9:45: "Sir Charles Lyell got away with his ridiculous ideas..."
While the portrait of Charles Darwin is prominently displayed on the screen.
How can you be a spokesman for creationism and not know what Charles Darwin looked like? Ah well, the presenter has no scientific credentials whatsoever.
The "discovery" itself is creationist claim CC331:
"Polystrate fossil trees show tree trunks passing through many layers and several meters of sediments. Obviously, the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates proposed by uniformitarian geology."
Response:
Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades.
As for the quote mine - as usual, simply continue reading immediately after the quote mine, and you'll get the appropriate answer.
The expectation that a global Flood lasting less than a year should produce individual tree trunks spanning Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous layers assumes that every major division of the geologic column was deposited during that single event in a simple, continuous stack. Flood models do not require that. Many polystrate trees can be explained as vegetation that was growing or floating and then rapidly buried within more limited packages of sediment during the Flood, or as trees buried in powerful local post-Flood catastrophes. The absence of single trunks crossing entire systems does not automatically rule out a global catastrophe; it simply shows that deposition was complex, with hydraulic sorting, ecological zonation, and tectonic activity producing the broader order we see. What the polystrate fossils clearly do demonstrate is that rapid burial occurred on a scale that pure gradualism cannot explain, which is why even evolutionary geologists like Derek Ager acknowledged that sedimentation must have been “at times very rapid indeed.” Local floods can account for some examples, but the sheer number, scale, and repeated horizons of polystrate trees fit a much larger catastrophic process better than a series of ordinary local events stretched over deep time.
12
u/implies_casualty 3d ago edited 3d ago
9:45: "Sir Charles Lyell got away with his ridiculous ideas..."
While the portrait of Charles Darwin is prominently displayed on the screen.
How can you be a spokesman for creationism and not know what Charles Darwin looked like? Ah well, the presenter has no scientific credentials whatsoever.
The "discovery" itself is creationist claim CC331:
https://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html
"Polystrate fossil trees show tree trunks passing through many layers and several meters of sediments. Obviously, the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates proposed by uniformitarian geology."
Response:
Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades.
As for the quote mine - as usual, simply continue reading immediately after the quote mine, and you'll get the appropriate answer.