Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Modern Sunken Forests Discredit Fossilization Argument
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 1 of 15 (95679)
03-29-2004 1:45 PM


While surfing the Internet, I found an article that refutes a key premise of fossil wood and polystrate tree arguments that in situ trees and transported pieces of wood always rapidly decay and can only be preserved by rapid burial by a catastrophic flood and, thus fossil wood and polystarte fossils can only be explained by rapid burial during the Noachian Flood. The article is "Robotic lumberjack dives to harvest flooded forests" by Kurt Kleiner. This article appeared in the August 11, 2001 "New Scientist on p 38. and can be found online at:
News articles and features | New Scientist
This article discussed a "chainsaw-wielding robotic submarine" that cruises beneath Lois Lake in British Columbia, Canada where it is "chopping down a forest that was left submerged decades ago when the valley was flooded by a hydroelectric dam." The article noted that after the trees are cut, they are well preserved enough to be raised to the surface, brought to shore, dried out, milled, and used in furniture and as lumber.
The article further stated:
"Trees left standing in flooded forests die, but they do not rot
because the water keeps out oxygen. Worldwide, some 200
million trees are thought to be standing on the floor of
hydropower reservoirs.
"Provided its been in cold, close to anaerobic conditions,
wood from submerged trees actually can be in very good
condition indeed," says Rorke Bryan, dean of the faculty
of forestry at the University of Toronto."
This article demonstrates, contrary to the arguments of Young Earth creationists that under specific environmental conditions the long-term preservation of wood, i.e. submerged in lakes or, more commonly, buried in anaerobic, water-saturated sediments, occurs without having to be buried by hyper-catastrophic processes.
That normal day-to-day processes that operate within river systems can preserve wood long enough to become fossilized is demonstrated by the occurrence of well-preserved wrecks of steamboats and other ships, which sank within a river and preserved by burial within fluvial deposits. Examples of these include the wrecks of Steamboat Arabia and Steamboat Bertrand, which both were found and excavated after being buried and preserved in fluvial sediments. Some web pages are:
1. TREASURES OF THE STEAMBOAT ARABIA
http://glswrk-auction.com/102.htm
http://glswrk-auction.com/WebPics/102.04.jpg
2. Steamboat Bertrand Cargo Collection
http://refuges.fws.gov/...ralInterest/steamBoatBertrand.html
http://refuges.fws.gov/...alInterest/steamBoatBertrand2.html
Some related web pages are:
1. Fish Fossils by Keith Littleton
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: September 2002
2. NonCatastrophic and Modern Fossilization
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fossilization.htm
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199801/0176.html
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199801/0164.html
3. Morris's Impact Article No. 316 On Joggins Polystrate Fossil ( Trees / Forests )
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
4. Yellowstone Petrified and Polystrate Trees Revisited
EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simple
5. Paleosols
EvC Forum: Paleosols
6. Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines
EvC Forum: Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-29-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by rickrose, posted 04-25-2004 11:08 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 4 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 11:21 AM Bill Birkeland has replied

  
rickrose
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 15 (102662)
04-25-2004 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bill Birkeland
03-29-2004 1:45 PM


I am not a young earth creationist. I do, however, believe in the great biblical flood. Complete fosilization occurs, as you know, only under accutely specific circumstances. Not all fosilization should be attributed to the flood. That too is rediculous. But the sheer quantity of fosilization strays me from explaining the volume by a series of 'microfloods' and otherwise like occurences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-29-2004 1:45 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by AdminNosy, posted 04-25-2004 11:18 PM rickrose has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 3 of 15 (102663)
04-25-2004 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by rickrose
04-25-2004 11:08 PM


Topic
You are off topic I think. Or at least not directly addressing Bill's points.
There are other topic in this forum about the flood. Try to pick one appropriate to what you want to debate or propose a new one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by rickrose, posted 04-25-2004 11:08 PM rickrose has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 15 (104151)
04-30-2004 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bill Birkeland
03-29-2004 1:45 PM


Bill, I believe you are misrepresenting what YECs say. Any trees under water did NOT grow there. IOW they are under water either via our work or some catastrophe. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-29-2004 1:45 PM Bill Birkeland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2004 11:34 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 12 by Bill Birkeland, posted 04-30-2004 12:33 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 06-03-2004 12:26 AM John Paul has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
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

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 15 (104163)
04-30-2004 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by NosyNed
04-30-2004 11:34 AM


Of course such fossils are possible- we found them! What happens if a tree is half buried? If that tree dies it will rot (the part that is exposed) and that is what YECs are saying. If a lava flow buries a tree without burning it I would be impressed. If a mudslide buries it well that isn't gradual. There aren't many trees around sand dunes...
The whole point is it takes rapid burial to have any chance of fossilization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2004 11:34 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AdminSylas, posted 04-30-2004 12:07 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2004 12:16 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 04-30-2004 3:52 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 14 by Bill Birkeland, posted 04-30-2004 3:55 PM John Paul has not replied

