Polystrate Fossils

[thaumaturgy]

not all "polystrate" fossils are in-situ fossils

But the ones of interest to Noachian Flood advocates would be those, like the ones in the Joggins Fm, that have roots in the underclay. So if the tree fossils are "rooted" that would indicate quick burial.

This is why Floodians love the Joggins Fm as far as I can tell. Except that it only shows that local rapid inundation of sediments can "entomb" a tree leaving it standing in place and says nothing about "Noachian Flood" scenarios.

And honestly, I have no problems with the term "polystrate" - it means what it says: crossing multiple (poly) strata (strate).

Indeed it is a realtively good word. Just not one I ever heard many geologists say. But I don't think that really matters. It is good and descriptive. But it doesn't necessarily have as much meaning as a Young Earth Noachian Flood advocate would like it to.

That doesn't invalidate what you've said though; I just wanted to correct the terminology.

I didn't get the impression that anyone was necessarily misuing in situ in this thread that I had noted. In the case of the Joggins Fm it seems that they truly were in situ at least in some of the horizons under discussion.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

But the ones of interest to Noachian Flood advocates would be those, like the ones in the Joggins Fm, that have roots in the underclay. So if the tree fossils are "rooted" that would indicate quick burial.

This is why Floodians love the Joggins Fm as far as I can tell. Except that it only shows that local rapid inundation of sediments can "entomb" a tree leaving it standing in place and says nothing about "Noachian Flood" scenarios.

Indeed it is a realtively good word. Just not one I ever heard many geologists say. But I don't think that really matters. It is good and descriptive. But it doesn't necessarily have as much meaning as a Young Earth Noachian Flood advocate would like it to.

I didn't get the impression that anyone was necessarily misuing in situ in this thread that I had noted. In the case of the Joggins Fm it seems that they truly were in situ at least in some of the horizons under discussion.

My post was more directed at RickG, who defined in-situ fossils as "single organisms (objects) that appear to span one or more layers of geologic strata" - an incorrect definition. Looking back though, he did later say that "polystrate" fossils are referred to as upright fossils within the geological community, and I was mis-attributing the Mt. St. Helens example to him (Miami Marlins was actually the one who said this, and didn't call them in-situ).

I agree that the Joggins Formation fossils would be considered in-situ - I could definitely see roots in the photos.

 

[juvenissun]

Might I suggest you enroll in a couple of courses in basic geology and then sedimentology, your assumptions are way off base.

I don't know why you keep talking about sand. Not all in situ trees are buried by sand. Early on in this thread I outlined several different environments and methods in which burial takes place. Nevertheless, storm surge can deposit huge amounts of sediment on land quickly, especially sand. Subsidence can be very quick, slow are anywhere in between.

Doing a search in a scientific search engine using the phrase, "in situ fossils", I came up with over 31,000 hits on published research. Contrary to what you think, the subject is well studied and understood.

Very good. May be you can find one standing tree which is buried in mud or in limestone or in conglomerate? I do wish you can.

 

[RickG]

Very good. May be you can find one standing tree which is buried in mud or in limestone or in conglomerate? I do wish you can.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[RickG]

In-situ. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Sorry, always wanted to use that line. But it is true; not all "polystrate" fossils are in-situ fossils, and not all in-situ fossils are "polystrate." An in-situ fossil is just one that formed in place, with no transport. And honestly, I have no problems with the term "polystrate" - it means what it says: crossing multiple (poly) strata (strate).

For example, the trees that you mentioned in relation to Mt. St. Helens (the ones that wound up vertical on the bottom of a lake) would not be considered in-situ since they were transported into the lake. They meet the definition of "polystrate" though. On the other end of the spectrum, and insect trapped in amber would be considered an in-situ fossil, but could not be described as "polystrate" because the amber is a solid mass, with no strata.

That doesn't invalidate what you've said though; I just wanted to correct the terminology.

"In situ" and "upright" fossils are terms used by geologist / paleontologists to describe many different types of fossils that may have become fossilized in various types of environments and modes of burial. It generally refers to fossils that are found in the relative position in which the living organism lived. Polystrate is not a geologic term, it was invented by creationists describing fossilized trees found in an upright position that appear to be traversing more than one layer of geologic strata. That is my understanding. I am sure there are better and more precise definitions can be found. I am trying to stay with a broad general description. If you go to the literature and look for a very specific fossil formed in a specific environment referred to as in situ, you are likely to encounter a description that does not appear to encompass what I have described because it gives details rather than general information.

 

[juvenissun]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

That would be a good end to this thread.

 

[RickG]

That would be a good end to this thread.

Take some courses in geology courses or at least check out some geology text books out of your local public library and read them. You are not going to lean principles of geology reading the creationist literature, that is, literature that deliberately misrepresents those principles.

 

[juvenissun]

Take some courses in geology courses or at least check out some geology text books out of your local public library and read them. You are not going to lean principles of geology reading the creationist literature, that is, literature that deliberately misrepresents those principles.

I won't make comment like that. You are degrading yourself.

 

[RickG]

Originally Posted by RickG

Take some courses in geology courses or at least check out some geology text books out of your local public library and read them. You are not going to lean principles of geology reading the creationist literature, that is, literature that deliberately misrepresents those principles.​

​

I won't make comment like that. You are degrading yourself.[/quote]


How do you arrive at that conclusion? The creationist literature is full of bad science. If you are serious about learning Earth Science, then learn it from the scientific literature and text books.

