Polystrate Tree shows the Global Flood Was SLOOOOOOW

[grmorton]

Tonight when I was getting ready to reply to Lion on the limestone in Appalachia, I ran across an absolutely fantastic picture in an old Geological Survey Professional Paper. Here is what they say:

In strip-mine highwalls, the sequence observed consists of interbedded interdistributary silty gray shale and undulating distal levee or flood deposits. Fossil trees 1 m (3.3 ft) or more in diameter have roots in the gray shale, indicating that the trees grew in a shallow-water, highly carbonaceous swamp environment. The undulating fine sandstone and siltstone layers represent flood deposits, which periodically covered the swamps and buried the trees to depths of 0.5 m (1.6 ft) or more. Burial to such depths kills most modern trees, but these ancient trees were capable of generating new roots at the new sediment water interface. (fig. 22)."
"In several deposits, the base of a fossil tree is surrounded by a planar-convex body of sandstone as shown in figure 23. the sand collected in a depression produced by compaction of the swamp-floor mud by the increasing weight of the growing trees. During floods, the depressions around the bases of trees were filled with the coarser sediment carried by the moving water. Within the planar-convex bodies, numerous carbonaceous partings contain roots and conform to the curvature of the lower convex boundary of the sand body, indicating that tree growth, compaction, sand depositon, and the generation of new roots at each successive sediment-water interface were all parts of a gradual continuing process."

Here is the picture

[attachment=1]

Ok, all you young-earthers out there. Please explain, how, during the flood when average daily depositional rates were between 50 and 100 feet per day, trees were able to grow new roots instantly. Please explain why such pictures don't appear in the YEC literature you so avidly read. Please explain why your leaders don't tell you the WHOLE story.

[kuboes1831]

Tonight when I was getting ready to reply to Lion on the limestone in Appalachia, I ran across an absolutely fantastic picture in an old Geological Survey Professional Paper. Here is what they say:

In strip-mine highwalls, the sequence observed consists of interbedded interdistributary silty gray shale and undulating distal levee or flood deposits. Fossil trees 1 m (3.3 ft) or more in diameter have roots in the gray shale, indicating that the trees grew in a shallow-water, highly carbonaceous swamp environment. The undulating fine sandstone and siltstone layers represent flood deposits, which periodically covered the swamps and buried the trees to depths of 0.5 m (1.6 ft) or more. Burial to such depths kills most modern trees, but these ancient trees were capable of generating new roots at the new sediment water interface. (fig. 22)."
"In several deposits, the base of a fossil tree is surrounded by a planar-convex body of sandstone as shown in figure 23. the sand collected in a depression produced by compaction of the swamp-floor mud by the increasing weight of the growing trees. During floods, the depressions around the bases of trees were filled with the coarser sediment carried by the moving water. Within the planar-convex bodies, numerous carbonaceous partings contain roots and conform to the curvature of the lower convex boundary of the sand body, indicating that tree growth, compaction, sand depositon, and the generation of new roots at each successive sediment-water interface were all parts of a gradual continuing process."

Here is the picture

[attachment=1]

Ok, all you young-earthers out there. Please explain, how, during the flood when average daily depositional rates were between 50 and 100 feet per day, trees were able to grow new roots instantly. Please explain why such pictures don't appear in the YEC literature you so avidly read. Please explain why your leaders don't tell you the WHOLE story.

Really Glenn it is obvious. During the Flood physical processes were speeded upand miracles also occured.

All your questions are laid to rest

[grmorton]

Really Glenn it is obvious. During the Flood physical processes were speeded upand miracles also occured.

All your questions are laid to rest

You gave me a good laugh Kuboes. That obviously must be what the YECs believe. Jorge on the Locker Room made a complaint about my signature impuning Christians who didn't need to hide or be protected from anyone where science is concerned. Yet here 24 hours after I posted this, question to the YECs, yours is the only response.

What is the issue YECs? If you had the correct theory (as you are constantly assured by your leaders) and as you constantly tell me, why can't you answer one wee question--how did the flood cause these trees to sprout new roots instantaneously. Come on, surely you can't remain silent forever on such a simple question as explaining these trees.

Or is it possible, that in your heart of hearts you know you are not right in your interpretation of the bible? Frankly I am ashamed of a Christianity which hides from answering such simple wee questions.

Don't answer this post unless you can explain those trees.

[kuboes1831]

You gave me a good laugh Kuboes. That obviously must be what the YECs believe. Jorge on the Locker Room made a complaint about my signature impuning Christians who didn't need to hide or be protected from anyone where science is concerned. Yet here 24 hours after I posted this, question to the YECs, yours is the only response.

What is the issue YECs? If you had the correct theory (as you are constantly assured by your leaders) and as you constantly tell me, why can't you answer one wee question--how did the flood cause these trees to sprout new roots instantaneously. Come on, surely you can't remain silent forever on such a simple question as explaining these trees.

Or is it possible, that in your heart of hearts you know you are not right in your interpretation of the bible? Frankly I am ashamed of a Christianity which hides from answering such simple wee questions.

Don't answer this post unless you can explain those trees.

Now Glenn I am being serious. How can you refute what I said?

[{Tim}]

Now Glenn I am being serious. How can you refute what I said?Of course he can't. It's entirely possible that this could have happened, given that one believes the flood was actually caused by God. However, it is possible to look for other signs that would occur if physical processes had been sped up in the past, and if we don't find them (which AFAIK we don't), then we assume that it didn't happen that way.

Glenn, the most probable YEC explanation that I can think of is that these roots were not formed in the Great Flood, but in another one beforehand; it was then buried in the Great Flood along with these roots. Of course, this theory may need to be modified if the facts so indicate.

God bless,
Tim

[grmorton]

Of course he can't. It's entirely possible that this could have happened, given that one believes the flood was actually caused by God. However, it is possible to look for other signs that would occur if physical processes had been sped up in the past, and if we don't find them (which AFAIK we don't), then we assume that it didn't happen that way.

Glenn, the most probable YEC explanation that I can think of is that these roots were not formed in the Great Flood, but in another one beforehand; it was then buried in the Great Flood along with these roots. Of course, this theory may need to be modified if the facts so indicate.

God bless,
Tim

Kuboes probably has the only real explanation--total miracle in which God tried to make things look old.

The problem with multiple floods is that the Bible only mentions 1 flood. Cuvier tried multiple floods that back in the late 18th or early 19th century and the floods multiplied to the point that it appeared absolutely ridiculous. Buckland's view of the flood was that it was surficial and was the last flood. Buckland gave up on this idea in the 1830s and that was the last time that a geologist at the top of his field actually believed in a global flood.

I am still waiting for the YECs to try to explain this in the 1 year flood. Those who have the true view should easily be able to explain this. I can't because with 15,000 feet of sediment in the area the average daily sedimentation rate in the flood was 41 feet per day of sediment. I can't figure out how during the one year flood, the tree was able to re-grow roots at all, much less have several layers of these things.

It is also amazing to me how silent the YECs get when I start posting geology pictures in spite of them saying that they explain geology with the flood. here is there chance to show their stuff.

[{Tim}]

Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about a worldwide flood. My hypothesis was that the tree was growing in an area that was locally flooded at some point(s), and was later buried in the (only) worldwide flood.

Judging from the size of the roots in the picture, I wouldn't think that they could have regrown in that time-frame, even if the tree was partly buried and then left for a short time (as I believe current Flood theories would allow), outside of supernatural intervention of course.

[grmorton]

Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about a worldwide flood. My hypothesis was that the tree was growing in an area that was locally flooded at some point(s), and was later buried in the (only) worldwide flood.

Judging from the size of the roots in the picture, I wouldn't think that they could have regrown in that time-frame, even if the tree was partly buried and then left for a short time (as I believe current Flood theories would allow), outside of supernatural intervention of course.


Let's try that one for size. I will minimize the column. there is at least 8,000 feet of sedimentary rock BENEATH these trees. These trees are on the current surface of Tennessee. If they grew before the flood and were partially buried, grew roots and then were completely buried by the flood, you still have a problem. There are no flood deposits left in Tennessee. Your solution makes all of Tennessee's geology pre-flood. Here is the column

Surface land of Tennessee
Pennsylvanian--where the trees are--2000 ft thick
Mississippian limestones---750 ft
Devonian---325 feet
Silurian 150 feet
Ordovician 1200 feet
Cambrian 5000 feet

Your solution would mean that all the Cambrian through Mississippian sediments were preflood. That has implications throughout the rest of the US. These sediments can be traced throughout the entire US and that means that most of the sediments with their fossils are preflood deposits. Yet the YEC has only 1600 years to deposit the 15,000 feet of Cambrian through Mississippian sediment in parts of Texas.

Sorry, I don't think that will work. Besides, David Tyler has assured us that most of these sediments are post flood, not pre flood.

[{Tim}]

Hmm... interesting. In that case, I doesn't seem that it can be pre-flood. Are there sediments on top that are also believed to have been deposited in "The Flood"? Or could this tree have been buried in layers after the Great flood?

[grmorton]

Hmm... interesting. In that case, I doesn't seem that it can be pre-flood. Are there sediments on top that are also believed to have been deposited in "The Flood"? Or could this tree have been buried in layers after the Great flood?

David Tyler would say that this was post flood, but he never explains a real problem with the overlying sediments. If you follow the Pennsylvanian aged rocks south out of Tennessee into Mississippi and Alabama, they are covered by other fossiliferous sediment. Here is a seismic line from the Alabama-Mississippi border

[attachment=1]

I have marked where the Pennsylvanian age sediments would be on this section with the red text and arrow. At this point, the rocks which contain the trees, traced south into Alabama/Mississippi are covered by 2500 feet of Mesozoic strata--fossiliferous sediment which Creationists say came from the flood. And, if you not go from this point down to New Orleans, the Mesozoic sediment is further covered by Tertiary sediments and by the time you get to New Orleans, the combined total of Tertiary and Mesozoic sediment has expanded to 75,000 feet of rock. That means, that AFTER the deposition of these trees in Tennessee, 75,000 feet of sediment was deposited at New Orleans. Now, the problem I have is that if you believe that the geology is from the flood, you have to explain how the roots grew instantly because if you put all this sediment into the flood, you have a very short time for the deposition of the sediment containing the trees.

[Jack777]

We had a few polystrate trees for a couple of years on the farm when I was a lad. Too bad they are all extinct now.

Ahh.

I would like to say that God is not the author of confusion. The sediments representing some 35,000+ feet in the rock record that look like they are old, look like that because they are old. Younger sediments are younger. Trilobites are trilobites, things like that. The Flood cannot explain the rock record.

[grmorton]

We had a few polystrate trees for a couple of years on the farm when I was a lad. Too bad they are all extinct now.

Ahh.

I would like to say that God is not the author of confusion. The sediments representing some 35,000+ feet in the rock record that look like they are old, look like that because they are old. Younger sediments are younger. Trilobites are trilobites, things like that. The Flood cannot explain the rock record.

Jack, you are not fullfilling the request I made as originator of this thread. Explain the trees or don't waste our time. If you have an explanation for the trees put it here, otherwise take your drivel elsewhere.

[shunyadragon]

Jack, you are not fullfilling the request I made as originator of this thread. Explain the trees or don't waste our time. If you have an explanation for the trees put it here, otherwise take your drivel elsewhere.
The polystrate trees (forests) do not show the Global Flood as SLOOOW, it shows it never happened. I worked for twenty years as a geologist in Appalachia, and there are polystrate forests everywhere along with meandering river systems tracable for hundreds of miles, lakes, swamps, deltas, wind blown dunes and loess deposites, and beaches in thousands of feet of cyclic sedimentary deposits in the largest coal forming basin to ever exist on the face of the earth. They are capped by a series of terrestrial redbed deposits similar to the midwestern US.

There is no evidence of a catastrophic flood in any of these sediments, from the metamorphic basement rocks thousands of feet below the coal forming strata to the surface.

No wonder Tyler wants to put the flood in the basement, unfortunately what comes after cannot be explained as deposited in a catastrophic world flood.

[grmorton]

The polystrate trees (forests) do not show the Global Flood as SLOOOW, it shows it never happened.

You are SOOOO right, but when making titles, the same old boring title for a thread--The Global Flood Never Happened---gets so boring. One needs a bit of variety in life every now and then

[Jack777]

grmorton why don't you shut the hell up? I will post what I want. A friend of mine who lurks here thinks you are a jerk and an idiot and now I am thinking I have been too understanding of you. People like you make me sick, you are mean and arrogant and ignorant. Besides you are wrong, there was a worldwide flood. How does a great scientist like you not know that???? What a laugh.

[Perry]

The uniformitarianists, humanists, evolutionists etc and the Christians wanting to appease them don't normally like to talk about polystrate trees, so I find your willingness to do so refreshing. I suggest you look into some of the recent research at Spirit Lake involving the MtStHelens eruption in the 80's. The eruption blew a crapload (a very large CRAPLOAD) of trees into Spirit Lake, roots still attached. They've floated around in a huge group for a while, the wind blowing them from one side of the lake to another, rubbing and rolling against each other, bark falling off, etc. A few years ago, some of them became waterlogged to the point where they began to sink. Slowly. In a verticle position. Roots down. They're down there right now, stuck in the mud, roots first, in upright positions. The trees which floated around after the Flood must have sank in much the same way, and mucho, mucho mud and sediment settled around them in a fairly short period of time, deposited in neat layers, the way mud settles. Looking at the current research at the Spirit Lake and other MtStHelens phenomenon, I think the young earth position is validated even further, and the polystrate trees to which you refer certainly wouldn't appear to have grown for millions of years while mud settled around them. In fact, I would consider such a view to be a stretch requiring a faith so strong, so firm, as to enable one to blind oneself to glaring evidence to the contrary. Interesting research on breeched dams after the eruption lend considerable weight to the "Young Grand Canyon" theory as well.

[rogero]

The uniformitarianists, humanists, evolutionists etc and the Christians wanting to appease them don't normally like to talk about polystrate trees, so I find your willingness to do so refreshing. I suggest you look into some of the recent research at Spirit Lake involving the MtStHelens eruption in the 80's. The eruption blew a crapload (a very large CRAPLOAD) of trees into Spirit Lake, roots still attached. They've floated around in a huge group for a while, the wind blowing them from one side of the lake to another, rubbing and rolling against each other, bark falling off, etc. A few years ago, some of them became waterlogged to the point where they began to sink. Slowly. In a verticle position. Roots down. They're down there right now, stuck in the mud, roots first, in upright positions. The trees which floated around after the Flood must have sank in much the same way, and mucho, mucho mud and sediment settled around them in a fairly short period of time, deposited in neat layers, the way mud settles. Looking at the current research at the Spirit Lake and other MtStHelens phenomenon, I think the young earth position is validated even further, and the polystrate trees to which you refer certainly wouldn't appear to have grown for millions of years while mud settled around them. In fact, I would consider such a view to be a stretch requiring a faith so strong, so firm, as to enable one to blind oneself to glaring evidence to the contrary. Interesting research on breeched dams after the eruption lend considerable weight to the "Young Grand Canyon" theory as well.

Welcome to Tweb, Perry!

There has been a "crapload" of discussion of polystrate trees on the Tweb science fora -- for example here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30719&highlight=polystrate+trees).

We sure do disagree on a lot of things. For example, your bolded statement. I was a YEC for a long while, and left the fold due to the scientific untenability both in its ad hoc methodology and glaring lack of evidence. I haven't seen anything that "validates" YEC at all. To each his own, I suppose.

We've also had some nice detailed scientific discussions on coal formation, where a couple of YECs tried to defend the allocthonous "floating mat" model. One such example is this (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13210&highlight=polystrate+trees) thread.