  
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 15 (104166)
04-30-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
04-30-2004 12:02 PM


Fix your avatar, John Paul
Your new avatar is not appropriate, John Paul. Please delete it.
Added in edit... thanks John Paul and Joe.
Thanks -- AdminSylas
[This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-01-2004]

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Admin, posted 04-30-2004 12:09 PM AdminSylas has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 8 of 15 (104170)
04-30-2004 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by AdminSylas
04-30-2004 12:07 PM


Re: Fix your avatar, John Paul
Is this more a gray area, given Joe Meert's avatar? Perhaps we should request they both change their avatars.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AdminSylas, posted 04-30-2004 12:07 PM AdminSylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AdminSylas, posted 04-30-2004 12:13 PM Admin has not replied

  
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 15 (104173)
04-30-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Admin
04-30-2004 12:09 PM


Re: Fix your avatar, John Paul
Who is the model for Joe Meert's avatar? If Joe is using a picture of someone else in the forum, then yes, he should most definitely delete his avatar as well. I can recognize the model in John Paul's avatar, but not the model in Joe Meert's avatar. I had simply assumed Joe was poking fun at himself; but if he is using his avatar to call some other poster the beast, then he should stop it. I'm hoping this can be resolved quickly without any need to make a big deal about it or forcing anyone's hand.
[This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 04-30-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Admin, posted 04-30-2004 12:09 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 04-30-2004 12:30 PM AdminSylas has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 11 of 15 (104185)
04-30-2004 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by AdminSylas
04-30-2004 12:13 PM


Re: Fix your avatar, John Paul
I believe Joe is using a modified picture of Walt Brown.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by AdminSylas, posted 04-30-2004 12:13 PM AdminSylas has not replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 12 of 15 (104187)
04-30-2004 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by John Paul
04-30-2004 11:21 AM


John Paul wrote:
"Bill, I believe you are misrepresenting what YECs say. Any
trees under water did NOT grow there. IOW they are under
water either via our work or some catastrophe. 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."
No, I am not misrepresenting YECs as I am disputing the specific claim that is made by some Young Earth creationists that all wood will quickly decay and not be preserved as fossils unless rapidly buried and, thus, the presence of any fossil wood in a rock layer is undisputed evidence of "rapid burial" whether the fossil wood is either a polystrate fossil or fossil logs that clearly have been transported. A prime example of the latter are the fossil logs in Petrified Forest National Park. Regardless of the mechanism by which these trees became submerged in water, the reservoir example clearly refutes this claim by Young Earth creationists that **all** wood will always and without exception quickly decay unless buried after they the tree they came from died.
As far as natural processes capable of burying trees in place, I discuss this separate issue in "Soracilla defends the Flood?" thread, in which I discuss how the trees are buried to be preserved as fossils at:
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
and in "Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines" at:
http://EvC Forum: Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines -->EvC Forum: Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines
http://EvC Forum: Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines -->EvC Forum: Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines
The above web pages provide documented and observed examples of how a tree can be buried by sediments "while still in its original environment". The burial can be both "rapid", as in case of Mt. Pinatubo lahars (volcanic mudflows) over a period of a couple of months or "gradual" as in case of the burial of polystrate trees in the Atchafalaya Basin, which were buried over a period of several years as discussed in the "Polystrate Telephone Pole" posts. The YECs are clearly proved to be wrong in this claim also by the direct measurement and observation of natural processes discussed in my previous posts noted above. The key concept in these posts is that upright trees can be buried while still in their original environment as the result of normal sedimentary processes and, thus, can't be used as either proof or evdience of a Noachian Flood.
Yours,
Bill
Houston, Texas
P.S. A detailed report on the Atchafalaya Basin example will be available by the end of 2004. When it is out, I will post a notice of where it can be obtained.
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-30-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John Paul, posted 04-30-2004 11:21 AM John Paul has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 15 (104270)
04-30-2004 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
04-30-2004 12:02 PM


quote:
Of course such fossils are possible- we found them! What happens if a tree is half buried? If that tree dies it will rot (the part that is exposed) and that is what YECs are saying. If a lava flow buries a tree without burning it I would be impressed. If a mudslide buries it well that isn't gradual. There aren't many trees around sand dunes...
The whole point is it takes rapid burial to have any chance of fossilization.
--Not necessarily. Fossilization simply requires the necessary environmental conditions (of course). The rate of burial is not the only possible method by which fossilization is attained--as is clear from any geological analysis of the documented "fossil forests" (eg. Yellowstone and Joggins). Even a period of rapid burial does not necessarily imply fossilization of that which is buried--subsequent subsurface decay by soil microorganisms, bioturbation, soil alkalinity/acidity, etc. can destroy the organism as well as traces of them.
--Edited for clarity.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-30-2004]

