Search This Blog

Loading...

Sunday, February 21, 2010

polystrate fossils? Can't be found?!






The top picture was one particular polystrate that was preserved at a length of 7.6 meters through several layers supposedly traversing hundreds of thousands of years at a minimum. How could there be so many polystrate fosssils and rock layers twisted like taffy and megabreccias found commonly in rock layers. Why are tracks and ripples and animals caught in the act of birth or in the process of eating? Catastrophism. Massive and world-wide catastrophism.

This link takes you to a site with more pictures including an explanation for the many polystrate "forests" found thrust upright or angled through thousands and even supposed millions of years by Darwinist thinking. Such tree trunks are found stripped of leaves and branches and often even bark and are then sorted and left in place.

Yes, we have found even human fossils in the "wrong" rock layers but these are hushed up by the powers that be in the "science" world. They would prefer to come up with faked "finds" like Ida and Pakicetus!


For those who would like to learn more rather than remain brainwashed.

25 comments:

creeper said...

"Why are tracks and ripples and animals caught in the act of birth or in the process of eating? Catastrophism. Massive and world-wide catastrophism."

The answer to the question is "sudden events" - or "catastrophes" if you will.

But it's poor logic indeed to immediately jump to the conclusion of "massive and world-wide catastrophism". If that were the case, wouldn't we be seeing a lot more such remains? Wouldn't we be seeing a big jumble in the fossil record, of all known creatures all mixed up, no neatly arranged layers with differently aged rocks and different fossils from layer to layer?

If you want to make some vague claim (that's supposed to be a "better" explanation) that the animals' "specific gravity" has something to do with it, then we'd be seeing the layers arranged by that, no? But that's pretty friggin' far from what we're seeing.

The first thing I said at the beginning of the previous post remains apt:

"Radar, uniformitarianism does not mean that (relatively) sudden disasters cannot occur. Volcanoes erupting, tsunamis, floods, meteors hitting the Earth etc. - all perfectly compatible with uniformitarianism."

-- creeper

radar said...

No, creeper, there has been only one world-wide flood and the power involved cannot be observed by going back in time. But hydrologists do understand the sorting nature of floods and there are plenty of areas of remains that are all oriented in the same direction as a result of the floods.

The difficulty of the rock records is that much of the formations seen now involve the cascading catastrophes that would have been happening as the world adjusted to taller mountains, deeper oceans, multiple continents rather than a Pangea-type continent that probably existed before the flood.

Many fossils were animals that survived the flood and began repopulating the world only to fall victim to a dam breach or a massive mudslide and etc. That swift climate changes after the flood occurred is evident in the many Mammoths found quick-frozen in the very act of eating along with their meal.

Interestingly, the entire surface of the prediluvian world was almost certainly subducted (temperatures deep in the Earth support this) and now this process has slowed drastically but continues to this day.

Jon Woolf said...

Thank you for the attribution on the previous post, Radar.

On this post: Do you have a context for any of these photos? Where and when taken, and what the surrounding rock looked like? The devil, if you'll pardon the expression, is in the details. Without a context, these photos prove nothing.

As for catastrophes in the geologic record, creeper is right: they do exist, and geologists have always known it. Catastrophic events are routinely used to explain rocks that can't be explained any other way. For one very good example, I'll refer you to Chapter 5 of Jack Horner's superb book Digging Dinosaurs, in which he details the discovery of a huge dinosaur bone bed, and explains their history using not one but two catastrophic events: a volcanic eruption and a breached-lake flood.

Inconsistent in a different way are fossil beds that show no trace of catastrophism. For example, the Ordovician fossil beds around Cincinnati, Ohio. Brachiopods and bryozoans are sessile, anchored, bottom-dwelling organisms, like modern clams and corals. They grow, live, and die in place. If they're buried in sand or mud, they die. Yet their fossils are spread evenly throughout the Cincinnatian rock column, and represent a biomass that boggles the mind. How could you have that many organisms living and dying in the few months that the Flood lasted?

radar said...

John,

That is easy. If at the start of major catastrophism massive amounts of sediment covered the sea bottoms then most bottom-dwellers would have been buried and preserved in place. Such a rich fossil find is not possible under normal circumstances since various scavengers and microbial entities reduce the dead to almost nothing in today's world. You will note that deep-sea diving expeditions do not find ocean bottoms littered with preserved dead specimens...

radar said...

