Polystrate Fossils

[AV1611VET]

Just for fun, I'm submitting polystrate fossils as evidence of a global flood to see where this goes.

I'll even accept that we're in the Holocene epoch, just for clarity.

 

[davidbilby]

Just for fun, I'm submitting polystrate fossils as evidence of a global flood to see where this goes.

I'll even accept that we're in the Holocene epoch, just for clarity.

Debunked 150 years ago (by card carrying Christians, let's remember). Yawn.

 

[ADTClone]

Just for fun, I'm submitting polystrate fossils as evidence of a global flood to see where this goes.

I'll even accept that we're in the Holocene epoch, just for clarity.

As I can't post links, you can find the specific video by going onto Youtube, and searching for "potholer54 Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked". The video is named "Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked".

The specific part is at 6:00 for polystrate trees. The same applies for polystrate fossils.

But regardless, how would polystrate fossils be evidence of a global flood? If it's because "all of the dirt, sediment, trees and fossils would have been mixed up in a global flood, or the water came so fast that it buried the trees under the sediment", we wouldn't see distinct layers of sediment.

You can test this yourself. Research what components make up our sedimentary layers. Get a little sample of each, and pop them in a plastic container. Then put some water in to emulate a "global flood", then mix everything up and wait for it to settle. The sediment will settle into layers according to the density of the sediment.

This is not what we see in the real world. We see distinct layers of distinct types of sediment, not ordered by densities.

 

[driewerf]

As I can't post links, you can find the specific video by going onto Youtube, and searching for "potholer54 Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked". The video is named "Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked".

The specific part is at 6:00 for polystrate trees. The same applies for polystrate fossils.

But regardless, how would polystrate fossils be evidence of a global flood? If it's because "all of the dirt, sediment, trees and fossils would have been mixed up in a global flood, or the water came so fast that it buried the trees under the sediment", we wouldn't see distinct layers of sediment.

You can test this yourself. Research what components make up our sedimentary layers. Get a little sample of each, and pop them in a plastic container. Then put some water in to emulate a "global flood", then mix everything up and wait for it to settle. The sediment will settle into layers according to the density of the sediment.

This is not what we see in the real world. We see distinct layers of distinct types of sediment, not ordered by densities.

This might be what you are looking for:
Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked - YouTube

your humble servant driewerf

 

[ADTClone]

Yes, that is the correct video thank you.

 

[RickG]

Just for fun, I'm submitting polystrate fossils as evidence of a global flood to see where this goes.

I'll even accept that we're in the Holocene epoch, just for clarity.

Perhaps you need to ask why creationists are so intent upon misrepresenting geology. What is the purpose of lying to one's self?

 

[CabVet]

Perhaps you need to ask why creationists are so intent upon misrepresenting geology. What is the purpose of lying to one's self?

Problem is, they are not lying to themselves, they are lying and misrepresenting geology (and other sciences) to others.

 

[RickG]

Problem is, they are not lying to themselves, they are lying and misrepresenting geology (and other sciences) to others.

Very true, very say, and despicable behavior.

 

[RickG]

What is really puzzling to me is that when having been show deliberate misrepresentations, some people still cannot face up to the fact that they are being mislead.

Example:

It is not possible that polystrate fossils were buried gradually over many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years because the top part of any tree would have rotted away before it could be protected by sediment. Polystrate fossils point to rapid burial and are evidence for the reality of the global Flood recorded in the Bible.

This is how Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University College of Swansea, trained under strict Lyellian uniformitarianism, describes some polystrate fossil tree trunks that he illustrated in his book. (1993).

Source: Polystrate fossils: evidence for a young earth (Creation Ministries International).

​

Except for the global flood reference the above statement is true. However, the context they are conveying is that geology says they were buried over hundreds and thousands of years. Geology does not say that.

The CMI cite linked above uses Derek Ager's book, "[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History" (1993), [/FONT]to justify their young earth position. So, what does Derek Ager have to say about that?

"For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell. Any suggestion of 'catastrophic' events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable. This is partly due to the extremism of some of Cuvier's followers, though not of Cuvier himself.