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

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 14 of 15 (104272)
04-30-2004 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
04-30-2004 12:02 PM


John Paul wrote:
"Of course such fossils are possible- we found them!"
This is very true. My favorite example of a polystrate tree is one that was found in a backhoe trench by archaeologists looking for archaeological sites in the Atchafayala Basin near Indian Bayou. The sediments enclosing this polystrate tree can clearly be demonstrated as having accumulated over the last 150 to 200 years. This makes the sediments enclosing this polystrate tree far too young to have been deposited by the Noachian Flood. As mentioned in a previous post, I discussed the details of this find in "Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines" at:
http://EvC Forum: Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines -->EvC Forum: Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines
http://EvC Forum: Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines -->EvC Forum: Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines
In the cutbanks of the Mississippi River that expose its older natural levee and oxbow lakes deposits, a person, who wanted to look, could have found additional examples of such historic and Holocene polystrate trees. In 1846 while traveling along the Mississippi River, Charles Lyell saw innumerable examples of polystrate trees encased in recent floodplain deposits that were exposed in Mississippi River cutbanks. It was the amazing similarity of these buried polystrate trees, clearly enclosed in unquestionable fluvial deposits of the Mississippi River, with the Joggins polystrate trees that lead him to interpret the Joggins trees as having been buried upright in place. Polystrate trees have not only been found in the rock record, but also in the modern Mississippi floodplain deposits. This proves not only are they are possible, but also can be created by noncatastrophic processes common to large river systems. (NOTE: Lyell's observation of polystrate trees in exposed Mississippi River deposits is discussed by Leonard G. Wilson in his book "Lyell in America: Transatlantic Geology 1841-1853".)
John Paul continued:
"What happens if a tree is half buried? If that tree dies it will
rot (the part that is exposed) and that is what YECs are saying."
Yes, it will rot eventually. However, in uncommon cases, the process of rotting is slower than the rate at which they are buried. In specific environments, floodplains of large rivers, deltaic plains, and the alluvial aprons of large volcanoes, sediment can, for **brief and episodic periods of time**, accumulate rapidly enough where a group of upright trees can be buried before they completely rots.
In case of the Joggins polystrate trees, the trees, in fact, had partially rotted away to created hollow trunks prior to being completely buried. Had they been buried in the catastrophic manner argued by Young Earth creationists, they shouldn't have rotted at all before burial. Just as John Paul stated above if a tree is half buried it will rot, which is exactly what happened in case of the Joggins polystrate fossil trees before being completely buried. Within the same sedimentary rocks containing the polystrate trees of Joggins, there are many, many, many more root and stump fossils of trees that either completely or almost entirely rotted before they were buried. The rotted nature of the polystrate fossil trees and stumps is discussed in:
Ferguson, L., 1988, The Fossil Cliffs of Joggins, Peeper
Books, Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 48 pp.
and illustrated in the figures in "Joggins trees" at:
http://museum.gov.ns.ca/fossils/sites/joggins/tree.htm
John Paul continued:
"If a lava flow buries a tree without burning it I would be impressed."
Given that polystrate fossils aren't found in ancient lava flows, whether a lava flow completely burns a tree or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Lava flows aren't an issue when it comes to discussing polystrate fossils, or even fossilization in general.
However, now that you mention it, lava flows, under the right circumstances can create fossils, of a different type, of upright trees as documented in:
Lockwood, J. P., and Williams, I. S., 1978. Lava trees and tree
moulds as indicators of lava flow direction. Geological Magazine.
vol. 115, no.1, pp.69-74.
Hyde, H. P. T., 1951, Tree trunks preserved in a volcanic flow
in the northern Cameroons. American Journal of Science. vol. 249,
pp.72-77.
Moore, J. G., and Richter, D. H., 1962. Lava tree molds of the
September 1961 eruption, Klauea volcano, Hawaii. Geological
Society of America Bulletin. vol. 73, pp. 1153-1158.
Walker, G. P. L., 1995, Plant molds in Hawaiian basalts: Was Oahu
a desert, and why? Journal of Geology. vol. 103, p.85-93.
These aren't the type of upright fossil trees that we are talking about. However, they are upright fossil trees, similar to polystrate fossils, and in some cases, have been directly observed as having formed by relatively normal volcanic processes without the benefit of a global catastrophe equivalent to the Noachian Flood.
There is a wonderful photograph of upright fossil trees coated with lava that can be found at:
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/.../Parks/hawaii/Picture26.html
The caption to this photo read:
"In 1790, an eruption in this area generated lava flows that poured
through the forest. As the hot lava encountered trees it chilled
against them, coating each tree with lava. As the lava drained away,
the lava trees were left standing above the surface of the flow."
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/...ides/slides-txt/slide13.html
The caption to this photograph stated:
