• 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.

What is the best explanation for Polystrate Fossils?

truechristian

BANNED
Banned
Citation to the literature for this statement, thanks.

Here is the literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_Grove
Quote: The Fossil Grove is on a 23 m (75 ft) by 10 m (33 ft) floor of an old quarry, Most trunks are 1–3 ft (0.30–0.91 m) in diameter and 2–3 ft (0.61–0.91 m) tall, and a single larger stump stands in the western part of the grove, measuring 3–4 ft (0.91–1.22 m) in diameter. '

That sounds like a tree to me.
Article then goes off into Planet of Apes cuckooland with mention of the trees being 325 Million Years Old, from the Early PermedHair, CarbonatedDrinks, PallyZoey eras...

Quote: the only other indications of organic life in the strata of the Fossil Grove are Arenicola burrows.'
That is logical as GOD made worms on Day 5 to creep about recycling all the leaves and petals falling off all the fruit trees He's created for Adam and Eve to eat.

And another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_Forest,_Dorset

Same Planet of Apes scenario: Jooracics, etc.
Quote: The c. 140-million-year-old Gymnosperm trees bear similarities with modern-day Cypress (Cupressus), with foliage having the characteristics of a 'Monkey Puzzle' (Araucaria araucana)'
Well fancy that! 140 MYO look like the monkey puzzles we see in UK today! They should do as GOD only created them on Day 3 about 6,000 years ago.

And another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilboa_Fossil_Forest
Quote: 380 MYO tree trunks to 26 feet tall from the Dehorning Period. Trees grew in another of those mythical inland seas the monkeys of Planet of Apes spent so much time riding about in.
Quote: scientists are so fascinated by these trees is that they were part of "afforestation," the original greening of the earth. That process had a major impact on the planet's climate, carbon cycling and, ultimately, what kinds of animals evolved in these ecosystems.

Hmm, I rather think these trees were INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED by GOD on Day 3 to make lots of easily digested soft vegetation to fill the bellies of all the herbivorous TRex and Behemoth He was planning to make on Day 6.

The problem with all these fantasy 140, 325, 380 million year film scripts is that Arenicola worm was around at the same time and a famous researcher's METICULPUS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH proved worms create one inch of topsoil every five years - so 140 divided by 5 = 24 million inches, 325 = 65 million, 380 = 76 million inches or 1200 miles. Where is all that topsoil?

Polystrates were all buried at various times during the 321 days of falling, stirring and draining waters of The Food 4,350 years ago. During those 321 days great masses of sedimenst were sloshing over the land, then being stirred then draining off.
Most flash flood videos show masses of debris flowing along being pulverised until eventually reaching some low place where it can all settle out.
The Condit Dam draining shows how masses of sediments just slump away and disappear but other sedmonets remain in place as they dry out before the water can wash them away.
Condit only took a few minutes to drain, the Mt St Helens Canyon was cut in a few hours and we can be sure the Grand Canyon was cut in a couple of weeks or so.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
truechristian, "Citation to the literature" is standard for, "can you refer me to the scientific literature to back up your claim". Wikipedia, while sometime an interesting and accurate source, is not "scientific literature".
Other than that I fell sorry for you and your lack of knowledge. Have a nice life.
 

truechristian

BANNED
Banned
truechristian, "Citation to the literature" is standard for, "can you refer me to the scientific literature to back up your claim". Wikipedia, while sometime an interesting and accurate source, is not "scientific literature".
Other than that I fell sorry for you and your lack of knowledge. Have a nice life.

Oh dear, Poor Immature Dog is just determined to be a slave to Satan.
If only he could mature and extrapolate fossil forests into The Flood. But no, he's forever stuck in Juracid Park.
 

truechristian

BANNED
Banned
So you are so supremely knwledegable that you can sneer at everyone from that little ivory tower of yours?
Well, write to this team:
quote: the team led by scientists at Binghamton University, New York State Museum and Cardiff University have mapped over 3,000 square meters of the forest at the abandoned quarry in the foothills of the Catskill Mountains in the Hudson Valley'

They also believe the forest was eventually wiped out by a flood due to the presence of many fish fossils that were also visible on the surface of the quarry! Well, fancy that - the Bible is truth!

They are only scientists so what do they know compared to what your tiny mind is filled with?

Other than that I fell sorry for you and your lack of knowledge. Have a nice life until you can grow up and burn your Jurassic Park videos.
 

Right Divider

Body part
"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence." - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

I know that your own expertise on this topic is lacking, and since you reject the consensus of qualified experts, what else can I reasonably conclude except that I am watching the Dunning-Kruger effect play out in real time?

Your claim is false, but thanks for adding nothing to every "discussion" that you enter.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It would be nice to get some better opposition. At least Alate_one could bring up sand pile angles.

I'm certain User Name at his best couldn't support the common descent position with anything convincing. And Jonahdog doesn't even try. What could we do to bring in someone who could offer a challenge to the mountains of evidence we present that supports the flood? Seriously, there are holes in the flood narrative and the most efficient way to close them would be with some intelligent criticism.
 

truechristian

BANNED
Banned
Yorzhik;n2753960 Seriously said:
Th eproblem is that most people are stuck at Schopenhauer Stage one All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

But if you have any Flood holes you'd like blocking just ask me.:wave:

How about learning how Earthworms prove The Flood was a worldwide catastrophe?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well... for whatever reason truechristian is gone, at least for a limitied time.

But what are the holes in the flood narrative? And what is a hole in the flood narrative specifically in the context of polystrate fossils? Our resident zombies aren't exercising enough brain power to help. So what can people that know the flood narrative come up with?
 