I do take offense at your statement that Christians who accept the scientific validity of biological evolution are "wanting to appease" humanists and evolutionists. Why would I need to appease them since I am a Christian Humanist and an evolutionist myself? I suppose by "humanist" you mean "ontological naturalist" or some such anti-theist view? Certainly you are not implying that it's not possible to be a Christian and accept the science of biological and cosmic evolution and deep time? If this is tack you take, you will have a long bumpy road here. :wink:

r

[grmorton]

HI Perry,

The uniformitarianists, humanists, evolutionists etc and the Christians wanting to appease them don't normally like to talk about polystrate trees, so I find your willingness to do so refreshing.

But I am disappointed that you don't actually discuss the issues I raised. I find this lack of desire to discuss tough issues decidedly UNrefreshing because that is what young-earther's always do.


I suggest you look into some of the recent research at Spirit Lake involving the MtStHelens eruption in the 80's.

I have. I have read most of what Steve Austin has published about it. I have personally known Austin for 25 years and his brother used to work for me at ARCO. I find nothing he has said about Mt. St. Helens to be applicable to the problem in the flood.


The eruption blew a crapload (a very large CRAPLOAD) of trees into Spirit Lake, roots still attached. They've floated around in a huge group for a while, the wind blowing them from one side of the lake to another, rubbing and rolling against each other, bark falling off, etc. A few years ago, some of them became waterlogged to the point where they began to sink. Slowly. In a verticle position. Roots down. They're down there right now, stuck in the mud, roots first, in upright positions. The trees which floated around after the Flood must have sank in much the same way, and mucho, mucho mud and sediment settled around them in a fairly short period of time, deposited in neat layers, the way mud settles. Looking at the current research at the Spirit Lake and other MtStHelens phenomenon, I think the young earth position is validated even further, and the polystrate trees to which you refer certainly wouldn't appear to have grown for millions of years while mud settled around them.

You aren't paying attention. I showed you a tree partially buried from a river flood. It didn't grow for millions of years. No paleontologist believes that a tree can grow for millions of years. Where you yecs get your strange ideas I don't know.

As to wood found in the fossil record not having bark, I have one from Madagascar which has bark. Here is the pic.

[attachment=1]

Secondly, a search on the web for fossil wood and bark shows many examples for sale. You simply don't check out what your YEC teachers tell you.


In fact, I would consider such a view to be a stretch requiring a faith so strong, so firm, as to enable one to blind oneself to glaring evidence to the contrary.

Every evolutionist would agree. Trees don't live millions of years. Why you think evolutionists beleive that I don't know.

Interesting research on breeched dams after the eruption lend considerable weight to the "Young Grand Canyon" theory as well.

Oh really? Where exactly is this breached dam? Where is the canyon which held the water which spilled out to carve the grand canyon? I have never heard a YEC say where it is, and I mean SPeCIFICALLY where it was.

[Perry]

I love you gmorton, I just wish you weren't so mean.

[Perry]

we all have a long bumpy road, and we're quickly nearing the end of it.

[Perry]

How did the little river flow uphill to carve the Grand Canyon?

[rogero]

we all have a long bumpy road, and we're quickly nearing the end of it.

Are you referring to the Rapture or some such thing? Since the Lord is returning so soon, it's probably a waste of time to worry about such trivialities as geology, biology, physics, and anthropology anyway -- especially when all the answers we need are in Scripture anyhow?

R

[rogero]

How did the little river flow uphill to carve the Grand Canyon?

Could you provide a few details? This sounds fascinating!

[Meh_Gerbil]

Why couldn't the tree have been ripped from a location and deposited within several layers being laid down by the flood? The tree could have had roots at a couple different levels, been ripped out, and deposited within several layers being laid down by the great flood.

Dunno why that isn't possible in this case.

For me, it is silly to believe that layers would clearly exist between the roots like they do in that picture. Burrowing critters and the roots of other plants would have mixed the soil rather nicely. The fact such a thing exists speaks to me that the tree and those layers were laid rather quickly.

I ain't a geologist - however, I see no reason why a large flood couldn't have produced this exact same result. It is an assumption, isn't it, to insist the roots and layers were deposited over time and not quickly (using only the evidence of the tree). I could get a tree root system and reproduce the same thing in my back yard in a 55 gallon drum in 20 minutes if you'd like.

[Perry]

I never said fossilized trees don't hav ebark, just that a lot fell off the ones in Spirit Lake, the relatively confined space I'm sure having much to do with that. As far as the tree growing for millions of years, I'm glad that's not what you said. As far as the Spirit Lake trees being related to the flood, the polystrate tree idea was originally used as an argument against the flood, because it was said that they would have been unlikely to have been carried and deposited in upright positions by floodwaters. i found the Spirit Lake trees interesting, in light of this. Nobody's dodging any issues you raised, keep your skirt on buddy.

[grmorton]

I love you gmorton, I just wish you weren't so mean.

I wish you weren't so brain-washed. The problem Perry is that I have seen thousands of guys just like you who spout all sorts of nonsense. I have tried everything there is to get through to guys like you that you are damaging the faith. I used to be nice and respectful. That just made people like you feel like they had something important to say. I have tried theology. But you guys KNOW that your theology is the only theology that could possibly be legitimate. I have tried organized debate, I have tried free for all. I have decided that you all need to be told the truth. You are brainwashed and you don't think. Thus you get no respect. When you show that you can think an original thought, something that hasn't been fed into your brain by your teachers, you might actually get some respect. When you show you can learn something rather than spout something, you might get respect. So far you have shown neither in the few posts you have made.

[grmorton]

How did the little river flow uphill to carve the Grand Canyon?

A question which shows that you have read nothing but YEC material. To all the brain-dead/brainwashed. The river didn't run uphill. Think for a change rather than merely spout.

[grmorton]

I never said fossilized trees don't hav ebark, just that a lot fell off the ones in Spirit Lake, the relatively confined space I'm sure having much to do with that. As far as the tree growing for millions of years, I'm glad that's not what you said. As far as the Spirit Lake trees being related to the flood, the polystrate tree idea was originally used as an argument against the flood, because it was said that they would have been unlikely to have been carried and deposited in upright positions by floodwaters. i found the Spirit Lake trees interesting, in light of this. Nobody's dodging any issues you raised, keep your skirt on buddy.


Are you aware that the gentleman who originated the Polystrate tree argument, Nicolas Rupke, is no longer a creationist? Like me, he rejected his own yec arguments as being senseless only he became an atheist. I bet your YEC teachers never told you about this and I bet you didn't do any research to find it out. I have had a couple of email conversations with him. He now is one of the great historians of science, but definitely is not a Christian.

I will be delighted if you actually address the issues. So far I see nothing but hot air.

[Meh_Gerbil]

grmorton:

Again, I'm curious as to why the pictured polystrate fossil could not have been formed by a tree with a multi-level root system being ripped out by a flood and being redeposited with several layers in a new location.

To my uneducated way of thinking these seems more logical since I certainly wouldn't expect layers to form so distinctly around a tree trunk like that -- what I mean, is a tree that is still alive. I'd expect biological activity to mix the layers up (weather would as well, I'd expect).

I could mix a couple of different types of soil in a large tub in my back yard, toss in a tree stump and get the same results 'fresh' in about 20 minutes in my backyard, couldn't I? I see nothing here that proves this required a great deal of time.

[grmorton]

Why couldn't the tree have been ripped from a location and deposited within several layers being laid down by the flood? The tree could have had roots at a couple different levels, been ripped out, and deposited within several layers being laid down by the great flood.

Dunno why that isn't possible in this case.

Because we find this species of tree in lots of places. It is rare to have the secondary roots above those at the bottom. If you look you will see that the rock at the bottom is a shale (the dashes) and the new roots are in a sand (the dots). Unless the sand and shale were solid rock (in which case the tree couldn't grow) it couldn't be transported. And if the sand and shale were unconsolidated, it couldn't be transported with the tree. Take sand out of your child's sand box, put it in water and watch how it doesnt stick together.

For me, it is silly to believe that layers would clearly exist between the roots like they do in that picture. Burrowing critters and the roots of other plants would have mixed the soil rather nicely. The fact such a thing exists speaks to me that the tree and those layers were laid rather quickly.[/uqote]

Burrowing would take time. Burrowers only move at about 1 cm/minute. IN a global flood when 2-4 feet per hour would be deposited, you can't get much burrowing before the burrowers are buried too deep for them to burrow.

[quote]I ain't a geologist - however, I see no reason why a large flood couldn't have produced this exact same result. It is an assumption, isn't it, to insist the roots and layers were deposited over time and not quickly (using only the evidence of the tree). I could get a tree root system and reproduce the same thing in my back yard in a 55 gallon drum in 20 minutes if you'd like.

I would like to see that. You have to have a whole second level of roots grow out of the trunk of the tree in 20 minutes. Good luck at doing that.

[Abigail]

Glenn, after the tsunami, I saw lots of footage of the beaches and saw trees which had been totally uprooted. They were left just sitting on the beach with huge root-balls under them ie they had been pulled up roots and all. Furthermore arial footage on the news of the affected areas showed how whole bands of foliage from the perimeters of the landmasses had been stripped away as the water ran back into the sea. Where is all that stuff gone? Surely it must be now buried somewhere off the beach...trees - roots and all. If you had rising seas and multiple tsunamis, each successive tsunami could reach higher and higher up the land masses so pulling down successive bands of earth containing trees etc and burying them one on top of the other

[kuboes1831]

Glenn, after the tsunami, I saw lots of footage of the beaches and saw trees which had been totally uprooted. They were left just sitting on the beach with huge root-balls under them ie they had been pulled up roots and all. Furthermore arial footage on the news of the affected areas showed how whole bands of foliage from the perimeters of the landmasses had been stripped away as the water ran back into the sea. Where is all that stuff gone? Surely it must be now buried somewhere off the beach...trees - roots and all. If you had rising seas and multiple tsunamis, each successive tsunami could reach higher and higher up the land masses so pulling down successive bands of earth containing trees etc and burying them one on top of the other

What if? Simply pure speculation, which is the nearest YECs get to science

[grmorton]

Glenn, after the tsunami, I saw lots of footage of the beaches and saw trees which had been totally uprooted. They were left just sitting on the beach with huge root-balls under them ie they had been pulled up roots and all. Furthermore arial footage on the news of the affected areas showed how whole bands of foliage from the perimeters of the landmasses had been stripped away as the water ran back into the sea. Where is all that stuff gone? Surely it must be now buried somewhere off the beach...trees - roots and all. If you had rising seas and multiple tsunamis, each successive tsunami could reach higher and higher up the land masses so pulling down successive bands of earth containing trees etc and burying them one on top of the other

ABigail, can you point me to a video with those balled up trees? I happened to have downloaded every single video of the tsunami on the web so that I could study the wave action and the psychology of people who don't see death coming. I simply don't recall seeing a single tree with balls of roots in any of the video. I am challenging you here. Most of the trees were still in tact after the wave passed. Tell me what footage. If you say, I can't I only remember it, then I won't believe that it is real. I just reviewed several videos now. The only place I actually saw a tree being carried off was in downtown Banda Aceh

[Abigail]

I saw it on tv news when they were covering the tsunami in the days after it happened, so I dont know where to get hold of the pictures (we had practically all-day coverage of the aftermath here in UK on the news channels). If I do run across any of them again and can post them here I will.

[Perry]

I think you've been dodging the Gerbil long enough, GMorton.

[Jugulum]

I think you've been dodging the Gerbil long enough, GMorton.Dodging the Gerbil, eh? Is that anything like jumping the shark? Or maybe hunting the wumpus?

[grmorton]

I think you've been dodging the Gerbil long enough, GMorton.

As far as I know I am the last respondent in our conversation. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=976384&postcount=30

[grmorton]

I saw it on tv news when they were covering the tsunami in the days after it happened, so I dont know where to get hold of the pictures (we had practically all-day coverage of the aftermath here in UK on the news channels). If I do run across any of them again and can post them here I will.

I would suggest looking at this video. It was one of the bigger waves and the trees are all still standing at the end of the day. At Banda Aceh, everything was scoured, but most of the trees were knocked down there because whole buildings were ramming into them.


http://www.waveofdestruction.org/download.php?f=www.waveofdestruction.org-patong_beach.wmv

[grmorton]

Dodging the Gerbil, eh? Is that anything like jumping the shark? Or maybe hunting the wumpus?

Can someone please tell me why, when I posted the last response to him, I am considered to be dodging him? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Perry]

Can someone please tell me why, when I posted the last response to him, I am considered to be dodging him? Doesn't make sense to me.
responded last, but still haven't necessarily dispelled his reasoning that the tree could've been ripped up, deposited and buried fairly quickly. You did challenge him to back up his backyard science experiment claim.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Can someone please tell me why, when I posted the last response to him, I am considered to be dodging him? Doesn't make sense to me.

I think because we seemed to have a miscommunication.

I was talking about the tree being ripped from soft soil -- the entire tree, and then it being redeposited at the same time soil layers were being deposited by a flood. The location of the layers and the root system being merely coincidence.

Your response sounded almost as if you thought I was maintaining the tree was ripped up with rock intact.

I could place a torn up tree trunk into a large drum full of water and poor in ground shale and then some sand and develop the same layers (add time for it all to harden) and voile, the same thing you have pictured there.

------------------------------------------------------

I'd want to know the following about that particular specimen:
1: Are there any smaller roots that are fossilized or is it just the larger roots that one might expect to find in something resembling a piece of drift wood?

2: How do you account for there being a clean layer of shale and a clean layer of sand when one would expect the mixing of the sand and shale upon deposition of the sand? Both would be soft at that time - with the growth of roots, burrowing critters, and other activity one might expect the soil to be mixed.

3: Do trees typically grow in shale? Or does it make more sense to maintain the tree was ripped up and deposited with shale and sand all at the same time.

I'm asking, because I'm not a geologist.
Fill me in, dude.

[shunyadragon]

I could place a torn up tree trunk into a large drum full of water and poor in ground shale and then some sand and develop the same layers (add time for it all to harden) and voile, the same thing you have pictured there.

No you would not. You would have a human-made mess.

------------------------------------------------------

I'd want to know the following about that particular specimen:

On this particular specimen I cannot comment on, but I can tell you about the Appalachian coal fields where there are standing forests of trees.

It looks like some people cannot see the forest because of one picture of one ancient tree.

1: Are there any smaller roots that are fossilized or is it just the larger roots that one might expect to find in something resembling a piece of drift wood?

Yes finer roots are common. Fossil wood casts of what would be called drift wood are found in the coarser delta and beach deposits as they are found today.

2: How do you account for there being a clean layer of shale and a clean layer of sand when one would expect the mixing of the sand and shale upon deposition of the sand? Both would be soft at that time - with the growth of roots, burrowing critters, and other activity one might expect the soil to be mixed.

In the strata related to coal deposits like today nothing is mixed. Everything is as it should be like in Florida, the Everglades National Forest has finer grained sediments and the beaches and deltas have coarse grained sediments. There are places where you can see similar sequences of sediments where changes in sea level have change the environment and the result is layers like in the coal strata At least everything was in place before humans showed up and people put a lot of stuff in drums and mixed it up and sometimes burried them. I sometimes found them and I had to call the EPA.

3: Do trees typically grow in shale? Or does it make more sense to maintain the tree was ripped up and deposited with shale and sand all at the same time.

No, the underlieing formation of a coal swamp is clay which becomes shale over millions of years. Other clay and fine-grained silt related deposits also become shales.

