• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Polystrate Tree Fossils

jon1101

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,030
5
39
Hillsdale, Michigan
Visit site
✟1,871.00
Faith
Christian
I was reading a bit on the AiG website about polystrate tree fossils - tree fossils that span thousands of years of rock strata. It appears that this would contradict old earth geology, but I have yet to see such a problem that has gone unresolved by the old-earthers. So, how is it reconciled?

For those of you who like to see documentation, the link to the article is: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Creation_Clubs/docs/106polystrate.asp

-jon
 
Jon,

This topic is addressed at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

To summarize:

John Dawson, a 19th century creationist geologist, answered this problem while describing a classic Carboniferous-age locality in Joggins, Novia Scotia. In this case, the root systems of these upright tree fossils were embedded in the underlying sediment, indicating that the tree fossilized in situ.

Regarding the encapsulation by sentiment, the article author writes:

"As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not."

Hope this helps,
Daniel
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley
I'll have to find the references I once saw on polystrate fossils of fish and other much more fragile creatures. It would be interesting to see what the explanation for those could be.

Much the same as message 2 of this thread. "Polystrate" arguments are simply based on misconceptions that average people have about geology and are not a problem in real geology. In this case the misconception is that any particular layer must take thouands of years to form according to conventional geology. This is simply not true. Now there are some layers that did take a long time to form, but there are others that form relatively quickly.
The YECs are simply making strawman arguments here.
 
Upvote 0

randman

Well-Known Member
May 28, 2002
573
0
Visit site
✟1,433.00
Well, I still don't see it. How long can trees last before they decay? There are many layers in some of these so the question becomes how long could the tree surivive once dead as an upright structure, and once examamining the layers, what happened to create each layer, and could it happen in that short of time.
I also wonder if the same sediment layers were examined without the trees, what would conventional geologists state about the age of the strata. In other words, is there an automatic skewing based on evolutionary presumptions?
 
Upvote 0

Satoshi

Active Member
Mar 21, 2002
309
3
44
Visit site
✟774.00
Originally posted by randman
In other words, is there an automatic skewing based on evolutionary presumptions?
Yes, no doubt geologists make sure to look up the ages of rocks in their Evil Evolutionist Handbook (copyright 1850) to ensure that a layer is dated to 11My instead of 11.5My.
 
Upvote 0
Well, I still don't see it. How long can trees last before they decay? There are many layers in some of these so the question becomes how long could the tree surivive once dead as an upright structure, and once examamining the layers, what happened to create each layer, and could it happen in that short of time.

First of all, the "polystrate" trees are actually all in one layer, not several. Second, wood can hang around quite awhile if properly buried. Consider that dendochronologists use logs recovered from bogs in northern Europe that go back several thousand years. High altitudes can also preserve wood for quite some time. Shipwrecks a couple of thousand years old with preserved wood are known from all over. In short, there is no reason to doubt that stumps could have buried in some rapid event -- a levee breach, a river switching channels, a massive flood, a landslide -- and then left upright, in an environment where they were preserved long enough to be fossilized.

I also wonder if the same sediment layers were examined without the trees, what would conventional geologists state about the age of the strata. In other words, is there an automatic skewing based on evolutionary presumptions?

There are no evolutionary presumptions here; the age of rocks is determined by radiometric dating, which has nothing to do with evolution. Relative dating of strata also has nothing to do with evolution; it simply refers to the positions of the strata relative to each other. Even if evolution by natural selection is completely invalidated, it would not change the fact that the earth is probably around 4.5 billion years old.

Vorkosigan
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Vorkosigan said:
In short, there is no reason to doubt that stumps could have buried in some rapid event -- a levee breach, a river switching channels, a massive flood, a landslide -- and then left upright, in an environment where they were preserved long enough to be fossilized.

