The Missing Links in the Fossil Record

[iouae]

Now to my analysis of "Awesome Science" and their explanation of the Yellowstone petrified forests.

There are apparently 5 layers, one on top of the other of upright, vertical standing, petrified trees.
These are trees which have slowly exchanged their wood for minerals like carbonate and silica.

It was obviously a problem to the YEC folks that there were multiple forests buried one atop the other, in one flood. Normally it would require time for each new forest to grow on top of a previously buried forest. For five petrified forests to be buried, trees upright, one on top of the other, would require an "awesome" explanation. I was all ears.

Occam's razor would suggest that when petrified trees are found standing upright, it is because they were buried standing as they grew. But the precocious 10-year old was explaining how the floating logs were rubbed together to remove roots, branches and bark, and then the bole or base of the trees got waterlogged first, so the base of the tree sank, then got buried by sediment in an upright position. And this supposedly happened five times in Noah's flood, with no forests overlapping, but each layer separate.

The above explanation probably seemed perfectly reasonable to the 10-year old, home schooled kid giving the commentary. Me, I was less convinced. First, there was no overlapping of the 5 consecutive forests which one might expect if this all happened in one event. Second, why would trees be upright if these were trees uprooted by Noah's flood?

And the explanation for the Carboniferous era was that the bark of the uprooted, floating trees got rubbed off during Noah's flood and fell to the bottom, forming coal. If you buy that, I have a seafront property in Arizona going cheap. There is not enough bark from all the trees in the world to form one inch of coal.

A lie is a lie, whether told by evolutionists, YEC or OEC.

 

[6days]

Now to my analysis of "Awesome Science" and their explanation of the Yellowstone petrified forests.

There are apparently 5 layers, one on top of the other of upright, vertical standing, petrified trees.
These are trees which have slowly exchanged their wood for minerals like carbonate and silica.

A lie is a lie, whether told by evolutionists, YEC or OEC.

Wrong...
iouae... you are a little too eager promoting your false belief system. (A lie is a lie... correct?)
https://crev.info/2015/09/yellowstone-fossil-forests/
http://www.icr.org/article/yellowstone-petrified-forests/
https://creation.com/the-yellowstone-petrified-forests

 

[Interplanner]

Now to my analysis of "Awesome Science" and their explanation of the Yellowstone petrified forests.

There are apparently 5 layers, one on top of the other of upright, vertical standing, petrified trees.
These are trees which have slowly exchanged their wood for minerals like carbonate and silica.

It was obviously a problem to the YEC folks that there were multiple forests buried one atop the other, in one flood. Normally it would require time for each new forest to grow on top of a previously buried forest. For five petrified forests to be buried, trees upright, one on top of the other, would require an "awesome" explanation. I was all ears.

Occam's razor would suggest that when petrified trees are found standing upright, it is because they were buried standing as they grew. But the precocious 10-year old was explaining how the floating logs were rubbed together to remove roots, branches and bark, and then the bole or base of the trees got waterlogged first, so the base of the tree sank, then got buried by sediment in an upright position. And this supposedly happened five times in Noah's flood, with no forests overlapping, but each layer separate.

The above explanation probably seemed perfectly reasonable to the 10-year old, home schooled kid giving the commentary. Me, I was less convinced. First, there was no overlapping of the 5 consecutive forests which one might expect if this all happened in one event. Second, why would trees be upright if these were trees uprooted by Noah's flood?

And the explanation for the Carboniferous era was that the bark of the uprooted, floating trees got rubbed off during Noah's flood and fell to the bottom, forming coal. If you buy that, I have a seafront property in Arizona going cheap. There is not enough bark from all the trees in the world to form one inch of coal.

A lie is a lie, whether told by evolutionists, YEC or OEC.

This was recently discussed by ICR on its Science and scripture daily program. I don't recall the example location but the point of an example on petrification was how fast it could happen.

You may need to radically update your conception of the flood. I hope you aren't thinking of merely a lot of rain to the legendary tune of covering (now-existing) mountains. It was instead a violent alteration of the mantle and the after-climate affected things extremely for maybe 500 years.

 

[Interplanner]

Yep, never happened

Jonah needs to visit the Austrian collection curated by the Hapsburg Haus. There is a narrated video by K. Dona "Artifacts from the Pre-World Flood and Fallen Angels." Or C. Baugh's "The World and Mankind before the Flood." Both on youtube. Some of the latest thinking about the universality of the stepped-pyramid is that the 'blueprint' was used at Babel and carried all over in the dispersion afterward. It is remarkable how wide spread that is.