Voile does not work in this case. Shale is basically clay deposited in slow moving waters over a very long time. Compression over a very long period of time and the natural platy orientation of the platy clay particles result in the platiness of shales. Clay deposits are often associated with the swamps where coal forming forests are found in the strata. The most impressive trees I have seen show radiating roots extending outward for some distance naturally still in place and the trees were in large groups still standing. You must realize these deposits are in a cyclic sequence thousands of feet thick. The Appalachain basin was a huge basin something like the Amazon today covering about half of what is the eastern USA that slowly subsided creating a cyclic pattern of sandstone (consisting of meandering rivers, deltas, sand dune and beach deposits), siltstone (wind blown loess and fine sediments, shale (finer textured clay beds typically underlie the swamp just like they do today) and than the coal seam. This repeated many, many times. Each sequence shows rivers systems, lakes, deltas and other features we can see to day in similar swamp and coastal environments.

There are worm trails, little swamp critter tracks, various bugs, turtle and small amphibian tracks and fossils, dried mud cracked surfaces, and many other features indicating the same daily life we see in swamps today intricately preserved in each layer through out this sequence. These rocks are fantastic adventures that freeze time of ancient coal forming swamps and the related formations.

None of this remotely resembles any sort of catastrophic event necessary for flood deposited sediments.

No charge for the free geology lesson. Tours of the Appalachian coal fields will be charged by the hour including some fossils I collected that are in museums.

[grmorton]

responded last, but still haven't necessarily dispelled his reasoning that the tree could've been ripped up, deposited and buried fairly quickly. You did challenge him to back up his backyard science experiment claim.

Well, Perry, you might be a bit over the top in saying I dodged him. I am not responsible for what is dispelled in his mind. All I can do is present the data. He has to play a role in dispelling bad thinking and bad science. I can't do that for him.

[grmorton]

I think because we seemed to have a miscommunication.

I was talking about the tree being ripped from soft soil -- the entire tree, and then it being redeposited at the same time soil layers were being deposited by a flood. The location of the layers and the root system being merely coincidence.

Your response sounded almost as if you thought I was maintaining the tree was ripped up with rock intact.

Ok, sorry, that last scenario is the standard Creationist arguemnt--that trees are ripped up with dirt balls hanging onto the roots and that makes them land upright. It is a commonly held false view

I could place a torn up tree trunk into a large drum full of water and poor in ground shale and then some sand and develop the same layers (add time for it all to harden) and voile, the same thing you have pictured there.

No you wouldn't. The sand would drop to the bottom of the bucket and you would have shale on top. This is precisely opposite what we see here. Try it in a jar. mix some sand and shale with water, put on the lid and shake well. The sand will drop to the bottom.

------------------------------------------------------

I'd want to know the following about that particular specimen:
1: Are there any smaller roots that are fossilized or is it just the larger roots that one might expect to find in something resembling a piece of drift wood?

I don't know in this case, but as Shunyadragon noted, there are lots of trees with tiny roots. Here are some from Canada. this is from http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cancoal.htm

[attachment=1]

[attachment=2]



2: How do you account for there being a clean layer of shale and a clean layer of sand when one would expect the mixing of the sand and shale upon deposition of the sand? Both would be soft at that time - with the growth of roots, burrowing critters, and other activity one might expect the soil to be mixed.

I would expect this much more than in a catastrophic flood in which the turbulence stirred up 30,000 feet or more of sediment before dumping it all into place. We can see this today at the upstream end of Lake Texoma. There was a small lake to thenorth of the river's entry point to the reservoir. shale and fine grained particles accumulated there. But as the river built a small delta, it diverted to the north and started dumping sand onto the shales. It happens like that.

Secondly, almost no sand is without its small quantity of shale although many shales have no quartz in them.

3: Do trees typically grow in shale? [quote]

Trees grow in anything. They grow in shale, they grow in sand, they even grow in crevices in solid rocks. This actually makes me wonder if you have ever observed a tree.

[quote] Or does it make more sense to maintain the tree was ripped up and deposited with shale and sand all at the same time.

I'm asking, because I'm not a geologist.
Fill me in, dude.

No, because you would have the sand at the bottom and the shale at the top. It is called Stokes law

[Evangelist]

Note to Perry, Abigal and Mad Gerbil;

I have never been able to follow the arguments of Mr. Morton with the same ease that I have been able to follow the arguments that persons like Austin, Hovind and others have made in defense of a young earth.

Morton is therefore in my opinion, a very poor proponent of his anti-creationist views. Every argument he makes, relies intrinsicly on his own baffling comments about these ridiculously inconclusive snapshots or drawings. Snapshots and drawings that just make me squint in bewilderment, wondering how Morton sees what he thinks he sees in them.

The Hovind/Austin case makes much better sense to me, and is far more obvious to the eye of the common man. I believe that if Morton had any kind of a case at all, it would be far more obvious in his presentations.

Morton is very self-assured however in his own belief system, I'll give him that. So sure in fact that he seems willing to bet his own soul on his own observations and conclusions, against the very words of the Holy Scriptures. I haven't time to debate anyone on a "theology" web-board that denies a literal Genesis. Such persons do not deserve to be taken seriously by any serious student of the Word.

A man that has reached such a threshold and crossed such a line in the sand, is not a man to whom I would ever entrust the rationality of my faith to. My faith has a most rational foundation, but it is by no means the rationale of science.

I make my case here http://www.blackmores-watch-and-clock.com/Gods_Mind_Over_Matter.php

Science in my view cannot be trusted, for the reasons listed in the article noted above. Neither can Mr. Morton in my opinion.

The "mad Gerbil" makes a better case than the "angry geologist" in my books.


Blessings in Christ

Paul M. Blackmore

[A Beautiful Truth]

Morton is very self-assured however in his own belief system, I'll give him that.

And Kent Hovind is...?

So sure in fact that he seems willing to bet his own soul on his own observations and conclusions, against the very words of the Holy Scriptures. I haven't time to debate anyone on a "theology" web-board that denies a literal Genesis. Such persons do not deserve to be taken seriously by any serious student of the Word.

A man that has reached such a threshold and crossed such a line in the sand, is not a man to whom I would ever entrust the rationality of my faith to. My faith has a most rational foundation, but it is by no means the rationale of science.

I make my case here http://www.blackmores-watch-and-clock.com/Gods_Mind_Over_Matter.php

Science in my view cannot be trusted, for the reasons listed in the article noted above. Neither can Mr. Morton in my opinion.

The "mad Gerbil" makes a better case than the "angry geologist" in my books.


Blessings in Christ

Paul M. Blackmore

I look forward to seeing you defend your views here, Mr. Blackmore. Or, you could be like the rest who prefer Hovind arguments and run away, brushing the whole thing off as really not worth your time anyhow. What could be better than just being assured in your own belief system that you have no need or interest in defending those views against valid challenges?

[shunyadragon]

Morton is therefore in my opinion, a very poor proponent of his anti-creationist views. Every argument he makes, relies intrinsicly on his own baffling comments about these ridiculously inconclusive snapshots or drawings. Snapshots and drawings that just make me squint in bewilderment, wondering how Morton sees what he thinks he sees in them.

First, you can click on the drawings and make them bigger. You can also down load them and make them big enough to wall paper your room. Second, Get a better education in the basics of geology so you can understand them better. I can offer good references writen on a freshman college level that have good pictures and detailed explanations. Third you can go to museums and see the evidence, Fourth, if you are really interested, go to the field and look at the rocks yourself.

The Hovind/Austin case makes much better sense to me, and is far more obvious to the eye of the common man. I believe that if Morton had any kind of a case at all, it would be far more obvious in his presentations.

Morton gives very good examples. The best over all example still is there for everyone to see, In the heart of the Bible belt is the vaste Appalachian coal fields.

Morton is very self-assured however in his own belief system, I'll give him that. So sure in fact that he seems willing to bet his own soul on his own observations and conclusions, against the very words of the Holy Scriptures. I haven't time to debate anyone on a "theology" web-board that denies a literal Genesis. Such persons do not deserve to be taken seriously by any serious student of the Word.

A man that has reached such a threshold and crossed such a line in the sand, is not a man to whom I would ever entrust the rationality of my faith to. My faith has a most rational foundation, but it is by no means the rationale of science.

I make my case here http://www.blackmores-watch-and-clock.com/Gods_Mind_Over_Matter.php

Science in my view cannot be trusted, for the reasons listed in the article noted above. Neither can Mr. Morton in my opinion.

Education is good foundation to determine what can be trusted. For the apologist fundimentalist arguments to stand they have to be coherent, accurate and truthful, and they satisfy none of these criteria.

The "mad Gerbil" makes a better case than the "angry geologist" in my books.


Blessings in Christ

Paul M. Blackmore

You failed to note that 'mad Gerbil' admited he did not have a good background in geology. There is nothing I can in mortons posts that would indicate anger, maybe a bit synical and sarcastic at times, but not angry.

A few interesting notes here that deal with these issues,

(1) Polystrate trees do not stand alone - The surrounding evidence just briefly outlined in my and gmortons previous posts proves beyond any possible doubt the nature of the environments that these trees were in and how they got the way they we see them today in the rock.

(2) Volcanic ash sediments and tsunamis? Mount Saint Helena and other local catastrophic events are often cited as evidence for Flood genesis. There is evidence for these events in the geologic record, but they are for the most part local and very distinctive.

First, tsunamis and hurricanes may be impressive to us, but geologically they are very small potatoes. If you notice after a few years there is little evidence that a tsunami or a hurricane ever took place.

Second, volcanic sediments ash are very distinctive and well known, and they represent a very, very small percentage of the geologic strata. In fact for the most part they are only present in very thin layers within other sediment layers when major volcanic events cause regional and global deposits. Where did all the volcanoes go? Volcanoes are rather short lived and transitory features in geologic history. They erode quickly and all we mostly have in the geologic strata are reminants like the volcanic pipes truncated from erosion in the landscape.

Basaltic extrusive deposits on the other hand are more common and vaste. If the earth desides to up-chuck in on of these regional events you do not want to be around. The basalt flows cover vaste regions and make Hawaii look like a backyard barbecue.

[Evangelist]

The best over all example still is there for everyone to see


1 Corinthians 15:6 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&verse=6&version=9&context=verse)
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.



Jesus preached about a literal flood in the days of Noah. Morton preaches that such a flood never happened. Jesus is the Son of God and the giver of Everlasting life to those who believe in Him. Morton is just a mortal like all the rest of us, and will die one day just like all the rest of us.

Why then should I take Morton's word over the Word of the Lord?

Why does Morton profess to trust the destiny of his eternal soul into the hands of the man Christ Jesus, who according to his reckoning, is just as ignorant of the real facts of flood geology as I am said to be? Why does Morton still follow such a man as Jesus??? It just doesn't make sense.

I cannot take Morton seriously because I have taken Christ very seriously. Christ trumps Morton any day of the week in my books.





The Lord Jesus Christ said;



37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.







Regards



Paul M. Blackmore

[grmorton]

Jesus preached about a literal flood in the days of Noah. Morton preaches that such a flood never happened. Jesus is the Son of God and the giver of Everlasting life to those who believe in Him. Morton is just a mortal like all the rest of us, and will die one day just like all the rest of us.

Why then should I take Morton's word over the Word of the Lord?

Now it comes out. It isn't really about the case I make, it is about your religious views being unassailable.

Why does Morton profess to trust the destiny of his eternal soul into the hands of the man Christ Jesus, who according to his reckoning, is just as ignorant of the real facts of flood geology as I am said to be? Why does Morton still follow such a man as Jesus??? It just doesn't make sense.

Because I am a believer. As to Jesus' views on the flood, he says there was a flood. He doesn't say that it was a global flood. He doesn't say that it deposited all the geological column in one year. IN otherwords, he doesn't commit the silly errors that you do.


I cannot take Morton seriously because I have taken Christ very seriously. Christ trumps Morton any day of the week in my books.

As I said, it isn't my arguments, it is your religious beliefs that cause you not to listen.

[Evangelist]

Genesis 7
19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.


20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 24And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.



Demonstrate to the board Mr, Morton, just exactly where the Lord Jesus Christ repudiated the Genesis account and downgraded Noah's flood to a mere local event.

While you're at it, explain to us why Jesus, Moses, Paul the Apostle and other Biblical writers have stuck to the hokey old myth of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, instead of telling us the real truth obout our origins such as you profess to do.

Is it safe to believe your words over theirs? Will God be angry with us if we believe your message instead? If we do choose to believe in your words instead of what the Bible clearly teaches, can God be angry with us if we give up the Bible altogether? Just wondering that's all.:ahem:

Can you guarantee us safe passage to glory if we trust you, and if we believe what you tell us in this forum? Why didn't Jesus ever tell us these things? Why did he choose you to correct the Bible when He himself taught as if the Bible were really true as it was written?


Regards

Paul M. Blackmore

[kuboes1831]

Note to Perry, Abigal and Mad Gerbil;

I have never been able to follow the arguments of Mr. Morton with the same ease that I have been able to follow the arguments that persons like Austin, Hovind and others have made in defense of a young earth.

Morton is therefore in my opinion, a very poor proponent of his anti-creationist views. Every argument he makes, relies intrinsicly on his own baffling comments about these ridiculously inconclusive snapshots or drawings. Snapshots and drawings that just make me squint in bewilderment, wondering how Morton sees what he thinks he sees in them.

The Hovind/Austin case makes much better sense to me, and is far more obvious to the eye of the common man. I believe that if Morton had any kind of a case at all, it would be far more obvious in his presentations.

Morton is very self-assured however in his own belief system, I'll give him that. So sure in fact that he seems willing to bet his own soul on his own observations and conclusions, against the very words of the Holy Scriptures. I haven't time to debate anyone on a "theology" web-board that denies a literal Genesis. Such persons do not deserve to be taken seriously by any serious student of the Word.

A man that has reached such a threshold and crossed such a line in the sand, is not a man to whom I would ever entrust the rationality of my faith to. My faith has a most rational foundation, but it is by no means the rationale of science.

I make my case here http://www.blackmores-watch-and-clock.com/Gods_Mind_Over_Matter.php

Science in my view cannot be trusted, for the reasons listed in the article noted above. Neither can Mr. Morton in my opinion.

The "mad Gerbil" makes a better case than the "angry geologist" in my books.


Blessings in Christ

Paul M. Blackmore

I suppose it is easier and more re-assuring to read drivel and Glenn's excellent arguments.

Part of the problem is that the whole geological argument is complex and as Wilde said "To every complex question there is a simple answer, which is wrong"

Perhaps you are determined not to understand Glenn's first rate arguments and presentation of geological evidence.

[shunyadragon]

Jesus preached about a literal flood in the days of Noah. Morton preaches that such a flood never happened. Jesus is the Son of God and the giver of Everlasting life to those who believe in Him. Morton is just a mortal like all the rest of us, and will die one day just like all the rest of us.

Why then should I take Morton's word over the Word of the Lord?

Why does Morton profess to trust the destiny of his eternal soul into the hands of the man Christ Jesus, who according to his reckoning, is just as ignorant of the real facts of flood geology as I am said to be? Why does Morton still follow such a man as Jesus??? It just doesn't make sense.

I cannot take Morton seriously because I have taken Christ very seriously. Christ trumps Morton any day of the week in my books.

My post achieved the desired effect. It smoked out your real intentions and you raised your true colors. The evidence is apparently of no concern to you. Your view is basically a Biblical fideist approach.

It is not one tree, but the forest that yo have to contend with if you wish to present a logical cohernet argument.

