[__ Science __ ] Petrified Forest National Park—Painting A Different Picture

[AIG.com]

Looking at this landscape through biblical glasses, we see a rainbow of evidence confirming the global flood.

Continue reading...

 

[Rookie]

Yes

 

[Barbarian]

Such deposits are in the process of forming not far from my home, where a forest flooded by a dam is now being slowly buried by layers of sediment. If the process continues, there will be a "petrified forest" like the one in AIG's article. No geologist is mystified as to how that happens. And yes polystrate trees formed in that manner are found in a number of places where those unusual circumstance happened. We don't see huge numbers of those forests, because those circumstances happened only in particular places at specific times. If this had been the result of a global flood, there would be many, many such cases, and they would be commonly found everywhere there had been forests.

Another convincing evidence that there never was a global flood.

 

[Rookie]

Such deposits are in the process of forming not far from my home, where a forest flooded by a dam is now being slowly buried by layers of sediment. If the process continues, there will be a "petrified forest" like the one in AIG's article. No geologist is mystified as to how that happens. And yes polystrate trees formed in that manner are found in a number of places where those unusual circumstance happened. We don't see huge numbers of those forests, because those circumstances happened only in particular places at specific times. If this had been the result of a global flood, there would be many, many such cases, and they would be commonly found everywhere there had been forests.

Another convincing evidence that there never was a global flood.

You should watch the documentary: The Days of Noah Pt & P2. It debunks all of that.

 

[Barbarian]

You should watch the documentary: The Days of Noah Pt & P2. It debunks all of that.

Sorry, I can observe it myself right down the road. Videos can't reverse reality, no matter how slickly produced they might be. As I said, no geologist is surprised by these processes, which can be observed happening today.

 

[Rookie]

Sorry, I can observe it myself right down the road. Videos can't reverse reality, no matter how slickly produced they might be. As I said, no geologist is surprised by these processes, which can be observed happening today.

If you're willing to learn and maybe even find out that you may be wrong like every human is on certain things then you'll invest. In all your getting get an understanding.

 

[Barbarian]

If you're willing to learn and maybe even find out that you may be wrong like every human is on certain things then you'll invest. In all your getting get an understanding.

I looked at the issue for a long time. And the AIG stories just don't line up with the facts. No other way to say it. I get that they really want it to be different. But at some point, they need to make an accommodation to what actually is.

Most trees that protrude through various strata have certain things in common.

• They have a root system in clay. This was once river sediment and was the ground when the trees were growing. Later the trees either were immersed in water by the river and slowly covered with river sediment, or they were rapidly buried in a river flood or mudslide.
• The layer above the clay, the hardened river sediment, is usually a coal seam, formed by the plant life that grew there with the trees.
• Above that is more hardened sediment, where part of the trunks of trees and a lot of foliage was buried by a river flood.

Besides the fact that the flood could not have laid the layers of the geologic column, the flood theory fails to explain the delicately preserved root systems found in the clay.

It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position.

Who said this? Was this some scientist involved in the evolution-creationism debate?

No, it was J.W. Dawson, who wrote Acadian Geology in 1868, less than a decade after Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species and started the evolution revolution.

Further, J.W. Dawson was a Christian, who ended his section on polystrate fossils with ...


Patient observation and thought may enable us in time better to comprehend these mysteries; and I think we may be much aided in this by cultivating an acquaintance with the Maker and Ruler of the machine as well as with His work.

So the occurrence of polystrate trees has been explained for 145 years. Current geologists give a similar explanation.

Polystrate Fossils and Trees

There are numerous polystrate fossils, mostly trees, that protrude through several strata of the geologic column. Is it really possible these trees survived while being buried for millions of years?

www.proof-of-evolution.com

 

[Rookie]

I looked at the issue for a long time. And the AIG stories just don't line up with the facts. No other way to say it. I get that they really want it to be different. But at some point, they need to make an accommodation to what actually is.

Most trees that protrude through various strata have certain things in common.

• They have a root system in clay. This was once river sediment and was the ground when the trees were growing. Later the trees either were immersed in water by the river and slowly covered with river sediment, or they were rapidly buried in a river flood or mudslide.
• The layer above the clay, the hardened river sediment, is usually a coal seam, formed by the plant life that grew there with the trees.
• Above that is more hardened sediment, where part of the trunks of trees and a lot of foliage was buried by a river flood.

Besides the fact that the flood could not have laid the layers of the geologic column, the flood theory fails to explain the delicately preserved root systems found in the clay.

It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position.

Who said this? Was this some scientist involved in the evolution-creationism debate?

No, it was J.W. Dawson, who wrote Acadian Geology in 1868, less than a decade after Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species and started the evolution revolution.

Further, J.W. Dawson was a Christian, who ended his section on polystrate fossils with ...


Patient observation and thought may enable us in time better to comprehend these mysteries; and I think we may be much aided in this by cultivating an acquaintance with the Maker and Ruler of the machine as well as with His work.

So the occurrence of polystrate trees has been explained for 145 years. Current geologists give a similar explanation.

Polystrate Fossils and Trees

There are numerous polystrate fossils, mostly trees, that protrude through several strata of the geologic column. Is it really possible these trees survived while being buried for millions of years?

www.proof-of-evolution.com

So you are saying you're theory and a Christian scientist refuted the account of Noah and the flood? If there is no flood the validity of the Bible is no more and as a Christian that should cause concern.

I'm not that well versed admittedly but here is what I do know.
#1 In ancient cultures there are several civilations with variants of the flood account written all over their history, a few examples: Mesopotamian flood stories, Native American in North America, the Genesis flood narrative, manvantara-sandhya in Hinduism, and Deucalion and Pyrrha in Greek mythology even African cultures preserving an oral tradition of a flood include the Kwaya, Mbuti, Maasai, Mandin, and Yoruba peoples.

Look at some more facts:
"1. We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.
2.We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.
3.We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.
4.We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years” water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global flood.
5.We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing” millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.
6.Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years,” while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable."

- Derived from Answers in Genesis

Also what about the fossils in which the fish were caught in mid-feeding with their prey in their mouth. Evolution fails to explain any of these things.