Alate_One

New member
It would be nice to get some better opposition. At least Alate_one could bring up sand pile angles.
Actually I was going to bring up something completely different, but that works too. ;)

First thing is layers of sediment that later turn into rock can be formed rapidly. That's the DUH part of the Talk Origins link. Fast forming layers = polystrate fossils. The logical step you're failing is that assuming because certain kinds of layers can form rapidly, ALL kinds of layers must only form rapidly. And that clearly does not follow, unless of course you've decided the world must be 6000 years old a priori. :chuckle:

The problem with this idea are the many layers of sediment that aren't formed by floods or volcanoes but from biological organisms. In many parts of the midwestern USA, we have limestone. And much of that limestone is made of dead organisms. And not just any organisms, dead organisms that don't exist anymore to any appreciable degree (stalked crinoids for an example), layer upon layer upon layer of them. There are old mansions in the area built of essentially solid layers of dead crinoids. Did THOSE layers form all at once?

No of course not, because you can't grow that many living organisms all at once and then kill them all at once to make feet of dead critter sediment all at once. They would have to be growing on top of one another in layers already and crinoids are filter feeders so that's not likely to happen. Same thing with the layers of chalk scattered across the world etc. The biggest blooms of the microorganisms that form them create millimetres of chalk (at best) if killed all at once and yet we have meters of it.

There are just too many things in the world that can't happen as fast as you YECs would like, lots of things that do exist that wouldn't if there was a global flood etc. Early YEC based scientists gave up this sort of thing over a hundred years ago.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Actually I was going to bring up something completely different, but that works too. ;)

First thing is layers of sediment that later turn into rock can be formed rapidly. That's the DUH part of the Talk Origins link.

:thumb:

Fast forming layers = polystrate fossils. The logical step you're failing is that assuming because certain kinds of layers can form rapidly, ALL kinds of layers must only form rapidly. And that clearly does not follow, unless of course you've decided the world must be 6000 years old a priori. :chuckle:

A valid point.

However, I think if you examine the evidence, you'll find that the layers WERE formed rapidly.

The problem with this idea are the many layers of sediment that aren't formed by floods or volcanoes but from biological organisms. In many parts of the midwestern USA, we have limestone.

Ah, the limestone argument against the Global Flood.

Classic.

And much of that limestone is made of dead organisms.

That sounds like question begging on your part.

Here is why most limestone deposits are NOT organic.

https://youtu.be/ZV5i0pntmeU

And not just any organisms, dead organisms that don't exist anymore to any appreciable degree (stalked crinoids for an example), layer upon layer upon layer of them. There are old mansions in the area built of essentially solid layers of dead crinoids. Did THOSE layers form all at once? No of course not, because you can't grow that many living organisms all at once and then kill them all at once to make feet of dead critter sediment all at once. They would have to be growing on top of one another in layers already and crinoids are filter feeders so that's not likely to happen. Same thing with the layers of chalk scattered across the world etc. The biggest blooms of the microorganisms that form them create millimetres of chalk (at best) if killed all at once and yet we have meters of it.

There are just too many things in the world that can't happen as fast as you YECs would like, lots of things that do exist that wouldn't if there was a global flood etc. Early YEC based scientists gave up this sort of thing over a hundred years ago.

https://kgov.com/origin-of-limestone-answering-the-problems
 

Alate_One

New member
:thumb:

A valid point.
O_O

Ah, the limestone argument against the Global Flood.

Classic.
Classic because it is true. There are plenty of biological arguments too...


That sounds like question begging on your part.
No, It's direct observation.

Here is why most limestone deposits are NOT organic.

https://youtu.be/ZV5i0pntmeU
Really a Youtube video on hydroplates . . .
Regardless, your problem isn't what MOST rocks are, it's that there are a sizable proportion of rocks that cannot be formed in a single global flood.

They're called Bioclastic limestone. My grandparents house was built of it. I have seen houses where I live now built of it. It means layer upon layer of tiny dead creatures. And stalked crinoids hardly exist today.



Here's a famous spot I've actually been to, The falls of the Ohio. Huge layers of bioclastic limestone with a very diverse array of living creatures.



I've also seen other rocks that are layer upon layer of clamlike shells - something one would expect from ocean bottoms today.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber

What, you're surprised that I'm being rational?

Classic because it is true.

THIS is question begging.

There are plenty of biological arguments too...

Sure there are.

Doesn't mean they're all correct.

No, It's direct observation.

So you (or someone) has directly observed ALL limestone in the world, and can verify that "much of that limestone is made of dead organisms"?

Although, you did say "much of", and not "most of."

However, I think you need to consider the video I posted above before dismissing it out of hand, as it shows that there's too much limestone to be explained away by your position.

Really a Youtube video on hydroplates . . .

Well, yes, but more specifically it's an explanation of how limestone would have formed during the flood, according to the Hydroplate theory.

Perhaps you should consider the argument being made before dismissing it out of hand.

Regardless, your problem isn't what MOST rocks are, it's that there are a sizable proportion of rocks that cannot be formed in a single global flood.

Because you say so?

They're called Bioclastic limestone. My grandparents house was built of it. I have seen houses where I live now built of it. It means layer upon layer of tiny dead creatures. And stalked crinoids hardly exist today.



Here's a famous spot I've actually been to, The falls of the Ohio. Huge layers of bioclastic limestone with a very diverse array of living creatures.



I've also seen other rocks that are layer upon layer of clamlike shells - something one would expect from ocean bottoms today.

:thumb:

You should go watch the video. Consider the argument being presented, and then, if you like, specify a portion of the video in particular you would like to discuss, and I would be happy to discuss it with you, if I am able to.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Are there? And how do you know that?

Sorry... I was asking a question.

Are there any fossils forming today?

Fossils require very special conditions to form. Dead plants and animals do not normally leave fossils.

The fact that there are many fossils worldwide is confirmation of a global flood. I know that you will disagree.
 
Top