times higher?) than the preserved part. If so, what happened to the missing part of the tree? Rock laid on top of the fossil tree is the same kind of deltaic sediments. The environment seems did not change. If so, what happened to the majority part of the tree?

An imagination is that the top part was snapped (by storm?) and was drifted away. Does it make sense? By an unusually big storm? What should be left (deposited) on top of the buried part after that big storm?

What I feel is that if we do not have a good answer to this seemingly simple sedimentary feature today, then that, should be a much bigger problem.

Does this help?

 

[Cromulent]

Does this help?

This picture has made me realise something:

On a tidal mudflat, under certain conditions (sudden change in bathymetry, changing deposition patterns, for example, combined with a subsiding coastline), you could have a layer of sediment deposited every high tide. With two high tides a day, you'd have a few thousand layers of sediment around the tree in just a couple of years.

To me, this is a far more rational explanation than a global flood somehow deposited sediment many thousands of metres below the surface in layers.

 

[RickG]

This picture has made me realise something:

On a tidal mudflat, under certain conditions (sudden change in bathymetry, changing deposition patterns, for example, combined with a subsiding coastline), you could have a layer of sediment deposited every high tide. With two high tides a day, you'd have a few thousand layers of sediment around the tree in just a couple of years.

To me, this is a far more rational explanation than a global flood somehow deposited sediment many thousands of metres below the surface in layers.

The ploy used by creationists' is to state that geologist believe each of those layers to be millions of years old. In reality, that statement is a deliberate misrepresentation, as the description of the process by geologists asserts no such thing, rather they describe a rapid deposition process. In the case of the picture above, the sedimentation process is variable and can take years or even decades to complete. To fossilize of course takes much longer as dissolved inorganic solids slowly replace the organic material, which eventually becomes rock.

 

[juvenissun]

This picture has made me realise something:

On a tidal mudflat, under certain conditions (sudden change in bathymetry, changing deposition patterns, for example, combined with a subsiding coastline), you could have a layer of sediment deposited every high tide. With two high tides a day, you'd have a few thousand layers of sediment around the tree in just a couple of years.

To me, this is a far more rational explanation than a global flood somehow deposited sediment many thousands of metres below the surface in layers.

How about low-tide function?

 

[juvenissun]

Does this help?

No. This image shows an entirely different environment. it is a beach, not a delta. And it is most likely erosional.

 

[juvenissun]

That would seem to be of primary importance here.

Really? Seems pretty straightforward taphonomy. Once buried percolating waters can replace the original organic material and permineralized.

What's so mysterious about this?

But you just said you aren't interested in how fast or slow the tree was buried, now you are saying you don't see anything about the burial and preservation.

I seem to recall quoting this particular passage from the cited article:

emphasis added

Now as for your listed "order of events"

In the article I cited (about the Joggins formation) the hollowing out appears to be before the entombment:

adain emphasis

That is what I read: burial > hollowing > sand fill.

You are a sort-of geologist. So I am talking this way to you. The so-called entombment process is not explained and I think it is a wrong term and suggested a wrong process. If a tree trunk is buried during a sedimentary process, I don't see how could it be "hollowed" and became a mold. It is very interesting to read the article which said a whole bunch of fossils were found in the current tree trunk material, which is said to be sand(stone).

I like to take a vacation break to that place.

 

[RickG]

No. This image shows an entirely different environment. it is a beach, not a delta. And it is most likely erosional.

Your are incorrect. The picture I posted involves a "river delta" in Sumatra. Look closely at the bottom photo here. Notice the trees. Now look at up upper left photo and notice the trees again.

The photo I first showed in a previous post is not due to erosion. The trees were snapped off by a tsunami and subsequently buried due to subsidence after an earthquake.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That is what I read: burial > hollowing > sand fill.

Looks to me like the article stated:

Wildfires-->organisms taking refuge in hollow trees-->entombment.

Again from the earlier posted article:

Charcoal fragments are abundant within and adjacent to some trunks, testifying to wildfires that swept the forests (Falcon-Lang 1999). The organisms may have taken refuge within hollow trees or may have become entombed accidentally, and some fragments may have been swept in by floods (Lyell and Dawson 1853; Carroll et al. 1972; Scott 2001).(ibid)

again emphasis

You are a sort-of geologist.

