I've met a real-live Young-Earth Creationist!

Originally posted by shavixmir
First things first. Let's see proof of this fossilised tree that runs through thousands of years worth of strata.

Exactly. Give us details of what was found if you want an explanation. There are all too many people out there willing to stretch the truth or even make stuff up in order to make their bias look more reasonable.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Exactly. Give us details of what was found if you want an explanation. There are all too many people out there willing to stretch the truth or even make stuff up in order to make their bias look more reasonable.

This is more like what I want. As Kelly Jay says (though I hate to agree with him, he made a valid point) no-one has provided an explanation.

I'll see if I can find the original claim to see how many layers they are claiming, then we can see if the claim is valid, then it becomes woth looking for an explanation.
Here's a bit from http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/polystrate.shtml

The issues in question are:
* How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without rotting or being knocked down?
* How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers?
* How can a tree representing a short life span (on evolution’s geological time scale) stand erect through geological layers representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years?

So that is the creationist claim. Firstly, is it accurate? The wikipedia article on these fossils, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil says that these layers can easily be laid down over short time periods by, for instance, repeated volcanic eruptions or local flooding. Which sort-of answers the question but not to the extent that I could use it confidently when debating a YEC.

So does anyone know whether any such fossils exist crossing strata that had to have been laid down over long periods? Or are they all in strata that could have been laid down over years rather than hundreds of years?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Reply to your other post.
There was nothing in my statement about being oppressed, and
you do realize what he said was,

"The argument goes that these tree fossils have been found buried in-situ but crossing many (hundreds?) of the sedimentary layers supposedly laid down on a yearly (or longer?) basis."

Your answer to that was not about the whole tre ...[text shortened]... forward either, since you only spoke about the root
when he was speaking about trees.
Kelly

Read the wikipedia entry KJ - there is an entirely plausible explanation within i.e. regeneration, which we know many species are capable of...... I even use this technique to create root bases higher up the trees trunk for my bonsai's.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
GCITW,HIA 😕

Just to piss us off🙂

Originally posted by timebombted
Read the wikipedia entry KJ - there is an entirely plausible explanation within i.e. regeneration, which we know many species are capable of...... I even use this technique to create root bases higher up the trees trunk for my bonsai's.

Again, to be fair to KJ, he asked whether you were talking about roots or trunks before I found the wikipedia article. However, as you say, the article states that some trees are known to continue living after sedimentation by sprouting new roots from the buried trunk. Therefore a tree could grow through several sedimentation layers over a number of years before finally dying and becoming fossilised.

Unless a tree has been found spanning strata that were laid down over multiple hundreds of years, I do not think we have anything here that represents difficulty for the Theory of Evolution or for an old earth.

The book I'm currently reading: "How We Know What Isn't So" highlights one mode of thinking that we are all susceptable to: giving more credance to evidence supporting our beliefs than refuting them. In other words, since I support Evolution, I am likely to give more credance to evidence in Wikipedia that supports my view than in evidence from the same source that refutes it. A YEC will tend to do the opposite. The Wikipedia article had sections describing the old earth and young earth arguments. I will look at the old-earth ones later and try to detect whether I am guilty of this particular mode of thinking.

I'm still not entirely happy that the explanation I have found is in Wikipedia. Can anyone confirm peer-reviewed articles or original research on this?

The claim in the other article I posted was that tree fossils have been found spanning millions of years worth of strata. Is anyone able to find a good reference for such a fossil?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Again, to be fair to KJ, he asked whether you were talking about roots or trunks before I found the wikipedia article. However, as you say, the article states that some trees are known to continue living after sedimentation by sprouting new roots from the buried trunk. Therefore a tree could grow through several sedimentation layers over a number of y ...[text shortened]... worth of strata. Is anyone able to find a good reference for such a fossil?

--- Penguin.

I'm going to start looking for this, but I also recall seeing an airplane
in ice that was supposed to be dated millions of years old too. I'll see
if I can find that, since basically that presents the same issues with
dates in ice as we are looking at now in the sedimentation.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
Does the word 'irrational' come to mind?
I met a live one too. the whole bit, 6000 year old earth, men walked with dinosaurs, etc.
I asked him how they managed to get T Rex and and Brontosaurus in the Ark, he says: They just took young ones. OMG.
One argument I used on him, see the moon, see all those craters? If it all happened in 6000 years, why is ...[text shortened]... cool down much in that little amount of time. That was over his head, dull glassy eyed stare.

but the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs as they don't mention kangaroos and koalas. so they must have been dropped on the head a couple of times.

and i don't agree with the term YEC scientist. a YEC is as much a scientist as i am a professional sumo wrestler(which i am not)

i wonder why we don't teach alchemy in school, i could use some philosphers stones for various activities. oh i remember, it was proven freakin wrong.

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]Unless a tree has been found spanning strata that were laid down over multiple hundreds of years, I do not think we have anything here that represents difficulty for the Theory of Evolution or for an old earth.

