Posted on 11/02/2009 8:03:34 PM PST by Alter Kaker
You maintain that it is not an exercise in "quote mining" based on the fact that you agree with it, and it supports your arguments.
How can something be "out of context" when it's coming "straight from the horse's mouth," so to speak? Sheesh, tacticalogic, this is tiresome....
Any quote is "straight from the horse's mouth" - that's what makes it a quote.
"Context" is the circumstnaces surrounding it, and the conversation or writing it's part of.
If being "in context" just meant that it's a direct quote then "quoting someone out of context" would be nonsensical.
"Willful blindness is tragic."
~~~~~~~~~
"Polystratic tree fossils..." LOL!!!
James I. Nienhuis obviously never fished a lake that was impounded without cutting the timber. The trees rot at the waterline, and the floating tops then constitute boating hazards. Worse, the standing parts of the trees underwater are preserved long after the tops are gone. Most folks who fish such lakes have experienced broken props and/or damaged outboards -- due to collision with the tops of those still-solid vertical trees.
If the mineral content is sufficiently high, those standing trees are preserved (due to reduced oxygen availability) and begin to mineralize in a vertical position. As the basin fills with silt, the standing trees continue to be mineralized, and are surrounded with ever-deeper layers of sediment. If later conditions are right for (over millions of years) converting the sediments into sedimentary stone layers, the fossilized trees become ..."polystratic" fossils.
~~~~~~~~~~
But, no one has demonstrated a plausible physico-chemical process capable of producing such fossils in less than tens of thousands of years.
To make this wacko's claims more ludicrous, no "YEC" proponent has ever demonstrated the conversion of sediment into sedimentary rock in the course of 40 days and nights -- or, even in any significant fraction of the 6,000 years or so they claim the Earth has been in existence.
~~~~~~~~~~
When a YECer "scientist" can take a pile of mixed sand, gravel and silt, mix it with water, let it settle out, and (without using a ceramic furnace) return (within his lifetime) with it converted to multiple, variegated layers (with coarser layers atop fine-grained layers) of sedimentary rock -- then, rational folks would cease to have good cause to consider their mind-barfs (and delusional attempts to "prove" the unprovable) as anything more than incompetent rants...
Until then, they are simply making noise, trying to "prove" a misinterpretation of Genesis that makes no physical (or spiritual) sense...
All of your arguments are illogical, and poorly thought out, and certainly do not in any way answer the facts present, not one of them.
But nothing more could be expected of an unsientific dogmatist that pushes old Earth nonsense against all the evidence.
You have no concept of time; certainly not a million years. Not one of the old Earth leaps is even 1% probable. Trying to substitute a small lake for a 100+ mile expanse of flat plain is disingenuous in the extreme.
While it is fair to challenge the information and debating tactics of Young Earth Creationists and disagree with their educational qualifications, logic and conclusions (which I frequently do) it isn't fair or productive to question their motives or sanity just because they feel free to question yours.
"You have no concept of time; certainly not a million years. "
As a physical chemist, I dare say that I have as good a grasp of powers of ten and orders of magnitude (applied to any dimension or units system -- including time --) as anyone on this thread.
I remind you that my comments were confined to a single (albeit somewhat complex) phenomenon -- "Polystratic tree fossils..." -- that has (in a few instances) been observed. I did you the courtesy of describing present conditions that (given sufficient time) could lead to"Polystratic tree fossils...".
"Trying to substitute a small lake for a 100+ mile expanse of flat plain is disingenuous in the extreme."
Why, thank you! Below is a space for you to post a link or other reference to the choropleth (or data table, at least) depicting worldwide occurrences of ("100+ mile expanse[s] of flat plain") bearing fossilized forests preserved in "polystratic" form:
__________________________________________________________
Place URL or other reference here -- or post the choropleth.
Of course, in your spare time, you are invited to perform the "sedimentary rock formation experiment" I proposed. And, since the phenomenon was supposedly common and widespread over "100+ mile expanse[s] of flat plain", you might as well create us a few "Polystratic tree fossils..." within those strata, while you are at it... I'l even be kind, and accept your use of the Arrhenius relationship to speed things up a bit -- as long as you maintain atmospheric pressure...
