Creationists PWNED

[trev]

The extent of the coal beds over large regions, with multiple seams of coal requires floods and volcanic eruptions of a much larger scale than have been documented in history, or is physically possible with current climatic conditions, with one exception, the flood documented in the bible, commonly referred to as Noah's flood. The simple fact is that there is not enough water held in the atmosphere at any one time to create floods of the required size to create the vast regions covered by coal beds, that is why the flood of Noah's time with the massive outletting of water from underground as well as rain generated from the upper atmosphere resource best fits the explanation of vast expanses of coal seams and the general widespread sedimentation that is kilometres thick around the world

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by trev

Where are the blown off tops? It should be noted that with dead trees, the rotting process occurs quickest at the point where the tree intersects with the ground. If the tree did not rot at this point which appears to be the situation here, then the sedimentation process must have been rapid, rapid enough to have preserved the tree tops as well ( I have spent many years employed as a Technical Assistant working in conifer forests, so I am well aware of how the rotting process works with dead trees).

Why not read what the report states ? The lower parts of the trees was covered, but not the top. As you states, the rotting proces may be quickest at the intersection and and weaken the treeremains. A quick little storm can easy blow off the top of the trees or they just fall to common decay. Nowhere it is stated that the tops are covered, actually it is stated that the surface is below the top of the trees - read the part about animal remaints - so the treetops have just vanished like trees dying natural.

But the lack of horizontal logs is a serious problem with the explanations offered in the article.

No, and you know it. Only heavy treesorts or trunks captured by vegetation or like would not have been swept away by the water.

Therefore a scenario such as occured and has been observed at Mt St Helens seems much more likely where the tree tops were blown off by the initial volcanic eruption and resultant winds, and then later the tree trunks were washed down the mountainside in ash/mud slides with intact roots (as observed at Mt St Helens) into the Spirit Lakes where they settled and sunk in the vertical (polystrate) aspect. Incidentally this process also results in the vegation layers also being mixed with clay/ash layers, these layers have been shown to be necessary for the formation of coal. For the uninformed coal requires acidity (which the volcanic ash supplies) and a catalyst (many clays are suitable catalysts) for formation from decaying vegetation or peat as well as some pressure and warmth. Simply placing a layer of vegetation under a heavy sedimentary load will not form coal. Again I prefer to use an explanation that involves observed processes than just simple deductive reasoning which ignores the observations at Spirit Lakes and normal rotting processes for conifer trees

Now you really got me. You have fought hard for the Noahn flooding fantasy, and now you think that observed processes are the word. That is a pardigmshift that really rocks.

[trev]

Polystrate trees require an aquatic environment that is relatively stable and still for a period of several months, these requirements would have been met only after flood waters had began to drain from off the earth's surface and would have been found in some of the lakes that became isolated from the global sea at this time. As the majority of sedimentation was completed by this time particularly with respect to the prexisting vegetation, poystrate trees would be relatively rare

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by trev
The extent of the coal beds over large regions, with multiple seams of coal requires floods and volcanic eruptions of a much larger scale than have been documented in history, or is physically possible with current climatic conditions, with one exception, the flood documented in the bible, commonly referred to as Noah's flood. The simple fact is that there is not enough water held in the atmosphere at any one time to create floods of the required size to create the vast regions covered by coal beds, that is why the flood of Noah's time with the massive outletting of water from underground as well as rain generated from the upper atmosphere resource best fits the explanation of vast expanses of coal seams and the general widespread sedimentation that is kilometres thick around the world

I don't know where you have this idea from that only volcanoes are capable of delivering an acidic environment. I can gurantee you that the most nearby volcano in denmark located somewhere in kattegat are several million years old. Nonetheless the the marshareas in Jylland isn't in the category of alcalic - quite contrary.

[trev]

Now you really got me. You have fought hard for the Noahn flooding fantasy, and now you think that observed processes are the word. That is a pardigmshift that really rocks.

Yes, observed processes should always be given preference and that is what I do, whether observed by people today, or observed and recorded by people 3000 years. I do not automatically assume that something written 3000 years ago is wrong, or that it was not derived from earlier reliable oral or written records

[BlackCat]

As far as I know, both faries and unicorns are described in old books, but I don't take that as a proof for their existence - especially since those books are the only evidence. The same goes for the Noahn flooding - it is described in one book, but there are no proof to support it.