[grmorton]

Demonstrate to the board Mr, Morton, just exactly where the Lord Jesus Christ repudiated the Genesis account and downgraded Noah's flood to a mere local event.

Demonstrate where he said it was global?


While you're at it, explain to us why Jesus, Moses, Paul the Apostle and other Biblical writers have stuck to the hokey old myth of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, instead of telling us the real truth obout our origins such as you profess to do.

I believe there was an Adam and Eve. I don't know what your problem is other than that you don't do enough research to know the views of those you cast aspersions on.

Is it safe to believe your words over theirs? Will God be angry with us if we believe your message instead? If we do choose to believe in your words instead of what the Bible clearly teaches, can God be angry with us if we give up the Bible altogether? Just wondering that's all.:ahem:

God will be angry if we don't stand for truth. YEC views of geology are false and that means that a large chunck of Christians are not standing for truth in what they see with their own eyes.

Can you guarantee us safe passage to glory if we trust you, and if we believe what you tell us in this forum? Why didn't Jesus ever tell us these things? Why did he choose you to correct the Bible when He himself taught as if the Bible were really true as it was written?

Sure they are true as written. But they are not true as you INTERPRET them.
Don't assume that you have infallibly understood what God was trying to say to you.

[reyvin]

Demonstrate to the board Mr, Morton, just exactly where the Lord Jesus Christ repudiated the Genesis account and downgraded Noah's flood to a mere local event.

While you're at it, explain to us why Jesus, Moses, Paul the Apostle and other Biblical writers have stuck to the hokey old myth of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, instead of telling us the real truth obout our origins such as you profess to do.

Is it safe to believe your words over theirs? Will God be angry with us if we believe your message instead? If we do choose to believe in your words instead of what the Bible clearly teaches, can God be angry with us if we give up the Bible altogether? Just wondering that's all.:ahem:

Can you guarantee us safe passage to glory if we trust you, and if we believe what you tell us in this forum? Why didn't Jesus ever tell us these things? Why did he choose you to correct the Bible when He himself taught as if the Bible were really true as it was written?


Regards

Paul M. Blackmore

Sigh. And it continues.

Paul, what do you believe the serpent is in Genesis 3? I'll go out on a limb and assume you take it to be satan as all other believers do, correct? If this is the case, then you just committed the same error you accuse Morton and all other old earth believers of. After all, Jesus never did "correct" the words in the text for us plainly to understand the serpent = satan.

I'm so exhausted with YEC I don't even feel like engaging the issue anymore (yet here I am again).

I'm not angry with you and don't think I'm taking up for Morton; I don't agree with everything he says (or anyone for that matter). He's not infallible in science or theology as no one truly is. But that includes YE teaching also. Let me recommend you read Science & Faith by Jack Collins. He's a hebrew linguist, trained at MIT and has written a most excellent book on the topic. I highly recommend it for anyone willing to cool their head for a minute and look at the issue honestly.

[Evangelist]

I suppose it is easier and more re-assuring to read drivel and Glenn's excellent arguments.:blush:



Yes this much is clear to me. Glen's arguments are excellent drivel for many of you.:ahem:

1)Glen's arguments are very weak to begin with, when compared to the YEC arguments, IMO.

2)YEC arguments are better presented than Glen's and much easier to grasp, IMO.

3)Glen cannot face the obvious plain meanings of words in the Biblical narrative, and therefore does not deserve our trust in matters of geology, IMO.

4)Let Glen do the honourable thing and abandon his pretense of Christianity altogether. As an outright self-declared apostate, his evidence might be able to be taken more seriously than it can be taken right now, IMO.

5)It is not logical for Glen to hold onto the Biblical record and evolutionary doctrine at the same time. The logic that allows him to continue on in such a state, is witness to a mind that is decidedly not founded in reason and common sense, IMO.


Regards

Paul M. Blackmore

[kuboes1831]

Yes this much is clear to me. Glen's arguments are excellent drivel for many of you.:ahem:

1)Glen's arguments are very weak to begin with, when compared to the YEC arguments, IMO.

2)YEC arguments are better presented than Glen's and much easier to grasp, IMO.

3)Glen cannot face the obvious plain meanings of words in the Biblical narrative, and therefore does not deserve our trust in matters of geology, IMO.

4)Let Glen do the honourable thing and abandon his pretense of Christianity altogether. As an outright self-declared apostate, his evidence might be able to be taken more seriously than it can be taken right now, IMO.

5)It is not logical for Glen to hold onto the Biblical record and evolutionary doctrine at the same time. The logic that allows him to continue on in such a state, is witness to a mind that is decidedly not founded in reason and common sense, IMO.


Regards

Paul M. Blackmore

Glenn like myself and many others including the late Pope do not see a problem in accepting the biblical teaching on Creation and evolution. After all many Chrsitians have accepted evolution since 1858 (deliberate i.e. before Darwin published the Oof S)

A little bit of research will show you how many evangelicals have accepted over the last 140 years and do not consider themselves compromised at all.

As you are Canadian consider the works of JW Dawson a leading geolgist who died in c1900 and had no problems with vast geological ages but never accepted evoultion. Also read David Livingstone's Darwin's Forgotten defenders (Eerdman's 1987) or read an article by Roberts Geology and Genesis unearthed on www.asa3.org. you will be amazed how many founders of geology were devout Christians.

Finally by seeking to denigrate Glenn's faith you demonstrate that you are lacking the spirit of Christ. I suggest you read the New Testament and see how a Chrsitian should behave to fellow Christians

[rogero]

Yes this much is clear to me. Glen's arguments are excellent drivel for many of you.:ahem:




They're fine science for me, since I actually understand a bit about geology (not much, but enough) and logical reasoning.



1)Glen's arguments are very weak to begin with, when compared to the YEC arguments, IMO.




In your layman's opinion they are. Fine and dandy. Let us make it perfectly clear here, that your opinion is one of a layman watchmaker, not of anyone scientifically trained.



2)YEC arguments are better presented than Glen's and much easier to grasp, IMO.


[quote]

This is extremely insightful -- and no sarcasm intended. The YEC "ministries" are just that -- ministries to their laymen (and other scientifically-untrained folks) for their force-fit of all science into their particular interpretation of Scripture. The informational divisions of YEC "ministries" concern themselves with propagandizing folks like yourself, who already believe your childish interpretation of Genesis is the only correct one.

Glennn (at least two "n's" please) is simply presenting the forum with real data from nature that cannot be explained with the YEC paradigm. If you wish to engage him in a discussion of possible YEC explanations, then please do -- or why don't you write your favorite YEC geologist to get his/her explanation?

It's truly a shame that Glennnn doesn't have the propaganda skills of the masters at AiG and ICR. Maybe he needs to take a few tricks from Hovind? I suppose you're fond of Hovind too?

[quote]

3)Glen cannot face the obvious plain meanings of words in the Biblical narrative, and therefore does not deserve our trust in matters of geology, IMO.



I'm sick to death of this argument from you Fundies. What is the "obvious plain" meaning of the words in the Biblical narrative? I thought I knew when I was eight years old, but now as a late-middle-ager who has read Genesis dozens of times in various translations -- I have no idea what a
"plain obvious" (and especially "literal") reading means. I certainly can't read it in the way you Fundies do with any meaning for the integrity of nature as a Creation that God calls "good."

Tell me, Paul -- if you can't trust the record in nature (geology in particular) that God allowed to be left behind for us to study today, and you believe that God insists that we accept your Fundamentalist "literal" reading of Genesis -- does that mean you think God is a deceiver?

Feel free to "rebuke me in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" like you did last summer to DunnySaze right before you slunk away back to your watch shop. It really won't bother me, since I don't give much credence to brittle-minded folks like you who have already made up your minds and for whom no physical evidence will ever change your mind.



4)Let Glen do the honourable thing and abandon his pretense of Christianity altogether. As an outright self-declared apostate, his evidence might be able to be taken more seriously than it can be taken right now, IMO.



Why do call the fideist Bible-worshiping cult that you're a part of "Christianity"? If you insist that you and those of your ilk are "Christians", then maybe it is better that folks like me who love the Lord Jesus Christ and trust the Logos Creator to not be a cruel deceiving demiurge use another name for our faith? Yeah, maybe we should?!



5)It is not logical for Glen to hold onto the Biblical record and evolutionary doctrine at the same time. The logic that allows him to continue on in such a state, is witness to a mind that is decidedly not founded in reason and common sense, IMO.

Regards

Paul M. Blackmore

It's perfectly logical to me, but then again I've studied both to some degree. You're correct that one can't hold your particular Fundy-mentalist idolator's interpretation of Scripture and accept the scientific conclusions of mountains of evidence for old Earth/Cosmos and biological evolution -- that would be dichotomous. But it's a fallacy to inter from your dichotomy that the notions of Creation and Evolution are contradictory.

R

P.S. Paul, thank you -- it's been refreshing the past couple of weeks to see some true Biblical fideists come out of the woodwork and clear the air as to how risible the YEC position is.

[Perry]

It's perfectly logical to me, but then again I've studied both to some degree. Rogero, hats off to you, you get it! I sure don't. I mean, if the Biblical picture is this: God is there, outside of time, and what takes place is a sort of heavenly staff meeting. He says to Himself, "Son, Spirit and I have decided the You part of Me needs a bride. We'll create a tiny universe, make a little planet in there to house some of our little creatures. We'll create them in Our own image, but in such a way so they'll be sure to fall. Once they're helplessly immersed in sin, we'll redeem a small number of the human creatures to be, collectively, as a body, your bride, Son (Me). The adversary will attempt to pollute the gene pool to prevent you from gaining human stature, and things will get so bad after a short while, We'll have to destroy the entire planet and all life there except eight people and the animals on the ark, which will be a type of You, the Son part of Me. This will be a picture of how you will save a small number of souls to collectively be your bride. Here's how it will work. You (the Son part of Me) will have to go in there as one of them, and let them kill you. We'll give them plenty of warning you're coming, and tell them you could bring in the Kingdom, but they'll be too smart for that, and they'll reject You. They'll kill You. I will then raise the You part of Me from the dead, and this will enable Us to bring them (the ones right here on this pre-creation soul list) all together at the end to be Your bride. The purpose of all this, incidentally, is to glorify Me".

None of this makes sense to me. To my carnal mind, it's absurd. To you, Rogero, it makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Well, all except that little arky-flood part. I mean, it's so obvious, what with Mt Everest topped with marine fossils, oceans over the thin crust, hardly more than a few thousand years' worth of mud in the oceans, huge, swirling fossil graveyards everywhere, you'd have to be an IDIOT to think it was, or could have been a flood. I mean, look what obviously must've happened: About 250 million (billion?why not?) years ago, the continents were all grouped together on their thick crusty crusts started to drift apart, RECYCLING the mud , drifting and puking marine fossils, blah blah blah. The only part of the Bible that doesn't make sense to you is the easiest part to accept! The part that make the most sense is the part that says there was a flood, because ther'e so much evidence that it happened. Hats off to you for believing the most unbelievable part. It's the most important part. Unless you're choosing which parts to believe and how to interpret them by listening to your fallen, deceptive mind, with alterior, rationalizing motives...

[grmorton]

Yes this much is clear to me. Glen's arguments are excellent drivel for many of you.:ahem:

1)Glen's arguments are very weak to begin with, when compared to the YEC arguments, IMO.

I would disagree with you on this one.

2)YEC arguments are better presented than Glen's and much easier to grasp, IMO.

One always hopes to do better in presentation so I will let others judge this one.

3)Glen cannot face the obvious plain meanings of words in the Biblical narrative, and therefore does not deserve our trust in matters of geology, IMO.

a non-sequitur. This is bad logic Paul. One can be bad in one area and good in another. But then, I doubt you would really understand good logic.

4)Let Glen do the honourable thing and abandon his pretense of Christianity altogether. As an outright self-declared apostate, his evidence might be able to be taken more seriously than it can be taken right now, IMO.

This is a reaction I received when I left YEC. Many of my former friends suggested I leave christianity. Many were pushing me out. I think they fear someone like me who holds a relatively literal view of scripture but who also accepts evolution and the age of the earth. The only way they have to deal with me is to unevangelize me. Given that God calls us to proclaim the gospel, this 'push em outta here' approach seems down right unchristian. Of course, Paul will be able to explain to God and his fellow Christians why he decided that I am unworthy of God's love and forgiveness.

5)It is not logical for Glen to hold onto the Biblical record and evolutionary doctrine at the same time. The logic that allows him to continue on in such a state, is witness to a mind that is decidedly not founded in reason and common sense, IMO.


How sad and pathetic you are. I am reminded of an old Twilight Zone where this guy has as his goal in life to expose all the evil people in the world. He calls the police, he calls their friends and tells them the 'evil' things they have done. The guy then develops a device to turn all evil people into short people at 4 pm. When 4 pm happens, he is turned short and his cat is now eying him hungrily. It really was a good show, you should see it sometime.

[grmorton]

The part that make the most sense is the part that says there was a flood, because ther'e so much evidence that it happened. Hats off to you for believing the most unbelievable part. It's the most important part. Unless you're choosing which parts to believe and how to interpret them by listening to your fallen, deceptive mind, with alterior, rationalizing motives...


Then please explain what a river channel is doing in the middle of the flood deposited sediments. This is from a seismic line and the channel is about half way through the fossiliferous supposedly flood deposited sediments.

[attachment=1]

And please explain what a canyon is doing in the middle of the geologic column, in the middle of the flood. The pointy ends of such canyons only occur above the water level. If they were submarine canyons the updip ends would be a bit more rounded. You should be able to do this because 'it is the easiest part to understand' and because there is so much evidence for the flood.

[attachment=2]

[Perry]

How sad and pathetic you are. Your cat is eyeing you hungrily, Gman.

[rogero]

Rogero, hats off to you, you get it! I sure don't. I mean, if the Biblical picture is this: God is there, outside of time, and what takes place is a sort of heavenly staff meeting. He says to Himself, "Son, Spirit and I have decided the You part of Me needs a bride. We'll create a tiny universe, make a little planet in there to house some of our little creatures. We'll create them in Our own image, but in such a way so they'll be sure to fall. Once they're helplessly immersed in sin, we'll redeem a small number of the human creatures to be, collectively, as a body, your bride, Son (Me). The adversary will attempt to pollute the gene pool to prevent you from gaining human stature, and things will get so bad after a short while, We'll have to destroy the entire planet and all life there except eight people and the animals on the ark, which will be a type of You, the Son part of Me. This will be a picture of how you will save a small number of souls to collectively be your bride. Here's how it will work. You (the Son part of Me) will have to go in there as one of them, and let them kill you. We'll give them plenty of warning you're coming, and tell them you could bring in the Kingdom, but they'll be too smart for that, and they'll reject You. They'll kill You. I will then raise the You part of Me from the dead, and this will enable Us to bring them (the ones right here on this pre-creation soul list) all together at the end to be Your bride. The purpose of all this, incidentally, is to glorify Me".



Thanks for letting us have a glimpse inside the mind of a fearful Christian Fundamentalist Biblical "Literalist" scientifically-ignorant layman. If this is your view of God's relation to His Creation, then you are certainly to be pitied.

So, you basically ascribe to the lying demiurge view of God? That's a scary view of God. I suppose you think this is what is meant by the "fear" of God?

Let's see -- This "tiny" universe was created in a way that it looked to its poor ignorant creatures (the few who cared to study it!) like something very ancient in their reckoning of time, with multiple episodes of mountain-building and variable columns of eroded material and multiple ice ages and sea-level changes and indicative ratios of radioisotopes with confirmation from distant astronomical phenomena and variation in the biosphere over time... ...when all the while, this was only an appearance! God wanted us to believe a particular interpretation of a document redacted over hundreds of years written down by people who didn't have clue as to how nature worked.