TXnMA -- FR's resident "unsientific [sic] dogmatist"
(Thanks for the new tagline...)
What a lovely strawman!
Nobody ever claimed to find any 'forest' of poly-strat trees.
"As a physical chemist, I dare say that I have as good a grasp of powers of ten and orders of magnitude (applied to any dimension or units system -- including time --) as anyone on this thread."
Wonderful again! - But being able to decipher numbers displayed in an abstract has nothing whatsoever with having a grasp of what they mean in regard to the effect of natural forces over the period of time they represent.
You plainly lack that particular ability. - Believing that a tree can be buried vertically 20 to 30 feet tall in strata spread out for miles that supposedly took tens of millions of years to lay down disqualifies you for any further serious attention.
The 'conditions' that you described first, do not exist as you presented them, and second could not prevail for a thousand years let alone 10 million.
Cut trees do not float vertically ever, rotten or otherwise. The vertical floaters are those that are washed down, roots and all, and will certainly not remain to be fossilized over 10 or 20 million years.
All of the fossils in existance had to be buried and mineralized in a short period of time. This is the most probable result of a flood of hot carbonate saturated water and sediment, much like has been recently demonstrated at Mt. St.Helens. - Any other scenario would result in either no fossils at all, or nothing but fragments strewn about. Dead creatures don't just lay there for millions of years waiting to be buried, and then fossilized.
You are, of cuorse, correct. I hope you find my #87 response to editor-surveyor to be more to your liking.
~~~~
Of course, as to motive, I rather, felt I was criticising method:
~~~~~~
As to my "wacko" characterization, I was referring specifically to the author of "Old Earth? Why not!", who also includes links to his writings such as: "Atlantis: Secret Star Mappers of A Lost World" and " Ice Age Civilizations".
Nonetheless, I will attempt to heed your advice in the future...
course
Just don't use me as your role model. I have "lost it" more than a few times in discussions with editor-surveyor, Gourmet Dan, Godgutsguns, etc. As good as it feels when I hit the enter key it is never very productive and usually leads away from the point. Since your points are so cogent and lucid I would hate for them to be diminished.
tacticalogic, were you asking me about Harun Yaya's context for the use of the quote?
If so, you shoulda just said so!
I gather Yaya's main strategy is to divorce Darwinian evolution from paleontology. That being the case, the best place to start would be with the assessment of the theorist, Charles Darwin, as to where his theory might be weak — and what type of evidence is needed to confirm it.
And that's indeed where Yaya starts; i.e., with the Darwin quote I posted. Then he trots out the paleontologists, who according to different criteria, point out that what they're finding in the fossil record (so far at least) — on which Darwin so much depended — does not correspond with major propositions of his theory.
Of course, there's more (e.g., his speculation about the Cambrian); but that's the gist of it. It was an interesting article.
Hope this helps!
On the one hand, they don't find enough in the fossil record to absolutely verify Darwin's theory. On the other, they don't seem to have a better explanation to explain the evidence they do have.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Congratulations, editor-surveyor, you just debunked the YEC argument!!!
It is conventional geologists who have concluded, in almost all cases, that "polystrate" (upright) fossil trees were formed in-situ by rapid burial. It is young earth creationists who argue for the "vertical floater" scenario.
There reason is that, contrary to your assertion that, "nobody ever claimed to find any 'forest' of poly-strate trees," there are actually numerous examples of exactly that, including cases were fossil forests are layered on top of fossil forests many times over. YECs can hardly admit that new forests grew trees on top of previously buried forests, several times over, during a single, global flood. So they have to claim the "vertical floaters" dropped out of the flood waters and only look like they grew in place.
BTW, here's a short article on "polystrate" fossil trees that nevertheless covers most of the ground pretty well, and especially emphasizes that this type of fossil is still forming today:
Well if that's so, then I'd say it's reasonable to conclude that "the evidence they do have" signals certain Darwinian questions are still open.
Anyhoot, are you sure you want to deal with this guy, Yaya? He is, after all, a self-described philosopher and "prominent Turkish intellectual." :<)
Your post is so full of falsehood that one has a hard time deciding where to start.
‘Conventional’ geologists have never concluded that any poly-strate tree was formed by rapid burial; perhaps you speak of mono-strate trees?