While I am now a practicing R&D chemist I do have a BS, MS and PhD in geology, so yeah, I am "sort-of" geologist.

So I am talking this way to you.

Thanks for the "consideration". Sadly I don't find you to be much of a geologist. But that's just my personal opinion after a year or so of reading your "geologic postings".

The so-called entombment process is not explained

Really? So when the article says:

mall distributary channels traversed the coastal plain and brought sand and mud to the adjacent fresh to brackish bays during repeated flood events, depositing characteristically heterolithic sediment as interdistributary crevasse splays and bay fills. These sedimentation events entombed the standing trees (Calder et al. in press) (SOURCE: Davies, S.J., 2005, The Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation of Nova Scotia: sedimentological log and stratigraphic framework of the historic fossil cliffs, Atlantic Geology, v41, no. 2 &3
(SOURCE)

emphasis added

You don't quite see the entombment process in there? (Hint: it involves rapid influx of sediments).

and I think it is a wrong term and suggested a wrong process. If a tree trunk is buried during a sedimentary process, I don't see how could it be "hollowed" and became a mold.

Because you seem to be hung up on a different order of events. Again, what I see in the article I cited is:

hollow tree trunks-->burial

I base that on this bit:

Charcoal fragments are abundant within and adjacent to some trunks, testifying to wildfires that swept the forests (Falcon-Lang 1999). The organisms may have taken refuge within hollow trees or may have become entombed accidentally, (ibid)

again emphasis

Now in your view the animals in the trunks must have taken shelter in a solid tree, not sure how they would do that, but I guess it makes sense to you. But it doesn't seem to be the story here.

BESIDES: why on earth would you assume the trunks were buried and then hollowed out when the reverse process makes more sense.

Do you have a quote in which you can show me the reverse order is more likely?

It is very interesting to read the article which said a whole bunch of fossils were found in the current tree trunk material, which is said to be sand(stone).

So do you think it even makes common sense that something could get inside a solid tree and then become buried and turned into "sandstone"?

Or would it make more sense (even to a geologist of your skill set) to assume hollowed tree trunks were buried and filled with stuff?

I like to take a vacation break to that place.

Who wouldn't? It sounds interesting. But it sounds like it would be a magical mystery trip for you.

 

[juvenissun]

Looks to me like the article stated:

Wildfires-->organisms taking refuge in hollow trees-->entombment.
...

hollow tree trunks-->burial
...
Do you have a quote in which you can show me the reverse order is more likely?

So do you think it even makes common sense that something could get inside a solid tree and then become buried and turned into "sandstone"?

Or would it make more sense (even to a geologist of your skill set) to assume hollowed tree trunks were buried and filled with stuff?

I would certain like to believe what you said. It would make everything easier. However, I just don't see the process is likely.

If the tree was hollowed first (how common is that?), and filled with sand afterward, then we SHOULD see the bark of tree be replaced by something after the burial. Besides, if the tree was hollowed before the burial, how could it stand the current in that environment before the burial? And ... and .... There are simply too many questions about the feasibility of this process.

On the other hand, soft body mold made diagenetically in buried sediments is a common feature observed in various kind of sedimentary rocks.

I hope I could see a cross section of that fossil tree.

 

[juvenissun]

Thanks for the "consideration". Sadly I don't find you to be much of a geologist. But that's just my personal opinion after a year or so of reading your "geologic postings".

I only need to read one or two posts from a person who talked about geology to know if the person is train in geology and at what level. For example, I can see your training/practice on geology easily. I just wonder about you.

I have no other Ph.D. level geologist to talk to in C.F. Otherwise, I may not want to talk to you.

 

[juvenissun]

Your are incorrect. The picture I posted involves a "river delta" in Sumatra. Look closely at the bottom photo here. Notice the trees. Now look at up upper left photo and notice the trees again.

The photo I first showed in a previous post is not due to erosion. The trees were snapped off by a tsunami and subsequently buried due to subsidence after an earthquake.

Thanks. I just wondered where is the mountain at the background. I did not think it was in US (except Alaska)

All I meant was that the area shown in the picture is not geologically stable.

In any case, I just don't see how could a standing tree be hollowed before burial.