Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective.
Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed.
1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team
2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
See more
See less

What is the best explanation for Polystrate Fossils?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What is the best explanation for Polystrate Fossils?

    Polystrate Fossils seems to be a favorite topic among Creationists. I see it mentioned almost every time they discuss geology.

    I'm curious how non-creationist geologists explain them?

    I read this article on Talk Origins which seems to be saying creationists are stupid and out of date for using this as evidence for a global flood since this was explained over a century ago by geologists. Yet when I read it he seems to be saying exactly what creationists are saying. They are the result of rapid layering of sediment. What am I missing?

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
    "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice." - Thomas Aquinas

    "Some things have to be believed to be seen." -R Hodgson

  • #2
    This is a good short video on the topic:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJdLu9CgvVY

    How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 04 Polystrate Trees

    Comment


    • #3
      This video mentions a couple things from the common descent perspective: .

      What's wrong with this explanation is that there are a number of polystrate fossils not found near coal beds or volcanoes. And since this is a black swan problem, it only takes a single exception for the entire theory to collapse. Beyond that, volcanism was rife in the flood. There are not a lot of places that don't have volcanic activity somewhere in the huge number of layers we have covering the earth. But one cannot always point to some layer of ash and connect it to the polystrate fossil in question as the cause.

      But it gets far far worse for the common descentist. Those layers the polystrate fossils are in frequently continent sized. The idea that a pin-prick sized incidents like Mount Saint Helens (pin-prick sized compared to the size and thickness of the layers polystrate fossils are in) caused polystrate fossils all over the world is laughable.

      And it continues to get worse for the common descentist. It isn't just trees, but all kinds of other things, like fossil whales, going through multiple layers. And remember, this is a black swan problem. With every problem the theory needs new epi-epicycles to explain.

      And it gets even worse. Very often the fossil trees have been squished. Flattened. In their living state before they became fossilized. The energy required to do this is mind-boggling. It not only links the layers the polystrate fossil is in, but the layers 250 ft stacked on top if it!

      In the end, the video doesn't even get into the topic of polystrate fossils, much less provide an explanation for them.
      Good things come to those who shoot straight.

      Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
        This video mentions a couple things from the common descent perspective: .

        ut it gets far far worse for the common descentist. Those layers the polystrate fossils are in frequently continent sized. The idea that a pin-prick sized incidents like Mount Saint Helens (pin-prick sized compared to the size and thickness of the layers polystrate fossils are in) caused polystrate fossils all over the world is laughable.

        .
        Citation to the literature for this statement, thanks.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jonahdog View Post
          Citation to the literature for this statement, thanks.
          Typically, Darwinists ask for a citation so that they can holler: "See, the people you cite are Darwinists like me!"
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stripe View Post

            Typically, Darwinists ask for a citation so that they can holler: "See, the people you cite are Darwinists like me!"
            He made a specific claim. Only asked that he be able to back it up.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Stripe View Post

              Typically, Darwinists ask for a citation so that they can holler: "See, the people you cite are Darwinists like me!"
              And he needs citations for what? That polystrate fossils are all over? That polystrate fossils vary in depth? That layers are huge? That more than trees are polystrate? That the fossils show flattening before they fossilized?

              All those things are so basic that the only reason to ask for citations is because they aren't interested in discussing the topic honestly.

              So, Jonagdog, since you've never engaged in conversation before I've had you on ignore for years. Let's say I'm right and all the things I've mentioned are correct - would that make you understand how the excuses in the video are flimsy?
              Good things come to those who shoot straight.

              Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post

                So, Jonagdog, since you've never engaged in conversation before I've had you on ignore for years. Let's say I'm right and all the things I've mentioned are correct - would that make you understand how the excuses in the video are flimsy?

                The specific request was for you to support the claim that with respect to polystrate fossils, they are, at least some, found in continent wide rock layers. If you are correct in that statement provide evidence in the scientific literature supporting your claim. Simple straight forward request.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
                  All those things are so basic that the only reason to ask for citations is because they aren't interested in discussing the topic honestly.


                  Even when you simply express an opinion, JD will ask for a "citation".

                  He's just nuts.
                  All of my ancestors are human.
                  Originally posted by Squeaky
                  That explains why your an idiot.
                  Originally posted by God's Truth
                  Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                  Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                  (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                  1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                  (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                  Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jonahdog View Post


                    The specific request was for you to support the claim that with respect to polystrate fossils, they are, at least some, found in continent wide rock layers. If you are correct in that statement provide evidence in the scientific literature supporting your claim. Simple straight forward request.
                    Would you say that something someone believes/claims cannot be/is not a fact unless it is, itself, supported by a fact?




                    What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                    MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Jonahdog doesn't seem to know (or believe) that rock layers can be continent-sized.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Right Divider View Post


                        Even when you simply express an opinion, JD will ask for a "citation".

                        He's just nuts.
                        Oh, I'm sorry, I did not realize that Yorzhik was just expressing an opinion. I thought he was making a comment based on real world evidence.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post

                          Would you say that something someone believes/claims cannot be/is not a fact unless it is, itself, supported by a fact?



                          Since it has been suggested that he was just expressing an opinion, who cares. But in general if someone tells you something specific you would expect they have the underlying evidence to support the claim.
                          But to respond to your question, if I said i believed a blue unicorn lived in my back yard, the belief is a fact but not based on reality. I guess I was just doing a reality check.
                          It is a fact that polystrate fossils exist. How they came to be should not be based on a belief without underlying facts and evidence.
                          Last edited by Jonahdog; June 13, 2020, 03:03 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                            Jonahdog doesn't seem to know (or believe) that rock layers can be continent-sized.
                            At the risk getting a standard Stripe non-answer, or a complaint that I do not understand Stripe is just stating a belief, Stripe, please provide evidence that some, all, a few of the famous polystrate fossils are found in rock layers that span continents.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jonahdog View Post
                              At the risk getting a standard Stripe non-answer, or a complaint that I do not understand Stripe is just stating a belief, Stripe, please provide evidence that some, all, a few of the famous polystrate fossils are found in rock layers that span continents.
                              How about you tell us which ones you consider "famous" and which ones are not.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X