Jump to content

Upside Down In-situ "polystrate Trees"


Falloutdude
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a question for people who have a (much) better understanding of geology than me.

 

While researching, i stumbled across potholer54's debunking of polystrate tree apologetics. Basically, these trees were found growing through layers of stone. This is easily explainable by in-situ explanation. That is, in certain environments, particularly swamps and the like, strata made of fluvial sediments can deposit rapidly.

 

The thing i don't understand, is how can could some of these trees be upside down and be preserved in this way?

 

This has been put forth by many creationists as a kind of debunking to the in-situ claim, at least in some instances, and i need help refuting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know geology. But you have seen petrified forests right? You have seen petrified wood that is exposed right? Clearly wood can get buried, petrified and then later exposed. If what is today an exposed petrified forest were to slowly get buried again under natural sediments then those petrified trees would stretch through all the layers. It would work even if it took thousands of years for the new layers to form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read this as well florduh (actually i went to talk origins first), but it only explains about trees which are upright and rooted in paleosol. I have been presented with claims (which, to my frustration i can only refute or verify if i check out a creationist book, one apparently made by someone who decided the evidence of evolution wasn't sufficient, or some other such claim on her part) Basically, the claim is that upside-down polystrate trees have been found in France. The claim comes from an, at minimum, questionable source (drdino or some other such thing, as well as others) of such upside down polystrate trees growing through meters of these depositions upside-down). I've checked the source, and it's from the book "Bones of Contention" by Sylvia Baker, whom talks about the evidence doesn't support evolution.

 

I don't know about this book's veracity (apparently she used evolutionist sources for most of the citations), but it claims of "polystrate" trees (a creationist term, making it even more difficult to research throughly) have been found in France which are upside down and growing through meters of these strata.

 

The issue isn't whether or not these layers were deposited rapidly, the question is, how could this happen with tree trunks or trees as tall as 2 meters that are upside-down and vertical (again, assuming these claims are true). The thing is with most of the descriptions, only parroting of one or two sources are employed, and the context of these discoveries are not given.

 

Just to clarify, the notion of a flood is virtually debunked for innumerable reasons, and i know this/have looked at them (which is what this is put forth as evidence for), i just seek to clarify seemingly don't seem to fit. Again, no one really discusses these things other than creationists, combined with the arbitrary terminology, this makes it hard to research/find clarity on it. I just don't see any real explanations for ones that could reach about 6 feets or more without having some sort of grounding of a trunk and roots in something like paleosol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I'm no geologist, but I am aware of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. It is so overwhelming I have stopped looking for possible chinks in the evolutionist armor "Just In Case" some Christians might be right. They're not. I humbly suggest you also stop looking for excuses to disregard science and observable reality in order to leave a door open for a clearly debunked religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no geologist, but I am aware of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. It is so overwhelming I have stopped looking for possible chinks in the evolutionist armor "Just In Case" some Christians might be right. They're not. I humbly suggest you also stop looking for excuses to disregard science and observable reality in order to leave a door open for a clearly debunked religion.

 

I'll add to your suggestion and suggest that instead of trying to debunk something you don't understand, how about spending time trying to understand it instead?

 

It always amazes me that people searching for the 'truth' spend all their time searching psuedo scientific critics and spend next to no time studying the science itself. Probably because the critics put together easy, emotionally compelling arguments whereas real science actually takes serious effort and time to pursue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deposits that happen quickly form a single layer.

 

From time to time a forest will grow in a place where the conditions are lined up just right. Then when a century flood happens this forest gets buried. If someone were to excavate they would see a single layer but nobody excavated. The trees sit there. The mud dries out. The trees turn into stone. At least a century later the ground erodes away. That leaves the petrified trees exposed.

 

We have lots of exposed petrified trees. Some are laying down. Some are still standing. If one is leaning against something it could even be upside down. But the point is we can all witness petrified trees in this condition.

 

Then the exposed stone trees are slowly covered by thin deposits that stratify in narrow layers. That part could take centuries but the stone trees don't care because they remain unchanged the whole time. Those layers harden into rock and presto - we have a creationist crank argument. The universe was created last Tuesday. (Or was it last Thursday?)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what apologetics we're talking about but when I took geology way back when (as my "safe" class that really moved me from YEC to OEC and then some). I was forced to accept, even though it is quite obvious, that not all floods are the one and only Noah's flood. And not all floods happen on a global basis. A truly shocking revelation I know. So what does this mean? That something like The Grand Canyon could come from a local river and a local flood (or floods) over lots of time and not some one-off global Noah's flood within the last 6000 or so years.

 

How does that apply here? The trees could have been turned about in a local flood (or floods even). Set into position during said flood. Then, once all topsy-turvy, they solidified and the layers built up around them. Just as we see them. If the ground moved then that would be evident in the layers but I'm not being that specific.

 

Localized flooding can account for a lot of these "strange" issues. Just look around to see the power of flood today. And look to see how things would be if people didn't come along to clean up afterwards and some items managed to randomly stick around for ages. It might look very odd to anyone who uncovered it.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no geologist, but I am aware of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. It is so overwhelming I have stopped looking for possible chinks in the evolutionist armor "Just In Case" some Christians might be right. They're not. I humbly suggest you also stop looking for excuses to disregard science and observable reality in order to leave a door open for a clearly debunked religion.

 

I'll add to your suggestion and suggest that instead of trying to debunk something you don't understand, how about spending time trying to understand it instead?

 

It always amazes me that people searching for the 'truth' spend all their time searching psuedo scientific critics and spend next to no time studying the science itself. Probably because the critics put together easy, emotionally compelling arguments whereas real science actually takes serious effort and time to pursue.

 

 

The idea that i don't understand evolution is an erroneous insult, honestly. It doesn't follow that i don't understand it just because there are bits of evidence i don't understand, which don't even involve evolution btw, except for tangentially linking via the fossil record and geology. Florduh's "just in case" description is probably more accurate, only i don't look for them, i come upon them by accident (while spending hours researching and lookig ACAMDEMIC journals, on certain subjects.) I cross check all of my info. I may not be an evolutionary biologist, but i've studied this a lot (thank you very much), and understand evolution perfectly well. More specifically the human's evolution

 

Geoology isn't biology (more specifically evolution by natural selection). I readily admitted i don't understand geology nearly as well (by far), as i haven't taken any classes in this subject yet. I plan on it, but haven't.

 

I only posted this on here because i thought that maybe it would help someone like me down the line if someone researched about it like me. I tried finding credible sources on the subject, there were't any, only describing a particular situation...The assumption that i didn't look for credible sources (in fact i did this for an hour at least) is a unfounded one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.