 

[juvenissun]

[/INDENT]

I won't make comment like that. You are degrading yourself.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? The creationist literature is full of bad science. If you are serious about learning Earth Science, then learn it from the scientific literature and text books.[/QUOTE]

Or, you can take geology courses in the university by ICR.

 

[RickG]

Or, you can take geology courses in the university by ICR.

Sorry, all of my education is through accredited institutions from instructors with credible credentials in their fields.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Or, you can take geology courses in the university by ICR.

Is this where you got your geology training?

I am quite serious about this. Is this truly where you got your geologic training?

I went onto ICR's webpage about their education programs and found the following:

ICR School of Biblical Apologetics:

Is ICR’s School of Biblical Apologetics accredited? The Institute for Creation Research has chosen not to seek accreditation for the following reasons:

• SACS (the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools), the main regional accrediting agency governing the state of Texas, is not friendly toward young-earth biblical-creation institutions.
• Accreditation through Department of Education-approved TRACS (the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools) is currently not available in the state of Texas.
• ICR prefers to use its available academic freedoms to stand faithful to its understanding of the truths about God and His creation, as those truths are authoritatively taught in the Holy Bible.(SOURCE)

• (Emphasis added)

Creationist World View Certificate Program does not discuss accreditation anywhere that I could find (SOURCE)


Just curious why one would want to take a geology or science class from the ICR? Is there a value apart from supporting one's religious views? Any scientific rationale for pursuing science education from the ICR?

 

[juvenissun]

Is this where you got your geology training?

I am quite serious about this. Is this truly where you got your geologic training?

I went onto ICR's webpage about their education programs and found the following:

ICR School of Biblical Apologetics:
(Emphasis added)
[/LIST]
Creationist World View Certificate Program does not discuss accreditation anywhere that I could find (SOURCE)


Just curious why one would want to take a geology or science class from the ICR? Is there a value apart from supporting one's religious views? Any scientific rationale for pursuing science education from the ICR?

When I was about to graduate, Henry Morris visited my church and we did talk and he was recruiting people to fill a geology staff position in ICR (no school yet). Indeed, I considered the invitation seriously.

They are not so-called accredited all right. But they do teach geology, such as the origin of the polystrate fossils.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry, all of my education is through accredited institutions from instructors with credible credentials in their fields.

Jesus says: ... let the dead bury their dead.
I feel sorry for "well-educated" scientists who do not know God.

A student comes out of the ICR science classes may not know much. But that could be fixed at later time. Who cares what an undergrad or a master know from school? They all have to retrained anyway. The important thing for an educated young person is that he should start to know God based on what he learned. Accredited school? Accredited on what?

 

[RickG]

Jesus says: ... let the dead bury their dead.
I feel sorry for "well-educated" scientists who do not know God.

This thread is not about knowing or not knowing God, it is about the processes under which upright or in situ fossils are formed.

A student comes out of the ICR science classes may not know much. But that could be fixed at later time. Who cares what an undergrad or a master know from school? They all have to retrained anyway. The important thing for an educated young person is that he should start to know God based on what he learned. Accredited school? Accredited on what?

I have read ICR published literature on geology and it deliberately misrepresents the geological sciences. Polystrate fossils is a prime example.

 

[juvenissun]

This thread is not about knowing or not knowing God, it is about the processes under which upright or in situ fossils are formed.



I have read ICR published literature on geology and it deliberately misrepresents the geological sciences. Polystrate fossils is a prime example.

There is no "deliberate misinterpretation". It is AN interpretation.

 

[Orogeny]

Yes, a faulty interpretation that ignores and distorts the available evidence rather than making a true account of it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

When I was about to graduate, Henry Morris visited my church and we did talk and he was recruiting people to fill a geology staff position in ICR (no school yet). Indeed, I considered the invitation seriously.

They are not so-called accredited all right. But they do teach geology, such as the origin of the polystrate fossils.

"not so-called accredited". 'Nuff said.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Jesus says: ... let the dead bury their dead.
I feel sorry for "well-educated" scientists who do not know God.

Well I don't feel sorry for poorly educated scientists who do know God.

A student comes out of the ICR science classes may not know much.

But they still have to pay tuition, right?

Total estimate cost for the entire two year "Biblical Apologetics Program: $14,800. (SOURCE)

Single module of the Creationist Worldview Program: $150.00
5 Modules total: $750 (SOURCE)

But that could be fixed at later time.

For more money, though, right? And from an accredited university, right?

Who cares what an undergrad or a master know from school?

Considering that in geology the Masters is often considered the "working degree" I should think rather a lot.

They all have to retrained anyway.

There's a difference between making their education relevant to the real world and completely re-educating them because they learned about paleontology this way:

Accredited school? Accredited on what?

Evil.

 

[RickG]

There is no "deliberate misinterpretation". It is AN interpretation.

All you need to do is look at what they say about specific geologic processes and events and read what the scientific literature says, and honestly compare the two, you will find deliberate misrepresentations. Things like scientists say the layers polystrate trees are found multiple layers that are millions of years old. What the science actually says is, the strata the trees in which they are contained are of "X" age. They do not say each layer represents millions of years as the ICR literature implies.