Polystrate Fossils

[RickG]

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.

 

[athenken]

There is also the consideration that the method archeologists use in order to determine the age of a given layer of rock is not exactly accurate. There have been flaws found in carbon dating.

 

[Nabobalis]

There is also the consideration that the method archeologists use in order to determine the age of a given layer of rock is not exactly accurate. There have been flaws found in carbon dating.

They don't use carbon dating for anything older than 50,000 years.

 

[Miami Marlins 2012]

They don't use carbon dating for anything older than 50,000 years.

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

We use radiometric dating for older objects. Basically, take a sample off the fossil and look for zircon crystals in the mineral rock, as zircon incorporates uranium atoms into their structure when they form. Then we analyze the traces of the parent material (uranium) to see just how much of it is present versus the amount of daughter material (lead) that is formed as the uranium degrades. We know that uranium has a half life of 700 million years, so if we find 75% parent and 25% daughter material, it's a safe bet that the fossil in question is 350 million years old.

There are many other forms of radiometric dating: Samarium-Neodymium, Rubidium-Strontium, Uranium-Thorium, and Potassium-Argon.

 

[RickG]

There is also the consideration that the method archeologists use in order to determine the age of a given layer of rock is not exactly accurate. There have been flaws found in carbon dating.

Rocks are not carbon dated. Lean something about the subject of carbon dating before incorrectly criticizing it.

I apologize, I should have said you are misinformed about carbon dating.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Basically, you've said two things here:

In situ fossils can either form quickly, or they can form over millions of years; and, of course, the weight of your point rests on 'millions of years':

It is true that most stratigraphic formations do form over thousands and millions of years, however, some form quite rapidly.

Question: where is the tree root in this in situ fossil?

ETA: And I didn't fail to notice this, either:

appear to span

 

[Miami Marlins 2012]

Basically, you've said two things here:

In situ fossils can either form quickly, or they can form over millions of years; and, of course, the weight of your point rests on 'millions of years'

No, the point is that some rock formations can form quickly and others take a long time, which is why radiometric dating has replaced Stratigraphy as the most accurate method for determining the age of fossils and rock formation.

Stratigraphy is still important, but it is not a means to an end, as all it says is that the bottom layer is usually older than the top layer (and not how long it took to form the layers). The speed of formation and even the orientation of the layers varies depending upon hundreds of factors such as climate, soil composition, tectonic forces within the Earth, etc. Which is why, again, radiometric dating is used to determine the actual age of something.

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.

 

[RickG]

Basically, you've said two things here:

In situ fossils can either form quickly, or they can form over millions of years; and, of course, the weight of your point rests on 'millions of years':

No, I didn't say in situ fossils are formed over million of years. Please re-read what I wrote "in context".

Question: where is the tree root in this in situ fossil?

Termites ate it. Fossils are rarely complete. Why not ask where the branches and leaves are?

ETA: And I didn't fail to notice this, either:[/quote]

When I started looking for an in situ example to post, almost all examples I found were on creationist sites. Interesting. I had to pull one off wiki, but nevertheless, they are well represented and described in geology textbooks as well as published research. I'll be glad to provide citations and links if you like.

 

[RickG]

They don't use carbon dating for anything older than 50,000 years.

Generally true, but there are examples exceeding that using the AMS method.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, let's simplify this argument before it gets too out-of-hand.

I don't care if all the layers are within 50 years of each other.

The fact that a tree standing upright through multiple layers of different ages of strata show that it occurred quickly.

Even standing oblique, or two lying horizontal but at different levels, point to rapid sedimentation.

And again, I don't care if these layers are one year or one thousand years apart, the point is the same.

 

[RickG]

Okay, let's simplify this argument before it gets too out-of-hand.

I don't care if all the layers are within 50 years of each other.

The fact that a tree standing upright through multiple layers of different ages of strata show that it occurred quickly.

Even standing oblique, or two lying horizontal but at different levels, point to rapid sedimentation.

And again, I don't care if these layers are one year or one thousand years apart, the point is the same.

Depending upon the time frame and type of deposition it can be one layer are two layers, occasionally more layers but not necessarily.

In situ in progress.

In situ in progress.

Get the idea?

 

[AV1611VET]

In situ in progress.

Get the idea?

Ya -- I get it -- for that picture.

But the fact is, in situ trees are found all over the globe; on all seven continents.

And what about the fact that these ... in situ fossils are missing their trunks?

Only about 1 in 50 have their trunks; the rest are found w/o them.

And let me say this again -- although this is your thread, so I'm respecting your terminology -- but it's hard for me to call these "in situ", when they are anything but in situ.

I find it difficult to call a tree that has been transported miles from where it grew 'in situ.'

 

[RickG]

Ya -- I get it -- for that picture.

But the fact is, in situ trees are found all over the globe; on all seven continents.

And what about the fact that these ... in situ fossils are missing their trunks?

Only about 1 in 50 have their trunks; the rest are found w/o them.

Source??????

Anything can become an in situ fossil, not just trees.

And let me say this again -- although this is your thread, so I'm respecting your terminology -- but it's hard for me to call these "in situ", when they are anything but in situ.

Geologist also call them upright fossils. Please feel free to call them polystrate if you prefer. I only wanted to make the point that polystrate is not a geology term.

I find it difficult to call a tree that has been transported miles from where it grew 'in situ.'[/quote]

 

[AV1611VET]

Source??????

My source of information is here: Polystrate Fossils.

I plan to learn this as best as I can -- not that I care for scientific evidence, but so I can try and pwn you guys down on your own level; but I don't hold much hope in that category.

I already argued radiohalos [somewhat] successfully -- in my opinion.

 

[Miami Marlins 2012]

My source of information is here: Polystrate Fossils.

Your source of information is a Christian "science" rag. How about producing an actual scientific study, and not something that quotes 10 or 20 bible passages. I'm afraid that I've never been a big fiction reader. I prefer factual books. Works of fiction tend to bore me and put me to sleep, unless we are talking about a good Hollywood movie.

not that I care for scientific evidence

That about sums up why arguing with creationists is a waste of time. Why bother with facts when they don't care about facts, only fiction.

 

[Miami Marlins 2012]

By the way AV, the "scientific study" quoted in your Christian "science" rag, by Mr. Falcon-Lang, is nothing but the work of a fake pseudo-scientist Creationist. Mr. Falcon-Lang's study has been widely discredited by real geologists and scientists. But since Christian "science" doesn't care about accurate and factual data, I'm not surprised to see this Creation "science" rag spewing out flawed studies by fellow creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your source of information is a Christian "science" rag.

I don't care what it is.

If I've said something wrong in one of my posts, please feel free to tell me.

Let's not shoot the messenger, let's shoot the message, okay?

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way AV, the "scientific study" quoted in your Christian "science" rag, by Mr. Falcon-Lang, is nothing but the work of a fake pseudo-scientist Creationist. Mr. Falcon-Lang's study has been widely discredited by real geologists and scientists. But since Christian "science" doesn't care about accurate and factual data, I'm not surprised to see this Creation "science" rag spewing out flawed studies by fellow creationists.

Good -- then you should have no trouble showing me where I'm wrong in my posts, right?

 

[Miami Marlins 2012]

Good -- then you should have no trouble showing me where I'm wrong in my posts, right?

I'll take the time to explain how you are misinformed when you finally take the time to rep me for wasting my time last night answering that question about animal speech, which you weren't serious about.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll take the time to explain how you are misinformed when you finally take the time to rep me for wasting my time last night answering that question about animal speech, which you weren't serious about.

Check ur reps.