I dont see a problem with finding fossilized trees in strata layers layed down over multiple hundreds of years. Bristlecone pines in western US have been identified as living for ~5000 years.

What about plate tectonics? Earth cracks, dead plant material / trees wash into crack, thus depositing materials into deeper / multiple strata layers....... doesn't sound impossible.

Of course the above paragraphs assume dendrochronology and plate tectonics are reliable scienctific theories.......... which some on this discussion will reject for whatever crazy reason :0(

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
but the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs as they don't mention kangaroos and koalas. so they must have been dropped on the head a couple of times.

and i don't agree with the term YEC scientist. a YEC is as much a scientist as i am a professional sumo wrestler(which i am not)

i wonder why we don't teach alchemy in school, i could use some philosphers stones for various activities. oh i remember, it was proven freakin wrong.

"YEC scientist" is a oxymoron, a contrdiction in terms. There are simply no Young Earth Creationist scientists...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"YEC scientist" is a oxymoron, a contrdiction in terms. There are simply no Young Earth Creationist scientists...

one of the most funny counter argument to yec is last thursdaysm.

look it up. i think it would be funny if we stop bothering with other proofs when it comes to debating yecs. just use last thursdaysm.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
one of the most funny counter argument to yec is last thursdaysm.

look it up. i think it would be funny if we stop bothering with other proofs when it comes to debating yecs. just use last thursdaysm.

So the "God created it that way, he is allmighty." (GCITW,HIA) allready has its name? "thursdayism" Fantastic! 😀

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So the "God created it that way, he is allmighty." (GCITW,HIA) allready has its name? "thursdayism" Fantastic! 😀

not sure what you mean 😉 but just in case you don't know what last thrusdayism i take the chance of being redundant.

since yecs argue that god created the world 6000 years ago complete with a history, rocks appearing to be 4 billion year old, and so on, last thursday goes on to claim the world is in fact not older than a week because it was created last thursday, and all the people in the world have the memeory of history, of WWII and einstein(who in fact never existed)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
not sure what you mean 😉 but just in case you don't know what last thrusdayism i take the chance of being redundant.

since yecs argue that god created the world 6000 years ago complete with a history, rocks appearing to be 4 billion year old, and so on, last thursday goes on to claim the world is in fact not older than a week because it was created las ...[text shortened]... eople in the world have the memeory of history, of WWII and einstein(who in fact never existed)

The rocks do not appear to be anything other than rocks, your
the one assigning age.
Kelly

Originally posted by Penguin
This is more like what I want. As Kelly Jay says (though I hate to agree with him, he made a valid point) no-one has provided an explanation.

I'll see if I can find the original claim to see how many layers they are claiming, then we can see if the claim is valid, then it becomes woth looking for an explanation.
Here's a bit from http://www.exchangedl trata that could have been laid down over years rather than hundreds of years?

--- Penguin.

…The issues in question are:
* How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without rotting or being knocked down?
* How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers? …

Actually nearly all fossilised trees HAVE been knocked down.

If a tree is completely submerged in water that then that water becomes stagnant and anaerobic, the lack of oxygen prevents microbes from rotting the wood and, at the same time, the water gives some protection from hurricanes, storms and other natural disasters while layers build up over many thousands of years that eventually berry it completely while it is on the bottom of the water. Despite this, they are often found partly rotted and very nearly always found knocked down.

Dead trees are sometimes preserved not by the presence of water but from its absence -microbes need water to rot the wood.

…* How can a tree representing a short life span (on evolution’s geological time scale) stand erect through geological layers representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years? …

This is a lie. For a start, it is rare to find a fossilised trees that is erect. It is only the creationists that claim that the scientists claim that those layers that each of those erect fossilised tree stands erect through geological layers representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years. The scientists make no such claim, so the creationists are just lying about the scientist’s position by putting words into their mouths.

I got this quote from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

…“In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossil, trunks or trees. Geologists explain their formation as being caused by episodes of RAPID sedimentation within either an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin or by the rapid accumulation of volcanic material on the flanks and around the bases of stratovolcanoes as the result of periodic eruptions.”… (my emphasis)

Note my emphasis of the word RAPID -that means NOT over millions of years but a much shorter time span (often within 1 year but can be a few thousand years)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…The issues in question are:
* How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without rotting or being knocked down?
* How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers? …

Actually nearly all fossilised trees HAVE been knocked down.

If a tree is complet ...[text shortened]... ions of years but a much shorter time span (often within 1 year but can be a few thousand years)[/b]

"…The issues in question are:
* How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without rotting or being knocked down?
* How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers? … "

OR could the layers be laid down much faster than we believe they
were?

This is a lie? A question is a lie? WOW, you should just stop worring
about creationist, you give no credit to any question brought up,
and even questions are called lies by you.
Kelly