On that side too were the obviously untenable views of bible-oriented fanatics, obsessed with myths such as Noah's flood, and of classicists thinking of Nemesis. That is why I think it necessary to include the following 'disclaimer': in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists' (who I refuse to call 'scientific')."

The underlined emphasis is Ager's.
Source: [FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]Ager (1995, p. xi). [/FONT]
​

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]In other words, Ager's own book on p. xi. Note that the quote mine was taken from the 1993 edition of Ager's book and the 1995 edition cites that quote mine and condemns it.
[/FONT]

 

[TLK Valentine]

Debunked 150 years ago (by card carrying Christians, let's remember). Yawn.

In all fairness, he did say "just for fun."

If AV ever attempted a serious discussion, imagine how ridiculous he'd look being so woefully behind the times.

 

[AV1611VET]

Debunked 150 years ago (by card carrying Christians, let's remember). Yawn.

In what way? just because something can be explained away, doesn't mean it is debunked.

And 150 years ago? so it was debunked sans the scientific method?

 

[AV1611VET]

As I can't post links, you can find the specific video by going onto Youtube, and searching for "potholer54 Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked". The video is named "Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked".

All it would take is one tree to demonstrate otherwise (even though the title of this thread is plural).

Just saying 'debunked' is not cutting it with me.

The specific part is at 6:00 for polystrate trees. The same applies for polystrate fossils.

Maybe one or two forests were 'debunked', but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, eh?

But regardless, how would polystrate fossils be evidence of a global flood?

By permeating multiple layers vertically, it would show the layers not to have been laid down over millions of years.

If it's because "all of the dirt, sediment, trees and fossils would have been mixed up in a global flood, or the water came so fast that it buried the trees under the sediment", we wouldn't see distinct layers of sediment.

If the trees were buried over the course of millions of years, where are their trunks?

You can test this yourself. Research what components make up our sedimentary layers. Get a little sample of each, and pop them in a plastic container. Then put some water in to emulate a "global flood", then mix everything up and wait for it to settle. The sediment will settle into layers according to the density of the sediment.

This is not what we see in the real world. We see distinct layers of distinct types of sediment, not ordered by densities.

Perhaps they resurfaced when Pangaea got broken up in Genesis 10?

 

[AV1611VET]

This might be what you are looking for:

Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked - YouTube

your humble servant driewerf

Nice [second] title to that video ... just makes we want to watch it to see if I do have anything between my ears.

 

[AECellini]

In what way? And 150 years ago? so it was debunked sans the scientific method?

the scientific method is older than that...

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you need to ask why creationists are so intent upon misrepresenting geology. What is the purpose of lying to one's self?

I didn't start this thread, Rick, so you could start your 'everyone is lying' spiel again.

We know what you guys think of us ... we've heard it 1000 times.

Jesus was called a [liar], and I would expect nothing less to see His followers called that as well.

In fact, if I'm not called a 'liar', I don't feel I'm doing my job here very well.

 

[AV1611VET]

Problem is, they are not lying to themselves, they are lying and misrepresenting geology (and other sciences) to others.

... That's the spirit!

 

[AV1611VET]

Very true, very say, and despicable behavior.

Meanwhile ... may I interrupt venting & ridicule to ask you guys to get back to the OP?

 

[AV1611VET]

In all fairness, he did say "just for fun."

Thank you.

If AV ever attempted a serious discussion, imagine how ridiculous he'd look being so woefully behind the times.

Ya ... I'd probably end up calling Pluto our 9th planet, or saying Thalidomide was a prenatal wonder drug.

 

[RickG]

Meanwhile ... may I interrupt venting & ridicule to ask you guys to get back to the OP?

So when someone points out a deliberate lie and is very truthful about doing it with with an example, it is ridicule? Then I gather you approve of deliberate deception?

 

[RickG]

We know what you guys think of us ... we've heard it 1000 times.

When you say you guys, I gather you mean those of us who are sick and tired of science being deliberately misrepresented. I say deliberately because "those guys" have been shown a thousand times where the deception is; as I have shown a specific example where it was misrepresented and acknowledged as a deceptive misrepresentation by the person being misrepresented. This is a science forum, would it not be better to discuss science rather than propagate garbage.