If you are not aware there is a specialized Google search function at scholar.google.com that lets you search for papers and books. I plugged in polystrate and got a sample of the back and forth that you mentioned. If you are not planning on traveling the world to check out each possible location what exactly are you looking for? Geology normally functions by carefully describing what is seen so in a way YEC or OE should both be providing the same description of the known locations. It is the interpretation that would differ. It does appear to me there are several classes of tree fossils that could potentially required different interpretations.
I just tried a search for fossil trees and got more results that appear to be OE geologists. And per Wikipedia āThe word polystrate is not a standard geological term.ā so if that is what you are searching for that could bias the results you are seeing.
I donāt know if having more sites for polystrate fossils would make any difference. It is how the interpretations fit together with other known data. Like the presence of vertical root systems in different rock strata that should have all been laid down in one year.
I was just making a suggestion. And it is defined (never seen the definition though) by creationists. In a discussion of the topic it makes sense to use their term. Geologists appear to just call them fossil trees.
What would the acceptable alternative be?
Would you mind sharing the search terms you do use?
One of the major points is that the YECās lack the information they require to make these arguments. They claim that the layers surrounding these polystrate fossils are separated by millions of years according to modern dating methodologies. I have yet to see a single reference supporting this YEC claim.
If the YEC argument is simply that floods can produce polystrate fossils, then I think YECās and standard geology are in agreement. It is quite ironic that YECās will point to events like the lahars caused by the Mt. St. Helens eruption as evidence for their claims when all it does is disprove their claims. If local flooding at any time in the past 4.5 billion years could produce polystrate fossils, then polystrate fossils canāt evidence a recent global flood.
[Edited by moderator]
It is possible to objectively and dispassionately address the arguments made by Ham and others which is what I strive to do.
I like to reference this picture in threads discussing polystrate fossils.
This is a polystrate telephone pole. It was buried by massive lahars after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines. In fact, you can see a polystrate factory in the background. If we are going with the YEC argument, then there were factories and telephone poles during Noahās time, which is a bit hard to believe.
Iāve been studying and researching lately on this matter but as for why creationist scientists arenāt more and more plentiful in the field is strictly because the atheist scientists rebuke laugh at and harass and push out creationist scientists or anyone who wishes to be a creationist scientists. From preschool age up evolution and the millions of years Theory is shoved down childrenās throats as FACT WHEN IN ALL TOLD TRUTH ITāS STILL A THEORY. And be that as it may, there is plenty of evidence that has been shared between both forms of science to conclude either point depending on where the scientist preconception is. But one major thing that really cuts down on the possibility of Earth being old is rate of decay for uranium which is 4.5 billion years half life. using that as a standard rated decay for all uranium mined out of the Earth and the fact that uranium is not created at all on this planet anymore what we have is all we got and all we will have, then all uranium mind out of the ground should be at least 50% uranium 50% lead if Earth was really 4.5 billion years old yet all uranium mind out of the earth is 99% uranium absolutely proven and debunking an old Earth.
Now on top of that these fossils that are surrounded by an unrefutable number of layers if the settlement which created each of those layers was deposited over a large span of time there would be varying amounts of decay evident on these fossils within each layer due to exposure to the elements outside of the sediment layer below which in all the cases that Iāve checked out, there is none. Others have brought up an extremely valid point which is have the previous datings of those layers been retested sense of discovery of these translayered fossils Iāve been discovered and I have the fossils themselves been dating for we absolutely do know that the date of the entire fossil should be older than all the ascending layers.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
163
How does that have anything to do with faith in the faithfulness of Jesus?
Scientific theories are considered facts. You arenāt using the word theory the way it is used in science. It doesnāt mean āa guess about something that might or might not be right.ā Scientific theories have been rigorously tested and corroborated and are considered the best possible explanation of multiple streams of data and confirmed hypotheses.
This is creationist propaganda and is simply not true.
I respectfully disagree with you. And anything that isnāt creationist is the actual propaganda considering the fact that for thousands of years science was to study of Godās creation until 200 years ago when a group of atheist scientists decided they wanted to take God out of the equation.
This is a common creationist talking point, but it is not historically accurate. Ancient earth geology and Big Bang cosmology scientific frameworks were originally proposed by Christian scientists who very much acknowledged they were studying Godās creation.
Not exactly sure how to answer your question considering in fact that what I posted had nothing to do with the faithfulness of Jesus. it had to do with the fossils that transcend multiple layers of sediment. I once believed in evolution and Earth being millions of years old I even tried to mix that with the Bible to come up with a elongated Genesis story but all the evidence that Iāve been able to accumulate visually and to read about and check out has brought me back to the absolute belief and coherence that the Earth is less than a million years old. And then thereās a fact that creatures that are supposedly supposed to been extinct for over 100 million years are showing up to be alive and well like the prehistoric fish that was just found alive in India with no evolutionary changes like assumed by atheist scientists Charles Darwin
If they were proposed by a supposed Christian scientist it was because they were being infected by the evil deeds of Satan trying to separate us from God and they did well hell of a good jobā¦ And then on top of that I threw out actual scientific evidence debunking old Earth through the rated decay of uranium which is a scientifically quote on quote known fact and you decide to debate me on God
It sounds like youāre pretty emotionally invested in the outlook youāve been describing here.
If you wish, you could share more about what brought you to these points of view. And if you stick around, youāll also find that there are a lot of bible-believing Christians here too that have looked at evidence, historical, scientific, and biblical too - and from all that came to very different conclusions than it sounds like you have.
3 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
170
Well thereās no scientific or non-empirical rational reason to deny science, for science to deny itself, so there must be a āfaithā reason. If there isnāt then thereās only psychology left. But itās obvious itās about religious beliefs as well. So, itās about the psychology of religion.
Yeah, I donāt think you really debunked anything. What you said doesnāt make any sense. All uranium mined is uranium. There is no such thing as uranium that is half lead because lead and uranium are two different elements.
Radioactive dating is a well-established science that can be cross-checked multiple ways.
I have not denied science I just say that a lot of it is incorrect due to false preconceptions even math is messed up for instance let me ask you if you have a cube and you want to make it 200% itās size what do you multiply that by? If you say to multiply it by two on each side youāre wrong. This will give you something that is 800% you actually multiply it by 1.26. my claim for science is that it has been tainted and influenced by the devil over the last several hundred years as he works hard to divide man from God.
Okay let me clarify something from you uranium decays into lead uranium doesnāt stay uranium apparently you missed something in science class it takes 4.5 billion years for uranium 238 to decay in the leadā¦ so uranium being mined out of the Earth has 99% uranium 238 proves that Earth is not 4.5 billion years old