It's instructive that those who have a reticience to understanding scripture as how God speaks to his creatures. God wants a relationship with his creatures made in his image. Ergo, the Bible has puts forth (at a minimum) theological truth. Why do you Fundies insist that theological truth alone is not good enough? Why do insist upon injecting your interpretation of certain portions of scripture onto the physical world as necessary?

Why can't you accept as sufficient that God is Creator? Why does it have to be in a certain way that is not even specified in scripture? Especially when this certain way is in disagreement with the clear witness of creation itself?




None of this makes sense to me. To my carnal mind, it's absurd. To you, Rogero, it makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Well, all except that little arky-flood part. I mean, it's so obvious, what with Mt Everest topped with marine fossils, oceans over the thin crust, hardly more than a few thousand years' worth of mud in the oceans, huge, swirling fossil graveyards everywhere, you'd have to be an IDIOT to think it was, or could have been a flood. I mean, look what obviously must've happened: About 250 million (billion?why not?) years ago, the continents were all grouped together on their thick crusty crusts started to drift apart, RECYCLING the mud , drifting and puking marine fossils, blah blah blah. The only part of the Bible that doesn't make sense to you is the easiest part to accept! The part that make the most sense is the part that says there was a flood, because ther'e so much evidence that it happened. Hats off to you for believing the most unbelievable part. It's the most important part. Unless you're choosing which parts to believe and how to interpret them by listening to your fallen, deceptive mind, with alterior, rationalizing motives...

Hat's off to you, Perry -- you actually used more than one paragraph for you post. Yay!

Here's a response to excerpted points from your run-on paragraph:

1) The "arky-flood thing" is one of the most scientifically unsupported pieces of nonsense you will encounter. Glennn could answer you lots better than me.

Where did all the water come from?

A vapor canopy? -- Glennn himself countered this nonsense when he was still a publishing YEC. BTW, Perry -- how many YEC apologetic articles have you published?
The fountains under the earth? Ever heard of the geothermal gradient? Ever seen "Old Faithful"? The temperature increases with depth under the earth. Water several miles down that spews forth in the fountains of the deep (as per your YEC heroes Brown and Baumgardner) would be very hot. How do you think ol' Noah, his family and menagerie would fare under such conditions?
2) Fossils on top of Mt. Everest. Don't you think this ever occured to real geologists? Ever heard of Plate Tectonics? The fact that Earth's lithosphere hasn't been stable over the past 2 billion years? Crust gets uplifted and crust gets eroded and pushed down isostatically and tectonically. What -- you don't understand these terms? Uh oh -- the YEC propagandists must be right then, since they have simpler more understandable answers to the scientifically illiterate.

Don't like being called scientifically illiterate? Tben take the time to study some science!

3) I don't have the time or effort to address the rest of your moronic post. It's clear that your favorite YEC "ministries" have you by the short hairs.

My final comment is to proclaim my utter disgust with AiG, Hovind, ICR, and other YEC "ministries" for intentionally misleading uninformed laymen like Perry here.

If any representatives of your ilk are reading -- shame on you for the damage you do to the cause of Christ. You are truly despicable to take advantage of naive people like Perry and Evangelist and fills their heads full of pseudo-scientific nonsense and the fear that only your interpretation of Genesis is allowable for Christianity.

R

[rogero]

Your cat is eyeing you hungrily, Gman.

You are a real sorry excuse... I hope you wise up sooner or later.

Here's some advice -- until you learn some basic science and understand the real scientific issues involved in the origins debate, I would advise you keep your pie hole shut.

Unless of course you extend the courtesy of bringing up one issue at a time and deciding to have a reasoned discussion of it. Is this possible Perry, of do you think you've got all the answers because your YEC masters have suppiled them all?

[rogero]

Then please explain what a river channel is doing in the middle of the flood deposited sediments. This is from a seismic line and the channel is about half way through the fossiliferous supposedly flood deposited sediments.

[attachment=1]

And please explain what a canyon is doing in the middle of the geologic column, in the middle of the flood. The pointy ends of such canyons only occur above the water level. If they were submarine canyons the updip ends would be a bit more rounded. You should be able to do this because 'it is the easiest part to understand' and because there is so much evidence for the flood.

[attachment=2]

Glennn,

Why the heck would Perry care about observational data? He already knows that the Flood occured as per a Fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture. Don't confuse him with details! Mortensen, Sirfarti, Baumgardner, and other Ph.D. scientists will tell him what to think.

Now, what's curious to me is whether Perry will ask one of these YEC "scientists" to explain these data you've presented? I'm sure they'll give a nice ad hoc answers that will satisfy our layman friend. The key word here Perry is "ad hoc" -- if you are truly interested in the scientific aspects of this issue you will learn the meaning of the term.

Shame on you, Glennn -- why do you insist on confusing the layman with real data!??? That just confuses the issue of a clear plain even-to-child reading of Genesis!

R

[Evangelist]

Rogero wrote;

"What is the "obvious plain" meaning of the words in the Biblical narrative? I thought I knew when I was eight years old, but now as a late-middle-ager who has read Genesis dozens of times in various translations -- I have no idea what a "plain obvious" (and especially "literal") reading means."

Exactly. And neither does Glennnnnnnnnnnn.:lol:


Paul wrote;
"YEC arguments are better presented than Glen's and much easier to grasp, IMO."

to which Rogreo responded;
"This is extremely insightful -- and no sarcasm intended. The YEC "ministries" are just that -- ministries to their laymen (and other scientifically-untrained folks) for their force-fit of all science into their particular interpretation of Scripture".

How does anyone who has "no idea what a plain obvious reading" of Scripture really is, feel qualified to denigrate the interpretations of those who do not struggle under such a burden?

Once again Rogero, either you or Glen can demonstrate to the board how Christ downgraded the flood account to local if you are able. Be sure to explain how Peter did it as well.

2nd Peter 3
"5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:


6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

You have admitted your ignorance of the plain reading of the words of Scripture already. Such a burden disqualifies you from intelligent reading of anything IMO. If you can't read the Bible and make sense of the stories in Genesis like you could when you were 8 years old, you have no business trying to read Morton's geologic tea leaves.

Maybe it is you who has the "pie-hole" problem that needs plugging, eh?:blush:

It has been some time since I have been on the board, and I have really missed it. Once in a while however, one just has to shine the flashlight under the basement sink, just to watch the "roaches" work themselves into a frenzy yet once again.

YEC leaders just held a conference in Moncton N.B. I couldn't make it but I was glad to hear they are spending their time well. You people can't be taken seriously and you are not worthy of the energy and time that you wish the YEC leaders to waste debating your endless objections.

Untill next time,

Regards

Paul M. Blackmore

[rogero]

...
YEC leaders just held a conference in Moncton N.B. I couldn't make it but I was glad to hear they are spending their time well. You people can't be taken seriously and you are not worthy of the energy and time that you wish the YEC leaders to waste debating your endless objections.

...
It's too bad you couldn't make it. Perhaps they could have given you a "scientific" argument to present here in support of a 6Ka Earth and Cosmos. If you had gone, maybe you could ask why none of those cowards show up on foras like these, and instead leaves the apologetic work to brilliantly informed laymen like you? When are these geniuses going to come up with their scientific breakthrough that will falsify old Earth and Evilution and actually give support to their gut-busting risible nonsense that they're trying to pass off to naive ding-dongs like you? Just curious, Bro.

Hey, by the way, Paulie -- do you have any scientific evidence of a 6000 year old Earth and Cosmos? Remember, Earth and Cosmos have to be the same age -- just go ahead and ignore that light from distant cosmological objects whose distance has been verified by Cepheid variables.

C'mon, Paulie -- you can do it, since you're so cock-sure of the scientific validity of your YEC position, give us your best positive argument for a 6000 year old (6Ka) Earth and Cosmos.

Hey -- I'll even give you a hint. I recall last summer you were yammering about Canadian peat deposits giving support for a young Earth. Do you think you could re-"peat" that argumentation here? There are lots of impressionable YEC lurkers who are less scientifically informed than the Maritime Watchmaker (hey, shouldn't you be a Deist then? :lol:) on the important areas of "origins" science.

R

[Evangelist]

Just deal with the verses Rogero. Submit your proud mind to what the verses plainly tell us (as any 8 year old can plainly see), or finally admit to yourself that you put more faith in the "words of Glenn" than you do in the "Word of God".

Either way you slice it, you will excercise childlike faith and trust in Glenn or in God.

Sir Francis Bacon wrote;
"access to the kingdom of man, which is founded on the sciences, may resemble that to the kingdom of heaven, where no admission is conceeded except to children." Novum Organum, book 1, section 68.

Bacon argued for childlike faith to be exercised in giving one's mind over to the sciences, much the same way in which Christ taught his disciples to trust in Him and believe what He taught them.

After renouncing the Bible as a "mere idol of the mind" that needed to be swept from consideration in the grand quest for knowledge about the true workings of nature, Bacon made such an appeal for childlike faith to be exercised by persons like yourself.

Have at it friend.

My childlike faith is reserved only for Christ, and for His Word which I hold so very dear to my heart. Mine is the wiser choice Rogero. You were much wiser when you were 8 years old. And you were probably happier then too.

Repent if you can along with Glenn. I don't give you good odds but hey, suprise me!:whistle:


Mark 10


14But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

15Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. 16And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.


Peace

Paul M. Blackmore

[grmorton]

Once again Rogero, either you or Glen can demonstrate to the board how Christ downgraded the flood account to local if you are able. Be sure to explain how Peter did it as well.

I am still waiting to hear where you think Jesus said it was a global flood. I know of no such statement by Jesus. Maybe you have added to the Bible here.

[Evangelist]

Rogero could have explained it all to you Glenn, many long years ago. The plain words of Scripture have now been taken away from you, seeing you so despise them. It matters not that an infallible? religious leader supported your view. The infallible Scriptures clearly put the lie to your position, although you cannot see it.

[reyvin]

Rogero could have explained it all to you Glenn, many long years ago. The plain words of Scripture have now been taken away from you, seeing you so despise them. It matters not that an infallible? religious leader supported your view. The infallible Scriptures clearly put the lie to your position, although you cannot see it.

*Edit*

It matters not that an infallible? religious leader supported your view. My interpretation of the infallible Scriptures clearly put the lie to your position, although you cannot see it.

[Perry]

musta struck a nerve...

[Perry]

Sorry, I was referring to Rogero's last post...he sounds a little frantic

[rogero]

Rogero could have explained it all to you Glenn, many long years ago. The plain words of Scripture have now been taken away from you, seeing you so despise them. It matters not that an infallible? religious leader supported your view. The infallible Scriptures clearly put the lie to your position, although you cannot see it.

The infallible Scriptures ?? Is there some significance to the font choice that is definitional here? Is it sort of like the Orthodox Jews' spelling of G-d?

Some quick questions for ya, Paulie -- how do you know that the scriptures are "infallible"? What do you mean by "infallible"? I thought the Fundies used the word "inerrant"? Is this something different? Where does Scripture mention that it is either "inerrant" or "infallible"? How do you know how to interpret Scripture in a "literal" manner? What does "literal" mean?

I ask you these, since you are a True Christian TM and on a much higher spiritual hyperplane than me.

So, you put your interpretation of Scripture on the account of origins over and above anything science can tell you? It's apparent that you've abandoned science altogether. And that's ok -- you can believe that your god made the earth and cosmos in six 24 hours days and that there was a global deluge that accounts killed off all plant and animal life and generated the fossil record.

The trouble is this view is not supported by observation. Your YEC "ministries" are charlatans whose only purpose is to mislead ignorant laypeople like you and Perry. You two are excellent examples of their success. The issues that Perry brought up were addressed, and neither he nor you recognize your error. You choose to be oblivious to the truth. There is the possibility that you are both not bright enough to comprehend the scientific answers and give deference to the risible YEC "scientists" explanations -- which is exactly what they want you to do!

Here's the problem. Earth is old. Various radiometric methods agree on an age around 4.55Ga. "Ga" stands for "giga anna" = billion years. If you don't radiometry, then there are many other independent means that point unambiguously to th antiquity of Earth. The amounts of limestone and coal -- way too much carbon to be contained in one biosphere. The cyclicity of sedimentary deposits -- repeating sequences of transgression and regression of water levels (look up the Pennsylvanian Cyclothems, for example.) And, something that's impossible for the YEC to explain -- the clearly different erosional ages of the various mountain ranges of the world. Why are the Laurentians worn down to their roots, the Appalachians now rolling hills, and the Rocky Mountains high and rugged? The underlying geology is quite similar. How could all of these formed at the same time, a few thousand years ago.

So, whether you want to accept it or not, Earth and Cosmos are very old -- six-seven orders of magnitude older than the YECs assert, based upon adding up "begats" and interpretation Genesis 1 as a literal six days.

Thus, the only logical solution I can see that would reconcile both science and scripture is that god created with the appearance of age and a long complex history. This is sometimes called the omphalos (belly button) concept. In other words, it's all a miracle, and creation is not amenable to study by creatures. If you want to take Baumgardner's and Brown's views on Plate Tectonics, you would have to have miracles going on there as well -- to uplift and fold the mountain systems and move plates around in a year or so. You would need a miracle to start the process, and you would need a miracle to remove all the heat generated.

Anyway, the upshot of this "literalist" position is that god is a cruel deceiving demiurge, who IMHO is not worthy of worship. This is apparently the god you worship, Paulie -- that's the only logical conclusion I can come to from your assertions. And this demiurge also insists upon worship of one particular interpretation of scripture, making this an idolatrous religion as well (I wonder, is it the KJV1611 only?).

Paulie, you alluded earlier to Glennn having an apostate form of Christianity. Well, I'm turning the tables on you. I believe you hyper-Fundies have the apostate form of Christianity -- one of fear of a cruel demiurge and of worship and adulation of an interpretation of a book. In fact, I don't mind telling you that I believe you and I belong to different religions. I refuse to worship a cruel demiurge, one who bears no resemblance to the Logos creator and the Christ of the Gospels. Remember, that the Logos emptied Himself (kenosis) of much or all of his divinity in order to be tempted as we are and to become the great High Priest. Thus, it's not surprising at all that Christ would speak in the manner of a learned Hebrew man of his time, and refer to traditions of including Noah's Flood.

What's really hilarious to me is your choice of pseudonym. Since evangelism refers to spreading Good News, and you spread a religion of ignorance and fear, where only the very few will be spared from eternal hell fire by the cruel deceiving demiurge who rules supreme -- your username "Evangelist" is certainly risibly paradoxical.

My fears about you and your religion can be partially ameliorated if you would try to present some science to support your case. That would tell me you think it's possible to know something about creation -- that God created a Cosmos with integrity -- something able to be studied in a reasonable way -- and not a deceptive sham, like my brother's most excellent trolley layout.

R

[rogero]

Sorry, I was referring to Rogero's last post...he sounds a little frantic

Not frantic -- disgusted and heartbroken at the abject ignorance of Fundamentalists like you and "Evangelist" (~~shudder~~). What makes you think I was "frantic"? Is this yet another example of your inability to interpret properly the written word?

Hey, Perry -- how about throwing some more science questions our way, so that you can ignore some more answers? :lol:

[rogero]

... That would tell me you think it's possible to know something about creation -- that God created a Cosmos with integrity -- something able to be studied in a reasonable way -- and not a deceptive sham, like my brother's most excellent trolley layout.

