Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Modern Sunken Forests Discredit Fossilization Argument
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 15 (104156)
04-30-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by John Paul
04-30-2004 11:21 AM


B u t !!
What YECs say about these fossils is that there isn't any way that a tree was gradually buried by sediments while still in its original environment.
So? In this case that doesn't say a darn thing. There can be changes to the environment.
There are, of course, other cases. If a tree is partly buried by a mudflow is that "original enviroment"? What about the moving of sanddunes? Lave flows?
Whatever YEC's are saying such fossils are possible as shown by both current occurances and by the evidence that has been perserved (trees with roots intact in a soil base).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 11:21 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 12:02 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 15 (104175)
04-30-2004 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
04-30-2004 12:02 PM


Rapid burial
So what? Which particular fossils are a problem for you?
There are cases where these fossils can be formed and they are. I've lost track of what you think the problem is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 12:02 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024