To continue that theme, the fossil record is one of an immediate explosion of bottom-dwelling sea life, fully developed (like the trilobite). The Cambrian explosion has left its mark across the world, including mountaintops at great heights. Again, a worldwide flood combined with volcanic activity and crust subduction explains this, as it explains apparently higher mountains and deeper seas. The now incremental subduction of tectonic plates hints at a faster rate in the past.

Darwin's assumptions were based on uniformitarianism, a certainty that intermediate forms would be found and a very elementary knowledge of cellular activity and complexity. His grandfather helped raise him to believe in evolution if he could just find a scenario to fit the idea. The scenario was popular in the 1800's but it should have been abandoned long ago.

radar said...

Cocino is a layer which often cross-beds (proof of flood activity) and has lots of tracks, some of which appear to be made by creatures that are running in shallow waters or waters nearly over their heads. Cocino is no friend of Darwin.

Jon Woolf said...

I'm afraid it's not that easy, radar. You see, the Cincinnatian rocks also preserve burrows ... in the middle of the local geologic column. Hundreds of meters of fossiliferous rocks below, hundreds of meters of fossiliferous rocks above. How is it possible for animals to dig burrows without suffocating, when sediment is being deposited around and on top of them at a rate of many meters per day?

the fossil record is one of an immediate explosion of bottom-dwelling sea life, fully developed

The "Cambrian explosion" never actually existed. It's an illusion created by the human inability to grasp Deep Time. As currently defined the "explosion" spans about 45,000,000 years. That's not a small amount of time, by any means. Plenty of time, for plenty of evolution.

Regarding the Coconino Sandstone, it doesn't look like marine crossbedding. It looks like sand-dune crossbedding. And in passing, and without meaning to be snarky, I'd feel a lot more confident you could understand this subject if you could at least get the names right.

creeper said...

Radar, I'm afraid linking to pictures of fossils that were caught in the middle of some act is hardly persuasive. The answer is obvious: they were submerged very rapidly. Evidence of a global flood? Not one bit. Compatible with it? Sure. But the only thing it tells us is that this particular creature was caught in a sudden event, no more. And that's completely compatible with both points of view in this discussion.

As for the polystrate trees, of course the detail matters here, as Jon rightly pointed out. It's not like a certain thickness of rock automatically translates into X number of years. There is talk here of these trees being surrounded by layers of rock that represent "hundreds of thousands" or in one breathless claim "billions" of years, but I haven't seen anything that substantiates that. No detail, no data that compares the top and bottom of the rock layer in question.

Incidentally, that same lack of detail applies to your "rock twisted like taffy" claim.

The thinking being applied to these polystrate trees is the same error in logic you made in your embarrassing ice core study "mistake": it's not about the thickness of the material, but what is contained in it. A foot of snow doesn't automatically translate to X number of years - the layers themselves matter.

-- creeper

オテモヤン said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
radar said...

Not snarky, I fat finger sometimes.

Cincinnatian is my favorite of all deposit regions. I cut my paleontological teeth (if that is an expression) on these layers. The region is rich with various limestones and shales and caves abound.

When I was a child, finding Indian arrowheads and axeheads was one of our favorite pastimes in these hills.

Good fossils were also prized, but the abundance of normal shells meant such fossils were ignored. Fish, ferns, and complete trilobites were among the highest prized. I regrettably gave away a fossilized nut of a variety of tree similar to a walnut.

Because these layers have been exposed for many generations and not covered by other layers then bioturbation and ephermal activity is not unexpected. But it did not occur during millions of years but rather thousands of years. Layers open to the elements and exposed by caves and fissures plus soft rock = burrowing.

radar said...

creeper, your ignorance of polystrates does not mean anything to us. You have not seen it nor understand it therefore it does not exist. That is not a good argument. I will show you some rocks that have been twisted like taffy next post and you try to explain how brittle rock can bend like salt water taffy when it is fresh...

radar said...

One thing that puzzles me about otherwise seemingly intelligent men who promote Darwinism. We see what happens when animals die. There are entire orders of creatures who live off dead bodies. Carrion eaters range from large mammals and flying raptors down to insect larvae and microscopic eaters. The carcass eventually returns to the earth after being processed with little or no trace.

Yet the fossil record has multiple millions of creatures buried alive and entombed. Many are bones that have been separated and scattered and even oriented in the same direction by a might force and then preserved as they are. Catastrophic.

creeper said...

"your ignorance of polystrates does not mean anything to us. You have not seen it nor understand it therefore it does not exist. That is not a good argument."

Nor was it my argument. Come on, Radar, that's not even a good evasion. (It is, however, a good example of a strawman argument.)