R

Here's (http://home.att.net/%7Esctransit/BobOlson.htm) what I mean by an excellent artifact of the creation (in this case ex veterae) of a scenario with the appearance of age and history.

Is this the kind of thing you hyper-Fundies think your demiurge did ex nihilo? Bear in mind my beloved brother has no divine attributes, is entirely humble, and condemns no one to eternal flames for disbelieving that what he has "created" is actually the real 1930s Brooklyn, NY.

R

[Evangelist]

Rogero wrote: "I actually understand a bit about geology (not much, but enough)":duh:

and yet his "pie-hole" spews on unabated.:lmbo:

Lets just close this discussion off with yet another quote from Rogero, shall we.

"I believe you and I belong to different religions."

This may very well be the case given the content of your last few posts.

Peace recinded with regrets........:sigh:


Paul M. Blackmore

[rogero]

Rogero wrote: "I actually understand a bit about geology (not much, but enough)":duh:
and yet his "pie-hole" spews on unabated.:lmbo:



But I would wager that I know a fair amount more geology (and science in general) than do you. Your unquestioning acceptance of the dogma of your AiG and ICR masters are evidence of this.

Do you wish to bring up a geological issue for discussion? I would be more than willing to engage you on the same. Ya see, I believe that God (the Logos of John 1) created the Universe with integrity -- the ability to be studied systematically by cognitively-evolved critters like you and me. You and your fideistic Fundy cultists believe that all views of the complexity of nature hinge on your cognitively pre-operational reading of a few hundred words in Genesis.



Lets just close this discussion off with yet another quote from Rogero, shall we.

"I believe you and I belong to different religions."

This may very well be the case given the content of your last few posts.

Peace recinded with regrets........:sigh:



I can't disagree with you here, Paulie. Your religion is a hateful bizarro abstraction of Christ's teaching. Are you proud of yourself? That's a rhetorical question, 'cuz I'm sure you are -- Fundies always are.

I pray that one day you and your hateful ignorant ilk will come to see the error of your ways. Until then, enjoy the comfort of your watchmaker's shop and the smug confidence that you and your other cultist friends are right and the rest of us are wrong. I will go on with my life oblivious to my Satanic heretical deception and revel in the grace the that Christ gives to those who love him -- and the joy to have the opportunity to study his wonderful creation, as rich and full of integrity as I believe he planned it to be.

God's Peace (in the honest and meaningful sense!),

Roger

P.S. You live in the Canadian Maritimes, do you not? Perchance, do you live too close to the Bay of Fundy? :lol::sigh::ahem::wink::blush:

[NeilUnreal]

Sir Francis Bacon wrote... You were much wiser when you were 8 years old.

Today’s inquisitive eight year old has access to more science than Bacon did in his lifetime.

-Neil

[Perry]

The trouble is this view is not supported by observation.
like Rogero's evolution...
You choose to be oblivious to the truth.
For this they are willingly ignorant...of...what was that again?
Your religion is a hateful bizarro abstraction of Christ's teaching. Ut seems, Rogero, you're feeling hate from where there is none. Could it be coming from you? Did a mean Baptist do something to you when you were little?
I pray that one day you and your hateful ignorant ilk will come to see the error of your ways. Hateful hateful, hateful...I may be ignorant, and I may even be ilk, but by the grace of God, I ain't hateful.
Various radiometric methods agree on an age Total BS and you know it (willingly ignorant).
Anyway, the upshot of this "literalist" position is that god is a cruel deceiving demiurge, who IMHO is not worthy of worship. This is apparently the god you worship, Paulie -- Now we get closer to the source of Rogero's anguish. This is the bitter taste Armenianism leaves when the lump of it's accompanying pride is swallowed whole. I pointed this out in my response to Solly's Calvanism post on yesterday's dean's pick.Why are the Laurentians worn down to their roots, the Appalachians now rolling hills, and the Rocky Mountains high and rugged? Well, this is a tough one....hey, I know I KNOW! You see, right about 250 billion years ago...I will go on with my life oblivious to my Satanic heretical deception and revel in the grace the that Christ gives to those who love him You got it backwards. If you love Christ, it's because He gave you the grace to do so.

you spread a religion of ignorance and fear, where only the very few will be spared from eternal hell fire by the cruel deceiving demiurge who rules supreme The following is a quote from Christ, which I'm sure Rogero interprets acrobatically
Matthew 7:13-15 (King James Version)


King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

What color is your sheepskin coat? BTW, that was not hateful.

[Perry]

For anyone who's interested, I have GMorton's little secret figured out. It will break Rogero's heart, 'cause he took it in hook, line and sinker...unless he's one of 'em too...I'm on to you, Gman. You're really still a YEC, and you figure the best way to stregnthen our faith is to play a little Devil's advocate, pretend to jump the fence, and try to blow smoke at us, figuring we'll see even more glaringly the shrill religious rantings of wide gate, broad way herd of uniformitatian ostriches, burying their heads to avoid the sight of God's judgement. It's working.

Rogero, how do you figure the transforming power of the Lord Jesus Christ works? Scientifically, I mean.

[kuboes1831]

Rogero, how do you figure the transforming power of the Lord Jesus Christ works? Scientifically, I mean.

It clearly hasnt worked on many YECs or they wouldnt carry on telling economies with the truth.

[rogero]

For anyone who's interested, I have GMorton's little secret figured out. It will break Rogero's heart, 'cause he took it in hook, line and sinker...unless he's one of 'em too...I'm on to you, Gman. You're really still a YEC, and you figure the best way to stregnthen our faith is to play a little Devil's advocate, pretend to jump the fence, and try to blow smoke at us, figuring we'll see even more glaringly the shrill religious rantings of wide gate, broad way herd of uniformitatian ostriches, burying their heads to avoid the sight of God's judgement. It's working.

Rogero, how do you figure the transforming power of the Lord Jesus Christ works? Scientifically, I mean.

Why would you think I would think a spiritual phenomenon could be explained scientifically? Are you a moron?

[rogero]

like Rogero's evolution...

For this they are willingly ignorant...of...what was that again?
Ut seems, Rogero, you're feeling hate from where there is none. Could it be coming from you? Did a mean Baptist do something to you when you were little?
Hateful hateful, hateful...I may be ignorant, and I may even be ilk, but by the grace of God, I ain't hateful.
Total BS and you know it (willingly ignorant).
Now we get closer to the source of Rogero's anguish. This is the bitter taste Armenianism leaves when the lump of it's accompanying pride is swallowed whole. I pointed this out in my response to Solly's Calvanism post on yesterday's dean's pick. Well, this is a tough one....hey, I know I KNOW! You see, right about 250 billion years ago... You got it backwards. If you love Christ, it's because He gave you the grace to do so.

The following is a quote from Christ, which I'm sure Rogero interprets acrobatically
Matthew 7:13-15 (King James Version)


King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

What color is your sheepskin coat? BTW, that was not hateful.

Continuing to make your ignorance manifest to all, Perry? What do your King Jimmie quotes have to do with origins science, praytelll? Do you want to discuss science or continue to sling BS? Maybe we could discuss baseball coaching -- that's something you may be able to understand?

[grmorton]

In response to:

Various radiometric methods agree on an age

Perry wrote

Total BS and you know it (willingly ignorant).


Perry, in 1979, John Woodmorappe published 700 or so bad radiometric dates. His chart gave the radiometric age and the geologically expected age. Here is a chart of those bad dates:

[attachment=1]

Note that there is a trend, even in the bad dates. If geologically you expect the date to be older, in general it is. Secondly, if a date is to be wrong, the error most often is in the direction of being too young. How exactly that helps the YEC case, I will never know.

It was really funny when I published this that Woodmorappe apparently had never plotted these numbers himself.

Who, indeed, is willingly ignorant?

[grmorton]

For anyone who's interested, I have GMorton's little secret figured out. It will break Rogero's heart, 'cause he took it in hook, line and sinker...unless he's one of 'em too...I'm on to you, Gman. You're really still a YEC, and you figure the best way to stregnthen our faith is to play a little Devil's advocate, pretend to jump the fence, and try to blow smoke at us, figuring we'll see even more glaringly the shrill religious rantings of wide gate, broad way herd of uniformitatian ostriches, burying their heads to avoid the sight of God's judgement. It's working.

Rogero, how do you figure the transforming power of the Lord Jesus Christ works? Scientifically, I mean.

You really got me wrong, but of course since evidence and testimony don't mean much to you you won't believe me because you know things other mere mortals can't know. This is what is so wrong with YECs, they seem to know that everyone else is deceiptful and so won't beleive whatever they hear.

I do desire an interpretation of the Bible which is more real than allegory. Rogero describes me occasionally as a literalist and maybe I am. But evolution is a fact which you are ignoring.

[kuboes1831]

In response to:

Various radiometric methods agree on an age

Perry wrote



Perry, in 1979, John Woodmorappe published 700 or so bad radiometric dates. His chart gave the radiometric age and the geologically expected age. Here is a chart of those bad dates:

[attachment=1]

Note that there is a trend, even in the bad dates. If geologically you expect the date to be older, in general it is. Secondly, if a date is to be wrong, the error most often is in the direction of being too young. How exactly that helps the YEC case, I will never know.

It was really funny when I published this that Woodmorappe apparently had never plotted these numbers himself.

Who, indeed, is willingly ignorant?

Glenn as you know I put this elsewhere yesterday.
In 1978 Woodmarappe gave a long list of anomalous ages - about 700 I think.
I checked some of them as many came from the Geol Soc London 1964 book on the
Phanerozoic Timescale (many of which contributors taught me) After 50 or so
misrepresentations and no accurate reporting I gave up. I remember my anger
when I found my personal tutor misquoted on several occasions. I am afraid I
cant give chapter and verse as I did not note my findings , and it would
take many hours to note them all down again and then write them up properly.
(It takes a baby 2 seconds to puke over your best clothes, but a long time
to clear up the mess.) Glenn and Steve Schimmerich have had a go.Both are evangelicals see Glenn's website and Steve's on talk origins.

As weall know Woodmacrappe is a pen name - he makes the two socs seem incredibly polite!

[Abigail]

As weall know Woodmacrappe is a pen name - he makes the two socs seem incredibly polite!

The "two" socs ? I never saw Socratism being anything other than polite.

[kuboes1831]

The "two" socs ? I never saw Socratism being anything other than polite.

So at least you agree Socrates is down right rude, even in his opening gambits and when he pawns his soul for YEC pottage.

Now do you think Wooody is wrong to grossly misrepresent all the writers he quotes or like ****** a leading YEC is it good to tell untruths for the sake of the Gospel.?

[Abigail]

So at least you agree Socrates is down right rude, even in his opening gambits and when he pawns his soul for YEC pottage.

Now do you think Wooody is wrong to grossly misrepresent all the writers he quotes or like ****** a leading YEC is it good to tell untruths for the sake of the Gospel.?

I made no comment on Socrates' behaviour ...I referred to your comment about Socratism...a comment which you have tried to sweep under the mat.

[kuboes1831]

I made no comment on Socrates' behaviour ...I referred to your comment about Socratism...a comment which you have tried to sweep under the mat.


It's a matter of degree and I dont mean a Ph D in an irrelevant science

[Abigail]

It's a matter of degree and I dont mean a Ph D in an irrelevant science

I have no interest in dialoguing with someone like you. You have made slurrs against Socratism and now try and hide behind smokescreens.

[kuboes1831]

I have no interest in dialoguing with someone like you. You have made slurrs against Socratism and now try and hide behind smokescreens.

I didnt know Noah could produce smokescreens withe the ark (in the Persian gulf of course) rather like WW1 battleships.

I cant see how an intelligent person like you can fall for all this YEC nonsense when they invent evidence and miracles whenever they want.

Isn't it better to focus on the heart of the Gospel the death and resurrection of our Lord. This sunday in a tiny country church I am trying to work out how to do a dramatic presentation of the Emmaus road . Any ideas?

[bpayne]

The polystrate trees (forests) do not show the Global Flood as SLOOOW, it shows it never happened. I worked for twenty years as a geologist in Appalachia, and there are polystrate forests everywhere along with meandering river systems tracable for hundreds of miles, lakes, swamps, deltas, wind blown dunes and loess deposites, and beaches in thousands of feet of cyclic sedimentary deposits in the largest coal forming basin to ever exist on the face of the earth.

Could you please show us a few pictures of typical highwalls with the "polystrate forests" you mention? Attached is a photo of what I find to be typical in much of Alabama - this is from a strip mine in Walker County, AL, about 40 miles WNW of Birmingham. Note the lack of trees above the main coal seam. Also, this coal swamp grew on a hillside since the coal seam truncates a horizontal thin seam (visible below and to the left of the main seam). Also, seems that these coals were underlain by sand, not clay. Where's the "cyclic" sedimentation?

Bill

[rogero]

Could you please show us a few pictures of typical highwalls with the "polystrate forests" you mention? Attached is a photo of what I find to be typical in much of Alabama - this is from a strip mine in Walker County, AL, about 40 miles WNW of Birmingham. Note the lack of trees above the main coal seam. Also, this coal swamp grew on a hillside since the coal seam truncates a horizontal thin seam (visible below and to the left of the main seam). Also, seems that these coals were underlain by sand, not clay. Where's the "cyclic" sedimentation?

Bill

Quick questions, Bill... How could one tell cyclic or not from one contact? Why would a coal deposit on top of sand be unusual? How does "lack of trees above the main coal" in your photo support your case -- whatever that may be? A swamp can't be on too steep of a slope, can it? -- a what does this have to do with your argument (again, whatever that may be)?

[bpayne]

Tonight when I was getting ready to reply to Lion on the limestone in Appalachia, I ran across an absolutely fantastic picture in an old Geological Survey Professional Paper.

Ok, all you young-earthers out there. Please explain, how, during the flood when average daily depositional rates were between 50 and 100 feet per day, trees were able to grow new roots instantly. Please explain why such pictures don't appear in the YEC literature you so avidly read. Please explain why your leaders don't tell you the WHOLE story.

Good grief, Glenn. First of all, the "root" to the right of the trunk in the cartoon looks nothing like the "root" in the photo. The one in the photo is at least twice the size compared to the cartoon, and in the photo the "root" appears to cross in front of the trunk, not branch out from the side of it.

Secondly, some swamp trees have roots above the water line:

“Trees in the mixed peat-swamp forest and pole forest .... have spreading, buttressed, and prop roots, which are generally confined to a root mat 50-80 cm thick at the top of the peat and do not penetrate to the deeper peat or mineral sediments below thick peat.” (from Neuzil, S.G., Supardi, Cecil, C.B., Kane, J.S., Soedjono, K., 1993. Inorganic geochemistry of domed peat in Indonesia and its implication for the origin of mineral matter in coal. Modern and Ancient Coal-Forming Environments, GSA Special Paper 286, 25.)

Attached is a photo from: Pfefferkorn, H.W., Archer, A.W., Zpdrow, E.L., 2001. Modern tropical analogs for Carboniferous standing forests: comparison of extinct Mesocalamites with extant Montrichardia. Historical Biology 15, 243. There you can see roots growing above the water, waiting for the next flood to bring sand in and fool OECs.

Bill

[rogero]

Good grief, Glenn. First of all, the "root" to the right of the trunk in the cartoon looks nothing like the "root" in the photo. The one in the photo is at least twice the size compared to the cartoon, and in the photo the "root" appears to cross in front of the trunk, not branch out from the side of it.

Billy,

What "cartoon" are your referring to? Do you mean the textbook drawing the GM included in the OP?


