No problem at all: "Polystrate" Tree Fossils , More on "Polystrate" Fossils, and Could coal deposits be explained by a global flood?
Excerpt:
The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.
So, Dataman, how does it feel to be 140 years behind on your basic science reading?
The explanation that fails to satisfy! I've read the TO "explanation" of polystrate fossils a number of times and still find it to be full of fluff and no substance.
For instance, there is no explanation of the polystrate trees that are often found upside down or at an oblique angles to bedding planes. The last time I was out in the forest, I just didn't see too many trees growing upside down, but, who knows, I might have missed a few.
A lot of the "trees" which constitute these fossils are actually large reeds such as lycopods which would hardly stand upright for the years and years it would take to cover them in a standard uniformitarian scenario.
The small reptiles found fossilized in some of these polystrate fossils would be using the hollow reed as shelter - there is no difficulty explaining that and I'm surprised TO would consider that an issue.
We often see polystrate fossils which not only cut across multiple strata, but also rock layers that are further cut by other fossils.
Some of the rock units cross cut by polystrate fossils include multiple seams of coal. I have trouble visualizing a lycopod standing upright long enough for that to happen.
The depositional environments found in the deposits that host these polystrate fossils are also inconsistent with the "explanations" found on TO.
Instead of relying on line drawings, it might be advisable to talk to someone who has actually done field work on these fossils; or perhaps that went out of date 100 years ago also.
So, as you said, no problem at all.
I usually avoid responding to links because, depending on context, it often serves as a substitute for an explanation. IOW, the link poster himself must be able to support his position with his own words. For example, I could respond to your links by posting links that give evidence to the contrary. I followed your links, however, and was amused to find not only very a very superficial dismissal of the problem, but the explanations for the limited examples actually indicated that some sort of flooding actually caused them, but surely not the Great Flood. One article went so far as to imagine a hypothetical situation in which a polystrate fossil could have been formed-- a nearby levee breached etc etc. There would, of course, have to be a nearby levee in the case of all polystrate fossils which are found all over the world.
Another interesting-though-not-unusual approach to the problem goes like this: "This anomaly has been dealt with years ago so we no longer have to try to explain it." Now you darwinists claim that the characteristic that separates man from the animals is his ability to reason. If one uses his reason, he must realize the fallacious nature of such a statement. Why would we teach school kids that spontaneous generation is superstition because it was proven wrong using a certain methodology which led to the law of biogenesis? Why not take the evolutionist's way out and just tell them that it doesn't require a detailed explanation because it was disproven many years ago?
That being said, why do evolutionists still believe in spontaneous generation?
Finally, there was a link to tips on debating creationists. I had to laugh out loud when I read the reasons why evolutionists lose debates: It's because the audience of the debates are too stupid to know that the evolutionist won!
No more links, please. You'll have to spend some time at the keyboard and give your understanding.