Fw: Trees through strata

[Preston Rogers]

At Earth Day, I had a pretty well versed Creationist come up with a question I could not adequately answer.  His point was that there are entire fossilized trees that intersect many sedimentary layers around the world.  His contention was that the Biblical flood had been responsible for depositing these trees with subsequent sedimentation around the trees over time.  How else could these vertical structures be imbedded in strata that took thousands of years to form?

 

Thanks to Bill for providing the Wiki link below which explain how these trees show signs of deep rooting in paleosols which excludes the theory of them being floating around and being trapped vertically by rapid sedimentation i.e. the flood.  Other causes are rapid subsiding of coastal plains, volcanic activity and salt tectonics.

 

So for whoever runs up against this apologist argument, you have an answer.  And you can ask them why there are not fossilized trees like this all over the world throughout the strata.

 

Preston

----- Original Message -----

From: Bill Runyan

To: Bill Runyan

Cc: Preston

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 10:42 PM

Subject: Trees through strata

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - this article addresses that question in detail with
documentary evidence over 100 years old to prove that the suggestion
was defeated even with 100 year old science. See one relevant section
C & P below - they even invented the word "polystrate."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html




Given that an "in place" occurrence was convincingly determined by
observations made in the 19th century for this and many other "fossil
forest" localities, it is surprising that these conclusions have not
been recognized by modern "young Earth global flood" [YEGF]
creationists as clear evidence of non-global-flood deposition for much
of the geologic record. They often hinge their current arguments on
the occurrence of upright trees in Yellowstone National Park, point to
their volcanic setting, and then point to floating upright trees
floating in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens [2], and say, "See? They
could be transported during the flood.". This argument is completely
fallacious, because most "fossil forests" do not occur in volcanic
deposits, and do have the fragile roots of the stumps tightly
penetrating into the surrounding sediment, often into a paleosol
(fossil soil) [besides Joggins, see also 3]. One occurrence is even
associated with dinosaur footprints on the same surface, on top of a
coal seam [4, 5, 6]. The "transported floating upright stumps" model
[2] is a complete red herring that does not apply to the vast majority
of "fossil forest" occurrences.

[Tom]

It still amazes me the two major mindsets when it comes to a problem.  Both require the active use of imagination.  One to solve real world problems with workable solutions.   The other to create supernatural forces (gods, fairies or whatever) which are at work and to throw up one's hands in submission to them. 


I liked this explanation better than Wikipedia's:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polystrate.html

The basic claim, then, is that these fossils cannot be explained by conventional geology. The argument rests on two planks. The first plank is that trees rot quickly. The second plank is that conventional geology is uniformitarian. Therefore, scientists allow only slow, steady deposition, and cannot explain catastrophic events.

It is then argued that this rapid burial is best explained by the biblical flood. So, it is argued, Creationism has an explanation for polystrate fossils, and conventional science does not.

This argument has been made by many Creationist authors, including Coffin, Huse, Morris, Taylor, and Gish.

The Short Summary

These fossils are reasonably common, and have been mentioned in the scientific literature for well over a century, under the name upright fossils or in situ trees. No well-read geologist finds them surprising, and no geologist has ever claimed that it took millions (or even thousands) of years to bury them. Science is perfectly happy with the idea that deposition is occasionally rapid.

Geologists agree that the numerous upright fossils couldn't have all been buried at the same time.

Interesting to note a prime example of in situ trees is right nearby at Realfoot Lake where some have lived completely submerged since the 1817 New Madrid fault quake.
Tom

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en.

[MemphisBill]

Preston, you didn't actually post the link. Here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

On Apr 19, 9:01 am, "Preston Rogers" <rprestonrog...@comcast.net>
wrote: