 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Are Fossils Proof Of Evolution? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 1/20/2003 4:58 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi SeanG:
Holy cow you're fast! Yes, that is the Information on radio nuclides I am refering to. I printed the article off some time ago but didn't have the website address (wasn't that particular site actually, I think it was an atheist org.). Would have saved me alot of hunt and peck typing!
Regarding the Green River material, I don't come to the same conclusion as you do. The variations in varve numbers between ash layers is just as easily explained by possible variations in the ancient lake's size. In any event, catastrophic events aren't capable of forming the type of layering present in this geologic formation. You see, this fortmation is composed of alternating layers of calcium carbonate and fine silt rich in organic material. The mechanism for formation of this type of layering is well known- seasonal changes in a lake. In spring and summer a layer rich in calcium carbonate, the rest of the year sediments rich in organic. There are estimates of 4,000,000 of these alternating layers. To produce these in a year long flood would require one layer to be deposited every eight seconds. Alternating, of course, between calcium carbonate and fine, organic-rich sediment. The other problem for young-earthers is the depth of the formation (aprx. 1 mile), as well as the volume of the sedimentation (about 10,000 mile^3 of material). Not easily explained away. As far as Neandertals go, this is the article I am refering to
Tim Friend, "Neanderthal DNA Disproves Link," USA Today, July 11-13, 1997, p.1A.
RTB uses it to disprove that Neanderthals were, in any way, possible human ancestors (as some of your articles seem to suggest). I not an expert so I guess I don't have anything else to add here.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 1/20/2003 7:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Please, excuse me. I am not following this thread faithfully BUT someone sent me an address to a website and I immediately thought about this thread. Perhaps this site has already been suggested on this thread? Hey, if not, here is another site that discusses scientific proof that the world was created scientifically. The scientists on this site debates many "evolutionists.":
www.drdino.com
It looked interesting. Please don't be mad at my intrusion  I wanted to inform you about this site as another source.
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/20/2003 11:26 PM (GMT -6) | | http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n4_radiohalo.asp
Again anewbeginning, polonium radio halos disprove your entire chain of decay rates. Not only that, but the assumptions involved in the half-lives of isotopes is as follows (and can be found in the above article):
1. The amount of “daughter” isotope in the rock at the start is known.
2. No loss of “parent” or gain of “daughter” since the rock formed (closed system conditions).
3. Constant decay rate of “parent” to “daughter.”
“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different - sometimes by hundreds of millions of years. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'.” (William D. Stansfield, The Science of Evolution [New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977], p. 84. Evolutionist / Ph.D. / Biology Department, California Polytechnic State University.)
“The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.” (Frederic B. Jueneman, “Secular Catastrophism,” Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 24 [June 1982], p. 21.)
This leads to just a few examples out of the many on the dating variations. When the dates vary, and this is often, the age that “fits” the assumption is chosen and then published. This is why we rarely find dates that disagree with the evidence. Some examples taken from the Internet:
Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.
Radioisotope ages that are older than allowable on the basis of stratigraphic or biological control are explained as due to retention of daughter isotopes from a state in which the mineral components existed previous to the association in which they are now found. Brooks et al. (1976) list 22 examples of rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr) ages ranging from 70 million to 3300 m.y. which are stratigraphically constrained to represent volcanic activity within the last 65 m.y. (late Flood and/or post-Flood volcanic activity, according to conservative Biblical creationist interpretations of geology). Five continents are represented in this set of examples. Othman et al. (1984) have recently reported an extensive study of 32 typical worldwide granulite samples that have geologic age assignments ranging from 20 to 3100 m.y., yet have samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd) radioisotope ages that in most cases are greater than the geologic ages and range from 851 to 3744 m.y. Rb-Sr ages for this sample set range from 596 to 3650 m.y. Allègre and Rousseau (1984) report Sm-Nd ages ranging from 1870 to 3780 m.y. for a set of seven Australian shale samples that have geologic age assignments ranging from 200 to greater than 3300 m.y.
In contrast with the earlier perception that potassium-argon (K-Ar) ages for glauconites are probably less than the formation age, it has now been established that K-Ar ages for a glauconite should be considered suspect as too old, due to possible incorporation of radiogenic argon along with potassium at the time of glauconite formation (Odin and Dodson 1982). Volcanics associated with organic material that can be dated by radioactive carbon generally have a K-Ar age much greater than that given by radiocarbon for the eruption (Stapor and Tanner 1973). A prime example is the 485,000 K-Ar age for volcanics from a Mt. Rangitoto eruption which destroyed trees less than 300 C-14 years old (McDougall et al. 1969).
For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most basalt samples closest to the fossil-bearing layers gave dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates, but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That’s how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the pre-existing long-ages worldview that pervades academia today. A similar story can be seen with the dating of the human skull known as KNM-ER 1470. An initial age of 212 to 230 Ma was, according to the fossils, considered way off the mark (humans “weren’t around then”). Various other attempts were made to date the rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different studies (although the studies involved selection of “good” from “bad” results, as above). However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being “that old.” A study of pig fossils readily convinced most anthropologists that the human skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the “age” down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies confirmed this date. Such is the dating game.
Geologist Dr Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. A standard isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility.
A great paper on this is at members.cox.net/paula43/Carbondating.pdf
Some other discordant radiodatings are as follows: TERTIARY — The Tertiary level is claimed to have been formed 14 to 130 million years in the past. Bailey Ash/California, USA dated at 3.4 million years, vs. volcanics/Inner Hebrides, Scotland dated at 2, 750 million years. CRETACEOUS — The Cretaceous level is claimed to have been formed 130-180 million years in the past. Mandi granite/Manikaran, India yielded dates ranging from 9 to 31 million years for granites, vs. volcanics/James Ross Island, Antarctica dated at 500 million years. JURASSIC — The Jurassic level is claimed to have been formed 180 to 225 million years in the past. Mt. Bukulia Granite/ Yugoslavia dated at 3 to 23 million years, vs. Independence dikes/California, USA dated at 2,860 million years. TRIASSIC — The Triassic level is claimed to have been formed 225 to 275 million years in the past. Watchung Basalt/New Jersey, USA dated at 79 million years, vs. Inas Granite/Malaysia dated at 363 million years. PERMIAN — The Permian level is claimed to have been formed 275 to 310 million years in the past. Ore/Lenterios, Portugal ranging from 71 to 118 million years, vs. Rose Dome Granite/Kansas, USA dated at 1,180 million years, plus or minus 60. CARBONIFEROUS — The Carboniferous level is claimed to have been formed 310 to 405 million years in the past. Tuffs/Andscollo, Argentina dated at 85 million years, vs. granite/Saxony, East Germany dated at 2,500 million years. DEVONIAN — The Devonian level is claimed to have been formed 405 to 435 million years in the past. Fitchburg Pluton/Massachusetts, USA dated at 221 to 241 million years, vs. galena/Kazakhastan, USSR dated at a spread of 500 to 900 million years. SILURIAN — The Silurian level is claimed to have been formed 435 to 480 million years in the past. Granites/Ax-les, Thermes, France dated at 113 to 126 million years, vs. Furuland Granite/Sulltlelma, Norway dated at a spread of 400 to 1,300 million years. ORDOVICIAN — The Ordovician level is claimed to have been formed 480 to 600 million years in the past. Bentonite/Tennessee, USA dated at 44 million years, vs. granite/Idaho, USA dated at 1,310 to 1,490 million years. Cambrian — The Cambrian level is claimed to have been formed 600 million to 4.5 billion years in the past. Lighthouse Cove Fm./Newfoundland, Canada dated at 334 million years, vs. andesite/Suldal, Norway dated at 1,145 million years, plus or minus 98 years. PRECAMBRIAN — The Precambrian level is claimed to have been formed prior to 4.5 billion years in the past. Granite porphyry/New Mexico, USA dated at 34 million years, vs. Forsayth Batholith/Queensland, Australia dated at a spread of 368 to 1200 million years.
The new lava dome (dacite) at Mount St. Helens was formed in 1986. In 1997 five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subjected to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, all from eleven-year-old rock.
(Illium bone of an Acrocanthosarus) Radio carbon dated at 19,000 years old!
“Wood embedded in ‘110 million year old’ limestone” Radio carbon dated at 890 years old!
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.”
Edited by - SeanG on 01/21/2003 04:28:53 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/20/2003 11:27 PM (GMT -6) | | anewbeginning, if you follow the links in my post on the Neanderthal (it may take some patience and time to read them), you will find that all the information in the USA Today article is answered in detail. This isn’t just one opinion versus another, it is that the information is entirely refuted.
Just a few of the references given in the articles I read about Neanderthal and music, religion, ornamentation of their dead, flowers buried with their dead, burial sites with non-Neanderthal and Neanderthal graves, etc. Just in case you thought that the information I got was merely that of wild-eyed creationists.
“Neanderthals had Rickets,” in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35
A most excellent, detailed analysis of how rickets and arthritis caused the features peculiar to Neanderthals, was written by Ivanhoe in a 1970 issue of the scientific journal, Nature. The article is entitled, “Was Vlrchow Right About Neanderthal?”
“Neanderthal in Armour,” in Nature, April 23, 1908, p. 587
“Living Neanderthal Man,” in Nature, December 8, 1910, p. 176
Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Changing Man,” in Science, January 27, 1967, p. 410.
Fred Hoyle, Ice (1981), p. 35.
World Book Encyclopedia Vol. 15, p. 672 (1966 edition).
B. Rensberger, “Ancestors: A Family Album,” Science Digest, 89:34-43 (1981).PS10
R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 322.
Jr., and A.J.E. Cave, “Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man,” in The Quarterly Review of Biology, December 1957, pp. 358-359.
Earnest Albert Hooton, Up from the Ape (1946), p. 346.
Scientific American, June 1989 (p. 16).
Corruccini, RS, 1992. Metrical reconsideration of the Skhul IV and IX and Border Cave 1 crania in the context of modern human origins. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 87(4):433–445.
Quam, R.M. and Smith, F.H., 1996. Reconsideration of the Tabun C2 ‘Neandertal’. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Supplement 22, p. 192.
Minugh-Purvis, N. and Radovcic, J., 1991. Krapina A: Neandertal or Not? American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Supplement 12, p. 132.
Discover, January 1997, p. 33.
Hublin, J.-J., Spoor, F., Braun, M., Zonneveld, F. and Condemi, S., 1996. “A Late Neanderthal Associated with Upper Palaeolithic Artefacts.” Nature, 381:224–226.
Wong, K., September 1997. Neanderthal notes. Scientific American 227(3):17–18.
Science News, November 23, 1996, p. 328.
Solecki, R.S., 1971. Shanidar: the First Flower People, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.”
Edited by - SeanG on 01/21/2003 04:31:34 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/21/2003 12:22 AM (GMT -6) | | anewbeginning, you have, if you pay attention to your response on the Green River, have refuted yourself somewhat. You said: “In any event, catastrophic events aren't capable of forming the type of layering present in this geologic formation.” Here you are wrong. In just a few minutes 25 feet was deposited by a flow from Mt St. Helens. Very fine layers were made instantaneously, varves and all. Also, laboratory experiments prove this rapid formation as well. I highly recommend you getting two videos, yes, it may seem like a waste now, but well worth the $… in fact, if you do not have the funds, I will mail out a copy of them. They can be found at:
http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/3e2d274e006a8a322719ac14100105db/Product/View/30&2D1&2D079
http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/3e2d274e006a8a322719ac14100105db/Product/View/30&2D1&2D032
By the way, there was a response to the original article from Answers In Genesis (AIG), you may find the debate interesting.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative2feb2001.asp
The real question is, does each varve unequivocally represent one year? Definitely not, for several reasons. Studies have shown that varve counts vary between individual locations in modern glacial lakes. Sometimes, the number of laminae covering a historically dated level was more than the elapsed years. One study in a modern lake documented that 300-360 laminae had formed in 160 years. In the Green River Shale a 35% variance in number occurred between two "instantaneous" volcanic ash falls. "All" researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year.
There's also evidence it happened rapidly. Numerous fossils are found in the Green River Formation. Catfish in abundance are found, looking much the same as they did when alive. The thickness of their bodies transgresses several layers. Obviously a fish carcass, even if it did get to the bottom of a lake would not remain undecayed and unscavenged for several years, slowly being covered by seasonal deposits.
Even more remarkable are an abundance of bird fossils. In spite of their low density, bird fossils are copiously present here. If these sediments are from the bottom of a calm lake, as required by the standard varve interpretation, how could myriads of bird fossils be present? Bird carcasses don't lie on the bottom of a lake. What happened?
Further evidence against the uniformitarian, calm lake model comes from the nature of the sediments. The dark summer layer is organic rich, a commercial source of oil today. Organic material does exist in modern lakes, but a huge lake without disruptive storms or variable river input, year after year for six million years? Surely some things cannot be.
On the other hand, numerous examples of catastrophic deposits, hurricane debris, 90 mph mudflows at Mount St. Helens, and laboratory experiments, have documented rapid formation of multitudes of "varves." http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-169b.htm
Mt St. Helens
An Example From A Controlled Experiment
A common argument against the Bible involves varves — rock formations with alternating layers of fine dark, and coarse light sediment. Annual changes are assumed to deposit bands with light layers in summer and dark layers in winter. It is reported that some rock formations contain hundreds of thousands of varves, thereby ‘proving’ the earth is much older than the Bible says.[9] But the assumption that each couplet always takes a year to form is wrong. Recent catastrophes show that violent events like the Flood described in Genesis can deposit banded rock formations very quickly. The Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington State produced eight metres (25 feet) [photo 2] of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon![10] And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit about a metre (3–4 feet) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field (cross-section shown on the right: normal silica sand grains are separated by darker layers of denser mineral grains like rutile).[11]
When sedimentation was studied in the laboratory, it was discovered that fine bands form automatically as the moving water transports the different sized particles sideways into position (right).[12] Surprisingly, the thickness of each band was found to depend on the relative particle sizes rather than on the flow conditions.[13] A layered rock (diatomite) was separated into its particles, and when redeposited in flowing fluid, identical layers formed.[14]
Much is often made of the Green River varves,9 in Wyoming, USA. But these bands cannot possibly be annual deposits because well-preserved fish and birds are found all through the sediments.
It is unthinkable that these dead animals could have rested on the bottom of the lake for decades, being slowly covered by sediment. Their presence indicates catastrophic burial. It is often claimed that the fish and birds remained in prime condition at the bottom of the lake because the water was highly alkaline and this preserved their carcasses.[15] Yet highly alkaline water causes organic material to disintegrate, and that is why alkaline powder is used in dishwashers! Another problem for the varve explanation is that the number of bands is not consistent across the formation as it should be if they were annual deposits.[16]
For the whole article and references, go to http://www.trueorigin.org/walkergeo01.asp
When you said: “I don't come to the same conclusion as you do. The variations in varve numbers between ash layers is just as easily explained by possible variations in the ancient lake's size,” you are arguing against yourself. The reason that the Green River formation is considered to be so old is because of the uniformitarianism that is inferred in the deposition of the shales. 1) Fossil catfish are found in excellent states of preservation over an area of 16,000 sq. kilometers of this formation. Given that dead fish placed on a muddy marsh floor and protected from scavengers by wire cages decay significantly in less than a week, such remarkable preservation hints at very rapid burial rather than slow, annual accumulation. (2) Two layers of volcanic ash within the formation, each presumably from a single event that deposited ash over a wide area, are separated by differing numbers of varves (from 1,160 to 1,568). [This suggests that varve counting is not an accurate method of determining age."] http://www.rae.org/Varves2.htm
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.”
Edited by - SeanG on 01/21/2003 05:24:54 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 1/21/2003 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi SeanG:
I feel you still miss the thrust of the readio nuclide argument. The point being that all nuclides with half-lives of less than 70-80 million years, baring those being produced by radioactive decay, have disappeared from nature. The lenghth of the half-lives of these elements isn't in dispute, even in your articles (they consentrated only on the "Assumptions" of scientists using radioactive dating)
We know these elements once existed because we can find their residual daughter elements. If the earth is young, what happened to these elements?
The Green River formation is a greater problem for a young Earth than you credit it. Please explain what catastrophic event could create this formation. We are talk about a 10,000 sqr. mile deposit with an average depth of 1 mile! I'll rephrase that, 10,000 cubic miles of sediment neatly layered, alternating calcium carbonate and organic silt, interspersed with fossils!!!
I'll quote Don Stoner:
"The Mississippi and Colorado rivers, taken together, drain about half of the continental United States and both are well known for the large amount of silt they carry. Together they trasport less than a tenth of a cubic mile of sediment per year. If we made the impossible assumption that both rivers dumped their entire sediment load into this one lake, and that no sediment ever washed out of it, this would only add 1/2 inch per year spread out over the roughly 10,000 square mile lake bottom....In 10,000 years this would account for only 1/10 of the formations thickness."
When Mt. St Helens erupted, how much material was ejected? I'm not sure but I'll guess it was less than a cubic mile. It would take a hell of a volcano to produce this formation, eh?
Remember, this isn't the age of the earth in consideration here, only one lake which disappeared long ago!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/21/2003 10:05 AM (GMT -6) | | anewbeginning, I have not missed the main thrust of the argument.
The post about the radiohalos is a proof against your table baing constant. - A unique study in regard to evidence of changing radioactive decay rates is being made by Robert Gentry (formerly associated with Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Atomic Energy Commission). Dr. Gentry believes the measurements of ancient radiohalos provide possible evidence of past rate variation. These halos are permanently etched into certain crystallized minerals and were caused by the energy released by the disintegration of the radioactive atom at their center. Dr. Gentry measured and compared the radiohalos in various rocks and discovered what appear to be significant variations in the measured ring diameters. This may indicate that radioactive decay rates have changed.
I answered it also with the simple post of #’s 1-3 1. The amount of “daughter” isotope in the rock at the start is known.
2. No loss of “parent” or gain of “daughter” since the rock formed (closed system conditions).
3. Constant decay rate of “parent” to “daughter.” Let me list another assumptions made with the problem attached to it.
ASSUMPTION: Evolutionists generally assume the material being measured had no original "daughter" element(s) in it, or they assume the amount can be accurately estimated. For example, they may assume that all of the lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium.
PROBLEM: One can almost never know with absolute certainty how much radioactive or daughter substance was present at the start.
ASSUMPTION: Evolutionists have also tended to assume that the material being measured has been in a closed system. It has often been wrongly assumed that no outside factors altered the normal ratios in the material, adding or subtracting any of the elements involved.
PROBLEM: The age estimate can be thrown off considerably, if the radioactive element or the daughter element is leached in or leached out of the sample. There are evidences that this could be a significant problem.7 Simple things such as groundwater movement can carry radioactive material or the daughter element into or out of rock. Rocks must be carefully tested to determine what outside factors might have changed their content.
ASSUMPTION: They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant.8
PROBLEM: How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s. Yet Evolutionists are boldly making huge extrapolations back over 4.5 billion years and more. There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive decay can change.9 If the decay rates have ever been higher in the past, then relatively young rocks would wrongly "date" as being old rocks.
(references to follow up on can be found at: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-radioactive.html )
And I showed that the ages given to certain geological “items” are clearly all over the map. These spurious dates are given to these strata or lava flows using the same table you posted. All the current dating methods are based on the above assumptions, and it is known that the decay rates can be affected. If they were ever under water and pressurized, or in a higher altitude. Or when the gravitational field of the earth was stronger, thus affecting the decay rates (half-life of the magnetic field is about 5,200 years, leaching, argon gases contaminating, etc.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 35 (1971), pp. 261-288, and Vol. 36 (1972), p. 1167. (Includes data indicating that different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean gave results varying from 100 thousand to 4.4 billion years. Results from different methods were contradictory.)
K.P. Dostal, M. Nagel, and D. Pabst, "Variations in Nuclear Decay Rates," Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung, Vol. 32a (April 1977), pp. 345-361.
P.A. Catacosinos, "Do Decay Rates Vary?", Geotimes, Vol. 20, No. 4 (1975), p. 11.
J. Anderson and G. Spangler, "Radiometric Dating: Is the 'Decay Constant' Constant?", Pensee, Vol. 4 (Fall 1974), p. 34.
W.K. Hensley, W.A. Basset, and J.R. Huizenga, "Pressure Dependence on the Radioactive Decay Constant of Beryllium-7," Science, Vol. 181 (September 21, 1973). (Documents that the radioactive decay rate of Beryllium-7 varies with pressure).
J.L. Anderson, "Non-Poisson Distributions Observed During Counting of Certain Carbon-14 Labeled (Sub) Monolayers," Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 76, No. 4 (1972). (Shows that the decay rate of Carbon-14 is influenced by the local atomic environment.)
G.T. Emery, "Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates," Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Vol. 22 (1972), pp. 165-202 (Shows that many radioactive elements, including Carbon-14 and Uranium-235, have had their decay rates altered in the laboratory.)
J.L. Anderson, Abstracts of Papers for the 161st National Meeting, Los Angeles (American Chemical Society, 1971).
SOME FEEL THIS PRECLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF ACCURATE RADIOMETRIC DATING: See: A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," Bulletin #80 of the National Research Council (June 1931), p. 107.
A good book by an atheist that deals with this problem… that you mentioned, and I responded to… is by an atheist called, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Get it, it is not a creationist with an itch.
When you said: “When Mt. St Helens erupted, how much material was ejected? I'm not sure but I'll guess it was less than a cubic mile. It would take a hell of a volcano to produce this formation, eh?” Yes, but Mt. St. Helens is small compared to, say, Krakatoa, or even other volcanism in the ancient past.
How much energy was involved in the biggest eruptions at Yellow-stone? Scaling of the magma volume shows the energy of the biggest Yellowstone eruption was about 3,000 times that of the nine-hour eruption of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980. The biggest Yellowstone eruption (»2 million megatons TNT equivalent energy) had more than one hundred times the energy of the world's inventory of nuclear weapons (»12,000 megatons TNT equivalent energy)! Can anyone properly appreciate the colossal size and power of the biggest volcanic explosions which formed Yellowstone? A safe distance to witness an event of such colossal magnitude would be from a higher orbit of the space shuttle!
Other prehistoric explosive eruptions are evidenced by some of the world's largest calderas. Most have been recognized in the western United States:
La Garita Caldera, Colorado (3,000 cubic kilometers), Emory Caldera, New Mexico (1,450-2050 cubic kilometers), Bursam Caldera, New Mexico (1,400 cubic kilometers), Long Valley Caldera, California (600 cubic kilometers), Crater Lake Caldera, Oregon (75 cubic kilometers).
Yes, with my tree ring example, I clearly showed that Yellowstone, as a whole, was formed in one geological event. You must concede these points anewbeginning, there is no way not to. Yellowstone is giant! I showed that tree rings within 27 specific layers were related to each other, this evidence flies in the face of what you are saying, and even uniformitarianists are now leaning towards such giant catastrophes.
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.” | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 1/21/2003 4:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi SeanG:
You wrote:
"The post about the radiohalos is a proof against your table baing constant. - A unique study in regard to evidence of changing radioactive decay rates is being made by Robert Gentry (formerly associated with Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Atomic Energy Commission). Dr. Gentry believes the measurements of ancient radiohalos provide possible evidence of past rate variation. These halos are permanently etched into certain crystallized minerals and were caused by the energy released by the disintegration of the radioactive atom at their center. Dr. Gentry measured and compared the radiohalos in various rocks and discovered what appear to be significant variations in the measured ring diameters. This may indicate that radioactive decay rates have changed."
Hmmm...If only we had some way to check decay rates in the distant past ... wait a sec, here's a quote from infidels.org (not that I endorse atheism or anything)
"The astounding fact, as noted in another context a page or two earlier, is that we do have a direct observation pertaining to ancient decay rates! The light of supernova SN1987A, in its trailing phases, was produced almost entirely by the radioactive decay of cobalt-56, at first, then cobalt-57 a few years later. Those two nuclides of cobalt were positively identified by their gamma rays as they decayed. In both cases the rate at which the light faded precisely matched the decay rates for cobalt-56 and cobalt-57! (Regarding the claim that the speed of light may have slowed down, see topic A6.)
All we need now is the distance to SN1987A which turns out to be around 170,000 lightyears (i.e. 52,700 parsecs). See topic A6 for more details. Surprisingly, that distance does not depend on the speed of light (in a Newtonian sense). Putting it all together, we reach the firm conclusion that we are seeing SN1987A as it was about 170,000 years ago. Thus, as it were, we have a window on the past which confirms that there has been no changes in the decay rates for cobalt56 and cobalt57. Hence, there is no reason for believing that any of the decay rates have changed as quantum mechanics describes them all and has been vindicated in the case of the two cobalt isotopes.
We also have a less direct but equally reliable window on the past in the formation of the present Atlantic Ocean. The magnetic stripes on the Atlantic sea floor, running parallel to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, show that the sea floor has been spreading at a rate which has been roughly constant. That rate, which can now be measured directly with fair accuracy, is 1.5 inches per year. Averaging a couple of measurements of the width of the Atlantic from my trusty globe, I came up with 3500 miles as a good ball park figure. At 1.5 inches per year it would have taken 147 million years for the Atlantic to reach its present dimensions. It turns out that the oldest sediments in the Atlantic, those near the continents, are from the latter part of the Jurassic Period. The Jurassic Period, as determined by radiometric dating, covers a period of time from 135-190 million years ago. Therefore, the two methods are in excellent agreement. Obviously, there was nothing much wrong with those radiometric decay rates even 150 million years ago! "
I dunno, this is kinda turning into a "he said, she said" discussion.
Do you feel there is much point in continueing?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 1/21/2003 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | | I can't seem to keep myself from coming back to this :-(
When I was posting in this thread, I kept my discussion focused on the abstract for one reason: because after having checked out claims and counterclaims for years, and then having come to my conclusion that mainstream science had by-and-large probably gotten things right after all, it occurred to me that this should have been no surprise. Usually, the experts do know what they're talking about when it comes to the consensus of diverse thousands of them speaking within their fields. After all, its by this principle that we daily believe things (and do things based on those beliefs) that work. So I thought this could be an effective line of argument, given I didn't want to rehash all those years of details that other, more competent individuals had dealt with elsewhere.
But I understand that people insist on details and think my abstract argument to be a dodge. Very well. To such people I can only say: I cannot (ie, even if I wanted to) and will not (ie, in any case do not want to) get down into all of the details that Sean has stirred up. What is Sean at now - 100 or more discrete claims, from polonium haloes to the status of Neanderthals?
But I will reiterate that these have all been answered before with generally good degrees of confidence by mainstream science. As another illustration of this, I have again picked at random one of Sean's assertions - this about the Specimen Ridge formation in Yellowstone National Park.
Specimen Ridge consists of 27 distinct depositional layers containing petrified trees, a good proportion of them upright as if they had grown in-place in their respective layers. Mainstream science interprets Specimen Ridge to show the history of successive forests being immersed by one or more ashfall and mudflow/flash-flood events (themselves carrying uprooted trees). After such events, mainstream science sees the forests becoming re-established, only for the process to eventually repeat itself, over tens of thousands of years. In the mainstream view, then, some of the Specimen Ridge trees were buried locally; others were washed in; and there isn't necessarily any correlation between the simple fact of an upright tree and whether the tree was a local or transported one. Specimen Ridge, in the mainstream view, is a combination of both.
In any case, young-earth creationists must deal with Specimen Ridge, since the mainstream interpretation greatly exceeds their postulated age of the earth, and also makes no room for Noah's Flood (which they believe rightly would have affected such a formation). The young-earth interpretation of Specimen Ridge, accordingly, is that it represents trees that were, more-or-less, all deposited within the Flood year, by the rising and/or receding waters. Specifically they cannot allow for multiple in-situ forests over great periods of time, and so must reject interpretations of the evidence which allow for that.
There are several young-earth claims regarding Specimen Ridge. One, for example, is that layered upright trees cannot necessarily represent successively-buried forests because washed-in trees likewise can be found upright. Mainstream science agrees, and of course has a way of distinguishing the two, with the result that science actually sees both kinds of upright trees at Specimen Ridge. But I won't go any further into that, since Sean did not specifically mention that claim. Indeed, I mention it only to illustrate that the debate over Specimen Ridge is multi-pronged.
Anyway, the claim Sean particularly brought up was that dendrochronology has shown that trees throughout the whole Specimen Ridge formation have correlated growth rings. This means many adjacent growth rings which fall into the same pattern (called a "signature set", I believe). Since growth rings reflect annual growth, which in turn reflects local climatic conditions, it is observed in trees today that those subject to the same climatic conditions exhibit the same signature set over most of their lives, while those subject to different conditions exhibit different signature sets. Since local climatic conditions never duplicate themselves exactly in multiple places - at least over many years, statistically-speaking - therefore finding trees with the same, many-year signature set is a good indicator that the trees came from the same place at the same time. Thus, the young-earth claim about Specimen Ridge would seem to indicate that all those petrified trees were alive at the same time and place - even ones at opposite extremes in the ridge (eg top and bottom layers of the formation). And so in this one stroke, the young-earther insists the mainstream view is wrong in concluding an ancient earth; and furthermore the young-earther concludes this to be evidence for the Great Flood.
So what is the mainstream response? Well, if you look into it, you will find that the dendrochronological research upon which this claim is based comes from some papers by Michael Arct: a PhD dissertation and a masters thesis, from 1991 and 1979, respectively. It turns out that the tree ring patterns which were said to match are only a few rings over a span of just 5 years! And furthermore the degree to which those few rings actually matched was quite "fudgy" - for example, there were significant deviations between the signature sets in question, and no correlation in the degree to which ring sizes vary when they do vary. Now, in the field of dendrochronology, such "matches" are apparently not statistically significant, a fact that Arct himself seems to have realized when, in his paper, he tried to justify what he called a "slight departure from standard dendrochronological procedure" (secondhand quote from the Morton source below).
Also, Arct's samples came from 14 trees within just a 23-foot interval of several layers. Any of Arct's growth-ring matches that aren't spurious could therefore be explained, in the mainstream view, by flash-flood transport of trees from the same region to the same sink, at different times. In fact, this hypothesis is further supported by Arct's own data, which show that 4 of his 14 trees died in different years. This is consistent with repeated flash-flood events from the same locale to the same sink over years, but not consistent with the Great Flood hypothesis.
Now, of course I'm not a dendrochronologist, so I can't judge myself, but ex-young-earther and geologist Glenn Morton has studied dendrochronology. See http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=angnba%24j90%241%40knossos.btinternet.com for his characterization. Keep reading the thread for Sean Pittman to come along, to see a creationist response, and read Morton's counters. Eventually others join, including geologist Keith Littleton, and you'll see he and Morton have explanations for Arct's findings and Pittman's objections.
Besides the useful information contained directly in that UseNet thread, there are also hyperlinks to threads on the same topic conducted through the ASA. For example, see this exchange between mainstream'er Greg Billock and young-earther Arthur Chadwick at the ASA: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199802/0127.html
Finally, there was a paper by Richard Ammons, William Fritz, et al in 1987. They apparently referenced Arct's work but concluded that he had not proved his point. At the same time, they did find a statistically-significant 60-year pattern that matched across 3 trees - in the same layer, though. (They weren't looking across different layers, since rebutting Arct was not their thesis - rather it was to determine whether trees within the same layer had grown there in-situ or been transported.) To their credit, apparently they also concluded that more research was necessary to further look into Arct's point.
So the conclusion from mainstream science would seem to be that Arct's conclusions (that the 14 trees across different layers within the 23-foot interval were contemporaneous) were premature, needing further research, if not downright wrong. And the extrapolation from his research to the claim, whether from Sean or elsewhere, that definite tree-ring correlation can be found throughout Specimen Ridge is a simple mis-statement of fact. In my experience, though, it is rather typical of popular creationist advocacy.
By the way, I checked on Google and Deja for creationist response to this, but didn't find any official engagement of it - besides what I have already revealed above. Eg, both ICR and AIG (the premier young-earth organizations) have online articles citing Arct's work (though not in detail - only a few sentences) but not engaging with any critique of it.
If this little digression illustrates anything, I hope it shows:
- How every little claim quickly expands into a convoluted issue once you begin looking into it. The Morton-Pittman exchange alone that I cited above is thousands of words and hundreds of posts! It would take exhaustive amounts of time to thoroughly check out everything Sean puts forward, which is why I'm not going to do it (anymore - having done it before over the last 17 years off-and-on).
- How every little claim quickly expands into an issue requiring technical knowledge and thought to really make an informed, independent judgement upon. Do I, a layman, really know that the creationists are wrong about Arct's findings and Speciman Ridge in general? Not really - I've just read enough mainstream science, passed on to you above, to know that plausible, convincing responses are available for basically every creationist claim. Your mileage may vary, of course, but the point is none of us, as laymen, really know - and once again we are back to my abstract point about the consensus of experts.
- Finally, how - since I'm not going to do this anymore - you can do it yourself instead, with Google and Deja at your fingertips :-) But for each claim, be prepared to spend at least hours at it to do it justice. And be prepared for it to ultimately get down to technical papers, many of them not available online (eg, the Arct and Ammons papers).
Hope this helps. I'll stick around for a round of response before checking out again (and this time really trying to resist the old itch :-)
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 1/22/2003 8:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Scott:
Have you read Michael Denton's book "Nature's Destiny"?
I know he argue's from an almost deistic perspective but I found the book to be fascinating. Any comments? Anyone else read it?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 1/22/2003 11:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott: "that mainstream science had by and large probably gotten it right after all." I would suggest you pick up the book "Scientific Blunders: A Brief History of How Wrong Scientists Can Sometimes Be," by Robert Youngson, who is not a Christian. Its interesting reading.
"There is not the slightest indication that energy will ever be obtainable from the atom." Albert Einstein
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 1/22/2003 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hi Scott:
Have you read Michael Denton's book "Nature's Destiny"?
...
No, I haven't read any of Denton's works.
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 1/22/2003 12:14 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Scott: "that mainstream science had by and large probably gotten it right after all." I would suggest you pick up the book "Scientific Blunders: A Brief History of How Wrong Scientists Can Sometimes Be," by Robert Youngson, who is not a Christian. Its interesting reading.
Hal ("honorman" - hope you don't mind, but I like going by real names :-),
In making that statement I wasn't more specific because I thought my previous posts had pretty well covered what I meant. But in any case, I'll elaborate a little more.
Certainly the institution of science has been wrong on many, many things over time: particular experiments, specific theories, and a good proportion - even a majority, I wouldn't be surprised - of all the cutting-edge ideas at any given time. I still don't know whether oat bran is good for me, for heaven's sake :-) But these are not the sort of misdirections which are analagous to being wrong about essentially all of prehistory and/or the general theory of evolution.
There is no precedent in science for a fundamental theoretical paradigm, with fingers in virtually all the sciences, developed over generations by tens or even hundreds of thousands of diverse, non-colluding researchers (many intensely competitive and with no common presuppositions), and having stood that test of time, to be completely and totally wrong, not just with respect to new data but all the masses of existing data as well. And there certainly is no precedent for such a radically wrong paradigm to be replaced by the one it had previously overturned. Not even the quantum and relativity revolutions in physics come close to qualifying as such a precedent.
Yet that kind of unprecedented revolution is exactly what would have to happen for all but the narrowest, closest-to-mainstream forms of creationism to be valid. It would be one thing for science to be wrong about whether flagellum were produced solely by variation and natural selection, or about the particular evolutionary pathway of the whale. It would be entirely different, by orders-of-magnitude, for science to be wrong after all this time about the whole broad-brush theory of common descent. It would be one thing for science to be wrong about the applicability of potassium-argon dating in certain kinds of rocks; it would be entirely different, by orders-of-magnitude, for science to be wrong after all this time about the general age of the earth. And it would be unprecedented for something like young-earth creationism in particular to turn out to be right, since that paradigm is what the mainstream replaced in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Not that it couldn't happen... By definition, precedents happen when they are themselves unprecedented. But the broad historical view shows it to be highly unlikely. To paraphrase something Carl Sagan once wrote (an atheist but a pithy writer nonetheless): Sure, they laughed at Wegener (the first modern propounder of continental drift). But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. And in history there've been a lot more Bozos than Wegeners.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/23/2003 4:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott, I was hoping you would post the stock answer… and in this hope you will be getting a response, vey detailed, so give me a day or so.
anewbeginning, I have shown that the shales – that supposedly take a long (uniformitarian, or, steady) time to form, thus, “proving” the old age of the Green River – grew around whole bird and fish bodies. This fact alone has shown that the carcasses were quickly entombed, not allowing for predators to pick at, or decomposition to set in. Also the volcanic layer, showing varying rates of shale “growth.” You even undermined your own position by attributing different growth rates.
However, I wish to take a slight turn here, and guide… if I may… the conversation in a different direction (I could post the many measurements that give the earth a young age, like sea sediments, minerals in the sea, helium in the atmosphere, argon, etc.). this direction would posit a long age to the rock (geological layers) we speak of. So, for the sake of the argument, I will say you are correct in the age of the column.
I have a friend visiting from Ohio for Super Bowl weekend, my cleaning regiment is being stepped up, doing my windows, dusting, and the like. So, much in the tradition of C. S. Lewis, we will have some dark beers while discussing politics over a good game of football. At any rate, I have enjoyed the discussion so far, and, if I may say so, keep an eye on the response to Scott, as, it will undermine all his links – with evidence, that is.
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.” | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 1/25/2003 1:37 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/27/2003 12:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott, with all due respect, your “stock” answer is somewhat unfounded, let me explain… and I have personally been there to view the roots myself, and concur with the following from
http://www.grisda.org/origins/24002.htm#III
For a full analysis, go to the above site, as I only highlight some aspects of it. The sites Scott refer to do not answer these evidences. I will cut n’ paste the main issues, and then I will post with a summary.
Both upright and horizontal trees are found in the deposits, but the percentage of upright trees varies from locality to locality (Table 2). For three levels of the Fossil Forest (Amethyst Mountain) with 208 petrified trees, only 28% are upright. On the other hand, the Petrified Tree area near Roosevelt Lodge exhibits 30 upright out of a total of 40 visible petrified trees (75%). Individual levels may be even more variable — some with all trees horizontal or all upright. These figures are based upon trees revealed in the irregular cross-section exposed by the eroded cliff faces. If a surface view of the total fossil forest for any particular level were possible, the percentages for standing and fallen trees could be different.
NUMBER ERECT - NUMBER PRONE PERCENTAGES
Specimen Creek (Levels 33-37):
50 20 (71/29%)
Mt. Hornaday:
157 173 (58%/52%)
Fossil Forest (3 levels only):
58 150 (28%/72%)
Specimen Ridge (East shoulder):
57 26 (69%/31%)
Petrified Tree:
30 10 (75%/25%)
Mt. Norris:
29 31 (48%/52%)
A puzzling feature of all the petrified forests in and around Yellowstone Park is the absence of diagonal or leaning trees. I know of only three locations (two with one large tree each, and the other with three or four small trees) where leaning trees can be seen (Figure 5).
Figure 5. A green stick fracture or leaning tree seen in the Tom Minor Basin northwest of Yellowstone Park. Note the absence of roots on the stump.
The upright trees may range in height from just above ground level to over 6 m. Sometimes they look like old dead snags, and close examination is needed to determine that they are petrified. Most of the wood tissue of the Yellowstone forests is well preserved, even though limbs and bark are usually absent. Roots are present and often can be seen extending a short distance from the bases of the petrified stumps. Occasionally stumps and logs show driftwood-like abrasion or broken and reduced root systems.
The tops of many stumps terminate at or just below the next higher organic level. A few penetrate into the next overlying level and may overlap any trees that might arise from that level (Figure 6). When visible, the original broken top of the stump usually is abrupt and jagged. Despite this evidence of violent breakage, green stick fractures are almost unknown (note Figure 5 for a rare exception). Horizontal logs found near the broken tops of erect stumps never appear to belong to the stump as determined by size, rings, or species. Careful examination of the top few centimeters of the broken tops of erect stumps sometimes shows the wood tissue to be twisted and smashed, not from the breakage of the tree trunk, but from subsequent abrasion, perhaps by rocks and colliding trees.
Figure 6. Overlapping trees in the Specimen Creek Petrified Forest. The larger tree arises from a lower level and overlaps the base of the smaller tree. Some time after this picture was taken, the smaller tree fell from its perch into the canyon below. This photograph first appeared in: Coffin HG. 1983. Origin by Design. Washington DC: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., p 136.
Some observers have suggested that the petrified trees originally grew on the hillside and thus give the impression of multiple layers of trees one above another. This opinion cannot be substantiated. Trees growing on a hillside have roots extending up and down slope. Such root arrangement was not observed for any of the petrified stumps. The flat spread of the roots of the petrified stumps indicates that they grew on a relatively flat surface. Furthermore, the surfaces on which the trees stand, which can be traced in gullies back into the mountain, deviate from horizontal only by 7º or less.
Figure 7. A beautiful petrified tree (4.5 m high) on the slopes of Specimen Creek Petrified Forest.
Figure 8. A small petrified tree that arises from a thin organic level. Note the coarseness of the sediments surrounding it. This is typical Yellowstone volcanic breccia.
Since the time of Holmes (1879) these petrified forests have been interpreted as living forests that were buried by successive volcanic mud slides over many thousands of years. However, research within the past 30 years has unearthed facts that seem to indicate that the trees were somehow transported to their present locations. If the in situ model (trees in position of growth) is incorrect, what is the correct picture? What model better fits the available evidence? Support for the transport model coming from a study of the organic levels deals mainly with their physical structure, organic contents and lack of weathering. Eight of the more important considerations are discussed below.
V. EVIDENCE FOR TRANSPORT OF THE "SOILS"
A. Insufficient Organic Matter
Many of the organic levels of the Yellowstone petrified forests are thin and contain insufficient organic matter to qualify as "soils." Modern forests, with growing trees several meters in diameter, have deep humus floors unless they are growing on significant slopes. Often large petrified trees in Yellowstone sit on only a trace of organic matter. Other trees may arise from 2-3 cm of "soil" — far short of the amount expected from the age of the trees, based on study of modern trees of comparable species and size growing on a level forest floor.
B. Organic and Inorganic Sorting
In this research, gross identification of the wood specimens in the organic levels was undertaken. Trees were classified as pine-type (resin ducts present), sequoia-type (no resin ducts), and deciduous (vessels present). Leaves and needles in the organic levels were identified using the same categories.
Taxonomic sorting of the constituents in the organic bands (needles and leaves not mixed together) was noticed early in the research. Under normal conditions leaves, needles, cones, limbs, bark, etc., fall as a well-mixed litter onto the forest floor year by year as the seasons pass and the trees grow. A flotation experiment involving aspen and poplar leaves and fir needles in a tank of water showed that the needles became saturated and sank to the bottom first. Thus flotation in water is a possible explanation for the observed taxonomic sorting in the "soil" levels.
Occasional organic levels from Specimen Creek Fossil Forest, and Mt. Norris and Miller Creek petrified forests show a relationship between the size of the ash sediment and the size of the organic material — fine sediments, fine organic matter, coarse sediments, coarse organic matter. The Eagle Creek Formation of the Oregon Cascades is a coarse volcanic sediment that contains many petrified trees similar to the breccias of Yellowstone. That these trees in Oregon have a similar origin and history to those of Yellowstone is a reasonable assumption. An example from an organic level from this Oregon formation shows similar size sorting of the inorganic particles among or between leaves (Figure 13). The leaves are seen in cross-section as long, somewhat undulating lines. The sediments show normal grading between the lines (grading from coarse to fine upward).
Figure 13. Cross-section of an organic zone from the Eagle Creek Formation in Oregon. See text for discussion of similarities of this Oregon site with Yellowstone. Note that sediments are sorted between the deciduous leaves (dark wavy horizontal lines). This illustration first appeared in: Coffin HG. 1983. Origin by Design. Washington DC. Review and Herald Publishing Assn., p 143.
C. Atypical Soil Profiles
The organic levels associated with the Yellowstone petrified forests range from soil profiles typical of a true growing surface to reverse profiles; however, the majority 86 (71.6%) of 120 microscopic cross-sections through organic levels give evidence of water sorting. The rest, although not typical soil profiles, do not give clear evidence for either in situ or transported origins. The organic matter is usually randomly oriented (Figure 14). Ten percent of the organic cross-sections showed a reverse profile — more dense at the bottom and less dense toward the top. Sufficient water to rework the soil would also wash out growing trees, especially smaller ones. The water transport of both the "soil" and the trees is a more reasonable explanation.
Figure 14. A microslide of a thin section from an organic level in the Cache Creek area. The wavy dark horizontal lines are cross-sections of deciduous leaves. Note the following features: a) clean ash or sand between the leaves; b) sudden change in grain size between the upper and lower halves of the organic level; and c) different types of organic debris in the fine and coarse sediments.
Differential decay of the organic matter characteristic of a forest floor — better preserved leaves and needles on top and more decayed downward — is not seen. The movements of volcanic lahars over the ground could produce atypical soil profiles, but, most likely, any soil profile would be eliminated. These anomalous profiles might be produced by small streams sorting and redepositing humus and forest litter. However, these organic levels are often widespread and uniform in thickness. This feature and the lack of evidence of widespread erosion would appear to eliminate small streams as agents for sorting and redepositing the organic matter.
Three transects (50 m long and 1 m wide) that I did in a Central California mature redwood forest revealed 135 sequoia cones and 79 other cones on the surface of the forest floor. Although sequoia cones are small and fragile, they do remain intact and visible for several months after falling. Sequoia cones are absent or rare in the Yellowstone fossil forests despite the dominance of sequoia trees. Cones of any type are uncommon in the petrified forests (Figure 15).
Figure 15. A rare but beautiful petrified cone (not Sequoia) found on Mt. Hornaday. This photograph first appeared in: Coffin HG. 1983. Origin by Design. Washington DC. Review and Herald Publishing Assn., p 145.
In a mixed forest of redwood and deciduous trees such as exists in California, the redwood needles greatly predominate in the forest floor litter. For the area overshadowed by a tree, conifers appear to drop proportionately many more needles than do deciduous trees their broad leaves. In 1899, Knowlton remarked about the absence of needles in the organic levels associated with the large fenced petrified tree near Roosevelt Lodge in Yellowstone National Park. Our studies there are summarized in Table 4. There is a lack of taxonomic agreement between the dominant petrified trees in the area and the leaves and needles. One would expect to find great numbers of sequoia needles and some cones, since most of the upright trees are sequoia. However, large numbers of broad leaves and only a few pine needles are seen in the organic levels. Sequoia needles were rare or absent. Although petrified sycamore stumps are not common, leaves of sycamore are the most abundant broad-leaf fossils. Transport by water could bring about sorting and separation of plant parts.
TABLE 4. TAXONOMIC BREAKDOWN OF THE PETRIFIED FOREST 2 KM WEST OF ROOSEVELT LODGE, YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK
SEQUOIA- TYPE / DECIDUOUS / PINE-TYPE / UNKNOWN / TOTAL
Petrified Trees
28 / 5 / 4 / 3 / 40
Organic Samples
0 / 75 / 27 / 0 / 102
If a volcanic mudslide buried only the lower parts of the trunks of the trees of a growing forest, the taxonomic composition of the new forest that grew on this new surface would be similar to the composition of the forest that was buried. The cones, seeds, nuts, and fruits would fall from the unburied branches and foliage and repopulate the new surface with a similar forest. Such correlation between adjacent levels of the Specimen Creek Petrified Forest has not been found.
VI. EVIDENCE FOR TRANSPORT OF THE PETRIFIED TREES
A. The Roots
Some of the petrified trees have broken roots; but when were they broken? Even if a permit to collect petrified wood within the park is obtained, excavation of stumps is not permitted; furthermore, digging is difficult in the hard rock. Consequently, to determine if the root breakage seen is pre- or post-petrification is difficult. Several examples of abrupt root terminations from Mt. Hornaday, Mt. Norris, Tom Minor Basin, and Specimen Creek strongly indicate that, at least in some cases, the tree roots were broken before the trees were buried by volcanic gravels and muds. This evidence supports the view that the trees were transported.
Small rootlets can be located at the bases of upright stumps, and this feature has been used to argue against transport. Observations in Spirit Lake near Mount St. Helens and of trees uprooted by bulldozing operations show that the small roots and rootlets are usually still intact, but the larger roots often may be broken (Figure 18). The presence of small roots extending from the base of a petrified tree therefore is not evidence for an in situ interpretation unless large roots also extend unbroken. Broken and frayed large roots could be the result of changing stream currents eroding the bases of growing trees, but such activity should leave evidences in the sediments. Furthermore, erosion must be limited; otherwise, trees would be removed or toppled.
Figure 18. A tree torn out of the ground by the eruption of Mount St. Helens. Note that the large roots are broken while the small rootlets are largely intact.
B. Lack of Decay
If a forest were killed by a mud flow that buried the bases of the trees, the tops of the trees would extend above the new ground surface. They would overlap a new second forest that would commence growing on the new surface. During the time of the growth of the new second forest (before it in turn was buried by another volcanic mud slide) the old first forest snags would have time to rot, to be infested with insects, and to break down. Even the tops of stumps that reached only to the root area of the second forest level (no actual overlap) would also be expected to experience decay. The soil in which the roots of the second forest grew would not be a good preserving medium for the tops of the stumps extending up from below. One of the striking features of the Yellowstone petrified trees is their good preservation (refer to Figure 11). If pieces of the petrified wood are prepared as microslides, the wood tissue may look nearly as fresh as tissue from a living tree. Seldom do they exhibit any evidence of decay and weathering. This suggests that the trees have not been subjected to these processes during the passage of time.
Figure 11. An illustration of the good preservation of most of the Yellowstone petrified trees. This stump with variable ring widths is suitable for dendrochronological studies.
C. Orientation of Stumps and Logs
The parallel orientation of the horizontal logs, mentioned earlier, is better explained by water or mud transport. The dip of the beds from which the trees arise seldom exceeds 7º, which is not enough to cause all the trees to fall downhill. The dip may be due to post-deposition uplift. Prevailing winds or volcanic blasts could align fallen trees, but they would not cause the long axes of the cross-section of the upright stumps to have a similar compass alignment.
The asymmetry of the cross-section of a stump, especially at its base, is usually a result of the influence of major roots that cause flare to extend for some distance up the stump. Volcanic lahars (fast-moving volcanic mud slides) or currents of water or mud could be the forces that acted on roots and trunks to produce similar alignment for both stumps and logs.
D. Abnormal Ecology
The many petrified trees and plants in the Yellowstone area represent a diverse grouping of species. Exotic genera such as cinnamon, breadfruit, katsura and chinquapin are presently restricted to southeastern Asia. Erling Dorf accounted for this unusual assemblage by postulating a basin at low elevation (to accommodate the tropical and semitropical species) into which leaves and wood from surrounding higher elevations were transported. On the other hand, William Pierce suggests that gravity sliding of the Heart Mountain Thrust Fault from west to east could occur only if the area supporting the ancient Yellowstone forests was at high elevation.
[TABLE 3. FOSSIL PLANTS OF YELLOWSTONE: A PARTIAL LIST
Abes ...............fir - Juglans ............walnut - Acacia ............acacia - Larix ...............larch - Acer ...............maple - Laurus ............laurel - Aralia ..............spikenard - Magnolia .........magnolia - Arctostaphylos……bearberry - Myrica ............bayberry - Artocarpus ......breadfruit - Pandanus ........screw pine - Betula .............birch - Persea ............bay - Carya ..............hickory - Pinus ...............pine - Castanea .........chestnut - Platanus ..........sycamore - Castanopsis .....chinquapin - Quercus ..........oak - Cercidiphyllum .katsura - Rhamnus .........buckthorn - Cinnamonum ...cinnamon - Salix ................willow - Comus ............dogwood - Sapindus .........soap berry - Corylus ...........birch - Sequoia ...........redwood - Cycad .............sago palm - Sparganium .....bur-reed - Euonymus .......staff tree - Thuja ..............cedar - Ferns (several species) - Tilia .................linden - Ficus ...............fig - Ulmus .............elm - Fraxinus ..........olive family - Viburnum ........arrowwood - Horsetails (several species) - Vitis ................grape]
The mixed flora is most easily explained by the transport of trees and plant parts from different habitats and geographical locations into a flooded basin where lahars, mudflows, or turbidity currents left accumulations of sediments (Figure 19).
Figure 19. A sketch of a model for the rapid burial of trees (both upright and horizontal), and organic debris, by underwater volcanic mud slides (coarse-grained turbidites). This illustration first appeared in: Coffin HG. 1983. Origin by Design. Washington DC: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., p 151.
E. Dendrochronology
The results of dendrochronological research might appear at first to support an in situ interpretation. However, matching of rings from trees on different levels would be most unlikely if they are in position of growth. Arct has found matching growth ring patterns for upright trees separated by one or more levels. Living forests on successive levels that are sequentially buried by volcanic mudslides could not have grown at the same time and under the same weather conditions. Sequences of wide rings (abundant rain) and narrow rings (drought) would be different. These results are a strong argument for their being allochthonous (transported from elsewhere).
F. Absence of Bark and Limbs
One of the first observations made when research commenced on the petrified forests was the barkless condition of both the horizontal and upright trees. Subsequent examination has revealed some thin layers of bark remaining on a few of the trees. In addition to the trees being mostly barkless, all the branches have been broken off. Even large branches, 25 cm or more in diameter, have been removed. Only scoured stubs remain on the tree trunks. Trees buried and later excavated by water erosion during the eruption of Mount St. Helens did not have all the bark or limbs removed. Trees floating for a period of time in turbulent water would more likely lose bark and branches due to softening of the bark and abrasion.
VII. A MODERN CASE HISTORY
A. The Eruption of Mount St. Helens
On May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens in the state of Washington erupted with a roar heard 300 km away and a force equal to 500 Hiroshima atomic bombs.36 Enough ash and rock were moved to provide a ton for every person on Earth. A blast of ash-charged superheated gas was flung northward, killing 61 humans and thousands of animals. Millions of trees in 600 km2 of prime forest were blown down or killed.
The eruption that removed nearly 400 m from the top of the beautiful mountain was triggered or preceded by a 4.9 magnitude earthquake. The immediate result of the jolt was a massive avalanche down the north face which had been bulging at a rate of 1.5 m per day for several weeks. The eruption following the slide eviscerated the mountain, leaving a crater 600 m deep. A resort lodge and thirty cabins were pulverized and buried under 90 m of sediments.
The forests in the area north of the mountain were devastated. Huge trees, some of them 2 m or more in diameter, were felled like matchsticks (Figure 20). The areas closer to the mountain showed blast destruction without much regard for the topography, although trees on the south-facing slopes were more completely destroyed or removed than those on the north-facing slopes. When the incandescent blast began to lose speed farther from the mountain, it funneled down the valleys, leaving the trees on the tops of the surrounding hills untouched.
Figure 20. The eruption of Mount St. Helens snapped and uprooted thousands of trees, some of great size.
B. River Transport of Upright Stumps
Associated with the St. Helens eruptions, trees and stumps have been transported upright to new locations. Mud slides and turbid floods down the North Fork of the Toutle River have deposited and buried trees in an upright position. Many erect stumps in various stages of burial have been scattered on some of the mud flats and gravel bars (Figure 21). One huge stump over 2 m in diameter and 13 m tall sits on the toe of the 24-km-long debris flow.
Figure 21. Stumps of trees previously logged were torn out of the ground by volcanic activity associated with the eruption of Mount St. Helens, transported down the Toutle River, and dropped upright onto the scoured floor of the river. Note that some of the upright stumps are partially buried. This photograph first appeared in: Coffin HG. 1983. Origin by Design. Review and Herald Publishing Assn., p 149.
C. Spirit Lake
Before the eruption of Mount St. Helens, Spirit Lake, located at the base of the mountain on the north side, was a beautiful gem among virgin forests with the majestic mountain as a backdrop. The lake probably originated during similar past eruptions of the mountain when the floor of the north fork of the Toutle River Valley was raised by volcanic debris. This natural dam impounded the water that became Spirit Lake.
Most trees seen in rivers are rootless logs floating horizontally. Opportunities for observations on significant numbers of floating logs with roots have been few. In casting about for a modern (if local) example, I thought of Spirit Lake. The eruption of Mount St. Helens tore thousands of trees out of the ground and threw many of them into Spirit Lake. When the north face of the mountain collapsed into Spirit Lake, water surged scores of meters up surrounding hills and washed many trees into the lake. A huge floating mat of logs and debris now covers nearly half of the lake surface (Figure 22). It consists of plant material ranging from chips of bark to trees with trunks nearly 2.5 m in diameter. Many of the trees still retain their root systems. Research on this log raft has thrown light on the flotation characteristics of trees.
Figure 22. A portion of the log raft on the surface of Spirit Lake near the base of Mount St. Helens. Note the trees floating upright off Eagle Point. Upright trees are in the log mat also, but not as obvious as those in the open water. This photograph first appeared in: Coffin HG. 1983. Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington. Geology 11:298-299. Reprinted with permission of the Geological Society of America.
D. Research in Spirit Lake
Our research began at the lake in September 1982, two and a half years after the eruption. We noticed many stumps upright in the water (Figure 23). Some of them could be seen drifting with the wind. To be certain that they were not anchored to the bottom in their original positions of growth but truly were floating or had drifted into shallow water where they were now grounded, scuba divers examined the lower ends of many of the stumps. They found that the root systems were either well above the lake bottom (truly floating) or that they were lightly grounded on the bottom. The latter could be pushed around and when tilted would swing back into vertical position. Some stumps that had sunk were standing upright on the bottom, their tops well below the surface of the water. Others floated or sat on the bottom mud with tops protruding above the water surface (Figures 24 and 25).
Figure 23. A small sample of the log raft on Spirit Lake. The upright trees in the foreground are lightly grounded in shallow water, whereas those in the background are floating free.
Figure 24. A large erect stump sitting on the bottom of Spirit Lake that extends within a meter of the surface of the water. This stump is representative of thousands that are sitting upright on the bottom of Spirit Lake. This photograph first appeared in: Coffin HG. 1987. Sonar and scuba survey of a submerged allochthonous "forest" in Spirit Lake, Washington. Palaios 2:179-180. Reprinted with permission of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists.
Figure 25. Floating tree trunks with tops protruding above the surface of Spirit Lake. In time they likely will sink upright and disappear into the depths if the water is sufficiently deep.
We wondered how many floating stumps and logs had already sunk to the bottom. To answer that question, we chose to utilize side-scan sonar. Although scuba divers had verified that stumps were sitting erect on the bottom, quantitative measurements were not possible by this method because of the size of the lake, the depth of the water, the darkness below certain depths because of water turbidity, and other factors.
Using side-scan sonar, transects covering slightly under 1% of the lake bottom yielded 154 vertical stumps and 95 prostrate logs. A sonograph reveals light areas or reverse shadows when objects block sound transmission (Figure 26). The vertical light streaks are sonar shadows cast by erect trees. Confirmation of these sonar results was obtained by divers at specific sites and by observing the sonograph recordings of vertical stumps whose protruding tops revealed their locations. Extrapolation to the entire lake bottom gave approximately 19,500 erect stumps and about 12,000 horizontal logs. The submerged stumps and logs range in height from less than 1 m to more than 20 m.
Figure 26. Side-scan sonograph showing several erect trees in a 75 m length on the bottom of Spirit Lake. The vertical streaks are sonar shadows cast upon the bottom of the lake by upright stumps. Scattered wood debris is also visible. This illustration first appeared in: Coffin HG. 1987. Sonar and scuba survey of a submerged allochthonous "forest" in Spirit Lake, Washington. Palaios 2:178-180. Reprinted with permission of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists.
VIII. ALLOCHTHONOUS MODEL
A. Allochthonous Organic Levels
The normal accumulation of organic debris and the subsequent formation of humus and true soil that proceeds relentlessly on modern growth surfaces do not readily account for several of the phenomena seen in the organic levels of Yellowstone. These are specified below.
1. The absence or thinness of organic matter on levels with abundant and large trees.
2. The sorting of organic and inorganic matter.
3. The lack of a typical soil profile.
4. The multiplicity and complexity of the organic levels.
5. Lack of agreement between leaves and pollen and the dominant wood types.
6. The absence of clay, or, when present, uncorrelated to the organic levels.
7. The absence of evidence of animals expected in typical forest plant-animal associations.
8. The evidence from the study of the trace elements of the volcanic ash, associated with the organic levels, for repeated eruptions during a short span of time of insufficient duration to support the growth of a superimposed series of forests.
B. Allochthonous Trees
The main factors that support the transport of the trees seen in the Yellowstone Petrified Forests are summarized below.
1. Large roots that can be traced to upright trees are broken or terminate abruptly.
2. The good preservation of tree wood. Decay is seldom seen.
3. The parallel alignment of logs and stumps appears to require their transportation by a moving force such as water or mud.
4. The variety of habitats and climatic preferences seen by the great taxonomic diversity of trees and plants suggests transport.
5. Matching growth rings for trees on different levels requires contemporaneous growth elsewhere and subsequent transport to a new location.
6. Battered and barkless trees are better explained by transport in violent water than by growth in situ.
IX. CONCLUSION
The evidence presented here provides a basis for additional detailed research that could be done. Such research would be beneficial for our understanding of these unique fossil deposits. Offhand, the in situ model would appear to be the simplest and most natural explanation, but closer examination uncovers features that are difficult to explain for trees in growth position. A transport model involving the flotation of trees and organic debris in a body of water, as illustrated in Spirit Lake, gives a better fit to the data as observed in the Yellowstone Petrified Forests. We propose that the Yellowstone Petrified Forests provide an example of catastrophic deposition.
Edited by - SeanG on 01/27/2003 05:43:52 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/27/2003 12:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Okay, that’s the tuff stuff! Now for a little layman action. You posted sites about the dendrochronology of the trees at specimen ridge dealing with Arct’s M. A. and Ph.D. thesis’. You made mention that “it turns out that the tree ring patterns which were said to match are only a few rings over a span of just 5 years!” However, the item not mentioned that the trees compared were young, and had only that amount of a year or two more. And the rings do match in corresponding to the drought and wet years. The post you linked with the actual stats show this. This being said, the presence of other trees in the strata (e.g., cinnamon, walnut, linden, etc.) goes a long way to showing that this is in fact a large area where giant volcanic mud flows “captured” trees washed from different climates.
Figure 18. A tree torn out of the ground by the eruption of Mount St. Helens. Note that the large roots are broken while the small rootlets are largely intact.
The model that you are defending, and all the accompanying data that it must show to be supported, has yet to be found accruing in nature. However, the model I am defending, and all the accompanying data that it must show to be supported, is shown and has been (and is) seen in nature. I highly recommend the video Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe. Actual footage and photo’s of the model I am defending can be seen in it.
The roots being all ripped and broken are important to specimen ridge. As the photo below shows, the smaller roots seem intact, however, the larger roots are clearly broken. This is what is found at Specimen Ridge. All the large roots are in fact broken and do not continue on into the corresponding soil (where they should) under the exposed part. However, some of the petrified trees have signs of the smaller roots picking back up in the corresponding soil where they are broken. These are the roots that the Infidels and TalkOrigins (and the like) are referring to when they say the trees in fact have their roots. You may still be missing the point, in being transported, these smaller roots can be covered in with loose, muddy soil. After the hillside is weathered away, these smaller roots can break or deteriorate leaving a portion buried in the mudflow. This gives an appearance of it being buried. I have seen personally a petrified tree on its side with the smaller roots “connected” to the surrounding soil. This gave it an appearance that it had been growing straight out of the hillside. However, the larger roots, had no corresponding connection to the hillside – because there were none.
If you read the entire post I gave you at the top… http://www.grisda.org/origins/24002.htm#III … you will see that the creationist need not respond directly to these counter posts because the responses do not deal with the total of the information given in such an article. And when they do they don’t make a distinction between the smaller and larger roots, as just one example, or the age of the trees compared for dating, as another. All the above correlates to another video that is quite interesting: Experiments in Stratification. I recommend you get the two videos I mentioned, as, you will see the above as well as instant – minuet – layers being created in an instant with the mudflows from Mount St. Helens. And a subsequent steam flow created a 1/40th scale Grand Canyon… stream and all. If a geologist had not known of the eruption of Mount St. Helens, and he or she inspected the centimeter thick layers (just like the Grand Canyon), even had a river, which, a geologist would have said caused the canyon over millions of years due to erosion:
Largest steam explosion pit viewed from the east on June 18, 1980. The pit is 2300 feet long and has a flat floor of pumice deposited by the volcano's June 12 eruption. The dendritic pattern of gullies and rills forms 100 feet of relief at the margin of the pit. The pit was later breached by a mudflow on March 19, 1982, and forms the new canyon in the left side of Figure 5. (Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources).
Gully erosion around a 500-foot-diameter steam explosion pit photographed in August 1983. Individual gullies are up to 50 feet deep. The floor of the pit contains pumice from a later eruption of Mount St. Helens.
Westward view looking down the North Fork of the Toutle River in August 1984. The rockslide and pumice deposited in the region of the headwaters of the river have been eroded to a depth of more than 100 feet forming a new dendritic drainage pattern. The deep canyon on the left includes the breached remnant of the large steam explosion pit (Figure 3). The canyon on the right is shown in detail in Figure 6. Significant canyon erosion by mudflow which established the dendritic drainage pattern occurred on March 19, 1982.
Detailed view of deep canyon on the right side of Figure 5. The flat plain of pumice deposited on May 18, 1980, was eroded to a depth of more than 100 feet by August 1984.
Deeply eroded gorge through May 18, 1980 pumice deposit. Photograph taken in August 1983. Man provides scale. The gorge is believed to have been breached between steam explosion pits by the mudflow of March 19, 1982. Mass wasting of the sides and water erosion of the channel have kept the gorge open, forming part of the new drainage network on the pumice plain at the headwaters of the North Fork of the Toutle River.
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.” | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/27/2003 1:20 AM (GMT -6) | | By The Way anewbeginning… you posted a story on a fossil dino/bird… thanks for a great example of Tom foolery! I couldn’t ask for a better example of the lack of integrity by some scientists who don’t practice science, but scientism.
From:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4417news12-21-2000.asp
Bird evolution is one of the most controversial areas in evolutionary paleontology, and leaders of both groups have made extremely powerful (and sometimes acrimonious) criticisms of the other. I think they are both right in their criticisms—birds evolved from neither! For evidence against the evolution of birds from anything, see the articles in Q&A: Fossils ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp ), or chapter 4 of Refuting Evolution ( http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-2-110 )
One of the most scathing critiques was by Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, in an open letter ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4159.asp )
‘The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age — the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.’
This was part of a criticism of the National Geographic article on ‘Archaeoraptor’, which turned out to be a fraud—see Archaeoraptor: Phony ‘feathered’ fossil ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4208news2-3-2000.asp ) for more information.
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.”
Edited by - SeanG on 01/27/2003 06:21:48 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 1/27/2003 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Sean,
You have just posted a great deal of interesting information. Virtually none of it, however, concerns the specific claim you first made, about tree ring matches throughout Specimen Ridge. That is the claim to which I plainly limited my comments, so I will continue to focus narrowly on that claim here.
Please forgive me if you feel I give short shrift to the other 98% of the content you posted. But as I've said more than once here, these debates all too often take the form of your response, expanding exponentially into dozens or hundreds of narrow technical issues, each one of which would require hours of investigation on its own. And as I've also said before, I no longer have time or inclination to invest the days or weeks of free time that would be needed to pursue each such issue to closure. So I will stay on-topic for the most part, and only generally address that other 98% at the end.
First, I'd recall for everyone here that your original claim was that tree-ring studies have found matches across Specimen Ridge, thereby demonstrating all those trees were contemporaneous and thus must have been deposited catastrophically in short order. For example, on 01/20/2003 in this thread, you wrote:
Another example would be the 27-layer forest (Specimen Ridge) at Yellowstone. The story goes that a forest grew over 1,000's of years, then died and was covered over by another layer over 10,000's to millions of years. Then another forest grew, etc., until there were 27 layers built over millions of years.
When the trees from different layers (at Yellowstone) are compared, via their tree rings, an interesting thing is seen. The tree rings, in forests that supposedly date at 10,000's years apart, have the same corresponding 'weather rings.' In other words, when there is a dry season, and then a wet season, the rings are different. No matter the age difference (juvenile or mature) in the tree, you can pick up
the corresponding rings of the trees. The 27 layers of forest prove to be from the same stock!
And later, on 01/21/2003, you alluded to this again:
Yes, with my tree ring example, I clearly showed that Yellowstone, as a whole, was formed in one geological event.
Now, I think it is clear at this time that, even given the 2% of your most recent response which is on this topic, these statements are vast exaggerations. Following are the facts (as indicated by my investigation and implicitly corroborated by yours), laced with what I, and the consensus of mainstream science, contend is the most reasonable interpretation:
1. Only one expert, dendrochronologist Michael Arct of Loma Linda University, has ever claimed to have found statistically-significant tree ring matches across depositional layers at Specimen Ridge.
Now, this is not to say that therefore Arct's research is faulty. In fact, in such a narrow field as fossil dendrochronology of Specimen Ridge there are rarely more than a relative handful of experts at any given time. The point is to say that this is a very narrow basis on which to teeter your sweeping claim.
2. Arct's research formed the basis of a 1979 master's thesis and a 1991 doctoral dissertation, but has apparently not been published in a professional journal and thus not subject to the wide peer review that would provide.
Now, again, this is not to say that therefore Arct's research is faulty. The point is that his research hasn't been subjected to the usual scrutiny that weeds out faulty research; therefore it is only reasonable to be somewhat more skeptical than usual.
3. Turning to the research itself: it appears Arct's actual papers are nowhere published on the publicly-accessible Web. I've not been able to find them despite much searching. This makes it rather difficult to precisely analyze his findings, as what is available at-hand concerning his work is somewhat sketchy. However sketchy it may be, though, there is still quite a lot that can be gleaned.
4. Specifically, it appears the 1979 thesis concerned 28 petrified trees at Specimen Ridge. Of these trees, only 9 were claimed by Arct to contain a signature. I have not been able to find an exact description of that signature, except that it is, at least, *not* exactly the same as the 5-ring alleged match I've referred to before (and will come back to below, in items 7 and 8). It is a different supposed signature, but similarly short. And being short, it is more likely to be a fluke.
Judging whether any one ring matches any one other is inherently subjective; the presence of any intra-annual bands only slightly lessens this. Thus it is standard dendrochronological procedure to look for consecutive ring sequences in which most, if not all match, in multiple ways; and the more rings in the sequence, the better. This is standard dendrochronological procedure, and Arct's 1979 thesis acknowledges that the 1979 match is unconventional.
Now, that doesn't mean the match really isn't there; it could be. To say that a match is statistically invalid is only to say that we don't have 95% confidence or better that the match is genuine. If we are only 50% confident the match is real, then half the time it will in fact be genuine. I acknowledge this. But these safeguards are built into dendrochronology so that only the most reliable results will be given credence, due to the subjectivity involved in determining matches. Thus Arct's matches are only questionably admissable.
Further, to defend the match by saying that the trees were small in the first place (as you did, Sean) is clearly beside-the-point. First, without Arct's paper it is impossible to judge whether the trees really were so young as to approach the signature size. The Coffin reference you gave only says the trees were "small". Second, and more importantly, it does not matter if "the trees could not have provided a better match because they were only saplings with a few rings to begin with". Rather than such pleading making the trees and their matches admissable, that occasion would instead call for only larger trees to be used. (Dendrochronology is possible on trees of all ages, though, as I understand it, specimens not yet over-mature, hence still growing, are preferred.)
As an example, I'm a nature photographer by hobby. If I try to sell you a lousy photograph of a Yellowstone geyser, it doesn't matter that that photograph was the best I could do with the weather and lighting conditions at the time. All that does is excuse me from incompetence. It doesn't make the photograph acceptable. And if Arct's trees really were too small for a longer match to even by physically possible, then that just furthers the point that they were statistically invalid for signature matching in the first place.
5. In any case, Arct's 9 1979 signature-bearing specimens were all found within 3 consecutive depositional layers in Specimen Ridge. And furthermore, apparently Arct wasn't able to find, associated with any of those 9 specimens, any of the usual characteristics which indicate (to mainstream science at least) that all of the trees were in-situ (ie, growing in place). So instead, it is possible the trees may have transported into place, via flood.
Thus, if the alleged matches actually are valid, it is entirely consistent with the mainstream view to agree that they grew contemporaneously, and were then transported and deposited in different, conventional flood events. (The mainstream view, by the way, is *not* that all the upright trees at Specimen Ridge are in-situ, and has not been for decades now. The mainstream view is that Specimen Ridge shows a combination of successive in-situ forests and successive local flooding, mudflows and ashfall.)
6. The 1991 Arct dissertation apparently was the one to find 14 allegedly-matching trees with the 5-ring signature mentioned in my previous post. It is unclear to me whether the 1991 work reports entirely new finds, or whether it incorporates and modifies the 1979 work, augmented with new finds. In any case, several of the above comments on the 1979 thesis also apply to the 1991 dissertation.
