Polystrate Fossils

[AV1611VET]

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.

I take it you consider something "deliberate" after you've shown someone where they are "wrong" ... and by Jimminy, they'd better accept what you've shown them, or from henceforth they will be at the mercy of your less-than-noble synonyms?

Anyone disagreeing with you will have to put up with the 9th Commandment being attributed to them.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

Rick, to be honest, I lost a lot of respect for you after I showed you a video where Kent Hovind's daughter (or niece?) asked a scientist in a museum about an ice core sample, and you came back with it being staged, since no scientist would be working in a museum.

Something like that ... I'll see if I can find it.

You also quietly dropped your '666' childishness after I explained to you that I think you won't even be in the Tribulation period; and did it without admitting you had me pegged wrong.

In any event, your opinions of us are water off a duck's back, as far as I'm concerned.

ETA: Okay, it wasn't ice cores ... that's here: 194

I think it had to do with vestigible organs on a whale or something.

 

[serge546]

Thank you.

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

In fairness to thalidomide, it is a wonder drug if you are able to purify its enantiomers from each other. One enantiomer is a safe and wonderful drug while the other causes birth defects.

There has been talks of bringing it back now that we have better enantiomer seperation techniques.

 

[RickG]

Rick, to be honest, I lost a lot of respect for you after I showed you a video where Kent Hovind's daughter (or niece?) asked a scientist in a museum about an ice core sample, and you came back with it being staged, since no scientist would be working in a museum.

Review the video AV. Hovind claimed that the person he asked was a geology instructor at a local university. And remember, it is Hovinds story uncoordinated. Hovind also made him out to be an idiot not knowing that dating geologic strata circular reasoning. The strata is dated first not the fossils. By recognizing index fossils one can determine the relative age of a formation. That is not circular reasoning. Hovind has a reputation for lying in his videos. One of them is that he taught science for 15 years. When asked where he won't say nor has anyone ever been able to find out where. Remember the man is doing hard time for his lack of honesty.

As for the ice core sample it was a deliberate misrepresentation suggesting individual snow falls were the same as annual layers.

You also quietly dropped your '666' childishness after I explained to you that I think you won't even be in the Tribulation period; and did it without admitting you had me pegged wrong.

You are the one who said that scientists were going to line up to take the mark. Being a scientist and a Christian, I found that remark being very offensive.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thank you.

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

Indeed -- see what happens when you refuse to learn, kiddies?

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed -- see what happens when you refuse to learn, kiddies?

A Thalidomide 'kiddie' could ask a scientist that, couldn't he?

 

[TLK Valentine]

A Thalidomide 'kiddie' could ask a scientist that, couldn't he?

He'd be an adult by now, wouldn't he?

 

[ADTClone]

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.

Then find one tree that does demonstrate this. Until any evidence of the claim is actually presented, it is debunked.

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

Once again, find me some evidence of polystrate fossils in sediment separated in layers ordered by depth.

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

As I have explained, that is not evidence of a global flood. You can perform the experiment I explained to you, and you will not find the layers of sediment that we see in the real world.

One explanation for polystrate fossils is called a volcano. When a volcanic eruption occurs, a lot of dust and ash is launched into the sky. This dust/ash then falls to the ground and builds up into thick layers. Perhaps then the molten lava flows down and sets hard over the fossil, creating your polystrate fossils.

No idea how correct that is geologically, but I'm not a geologist. Pretty sure that video gives a better explanation than I do.

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

I don't understand your argument here. Could you be a bit more clear? Perhaps some evidence of a tree that doesn't have a trunk that is a polystrate fossil?

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

What? Is this another crazy interpretation of genesis?

Did the heavy rock that sunk down on the bottom magically float up a few layers to form our sedimentary layers?

You say Genesis 10 explains Pangaea broke up, then I gather you accept the fact of Pangaea, and that fact was found by tracing back the path of the continents over millions of years. Genesis from my last interpretation stated the earth was made within 6 days. If you want to use the fact of Pangaea you must also accept the fact that goes along with it. Otherwise you are just cherry picking.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

Polystrate Fossils were not buried over millions of years, and no geologist claims they were.

The End.

 

[Split Rock]

I take it you consider something "deliberate" after you've shown someone where they are "wrong" ... and by Jimminy, they'd better accept what you've shown them, or from henceforth they will be at the mercy of your less-than-noble synonyms?

Anyone disagreeing with you will have to put up with the 9th Commandment being attributed to them.

Its "deliberate" if one misrepresents another's position, such as saying that scientists claim polystrate trees were buried over millions of years. This is simply a lie. Now, someone who didn't know that could quote a Professional Creationist Liar (P.C.L.) and not be lying him/herself. Once the error is pointed out to the person, however, if they repeat it again then it is also a lie. If you don't buy into the explanation that geologists do not make the claims P.C.L.s say they do, then do the research yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its "deliberate" if one misrepresents another's position, such as saying that scientists claim polystrate trees were buried over millions of years. This is simply a lie. Now, someone who didn't know that could quote a Professional Creationist Liar (P.C.L.) and not be lying him/herself. Once the error is pointed out to the person, however, if they repeat it again then it is also a lie. If you don't buy into the explanation that geologists do not make the claims P.C.L.s say they do, then do the research yourself.

Fair enough ... I'm wrong about that.

It's good that science and we can agree where the decimal place should go ... isn't it?

 

[RickG]

Its "deliberate" if one misrepresents another's position, such as saying that scientists claim polystrate trees were buried over millions of years. This is simply a lie. Now, someone who didn't know that could quote a Professional Creationist Liar (P.C.L.) and not be lying him/herself. Once the error is pointed out to the person, however, if they repeat it again then it is also a lie. If you don't buy into the explanation that geologists do not make the claims P.C.L.s say they do, then do the research yourself.

Exactly, and that is why I gave the specific example from a creationist website quoting a geologist and the geologist responding expressing quite sternly his dissatisfaction with being deliberately misrepresented.

I mean really! The guy was hacked off enough to publish a second edition of the same book that was quote mined and print in it a direct message to creationists not to take anything in his book out of context.

 

[HitchSlap]

Here's my proof...