Where is the data that compares the ages of the layers at the respective tops and bottoms of the polystrate fossils?

"I will show you some rocks that have been twisted like taffy next post and you try to explain how brittle rock can bend like salt water taffy when it is fresh..."

1. Impressive!

2. So what?

You seem to think that that would somehow disprove uniformitarianism. For the umpteenth time - such sudden events are entirely compatible with uniformitarianism.

Evade evade evade.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"But it did not occur during millions of years but rather thousands of years. Layers open to the elements and exposed by caves and fissures plus soft rock = burrowing."

Hmm...

"Rather thousands of years"...

- remind me... based on what exactly?

You also seem to have missed (or deliberately glossed over) this bit in Jon's comment:

"the Cincinnatian rocks also preserve burrows ... in the middle of the local geologic column. Hundreds of meters of fossiliferous rocks below, hundreds of meters of fossiliferous rocks above."

How'd that get there in just a few thousand years?

-- creeper

radar said...

Back to the Cincinnati rock layers. If you were on my side of this argument, it would not surprise you to learn that the rocks (there are many varieties) are tantamount to simple earth to much of the local fauna. The mudrocks begin to degrade back to mud with exposure. Shales also do the same. There is some shale in the region that was of school blackboard quality but much of it is not so sturdy and is also returning to earth. Limestone is hard but porous and once breached in some way is also used by wildlife. With relatives from Terre Haute in the West, Bedford towards the center, Connersville in the East and some in far south Illinois and in Dayton, Ohio, I have traversed the region over the course of decades and know it well.

creeper said...

"One thing that puzzles me about otherwise seemingly intelligent men who promote Darwinism. We see what happens when animals die. There are entire orders of creatures who live off dead bodies. Carrion eaters range from large mammals and flying raptors down to insect larvae and microscopic eaters. The carcass eventually returns to the earth after being processed with little or no trace. "

Which is precisely why fossils are so relatively rare.

"Yet the fossil record has multiple millions of creatures buried alive and entombed. Many are bones that have been separated and scattered and even oriented in the same direction by a might force and then preserved as they are."

What exactly are the effects of a flood on bodies in terms of tearing them limb from limb? I thought we were talking about rapid burial, thus "freezing" organisms in place.

I assume your mention of "multiple millions" of fossils mostly refers to shellfish, trilobytes, mollusks and the like. Fossils of mammals etc. are extremely rare - though if there had been a rapid burial, we'd expect to see a lot more of them. We'd have as many remains of T-Rexes as we do of woolly mammoths. Which we don't, needless to say.

-- creeper

creeper said...

That's all fair and well, Radar, even if somewhat irrelevant. Again, you seem to have missed (or deliberately glossed over) this bit in Jon's comment:

"the Cincinnatian rocks also preserve burrows ... in the middle of the local geologic column. Hundreds of meters of fossiliferous rocks below, hundreds of meters of fossiliferous rocks above."

How'd that get there in just a few thousand years?

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper, the area is very hilly. Deep valleys are found between towering mini-mountains and lots of caves. While naturalists claimed no river otters extended into the region, my cousin Lonnie and I knew of a couple of otter families and occasionally caught them in action "sledding" down an otter run. I captured a "hair snake" once, a creature considered mythical but now understood to be a type of nematode. I can tell you that cottonmouth or water moccasin snakes are exceedingly agressive and will undertake to attack you for no seeming reason.
Anyway, I know this region quite well and will continue...

radar said...

Because layers that seem hundreds of feet buried in some areas are exposed in others, burrowing would not be unexpected. You simply cannot fathom the region unless you understand this. Also these rocks which are supposed to be millions of years old commonly degrade when exposed to the elements and most of them quickly return to mud or dirt. The calcified limestone however remains pretty sturdy, thus providing building materials. But cracks in limestone soon produce caves and havens for fauna even so.

In short, finding burrowing behavior in rock formations of this type is about as surprising as finding mice in your garage.

Jon Woolf said...

radar, you need to go read my full piece on Cincinnatian rocks. When you do, you'll see that your attempted explanation of them just doesn't hold water.

In particular, you still haven't explained the burrows. Diplocraterion is the name given to a trace fossil: a large vertical burrow with a distinctive appearance. Diplocraterion burrows definitely took time to dig, probably a lot of time. As with most burrow fossils, we don't know what dug Diplocraterion burrows, but we do know it was an animal. That means it had to breathe. So it needed to have access to oxygenated water. I think you'll agree that getting buried under a steady stream of sediment isn't conducive to continued breathing.