[trev]

The same goes for the Noahn flooding - it is described in one book, but there are no proof to support it.

There is supporting evidence in large regions of coal seams, widespread sedimentation for a global flood, so it is not without support unlike the example given of fairies and possibly unicorns

[BlackCat]

No, there are no such evidence. There are examples of twisting small exceptional occurences like these trees into proving something that wast amounts of other findings contradict.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by trev
There is supporting evidence in large regions of coal seams, widespread sedimentation for a global flood, so it is not without support unlike the example given of fairies and possibly unicorns

Where is this evidence? As Boris noted many pages back, certain geological features would be all around the globe if the Noachian Flood were global.

Besides, you have been ignoring evidence to the contrary, such as tall mountains.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by trev
There is supporting evidence in large regions of coal seams,

Actually, only some coals seams share these charactereistics. Even if they exist in a "large" area, they don't exist in the majority of coal seams. Furthermore, they don't exist at the same layer around the world, which would be the case if it was resultent from a global flood.

It is also shown in the geographic record, the the Earth was more volcanic in the past than it is today. This is consistent with a cooling planet. We can look at Mars and see that iw was once an extremely volcanic planet (largest volcano in the solar system), but today is techtonically dead. There will be no Mars quakes of any significance, since nothing moves.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by trev
Polystrate trees require an aquatic environment that is relatively stable and still for a period of several months, these requirements would have been met only after flood waters had began to drain from off the earth's surface and would have been found in some of the lakes that became isolated from the global sea at this time. As the majority of sedimentation was completed by this time particularly with respect to the prexisting vegetation, poystrate trees would be relatively rare

What about a river breaking it's banks and flooding a low level tree covered area ? I think that covers all requirements, even rarity.

About aquatic environment - well here is a pic of a "polystrate" second generation telephonepole in very non aquatic environment.

Taken from : http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/punong1/index.html

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/punong1/fig18f.jpg

[Mr. Harley]

Must avoid posting, must avoid posting .... arrgghh. Trev, have you had of radioactive dating? Cabon-14 for more recent fossils, a variety of others depending on age. Including uranium breakdown into lead - good for very long periods. Most fossils of the type you are describing have been dated, and the dates don't match your hypothesis. Like I said earlier, if you don't agree that radioactive dating is predictable, go walk into an active nuclear core - just tell me first so I can take out an insurance policy.

Please note - I am leaving out all the OTHER arguments posters have made trying to describe sedimentation and fossil formation to you. I am just dealing with a hard, irrefutable fact, radioactive dating - based on physics, not biology, paleontology, or archeology, all of which you are obviously ignorant of and hold in contempt. Either the physics works, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, as in the radioactive dating is wrong - go walk into the reactor. Please note that yes carbon-14 dating has had fine adjustments made over the years due to improved source materials and equipment - adjustments, please not wholesale changes.

edited because I transposed names, apologies to Blackcat.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Must avoid posting, must avoid posting .... arrgghh. Blackcat, have you had of radioactive dating? Cabon-14 for more recent fossils, a variety of others depending on age. Including uranium breakdown into lead - good for very long periods. Most fossils of the type you are describing have been dated, and the dates don't match your hypothesis. Like I said earlier, if you don't agree that radioactive dating is predictable, go walk into an active nuclear core - just tell me first so I can take out an insurance policy.

Please note - I am leaving out all the OTHER arguments posters have made trying to describe sedimentation and fossil formation to you. I am just dealing with a hard, irrefutable fact, radioactive dating - based on physics, not biology, paleontology, or archeology, all of which you are obviously ignorant of and hold in contempt. Either the physics works, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, as in the radioactive dating is wrong - go walk into the reactor. Please note that yes carbon-14 dating has had fine adjustments made over the years due to improved source materials and equipment - adjustments, please not wholesale changes.

I think that you somehow has mixed me up with certain other posters .

If you haven't, then I'll suggest that you read my postings one more time.

[Urban Ranger]

Yeah, I think shawn mixed up trev with BlackCat

[Mr. Harley]

Blackcat, I'm sorry. I've only had twelve hours of sleep since Tuesday when they told me they are contracting my job out, and de facto eliminating my retirement. I transposed the names, I'm slightly dyslexic and do it about every six months or so. Post edited.

Trev, please take all the statements and apply them to your postings.