Is that not the point creationists are trying to make, that the trees were placed there during a world wide flood?
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
aah yes, the flood:
right we have an earth radius os 6300km, and assuming a water height of 5000m (about 3km
lower than everest) we get a total water volume of:
2.4*10^18 cubic metres. (that is alot, the volume of the oceans is estimated at about
1.3*10^18 cubic metres)
over a surface area of 4.8+10^14 square metres.
a total water height of 5000 metres over roughly 1000 hours (40 days) gives a water rise of
5m/hr... this is global remember.
so that gives a total outpour rate of about 2.4 * 10^15 cubic metres per hour globally.

okay, so let us say that this is belting out of what, 10,000 volcanoes like st helens at 10
square kilometres each. that gives us a total ourpouring rate per volcano of about
2.4*10^10 cubic metres per hour per volcano, or about 2.4*10^4 cubic metres of water per
hour per square metre of volcano.
that is alot of water, basically a 25km long column of pure water per hour. and we haven't
even evaporated it yet. lets do that next for fun to see how much energy it would require,
because I am enjoying this now.
we need 2.5*10^9 joules to boil 1 cubic metre of water, assuming the water is already at
100 degrees. over our entire volume of water, that is a total power of about 10^21 watts.
that is about 10^-6 of of the power of the sun, not bad, but we currently get only about
10^-15 of that energy, so it would require a brightening of the sun by about 10^11 times.
slap on some sunscreen.
of course it wouldn't all be boiled like this, I am just providing it as an example, since
all the water from st helens was in the form of vapour. but I could always do some pressure
calculations if you like to estimate the pressure at which the water must have been
jettisoned out. they will be big numbers though, and probably higher than the pressure
downwards due to gravity, which would mean that the water would be launched into space
(never hitting the earth and causing a flood) or just ripping the planet apart.
as you can see though, even with 10000 volcanoes of 10 square kilometers each erupting
nothing but liquid water for 40 solid days, you have a major problem on your hands, since
there is no evidence. I have not taken precipitation into account in this, but even if you
were to factor rain in, you aren't going to get rid of several orders of magnitude from the
volcanoes.
just to quote, some extreme rainfall records include nearly 1.2 m of rain in one day during
a typhoon at Baguio, Philippines; 0.3 m within one hour during a thunderstorm at Holt,
Missouri; and 0.063 m in over a 5-minute period at Portobelo, Panama. these are real
extremes, and you would need some really really odd weather to be able to maintain those
sorts of conditions for 40 days.
taking clouds to go up to about 20km (cumulo nimbus, or storm clouds extend up to about
50,000 feet) lets see what the conditions will be like if 50% of it were in the atmosphere,
and a mere 50% being jetissoned from our volcanoes etc
(only a 12 km long column per volcano now, phew.)
well say we have 1.2*10^18 m*3 of water in the air. that is about 1.2*10^21 kg of water
(water density 1000kg/cubic metre)
well the atmosphere is only about 5.3 x 10^18 kg so we would see a pressure increase of
about a thousandfold if all that water were dumped into the atmosphere..... assuming that
it could all exist as vapour (remembering that 1/4 of the atmosphere by volume up to the
cloud tops consists of water by this assumption) even stretching your distance up to 200 km
you are still faced with the same problem. you might be more likely to get away with it if
you streteched it out to 1000 km, but that is the upper limit on the thickness of the
earth's atmosphere! and you still get a thousandfold pressure increase.
 
Upvote 0
The water I am speaking of did not come fro mteh volcano it was & is still in spirit lake where all the broken tree trunks are standing up in the bottom of the lake. As for the water covering the earth the Bbile makes it clear there was a water canopy over the earth & the water beneath the earth rose up covering the earth. You sure do try hard to miss my points as well as ignore them; you must be one of them proffessional PHD's
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Jet Black said:
more flood absurdities:
The question is, how can a tree be found in two different geology layers. Esp. layers that are suppose to take thousands of years just to forum one inch.
 

Attachments

  • tracks-petrified-tree.jpg
    tracks-petrified-tree.jpg
    190.8 KB · Views: 47
Upvote 0