So, if the Flood was depositing all this sediment at a rate of feet per day, how did the Diplocraterion animal breathe, down there in its burrow?

radar said...

To be clear, I believe all sedimentary rocks were formed during an approximate one year worldwide flood event. During the following around 300 years the Earth was an unsteady landscape of wet rock formations, suddenly forming glaciers, seasonal glacial melting and resulting landslides and runoffs of immense size. Most canyons of any size, most mesa formations and etc were the result. I would go so far to say that many glacial remains go back to the immediate post-flood times and there are some (like the cap on Kilimanjaro) that may eventually disappear entirely.

We would have mostly mammal remains encased in ice because primarily only mammals have the genetic code and the warm blood to survive in colder regions, so in the early post-flood years those kinds of animals would populate the wide-open northern regions (and be subject to the occasion cataclysm). Creationist consider the flood and the 300 or so years thereafter as the time of the formation of fossils and most sedimentary earth forms we are familiar with now.

Most glaciers have found a balance and remain about the same now, receding in warm periods and growing in colder ones. It is interesting that Alaskan cruises commonly take passengers up to the Hubbard glacier (I have been there) to see the glacier "calving." Glaciers normally only calve when they are growing.

radar said...

Diplocraterion is not yet known well. It may have been a creature capable of living in the mud during a portion of the flood period before being subsequently buried and therefore killed. The rocks buried below ground sometimes show this kind of activity but normal infiltration of layers expected in rock or soil exposed for long periods of time to air and etc. are not found.

We have found tracks of trilobites who escaped the first burial episode during the flood and occasionally one shows up higher in the rock order than expected but it was not mobile enough to survive. We have found lots of animal tracks, many of which were made in water that had not yet covered them. All of these became buried and preserved and it took a catastrophic episode to do it.

So Diplocraterion is not a typical ephermal or bioturbation common to exposed/long age ecosystems.

Jon Woolf said...

Creeper, you wrote: "Fossils of mammals etc. are extremely rare - though if there had been a rapid burial, we'd expect to see a lot more of them."

One of the more interesting things about palaeontology, especially dinosaur and mammal palaeontology, is the way that the record teases creationists on this subject of bone beds. (It's also one reason why I think if there is a god, he has the soul of Loki coupled with Coyote's sense of humor.) See, there are a number of cases of giant bone beds being found in the rocks -- monotypic, widespread bone beds, preserving dozens, hundreds, even thousands of individuals all of the same species, clearly the result of a catastrophic event like a flood, which killed a large number of animals and then buried them in place. Creationists leap on such cases (when they know about them), expecting a joyous roll among evidence for the Flood. And then ... Loki chuckles cruelly and yanks away the soft cushion, and the creationists land on solid rock as they realize that the bonebeds can be expained by perfectly ordinary, everyday events. For example, this ceratopsid bonebed along Pipestone Creek in Canada.

Anonymous said...

Radar, just admit you don't know what the hell you are talking about already. I mean, there is BS in literally EVERYTHING you write on this blog. Like this little white one from above. Says Radar, "Glaciers normally only calve when they are growing." Um, what? Source please... ha good one, hey? Seriously though, do you just "make stuff up" all the time, or only when debating "Darwinists" online? I mean, I'm no expert but a quick google brings up this fun fact, that the Calving of Greenland's glaciers produce 12,000 to 15,000 icebergs each year alone. (source - http://www.oxfam.org.uk/coolplanet/ontheline/explore/nature/oceans/prtoceans.htm). You're not contending that the glaciers of Greenland are constantly "growing" are you, because I'd love to know what your source is on that one too.

- Canucklehead.

Jon Woolf said...

radar, in a comment above you wrote:

"To be clear, I believe all sedimentary rocks were formed during an approximate one year worldwide flood event. "

Just out of curiosity, how do you explain, within the context of your Flood model:

1) paleosols which are fossilized soils, with plant root systems and other recognizable "this was once dry ground" markers fossilized with them, in the middle of the geologic column?

2) flood basalts, which are ENORMOUS layers of volcanic basalts, clearly deposited as a series of lava flows from volcanic fissures. In the Deccan Traps of India, there are fossil-bearing sedimentary strata -- clearly deposited on land, with fossils of land-dwelling plants and animals -- below the basalts, above the basalts, even in-between some of the basalt layers. Do you know how long it takes to turn bare, freshly-erupted basalt into habitable land, with soil and all that?