ARE THE TREES TELLING US SOMETHING
What are “polystrate” fossils, and what is their significance in the creation/evolution controversy?
Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers of strata, often twenty feet or more in length. There is no doubt that this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly; otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for strata to slowly accumulate around it.
Evolutionary uniformitarianism would have us believe that the same processes going on in nature today have formed the Earth—as opposed to large-scale catastrophes (like, for example, the Flood of Noah recorded in Genesis 6-8). However, in light of the evidence from polystrate fossils, creationists believe that just the opposite is true. Some scientists have suggested that the fossil forests in Yellowstone may have been transported by geologic and/or volcanic activity possibly associated with the Noahic flood (see: Brand, 1997, p. 69; Roth, 1998, p. 246). Furthermore, as Morris and Parker have discussed in their book, What is Creation Science?:
Polystrates are especially common in coal formations. For years and years, students have been taught that coal represents the remains of swamp plants slowly accumulated as peat and then even more slowly changed into coal (1987, p. 168).
If polystrate fossils must form quickly in order to be preserved, and if (as many evolutionists believe) coal has been formed over periods lasting millions of years, how could there be so many (or any!) polystrate fossils in coal veins? The answer, of course, is that the evolutionary scenario requiring vast eons of time for the origin of coal (and, for that matter, oil) is wrong.
Yet tree trunks are not the only representatives of polystrate fossils. Even animals’ bodies form polystrate fossils (like catfish in the Green River Formation in Wyoming—see Morris, 1994, p. 102). But perhaps the most famous of all animal polystrate fossils was that of a baleen whale discovered in 1976. Not only was the whale fossilized in diatomite, but it was buried on its back at a 60-degree angle (with its tail down and its head pointing up). K.M. Reese, a staff writer for the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Chemical and Engineering News, reported the find in great detail in the October 11, 1976 issue of that publication.
K.M. Reese made no comment concerning the implications of the unique discovery of a baleen whale skeleton in a vertical orientation in a diatomaceous earth quarry in Lompoc, California. However, the fact that the whale is standing on end as well as the fact that it is buried in diatomaceous earth would strongly suggest that it was buried under very unusual and rapid catastrophic conditions. The vertical orientation of the whale is also reminiscent of observations of vertical tree trunks extending through several successive coal seams. Such phenomena cannot easily be explained by uniformitarian theories, but fit readily into an historical framework based upon the recent and dynamic universal flood described in Genesis, chapters 6-9.
Read what one scientist, Harvey Olney, wrote in a letter to the editor of Chemical and Engineering News—and believe it if you can!
Dr. Helmick, how dare you imply that our geology textbooks and uniformitarian theories could possibly be wrong! Everybody knows that diatomaceous earth beds are built up slowly over millions of years as diatom skeletons slowly settle out on the ocean floor. The baleen whale simply stood on its tail for 100,000 years, its skeleton decomposing, while the diatomaceous snow covered its frame millimeter by millimeter. Certainly you wouldn’t expect intelligent and informed establishment scientists of this modern age to revert to the outmoded views of our forefathers just to explain such finds!
There you have it. Rather than accept the straightforward facts at face value, and admit that gradualistic, uniformitarian processes simply do not work, we are expected to believe instead that a whale carcass stood on its tail—decomposing all the while—as millions of tiny diatom skeletons enshrouded it over a period of 100,000 years! [For an in-depth, technical report on the baleen whale polystrate fossil, see Snelling, 1995.]
After Dr. Rupke (who, remember, coined the term “polystrate fossils”) cited numerous examples of polystrate fossils (1973, pp. 152- 157), he concluded: “Nowadays, most geologists uphold a uniform process of sedimentation during the earth’s history; but their views are contradicted by plain facts” (p. 157, emp. added). Contradicted by plain facts indeed! Rupke then wrote: “Personally, I am of the opinion that the polystrate fossils constitute a crucial phenomenon both to the actuality and the mechanism of a cataclysmal deposition” (1973, p. 157). What “cataclysmal deposition” could have produced the types, and numbers, of polystrate fossils that have been discovered around the globe? How about the Noahic flood?
Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers of strata, often twenty feet or more in length. There is no doubt that this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly; otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for strata to slowly accumulate around it.
Evolutionary uniformitarianism would have us believe that the same processes going on in nature today have formed the Earth—as opposed to large-scale catastrophes (like, for example, the Flood of Noah recorded in Genesis 6-8). However, in light of the evidence from polystrate fossils, creationists believe that just the opposite is true. Some scientists have suggested that the fossil forests in Yellowstone may have been transported by geologic and/or volcanic activity possibly associated with the Noahic flood (see: Brand, 1997, p. 69; Roth, 1998, p. 246). Furthermore, as Morris and Parker have discussed in their book, What is Creation Science?:
Polystrates are especially common in coal formations. For years and years, students have been taught that coal represents the remains of swamp plants slowly accumulated as peat and then even more slowly changed into coal (1987, p. 168).
If polystrate fossils must form quickly in order to be preserved, and if (as many evolutionists believe) coal has been formed over periods lasting millions of years, how could there be so many (or any!) polystrate fossils in coal veins? The answer, of course, is that the evolutionary scenario requiring vast eons of time for the origin of coal (and, for that matter, oil) is wrong.
Yet tree trunks are not the only representatives of polystrate fossils. Even animals’ bodies form polystrate fossils (like catfish in the Green River Formation in Wyoming—see Morris, 1994, p. 102). But perhaps the most famous of all animal polystrate fossils was that of a baleen whale discovered in 1976. Not only was the whale fossilized in diatomite, but it was buried on its back at a 60-degree angle (with its tail down and its head pointing up). K.M. Reese, a staff writer for the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Chemical and Engineering News, reported the find in great detail in the October 11, 1976 issue of that publication.
K.M. Reese made no comment concerning the implications of the unique discovery of a baleen whale skeleton in a vertical orientation in a diatomaceous earth quarry in Lompoc, California. However, the fact that the whale is standing on end as well as the fact that it is buried in diatomaceous earth would strongly suggest that it was buried under very unusual and rapid catastrophic conditions. The vertical orientation of the whale is also reminiscent of observations of vertical tree trunks extending through several successive coal seams. Such phenomena cannot easily be explained by uniformitarian theories, but fit readily into an historical framework based upon the recent and dynamic universal flood described in Genesis, chapters 6-9.
Read what one scientist, Harvey Olney, wrote in a letter to the editor of Chemical and Engineering News—and believe it if you can!
Dr. Helmick, how dare you imply that our geology textbooks and uniformitarian theories could possibly be wrong! Everybody knows that diatomaceous earth beds are built up slowly over millions of years as diatom skeletons slowly settle out on the ocean floor. The baleen whale simply stood on its tail for 100,000 years, its skeleton decomposing, while the diatomaceous snow covered its frame millimeter by millimeter. Certainly you wouldn’t expect intelligent and informed establishment scientists of this modern age to revert to the outmoded views of our forefathers just to explain such finds!
There you have it. Rather than accept the straightforward facts at face value, and admit that gradualistic, uniformitarian processes simply do not work, we are expected to believe instead that a whale carcass stood on its tail—decomposing all the while—as millions of tiny diatom skeletons enshrouded it over a period of 100,000 years! [For an in-depth, technical report on the baleen whale polystrate fossil, see Snelling, 1995.]
After Dr. Rupke (who, remember, coined the term “polystrate fossils”) cited numerous examples of polystrate fossils (1973, pp. 152- 157), he concluded: “Nowadays, most geologists uphold a uniform process of sedimentation during the earth’s history; but their views are contradicted by plain facts” (p. 157, emp. added). Contradicted by plain facts indeed! Rupke then wrote: “Personally, I am of the opinion that the polystrate fossils constitute a crucial phenomenon both to the actuality and the mechanism of a cataclysmal deposition” (1973, p. 157). What “cataclysmal deposition” could have produced the types, and numbers, of polystrate fossils that have been discovered around the globe? How about the Noahic flood?
posted by Stacy at 11:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home