Re: trees through geologic strata

From: Bill Payne (bpayne15@juno.com)
Date: Sat Jan 22 2000 - 00:10:23 EST

  • Next message: John W. Burgeson: "Re: Chance?"

    Hi Glenn,

    Looks like you're digging your own grave. :-)

    If you reply, why don't we move to the evolution reflector to continue?

    On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 05:45:53 +0000 glenn morton <mortongr@flash.net>
    writes:

    >Here is what is wrong with that idea. First such trees are evidence
    >of
    >rapid deposition, but this can be accomplished without a global flood.
    >In
    >1993 the Mississippi River flooded and dumped up to 6 feet of sand on
    >the
    >forests and farm fields of the Midwest. This had the effect of
    >killing
    >millions of trees, whose trunks now are polystrate tree trunks. They
    >are
    >firmly rooted in the pre-1993 sediments and their trunks extend
    >through the
    >next layer. If there had been a 1994 flood, the trees, still standing
    >but
    >dead at that time, would then extend through many layers of strata.
    >So, in
    >the year 10,000 AD the 1993 trees will be used by future young-earth
    >creationists to argue that this is evidence of a global flood--yet we
    >know
    >differently.

    >Secondly, the assumption that trees can't stand for millennia without
    >rotting is fallacious under certain circumstances. Waterlogged wood
    >will
    >last millennia. There are forests offshore England today that were
    >inundated by the rise in sealevel after the ice age. Those tree
    >trunks
    >still stand.

    OK. You've said that polystrate trees are evidence of rapid deposition,
    and that rising water inundating a forest will bury the forest in growth
    position. I agree with both points. But, you fail to mention to Wendy
    that your modern analog does not support the geologic patterns we see in
    the field.

    In the case of coal seams, which in your model were swamps (ie. areas
    with _standing_ trees) buried by sediments, polystrate trees originating
    in the coal and extending into the overlying sediment are virtually
    non-existent. There are just enough polystrates to tell us that if the
    vertical trees were there, they were preserved. Therefore, it is not an
    example of lack of preservation, but of a lack of standing trees to
    preserve.

    There are virtually no polystrates in the coal swamps because........???
    (Don't forget, grass hadn't evolved yet, and the coals are full of tree
    debris).

     And at a famous site of Mt. St. Helens, the trees in Spirit
    >lake still exist underwater, 20 years after the explosion.

    Ah yes, tree trunks, with their roots snapped off two or three feet from
    the base of the trunk, standing in growth position on the bottom of the
    lake as they are being buried by layered sediments. Funny how the
    polystrates at Specimen Ridge also have their roots snapped off two or
    three feet from the base of the trunk and are buried in growth position
    in layered sediments.

    >The YECs are wrong.

    That's good. Keep up the mantra.

    Bill



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 22 2000 - 00:30:12 EST