Secondly, some swamp trees have roots above the water line:

“Trees in the mixed peat-swamp forest and pole forest .... have spreading, buttressed, and prop roots, which are generally confined to a root mat 50-80 cm thick at the top of the peat and do not penetrate to the deeper peat or mineral sediments below thick peat.” (from Neuzil, S.G., Supardi, Cecil, C.B., Kane, J.S., Soedjono, K., 1993. Inorganic geochemistry of domed peat in Indonesia and its implication for the origin of mineral matter in coal. Modern and Ancient Coal-Forming Environments, GSA Special Paper 286, 25.)


And your point is...?


Attached is a photo from: Pfefferkorn, H.W., Archer, A.W., Zpdrow, E.L., 2001. Modern tropical analogs for Carboniferous standing forests: comparison of extinct Mesocalamites with extant Montrichardia. Historical Biology 15, 243. There you can see roots growing above the water, waiting for the next flood to bring sand in and fool OECs.

Bill

Again, I don't see your point.

[bpayne]

Quick questions, Bill... How could one tell cyclic or not from one contact? Why would a coal deposit on top of sand be unusual? How does "lack of trees above the main coal" in your photo support your case -- whatever that may be? A swamp can't be on too steep of a slope, can it? -- a what does this have to do with your argument (again, whatever that may be)?

Supposedly cyclothems controlled the coal swamps, and clay/silt formed the substrate for the swamps. Usually clay is found beneath coal, but not always. This sand beneath coal demonstrates the lack of the "cyclic" deposition inferred for most coals.

Lack of trees above the coal is, from my experience, typical. Sure, there are polystrate trees here and there, but not the "forests" of trees alluded to earlier, which is why I asked for photos of these "forests" of polystrates.

I wouldn't think a swamp would be on a slope, which is why I don't think this (and most) coal seam formed in a swamp. Attached is another view of the horizontal split below the sloping coal seam.

I contend that most coal seams don't show evidence of having formed in a swamp, but appear to be transported. Would you agree for this one coal seam (the Pratt seam)?

Bill

[bpayne]

Billy,

What "cartoon" are your referring to? Do you mean the textbook drawing the GM included in the OP?

And your point is...?

Again, I don't see your point.

Yes, the textbook drawing.

The drawing is not a faithful rendering of the details of the photograph. First of all the "root" looks like it crosses in front of the trunk where it terminates, rather than branching out from the side of the trunk as is shown in the drawing. I'm going to try to get by the library tomorrow and look at the original paper.

Second, and this is my main pick with the paper that Glenn quoted, swamp trees have roots that grow above the water line. If they were buried in sand above the roots growing above the water line, they would look like the root in Glenn's photo. That much is data. But then the authors and Glenn interpret the data to say that the upper roots grew after the sand washed in around the trunk. That is an interpretation and probably a false one in light of the fact of roots in modern swamps growing above the water line. It seems that the OECs are like the YECs in that they jump to conclusions that fit their model without critically analyzing the data.

Bill

[rogero]

Thanks for your response, Bill.

Supposedly cyclothems controlled the coal swamps, and clay/silt formed the substrate for the swamps. Usually clay is found beneath coal, but not always. This sand beneath coal demonstrates the lack of the "cyclic" deposition inferred for most coals.

I don't how you can conclude this from one contact. I'm not aware that the cyclothems necessarily follow axiomatically a lithological sequence. Why couldn't a coal swamp be in direct superposition to an arenaceous formation? Perhaps you're straining a bit too hard at the model -- again, the cyclothemic model is not axiomatic, like Eucidean geometry for example.



Lack of trees above the coal is, from my experience, typical. Sure, there are polystrate trees here and there, but not the "forests" of trees alluded to earlier, which is why I asked for photos of these "forests" of polystrates.



I don't understand how lack of anything can be an argument for your point in just one small example.



I wouldn't think a swamp would be on a slope, which is why I don't think this (and most) coal seam formed in a swamp. Attached is another view of the horizontal split below the sloping coal seam.



Is it possible that the strata were tilted tectonically? There's lots of tilted strata in the Appalachians. What evidence do you have that this stratum was deposited on a slope?



I contend that most coal seams don't show evidence of having formed in a swamp, but appear to be transported. Would you agree for this one coal seam (the Pratt seam)?

Bill

I take issue with your use of the word "most". How many coal seams have you investigated? For the record, I haven't investigated any personally. This is just a gentle question -- not meant to be insulting at all. There are many mainstream coal geologists who have accumulated vast amounts of field data all over the Appalachians. They conclude a cyclothemic history and swamp origin of coal in this province. Do you discard all their work in view of your investigation of a very small deposit in a particular mine?

Since I'm not an expert in coal, nor in any branch of geology, I will acquiesce in this discussion to "real" geologists like Glennn Morton, Shunyadragon, Rach12, etc. I do thank you for starting this interesting discussion involving real observations!

R

P.S. Bear in mind that this particular forum area is restricted to theists. Thus, you are eliminating certain people of expertise from the discussion. :wink:

[grmorton]

Good grief, Glenn. First of all, the "root" to the right of the trunk in the cartoon looks nothing like the "root" in the photo. The one in the photo is at least twice the size compared to the cartoon, and in the photo the "root" appears to cross in front of the trunk, not branch out from the side of it.

Secondly, some swamp trees have roots above the water line:

“Trees in the mixed peat-swamp forest and pole forest .... have spreading, buttressed, and prop roots, which are generally confined to a root mat 50-80 cm thick at the top of the peat and do not penetrate to the deeper peat or mineral sediments below thick peat.” (from Neuzil, S.G., Supardi, Cecil, C.B., Kane, J.S., Soedjono, K., 1993. Inorganic geochemistry of domed peat in Indonesia and its implication for the origin of mineral matter in coal. Modern and Ancient Coal-Forming Environments, GSA Special Paper 286, 25.)

Attached is a photo from: Pfefferkorn, H.W., Archer, A.W., Zpdrow, E.L., 2001. Modern tropical analogs for Carboniferous standing forests: comparison of extinct Mesocalamites with extant Montrichardia. Historical Biology 15, 243. There you can see roots growing above the water, waiting for the next flood to bring sand in and fool OECs.

Bill


Oh not another go round on coal makes the global flood real. How many times have we gone on about this? How many coal experts have I introduced you to and you still think that the flood is proven by the coal? Come on Bill, give it up. You don't have much. Roots rarely grow in the air. Mangrove roots do, but they go down to the ground. These roots, for all I know have been washed out of the dirt by a flood. If they are secondary roots, then maybe the water level was much higher and there is now a drought. The situation does not appear to be the same to me. And if any of the things I just said are true, such roots could not be grown instantly in any case (unless you are saying these are add-water-get-instant-roots trees). So, I don't even see the logic of the response you have made. THose roots didn't appear instantly, they grew there.

The roots I showed have grown into the shale at the bottom. So, once again, your picts don't show the same type of thing.

[grmorton]

Supposedly cyclothems controlled the coal swamps, and clay/silt formed the substrate for the swamps. Usually clay is found beneath coal, but not always. This sand beneath coal demonstrates the lack of the "cyclic" deposition inferred for most coals.

Bill, cyclothems are not some sort of physical law like the speed of light. There is no requirement that coal must be in a cyclothem, indeed most coals outside of the Pennsylvanian are NOT found in cyclothems. So, this is utterly irrelevant to the flood.

Lack of trees above the coal is, from my experience, typical. Sure, there are polystrate trees here and there, but not the "forests" of trees alluded to earlier, which is why I asked for photos of these "forests" of polystrates.

Years ago I used to scuba dive. In some of the lakes in Oklahoma, trees were covered with water and sediment was filling in on top of them. The reservoirs had been filled up to 50 years earlier, yet the trees were still there, tiny branches and all. And, there probably won't be trees above them either because there is a lake above them. This concept you have that there has to be trees above because there are trees below does not follow.

I wouldn't think a swamp would be on a slope, which is why I don't think this (and most) coal seam formed in a swamp. Attached is another view of the horizontal split below the sloping coal seam.

Gee, Bill, have we ever heard of structural deformation? I looked up where this is, it is in the Pennsylvanian strata nw of Birmingham and is on trend with the Appalachian fold belt. It isn't as if there is no structural deformation in the area. But then, it wouldn't occur to you that the earth may have been tilted a couple of times, would it?

I contend that most coal seams don't show evidence of having formed in a swamp, but appear to be transported. Would you agree for this one coal seam (the Pratt seam)?

Bill

No, one can't see any evidence for transport from the pictures you have supplied. Do the particles thin in a particular direction? Does the ash content increase consistently in a particular direction? I bet not.

[grmorton]

Thanks for your response, Bill.


I don't how you can conclude this from one contact. I'm not aware that the cyclothems necessarily follow axiomatically a lithological sequence. Why couldn't a coal swamp be in direct superposition to an arenaceous formation? Perhaps you're straining a bit too hard at the model -- again, the cyclothemic model is not axiomatic, like Eucidean geometry for example.



I don't understand how lack of anything can be an argument for your point in just one small example.



Is it possible that the strata were tilted tectonically? There's lots of tilted strata in the Appalachians. What evidence do you have that this stratum was deposited on a slope?



I take issue with your use of the word "most". How many coal seams have you investigated? For the record, I haven't investigated any personally. This is just a gentle question -- not meant to be insulting at all. There are many mainstream coal geologists who have accumulated vast amounts of field data all over the Appalachians. They conclude a cyclothemic history and swamp origin of coal in this province. Do you discard all their work in view of your investigation of a very small deposit in a particular mine?

Since I'm not an expert in coal, nor in any branch of geology, I will acquiesce in this discussion to "real" geologists like Glennn Morton, Shunyadragon, Rach12, etc. I do thank you for starting this interesting discussion involving real observations!

R

P.S. Bear in mind that this particular forum area is restricted to theists. Thus, you are eliminating certain people of expertise from the discussion. :wink:


Rogero, you and I think alike. I would be amenable to moving this thread now to Natural science to let the other geologists play in this game. I am not sure whom I must ask for this, but you are right, Bill has presented his stuff where only theists can post. Maybe we should move it.

[bpayne]

Rogero, you and I think alike. I would be amenable to moving this thread now to Natural science to let the other geologists play in this game. I am not sure whom I must ask for this, but you are right, Bill has presented his stuff where only theists can post. Maybe we should move it.

I posted a response to your initial post, Glenn. You challenged folks of a different mindset to respond, so I did. I guess you didn't expect a response so now that you have one if you want to move it, be my guest. I'll try not to get lost between here and Natural Science. Besides, I miss getting beat up by Kevin.

Incidentally, I thought Shunyadragon (sp?) identified himself as a non Christian, and I'm pretty sure he posted here. Was he out of bounds?

Bill

[bpayne]

Bill, cyclothems are not some sort of physical law like the speed of light. There is no requirement that coal must be in a cyclothem, indeed most coals outside of the Pennsylvanian are NOT found in cyclothems. So, this is utterly irrelevant to the flood.

I wasn't talking about "the flood"; I was talking about the cyclic processes people on this list have described in their effort to stretch the time out for deposition of coal. My point is the same as yours, that cyclothems are now universal.

Years ago I used to scuba dive. In some of the lakes in Oklahoma, trees were covered with water and sediment was filling in on top of them. The reservoirs had been filled up to 50 years earlier, yet the trees were still there, tiny branches and all. And, there probably won't be trees above them either because there is a lake above them. This concept you have that there has to be trees above because there are trees below does not follow.

You need to go back and read Shonyadragon's post (maybe on page 1, sorry, I don't have the post number). He said he had worked in the Appalachian coal fields for 20 or 30 years, and forests of polystrate trees are everywhere. My point is simply that my experience does not corroborate his statement. Polystrates are the exception rather than the rule. I was asking for him to please show me some photos to back up his claim.

Gee, Bill, have we ever heard of structural deformation? I looked up where this is, it is in the Pennsylvanian strata nw of Birmingham and is on trend with the Appalachian fold belt. It isn't as if there is no structural deformation in the area. But then, it wouldn't occur to you that the earth may have been tilted a couple of times, would it?

Gee, Glenn, this area is in the Warrior Basin where folds are not as common as they are in the Valley and Ridge. Go to the AL Geological Survey site and look at the state geologic map. To be sure, there are pleanty of faults in the Basin and this could be structural, but then there wouldn't be the horizontal bed that is truncated by the main coal seam; or can you explain that structurally?

Before you get bogged down on this Alabama example, note the attached split off the roof of the Pittsburg coal seam. The sandstone lens shown in the drawing attains a thickness of 10 feet and was about 100 feet wide before it pinched out and the split rejoined the main seam. Yeah, I know, the earth tilted a couple of times. The attachments are from:
Cross, A.T., The Geology of the Pittsburgh Coal. Second Conference on the Origin and Constitution of Coal, 1952. p 47.
No, one can't see any evidence for transport from the pictures you have supplied. Do the particles thin in a particular direction? Does the ash content increase consistently in a particular direction? I bet not.

Those are good questions. I've done isopach maps of ash, Btu, sulfur, coal thickness and overburden thickness in a prior life as part of a feasibility study, but that requires a ton of data which I don't have for this Pratt seam. I don't know how much of this type of info has been developed by the mining company, and I doubt that they would release it to me, but maybe I'll try to find out. It would be very interesting to map.

Bill

[bpayne]

Oh not another go round on coal makes the global flood real. How many times have we gone on about this? How many coal experts have I introduced you to and you still think that the flood is proven by the coal? Come on Bill, give it up. You don't have much. Roots rarely grow in the air. Mangrove roots do, but they go down to the ground. These roots, for all I know have been washed out of the dirt by a flood. If they are secondary roots, then maybe the water level was much higher and there is now a drought. The situation does not appear to be the same to me. And if any of the things I just said are true, such roots could not be grown instantly in any case (unless you are saying these are add-water-get-instant-roots trees). So, I don't even see the logic of the response you have made. THose roots didn't appear instantly, they grew there.

The roots I showed have grown into the shale at the bottom. So, once again, your picts don't show the same type of thing.

There is a third possibility I didn't mention. Your roots could have grown in mud (shale), which was washed out as the sand was washed in. That's three alternative possibilities to the unlikely one you and the author gave. You guys should be a little more analytical.

Bill

[bpayne]

Thanks for your response, Bill.

I take issue with your use of the word "most". How many coal seams have you investigated? For the record, I haven't investigated any personally. This is just a gentle question -- not meant to be insulting at all. There are many mainstream coal geologists who have accumulated vast amounts of field data all over the Appalachians. They conclude a cyclothemic history and swamp origin of coal in this province. Do you discard all their work in view of your investigation of a very small deposit in a particular mine?


I spent the better part of 10 years doing coal geology, mainly exploration drilling and coring coal. That isn't the same as looking at strip-mine highwalls, but I have seen a fair share of coal outcrops in mines and road cuts, and I still visit strip mines when I get the opportunity.

It would take me some time to put together a response to your question, but in my view the literature supports the general lack of polystrates above the coal, and interrupting partings as well. Just to whet your appetite...

“The debate….is whether raised (doomed) mires and….tropical bog forests are widely applicable as an analogue for ancient coal seams. The concept was introduced….by Smith (1962) who drew an analogy between modern raised peatlands of tropical Malaysia and Indonesia and the Westphalian coal seams of Yorkshire, UK. ….geologists investigating coal and coal-bearing strata readily embraced the concept of the raised mire and applied it to the ancient coal seams, at times in absence of objective, definitive criteria. Such conclusions were supported by the views of peat researchers…. ‘Such [low ash, wood-derived] material can only have developed in an ecosystem of a tropical ‘forest’ type in which the abundant supply of water was entirely by precipitation, i.e., ombrogenous.’ Whereas such tropical bog forests clearly are suitable precursors of low-ash coals, there is troubling contradictory evidence from many coals (Teichmuller, 1989), one of the most obvious problems being the intercalations of flood-derived silici-clastic partings within many coal seams (Teichmuller, 1982).”