"Many of the lavas erupted from Hawaiian volcanoes flowed into
dense rain forest consisting mostly of ohia trees. After rapidly
engulfing the trunk of this tree, pahoehoe lava set it on fire,
incinerating the wood, while itself chilling solid around the
outside. Soon after, the bulk of the flow drained away again,
leaving a tall pipe-like 'chimney' of chilled basalt 1.5 m
high marking the site where the tree once grew. An imprint of
the pattern of the bark can often be seen on the inner wall of
the mold. 'Lava tree forests' are known in many other parts
of the world. (Fig. 7.18)."
Note the last line, which reads "'Lava tree forests' are known in many other parts of the world." :-) :-)
John Paul continued:
"If a mudslide buries it well that isn't gradual."
The meaning of the term "gradual" is relative. If a person is talking about a single mudflow burying a group of upright trees, it is clearly not "gradual". However, as in case of the Mt. Pinatubo lahars, if the tree is buried over a period of two to six months by a series of separate mudflows, then the term "gradual" might reasonably be applied. However, many Young Earth creationists in their arguments about polystrate trees define "gradual" in terms of tens of thousands to millions of years. Using this definition of "gradual", **not** a single geologist, including me, would argue that the burial of polystrate trees was "gradual". The impression that I get is that many Young Earth creationists exploit the vagueness of the term "gradual" to misrepresent what conventional geologists are arguing. Thus, a person really should define this term specifically in any discussions of polystrate fossils.
John Paul continued:
"There aren't many trees around sand dunes..."
So what? Polystrate fossil trees are extremely rare, if present at all, in sedimentary rocks interpreted to be ancient deposits of sand dunes. Thus, the absence of trees around sand dunes and polystrate trees /fossils in ancient eolian sandstones has nothing to do with this discussion. On the other hand, the lack of trees associated with sand dunes might explain the absence of polystrate fossil trees in the Coconino Sandstone. :-) :-)
"The whole point is it takes rapid burial to have any
chance of fossilization."
Depending on the type of fossil being discussed and how a person defines "rapid", this isn't always a true statement. For example, if "rapid" is defined as "instantaneous", "rapid"/ instantaneous burial certainly isn't a requirement for the preservation of hard parts of animals. For example, there are beach ridges within the chenier plain of Louisiana and Baja California, Mexico. Some of these beach ridges are almost entirely composed of the shells of mollusks of various types and hundreds to thousands of years old. Obviously, the shells comprising these beach ridges have survived hundreds to thousands of years without being buried. They are still around, to become fossils, when they do become buried. Bones can survive several weeks to a couple years in specific regions before being buried and still can become fossils. In fact, if a person looks at many fossil bones and shells, they show undeniable evidence of having lain around on the either ground or ocean bottom for a period of time and having been either weathered and eroded by exposure on the surface, broken by being trampled by animals, or gnawed /bored by other animals before being buried. Of course fossils of soft parts require immediate burial. But such fossils are rare relative to the more abundant fossils consisting of hard parts, which can, depending the specific environment, be eventually fossilized without having to be immediately buried. In some, but not all environments, shells and bones can lie about on the surface for a few weeks to years before being buried and eventually becoming fossils. Certainly, instantaneous, which is how some Young Earth creationists define "rapid", burial of organisms by the Noachian Flood isn't needed at all for the preservation of the hard parts of dead organisms as fossils. The simple existence of fossils ie neither evidence nor proof a global catastrophe.
Once buried, what determines whether something is fossilized or not becomes the geochemistry between the potential fossil and the soil or sediment, i.e. its pH and Eh, in which it buried. If the soil or sediment is too acid, too basic, oxidizing, and so forth, a shell, bone, or plant remain will not be preserved as a fossil even if it "rapidly buried". The rate of burial is only one of many factors determining whether what remains of an organism becomes a fossil after it dies.
Yours,
Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-30-2004]

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

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 15 of 15 (112537)
06-03-2004 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by John Paul
04-30-2004 11:21 AM


Any trees under water did NOT grow there
you've never been to florida, have you? we have these wonderful things called mangrove trees. they grow underwater, in mangrove swamps.
not to say the point was valid or anything.
but anyhow. evidence for A flood is not evidence for THE flood. we have many examples of fossil beds created by catastrophe and sudden, massive floods. flood fossils look a certain way. they're usually arranged in large jumbles. it often takes a lot of work to separate animals of different species, let alone different individuals. broken bones (unhealed before death) are VERY common.
do fossils form underwater? yes. of course. what about all the trilobites? it just takes being buried under sediment, with enough pressure, and the right conditions. water is usually the agent that replaces the organic material with minerals.

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