The term implies numerous differentiated strata, which the OE gang falsely claim to have been laid down over millions of years. The forests you mention are not ‘poly-strate,’ they are monolithically buried, and this is an attempt at misdirection by even bringing them into the discussion.
No YEC has ever claimed that any poly-strate tree “looks like it grew in place.” The link you inserted misstates the argument deliberately, thus battling the strawman as usual.
Try some new tactics; these are so worn out that they’re not worth repeating. (although they are slightly better that the older “there are no poly-strate trees”)
The evidence is so overwhelming against OE that I can’t see why you havent moved on to some other game.
Those treatises are by the same author, and are well worth reading, for those that have genuine scientific curiosity that is. For dogmatists such as yourself, reading any logical, factual presentation is simply an exercise in personal rage and frustration.
As far as dealing with "self described philosophers" and "prominent Turkish intellectuals", I expect I've gotten better arguments here than I'd get from somebody who has to lay claim to that for creds.
LOL!!! It's hard to imagine being "angry and frustrated" when I'm laughing so hard!
LOL! No problem, however, deciding not to acknowledge that you got the YEC argument backwards. Kind of embarrassing when an evolutionist knows the creationist arguments better than you, a creationist, do, eh? Don't feel so bad. It's a common occurrence.
‘Conventional’ geologists have never concluded that any poly-strate tree was formed by rapid burial;
Sure they have. The article I linked gives examples.
perhaps you speak of mono-strate trees?
Nope. Aside from the fact that "polystrate" is apparently not a conventional geological term, there certainly are cases, even typically so, where rapid burial produces multiple strata. You'd have to show that the physical characteristics of the rock indicate slow deposition. This would require you providing a specific case, which so far you haven't done, nor does your "Old Earth? Why not!" author.
The term implies numerous differentiated strata, which the OE gang falsely claim to have been laid down over millions of years.
The falsity is yours. Geologists don't reflexively assume that strata always (or even usually) "have been laid down over millions of years." That would be stupid. (Of course your ideology requires you to believe that geologists are stupid. But that's your problem, not geology's.) Geologists look at the physical characteristics of the rock, and all the available evidence, to determine when and how the strata were deposited.
Rapid deposition is quite common. So is episodic deposition. So is slow deposition. So is non deposition. So is erosion (de-deposition). There are obviously examples of all these occurring in the world right now, each leaving various physical indications of its mode.
The forests you mention are not ‘poly-strate,’
Sure they are. There is usually at least a clay layer and/or soil layer, including the roots, and some other strata, maybe with multiple bedding planes, sometimes quite thick, as of mudstone, or sandstone, etc, sometimes one or more thin coal layers. It all depends on the geological circumstances. Again, why we would need a specific example from you.
they are monolithically buried
Really? So maybe you can explain how a fossil forest gets "monolithically buried" (I assume you mean, "buried more or less all at once") and then another forest grows on top of it, and then the second forest gets buried, and then yet another forest grows on top of it -- repeat in some cases several times, for Specimen Ridge at Yellowstone, more than a dozen times -- all during the course of a single, year long, global flood. And don't forget to keep in mind that even the first forest will, in most cases, had to have grown on top of what YECs themselves consider to be "flood deposits".
You really do need to explain how you think that would work, editor-surveyor, because other YECs are very clear that it doesn't. For example, the ICR's John D. Morris, in The Young Earth, Master Books, 1994, on page 114 (full paragraph quoted, emphasis added):
Creationists, over the years, have studied the Petrified Forest in Yellowstone to see whether the evidence allowed any other interpretation [i.e., other than the trees growing, and being buried, in place]. I was there in the mid 70's and observed the many upright trees petrified with their roots down, trunks up. The question was, did they grow there? If so, then the earth is older than a straight-forward reading of Scripture would indicate. Or, could they have been moved into this location quickly, somehow maintaining an upright posture?
He goes on, btw, to invoke the very "vertical floaters" mechanism that you previously derided and dismissed!
No YEC has ever claimed that any poly-strate tree “looks like it grew in place.”
Granted. Sloppy wording on my part. (Although, notice in the John Morris quote above, he come pretty close to doing just that.) But obviously I meant, rather, that they ludicrously attempt explain away the clear evidence that they did grow in place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.