“As observed by Moore (1989, p 90), ‘There has been an unfortunate lack of information exchange between coal geologists and ecologists concerned with modern peatlands, to the detriment of both areas of study.’”
“This paper concerns the validity of methods employed in assessing ancient peat-forming systems, particularly from the standpoint of raised (ombrotrophic) versus planar (rheotrophic) mires. The fundamental thesis of this paper is that the tools for the analysis of ancient peat deposits (coal) must be selected or developed from those employed in the classification of modern peatlands. The three avenues of approach in the interpretation of ancient peat-forming systems that will be addressed in this paper are lithotype, maceral, and miospore analysis.” [emphasis added]

From: Calder, J.H., 1993. The evolution of a ground-water-influenced (Westphalian B) peat-forming ecosystem in a piedmont setting: The No. 3 seam, Springhill coalfield, Cumberland Basin, Nova Scotia. In: Cobb, J.C., Cecil, C.B., (Eds.), Modern and Ancient Coal-Forming Environments, GSA Special Paper 286, 154.

I will say that I'm here to learn, not butt heads with anyone. Data is data, and we should all be willing to look at the full spectrum. Now the interpretations ....... well, that's another matter. :smile:

Bill

[grmorton]

I posted a response to your initial post, Glenn. You challenged folks of a different mindset to respond, so I did. I guess you didn't expect a response so now that you have one if you want to move it, be my guest. I'll try not to get lost between here and Natural Science. Besides, I miss getting beat up by Kevin.

Incidentally, I thought Shunyadragon (sp?) identified himself as a non Christian, and I'm pretty sure he posted here. Was he out of bounds?

Bill


Bill, Shunyadragon is a theist. The term theism is bigger than Christian and includes other religions. Muslims are theists and they would be allowed to post here.

Bill, the move has nothing to do with getting a response. It is to allow others to be involved. After about 8 years of beating my head against the wall on coal, I really don't find it useful to discuss coal with you, not because you have irrefutable arguments but because you never listen to the counter argument and always use the exceptional to disprove the common. I will be involved, but I am not going to waste my time being the only one arguing with you. You will suck up all my time and I don't want that.

[grmorton]

I will say that I'm here to learn, not butt heads with anyone.

Bill

for this to be true, it would mean a major change in what I have seen in the past, unfortunately. No data seems to change your opinion. Like the fact that you believe coals came from floating mats but you have never satisfactorily explained why there is not a single coal seam in the deep ocean beds, even though floating mats should have floated over the deep oceanic regions during the global flood. You never seem to understand the problem this gives you.

ANd you ignore roots found growing beneath coal seams. that is what Kevin was always arguing with you and you come up with incredibly unlikely explanations in order to avoid having the roots grow in place. For those who want to see Kevins data some of it is at

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cancoal.htm

[bpayne]

Bill, Shunyadragon is a theist. The term theism is bigger than Christian and includes other religions. Muslims are theists and they would be allowed to post here.

OK, sorry.

Bill, the move has nothing to do with getting a response. It is to allow others to be involved. After about 8 years of beating my head against the wall on coal, I really don't find it useful to discuss coal with you, not because you have irrefutable arguments but because you never listen to the counter argument and always use the exceptional to disprove the common. I will be involved, but I am not going to waste my time being the only one arguing with you. You will suck up all my time and I don't want that.

Shunyadragon's post is #13. In it he says:

The polystrate trees (forests) do not show the Global Flood as SLOOOW, it shows it never happened. I worked for twenty years as a geologist in Appalachia, and there are polystrate forests everywhere along with meandering river systems tracable for hundreds of miles, lakes, swamps, deltas, wind blown dunes and loess deposites, and beaches in thousands of feet of cyclic sedimentary deposits in the largest coal forming basin to ever exist on the face of the earth. They are capped by a series of terrestrial redbed deposits similar to the midwestern US.


I'll grant ya'll river systems. The inclined coal I attached is most likely a cut-and-fill (not a fold) structure since the beds below/beside the coal are horizontal, as are the fill beds above the coal (two more views attached). The deposition of coal on an incline and the general lack of polystrates are two counterarguments you ignore. In one of the Pittsburg coal papers you did find a reference to two or three polystrates in or on top of the coal, but, as I pointed out, those are the exception rather than the rule.

I agree that you and I have worn this topic out. My main interest is in finding out more about the "polystrate forests everywhere" that Shunyadragon alluded to. I've looked at coal seams in AL, TN, W VA, and KY, and have yet to see a polystrate forest anywhere, let alone everywhere.

Take care,

Bill

[grmorton]

I agree that you and I have worn this topic out.

Thank you Bill, I really am worn out on coal. We disagree and apparently will continue to do so.

[shunyadragon]

I agree that you and I have worn this topic out. My main interest is in finding out more about the "polystrate forests everywhere" that Shunyadragon alluded to. I've looked at coal seams in AL, TN, W VA, and KY, and have yet to see a polystrate forest anywhere, let alone everywhere.

Take care,

Bill

I'm puzzled that you have looked in WV and not found polystrate forests, because I worked in WV as a geologist/soil scientist on mapping and mine reclamation for twent years and saw numerous examples of polystrate forests and examples of polystrate trees too numerous to count. Other things I saw were meandering rivers and streams, oxbow lakes, deltas, dune deposits, and examples of detailed swamp environments and the associated fossils. My advice is to contact the geology department at WVU and get the information concerning this. The coal fields of PA, WV and KY are in the center of a vaste basin which is characterized by a unique history of cyclotherms. The evidence of a long history of millions of years is overwhelming. polystrate trees are only a small part of the overall evidence.

[bpayne]

I'm puzzled that you have looked in WV and not found polystrate forests, because I worked in WV as a geologist/soil scientist on mapping and mine reclamation for twent years and saw numerous examples of polystrate forests and examples of polystrate trees too numerous to count. Other things I saw were meandering rivers and streams, oxbow lakes, deltas, dune deposits, and examples of detailed swamp environments and the associated fossils. My advice is to contact the geology department at WVU and get the information concerning this. The coal fields of PA, WV and KY are in the center of a vaste basin which is characterized by a unique history of cyclotherms. The evidence of a long history of millions of years is overwhelming. polystrate trees are only a small part of the overall evidence.

Thanks, Shunyadragon, I'll see what they have available.

I've only seen one reference to two or three polystrates in the Pittsburg coal, which of course is extensive. The photo I posted of the split off the top of the Pittsburg showed no polystrates.

I'm certainly open to what you have to say, and will follow up on that information. Do you happen to have any photos of the polystrate forests you have seen that you could post?

Thanks again,

Bill

[shunyadragon]

Thanks, Shunyadragon, I'll see what they have available.

I've only seen one reference to two or three polystrates in the Pittsburg coal, which of course is extensive. The photo I posted of the split off the top of the Pittsburg showed no polystrates.

I'm certainly open to what you have to say, and will follow up on that information. Do you happen to have any photos of the polystrate forests you have seen that you could post?

Thanks again,

Bill

I did have many, but that was years ago. I will rummage to see if I have a few left. My best pictures were forests in the dune and delta sandstone deposits over the coal seems from southern West Virginia

[Perry]

Bill, Shunyadragon is a theist. The term theism is bigger than Christian and includes other religions. Muslims are theists and they would be allowed to post here.

Bill, the move has nothing to do with getting a response. It is to allow others to be involved. After about 8 years of beating my head against the wall on coal, I really don't find it useful to discuss coal with you, not because you have irrefutable arguments but because you never listen to the counter argument and always use the exceptional to disprove the common. I will be involved, but I am not going to waste my time being the only one arguing with you. You will suck up all my time and I don't want that.

Translation: Bill, I'm a supergeological guru, worshipped by people, some even as ingeniously articulate as Rogero. To avoid having to rudely berate you as you kick my ass arguing coal, I would appreciate you realizing my fatigue level, as running, and attempting to hide from God and working for the collossal planet-raping oil companies are two activities which are more important drains upon my infinite, elite qualifications than somebody like YOU could, or should ever be. Thank you for bending over backwards to be nice to me so that I, a super geological guru, can condescend to SIGH with relief when you wimpily agree not to argue coal with me, a supregeological guru.

[rogero]

Translation: Bill, I'm a supergeological guru, worshipped by people, some even as ingeniously articulate as Rogero. To avoid having to rudely berate you as you kick my ass arguing coal, I would appreciate you realizing my fatigue level, as running, and attempting to hide from God and working for the collossal planet-raping oil companies are two activities which are more important drains upon my infinite, elite qualifications than somebody like YOU could, or should ever be. Thank you for bending over backwards to be nice to me so that I, a super geological guru, can condescend to SIGH with relief when you wimpily agree not to argue coal with me, a supregeological guru.

Bill --- behold an example from the audience to which your arguments appeal.

Perry --- So, you followed the details of this thread well enough to conclude that Bill could "kick Glennn's ass" were the discussion to continue? Wow, you're smarter than I thought!

FYI, Perry, I wish you could have read through the long thread on the ASA Listserve of Bill arguing his floating VeggieMat tm allochthonous coal theory with a Canadian coal geologist. Assuming you could have understood the content, you would have seen how weak Bill's argument is. However, Bill -- as nearly all YECs -- never backs down from his POV, no matter how much evidence or logic to the contrary. Now, if you consider that plucky attitude as "kicking ass" then I'm not sure what would convince you in any argument.

P.S. Perry -- good to have you back. Have you done any more studying on the Vapor Canopy, Flash-frozen mammoths, and "puked-up" fossils on Mt Everest? Did you look up "geothermal gradient" and "latent heat of vaporization" as part of my assigned vocubulary exercise? Remember, you need to take advantage of all this free education here!

[grmorton]

Translation: Bill, I'm a supergeological guru, worshipped by people, some even as ingeniously articulate as Rogero. To avoid having to rudely berate you as you kick my ass arguing coal, I would appreciate you realizing my fatigue level, as running, and attempting to hide from God and working for the collossal planet-raping oil companies are two activities which are more important drains upon my infinite, elite qualifications than somebody like YOU could, or should ever be. Thank you for bending over backwards to be nice to me so that I, a super geological guru, can condescend to SIGH with relief when you wimpily agree not to argue coal with me, a supregeological guru.

Perry, as an outsider from Bill and I you don't know crud about what you speak. I like Bill, Bill and I have debated for several years, I mean several years. I think Bill understood my response because he had something called CONTEXT, but you don't. So why don't you save your spleen for someone else.

[bpayne]

Translation: Bill, I'm a supergeological guru, worshipped by people, some even as ingeniously articulate as Rogero. To avoid having to rudely berate you as you kick my ass arguing coal, I would appreciate you realizing my fatigue level, as running, and attempting to hide from God and working for the collossal planet-raping oil companies are two activities which are more important drains upon my infinite, elite qualifications than somebody like YOU could, or should ever be. Thank you for bending over backwards to be nice to me so that I, a super geological guru, can condescend to SIGH with relief when you wimpily agree not to argue coal with me, a supregeological guru.

Dear Perry,

Glenn's not running from God. Glenn is the most rigorous, articulate, honest and accurate person I've met. He has the guts to follow his interpretation of the data, even when it seems not to square with his beliefs as a Christian. He and I may disagree on the interpretations but not on the data. I've learned a ton from Glenn and I have the highest regard for him.

We probably won't see Glenn in heaven though........he'll be at the foot of the throne and you and I will be lost in the back of the throng.

Take care,

Bill

[bpayne]

[QUOTE=bpayne]I've looked at coal seams in AL, TN, W VA, and KY, and have yet to see a polystrate forest anywhere, let alone everywhere.[quote]

I need to set the record straight. I've not been to W VA. I've read a little about some coal seams that extend into W VA, but I haven't been there. I wasn't thinking when I said that.

Sorry,

Bill

[bpayne]

I did have many, but that was years ago. I will rummage to see if I have a few left. My best pictures were forests in the dune and delta sandstone deposits over the coal seems from southern West Virginia

Shunyadragon,

I would like to point out that your use of the term "forests" is an interpretation, not data. The polystrates are data, whether they are in situ or transported is an interpretation.

Now, what evidence do you offer that your groups of polystrates are in situ and thus a former "forest"? The mere presence of a group of polystrates is not evidence of being in situ.

Most if not all of the polystrates I have seen are single and isolated, i.e., they do not occur in groups. Most of the coal seams I have seen exhibit no polystrates at all. The first attached photo is a coal seam with no polystrates. Incidentally, this seam is structurally tilted, not a cut-and-fill structure. It's located south of Birmingham, AL about 15 miles, in the Valley and Ridge and part of the Cahaba Basin. The coal is underlain by a rooted underclay and overlain by a fine-grained sandstone (equivalent to your interpretation of "dune and delta"?). The second photo is a closeup of the same seam, and shows a thin (~2 mm) split over the main seam. There are no stems or trunks visible along the top of the coal seam, and no underclay/roots beneath the upper split.

I finallly got by the library last week to look at the article Glenn referenced when he began this thread. The USGS Professional Paper 1110-A-L has a photo of a polystrate on page G-34 (see third attached photo) 15 feet tall. The text says:

Milici, et al, USGS Prof. Paper 1110-A-L, The Mississippian and Pennsylvannian (Carboniferous) Systems in the United States--Tennessee, p G32.

Figure 24 shows a tree that was buried to a depth of 4.6 m (15 ft). Because the tree is in growth position and shows no root regeneration, it probably was buried very quickly, certainly before it could decay. Probably the tree (and others like it)grew in a back swamp, the level of which was sbustantially below the water level of the adjacent levee-confined river. When crevasses formed in the natural levee, sediment-laden waters rushed into the back swamp, their velocity was quickly checked, and deposits were immediately laid down around the trees. Thus, a tree, rooted in mud, could be buried by 4.6 m (15 ft) of sediment without being knocked over by the transporting current.

So this is apparently a single tree also, as far as the authors could see in the outcrop.

Lastly, I'll include a single polystrate I've posted before as the fourth attached photo. The fifth attachment shows five coal seams in the mine highwall, which is an estimated 1/2 mile long. Five seams which collectively stretch out for ~2.5 miles, and only one polystrate in this cross-section!

Where are the forests???

Bill

[grmorton]

Dear Perry,

Glenn's not running from God. Glenn is the most rigorous, articulate, honest and accurate person I've met. He has the guts to follow his interpretation of the data, even when it seems not to square with his beliefs as a Christian. He and I may disagree on the interpretations but not on the data. I've learned a ton from Glenn and I have the highest regard for him.

We probably won't see Glenn in heaven though........he'll be at the foot of the throne and you and I will be lost in the back of the throng.

Take care,

Bill


Bill, I will tell you that you live your christianity like few YECs I have ever known. Yeah, we disagree on much, but it won't be me at up at the front. One doesn't get there by doing what I do. You get there by doing what you do--caring for your fellow man.

[NeilUnreal]

I just got this mental image of Glenn chipping off pieces of the throne with a rock hammer and looking at them with a Hastings Triplet. :lol:

-Neil

[grmorton]

I just got this mental image of Glenn chipping off pieces of the throne with a rock hammer and looking at them with a Hastings Triplet. :lol:

-Neil

Somehow I suspect that will not be permitted. However, and this is a bit unbelievable I know, until this moment I didn't know what the name of my magnifying glass was. I own a fine Hastings triplet but never knew it's name. Thanks for teaching me something new. I just called it my lens.