While having Jonah's attention, perhaps, I would like to point how native American tracking skills can help us define science. You can take classes in this. An experienced tracker can tell if a coyote is pregnant by its tracking. There is a scene from the true "Alone, But Not Alone" American revolution period story that the 'Iriquois warrior could track as well running at full speed as we (Germans) could spending an hour at a set of prints.'

One of the main principles of the skill is about elapsed-time or 'freshness.' A person has to check closely, down to individual grains of sand or dirt, to make conclusions.

When you come at a question this way, it is like detective work, as I have mentioned from Lewis' essay. Everything is on the table. In geology, a person has to ask 'how fast did this happen?' as often as any other question. When you see a 500 ft high pile of sedimentary deposit with no aging layers or lines, you had a slurry that was powerful enough to push that much around before it desaturated--lost liquidity. 'where did it come from?' If you find sediment from Lake Missoula in Eugene, OR, excavations, you had to have enough speed to keep everything aloft. You had to have conditions to create such speed for the slurry. Gravity otherwise drops things as quickly as possible.

You hardly hear about this kind of thing in 'scientific literature', although Ager is familiar with it even with his denial of Genesis of one of many records of cataclysmic mantle violence.

 

[iouae]

This was recently discussed by ICR on its Science and scripture daily program. I don't recall the example location but the point of an example on petrification was how fast it could happen.

You may need to radically update your conception of the flood. I hope you aren't thinking of merely a lot of rain to the legendary tune of covering (now-existing) mountains. It was instead a violent alteration of the mantle and the after-climate affected things extremely for maybe 500 years.

I agree with you. There was terraforming going on under the water while the ark floated. Mountains were being uplifted and lowered, continents ripped apart.

 

[iouae]

Wrong...
iouae... you are a little too eager promoting your false belief system. (A lie is a lie... correct?)
https://crev.info/2015/09/yellowstone-fossil-forests/
http://www.icr.org/article/yellowstone-petrified-forests/
https://creation.com/the-yellowstone-petrified-forests

I was just quoting the kid. I don't know which part of my post you call "wrong".

But, since everyone is telling whoppers, I want to tell you how the trees got petrified, if I were a YEC.

Suppose these trees are all redwoods, from that area, and they get uprooted in the flood, and churned around a bit till they lose their branches, roots and bark. We used to do this to gemstones, in a tumbler, where we would throw any old semi-precious stone in an old paint tin with grit and rotate it for months till it became smooth.

Now these trees are smooth stumps basically all floating together in a pile in Yellowstone.

To get stumps to sink, it all depends on specific gravity (S.G.). If the trees are denser than water, they sink, but if they are less dense than water, they float.

To create 50 consecutive layers, we have to change the density of the water 50 times. It would be impossible to change the density of the trees suddenly. They would get more dense with time as they absorb water and mineralise. Yellowstone is perfect because it gushes hot, mineral rich water, and bubbles (steam).

Lets assume the base of the tree gets waterlogged first and the trees are floating vertically.

If the water is suddenly heated, or if bubbles of steam are suddenly released from the bottom of Yellowstone river, the heat and the bubbles decrease the density. Fresh water too is less dense than mineralised, salty water. The trees which are at various densities due to size and length of time soaking, will respond to fresh, hot, bubbly inflow of water by sinking fast and ramming themselves into the mud at the base of the bed.

Thus only the logs which were at the point of sinking, will do this all at once, the rest of the less dense logs will carry on marinating. Here we have our first layer, and presumably ash from volcanoes, or mud in the water will in weeks cover the trunks impaled on the base of the Yellowstone river bed.

Repeat this 50 times, every few weeks when the trees have soaked longer, and the next layer of logs will sink and form a petrified forest layer.

Yellowstone is known for its periodic geysers like Old Faithful, so this release of steam could have an exact period, creating a new petrified forest layer with each eruption of steam and hot fresh water.

The logs would petrify by substitution of wood for minerals, over time, especially aided by heat which speeds up diffusion and mineralisation. Hot water can also hold more minerals.

This would also account for the absence of animals. Trees float much longer than animals. Animals would only be found in the lowest layer under the petrified forest.

As a believer in a flood and an OEC I have no objection to the above story of a quick petrification of many layers of trees. I am not relying on petrified forest layers to prove the age of the earth.