For example, all 14 of the matching specimens were again found in relatively narrow cross-sections - 23 feet containing several layers. (As a point of contrast, at its greatest extent, the Specimen Ridge formation itself is approximately 2,000 feet high and 27 layers.) The current mainstream view of Specimen Ridge could readily account for matches across layers within such a narrow section, as being laid-down by contemporaneous local flood events.
7. However, the validity of the signature in the 1991 work is particularly questionable. The signature is only 5 rings in width (and see my comment at the end of item 4 above regarding the invalidity of small tree size as an excuse). The first ring supposedly has 4 intra-annual growth bands (called a "triplet" because of the 3 dark rings separating the four bands). The middle ring allegedly has 3 such bands (a doublet) and the last ring has a singlet.
However, this pattern is not pervasive through the specimens. For whatever reason, I've only been able to find 8 of the specimens analyzed, by geologist Glenn Morton. As he outlined, for example (if I've understood him correctly - per the URL I gave in my previous post): 4 of those 8 lacked the triplet, having instead additional intra-annual bands. Others had doublets instead of singlets in the
last ring.
This is illustrated in the photographs of 4 of the specimens which I did find on the Web, at http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Pictures%203/fossil3.jpg. These pictures show the 5 rings in question, with the intra-annual bands marked with indicators showing where they allegedly fall. Judging with no expertise at all, it would appear to me that just in these 4 specimens there are significant variations in the supposed pattern.
Just picking on one of the specimens for example: In the first band of YSC015 - where I'm supposed to see a triplet - I see a "quadruplet" (look to the right of the rightmost triplet). In the second band of YSC015 (where I'm supposed to see nothing), I see a singlet. In the third band of that same sample, I see a triplet (look to the left of the leftmost doublet). In the fourth band (where I'm supposed to see nothing), I see a doublet, or maybe even a triplet. And in the fifth band (where I'm supposed to see just a singlet), I see a triplet (look for the extra doublet in the dark outer band). Again, I'm not speaking as an expert and could be wrong; but I'm reminded of the story of Percival Lowell in all this, who convinced himself by looking too closely that he saw canals on Mars.
8. Furthermore, besides the supposed matches in intra-annual bands, there is no significant correlation in ring width (I conclude this despite your conclusion otherwise). This is important because ring width correlation, as I understand it, is the primary, valid dendrochronological technique (rather than intra-annual banding). Looking at the photos of the 4 samples, there is a first-glance similarity in that the first 3 bands (from the left) are generally wider than the last 2 bands. But looked at more comprehensively, this correlation falls apart.
Returning to Morton, who measured the bands on the 8 specimens he references: he found that the rings were not consistently wide or narrow across all the samples. Looking for such a pattern is the most basic dendrochronological technique: trees grow at different rates, so finding absolute matches in ring width is not typical; but looking for relative patterns is. In a "bumper" year all trees grow better (ie, wide rings relative to a "normal" year for the same tree) and in a "bust year" they grow worse (ie, narrow rings relative to "normal" for the same tree). Morton did not find such a pattern.
For example, for YSC001 and YSC007, years 4 and 5 were normal-to-pretty-good. For YSC002, YSC009, and YSC010, they were pretty lousy years. For YSC001, YSC006, YSC007, and YSC010, year 2 was terrific, the best they experienced. But for YSC013 and YSC015, year 2 was just so-so. You can see this reflected in the photographs, too (for the samples where pictures are available).
9. Finally, to demonstrate that it is possible to find statistically-significant tree-ring matches in Specimen Ridge, Ammons and Fritz's paper (which I also mentioned in my previous post) documents a 60-ring signature within trees in the same layer. If Ammons and Fritz can do it, Arct can try to find better samples, too.
So, to wrap up, Arct's tree-ring matches are only modestly (if not weakly) supported. What matches there are, can be explained in the mainstream view by normal localized flood and mudflow events. Thus Arct's work lends no support to the young-earth-creationist contention that most, or even all, the trees in the 27, 2000-foot high layers of Specimen Ridge were deposited all at once by Noah's Flood. If anything, Arct's inability to find good matches across depositional layers suggests the trees were not contemporaries of one another (at least not in the same locale). And certainly, your (Sean) sweeping statements quoted above are completely without foundation.
Now, I mean that in humility. Its not your fault your sources have led you down the garden path, and I am glad to be acquainted with you. But an ounce of skepticism goes a long way, when you're up against the time-tested consensus of thousands of experts :-)
Best regards,
Scott
PS. With respect to the remaining 98% of your recent posts, I'd refer you to commentary on talk.origins by geologist Keith Littleton, who specifically discusses all of Harold Coffin's allegations that you quoted. Coffin is behind-the-times and apparently doesn't realize that mainstream science recognizes local flood events in the geology of Specimen Ridge (in addition to layered in-situ forests). For example, it would appear the soils which Coffin charges mainstreamers with misunderstanding as the forest floor are, in fact, agreed to be alluvial deposits of organic matter (leaves, duff, etc) after localized flooding. And Coffin neglects evidence of other soils, including those in which petrified upright trees are rooted, which do show signs indicative of a forest floor. More on this, for example, at http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=gsWdnZz2lolhhSWgXTWcog%40ctc.net and http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HXydnRSP2c6mKVmgXTWcqA%40ctc.net. In any event, as I said at first, this other discussion is off-the-topic I was responding to, so I will say no more. I only offer this for readers who may be interested at looking into the mainstream assessment of those other allegations. | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 1/27/2003 11:06 AM (GMT -6) | | I have two clarifications to my preceding post.
First, when I wrote the following...
quote:
Second, and more importantly, it does not matter if "the trees could not have provided a better match because they were only saplings with a few rings to begin with".
...please note I used quotation marks only to paraphrase a particular explanation put forward by Sean. I did not mean to imply those were his exact words; they were not.
Second, regarding the hyperlink at the end of the following sentence...
quote:
More on this, for example, at http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=gsWdnZz2lolhhSWgXTWcog%40ctc.net and http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HXydnRSP2c6mKVmgXTWcqA%40ctc.net.
Note you must drop the final period '.' from the URL. Apparently this Web server is not smart enough to realize that the period was the end of my sentence and not actually part of the URL.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 1/27/2003 12:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sean:
I remember National Geographic getting egg on it's face from that winged fossil (not this one). I personally don't have an axe to grind regarding evolution or creationism. I haven't yet made my mind up on the issue. That said, I think your classifing this find as "tom foolery" and the scientists involved as "lacking integrity" a little reactionary and predictable given your ideology. Do you accuse those named in the article (and featured in the latest issue of Nature) of outright deception? Are they liars? Is this fossil fraudulent? How could you know this? I think you discount it only because you presume such things CANNOT exist because they AREN'T POSSIBLE because there AREN'T ANY intermediate fossils becase evolution ISN'T DEMONSTRATED in the fossil record, right?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/28/2003 7:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott, I directly answered you (see my 88th post) to you on this issue.
I quote me:
Okay, that’s the tuff stuff! Now for a little layman action. You [Scott] posted sites about the dendrochronology of the trees at specimen ridge dealing with Arct’s M. A. and Ph.D. thesis’. You made mention that “it turns out that the tree ring patterns which were said to match are only a few rings over a span of just 5 years!” However, the item not mentioned that the trees compared were young, and had only that amount of a year or two more. And the rings do match in corresponding to the drought and wet years.
I unquote me
I looked at the graph you posted, and there is a correlation between wet and drought years. I suggest you read my 88th post more closely.
You are arguing apples and oranges. You seem to be saying that because tree 1 and tree 3 didn’t grow exactly one inch in unison that my post is invalidated… this is not what tree ring comparison is all about. Being that trees are on differing topography (near low points in the forest floor, like a gully, or near high points, hills). However, the trees you mentioned, and the gist of Arcts report, mentions the corresponding percentages of growth slowing (drought) and accelerating (wet) together.
Again, it wasn’t 5 rings matching out of 30 rings, but five rings matching out of five, they were young trees.
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.” | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/28/2003 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | anewbeggining,
No, I am saying that they are quick to jump to conclusions that aren’t yet warranted. Every fossil find that has been front page news of “being the missing link,” has always ended up in section D as being discounted. The Mars rock, Lucy, Neanderthal, fossil horse series, peppered moth… etc ad infinitum, have come and pass. Nature is no different. They have published many many fossils as being genuine that are now discounted. And this new find is directly related to the fossil find that National Geographic got busted for, it is all the same area in China. The dates are wrong, because true birds have existed for millions of years already, according to evolution.
See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0128feathered.asp
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.” | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 1/28/2003 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Sean,
quote:
Scott, I directly answered you (see my 88th post) to you on this issue.
I know you did. That is why I directly answered you in my post of yesterday, as well as bolstering the mainstream account in several other ways.
First, to your objection that the trees were too young to have much more than 5 rings, that is immaterial - it only doubles the point about statistical invalidity. See my yesterday's post.
Second, to your objection that the 5 rings do correlate relative to one another within each sample, showing the same pattern of wet-and-dry, that claim is not substantiated. Likewise, see my yesterday's post, which (BTW) shows I do not labor under the misunderstanding that the trees should be expected to grow in unison, as you charge me with.
Now, perhaps the fact that I had specifically addressed your issues escaped you because of all the other information I included in my post. Sorry - my wife agrees I'm much too wordy :-) Be that as it may, all that other information, for which you've offered no counter, simply hammers home the mainstream view on Arct's rings. To summarize my post of yesterday (see that post for more information):
- The supposed matches are statistically questionable, if not invalid.
- Even if the matches are present, the trees are so close together stratigraphically that they are still explained within the mainstream view.
- Thus your sweeping claims that I referenced - for example, that this data invalidates the mainstream view and can only be explained by a single catastrophic event (ie Noah's Flood) - are completely unsubstantiated.
- And in particular your claim that "the 27 layers of forest prove to be from the same stock" because "the tree rings, in forests that supposedly date at 10,000s years apart, have the same corresponding weather rings" is totally false-to-fact because Arct's rings were collected from only a few consecutive layers. Arct himself in good conscience could not endorse your vast exaggeration.
Regards,
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 2/1/2003 5:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
After re-reading all of our posts to each other, and rooting around – which include a conversation with Ken Ham – who agreed somewhat with you. I am being sent some recent articles from the Technical Journal that talk of the subjectivity of the issue you raised, that being,
The supposed matches are statistically questionable, if not invalid - This is your strongets argument.
Keep in mind that some of the trees still match closely and are far apart from each other in the layers, this being said, dendrochronology is a questionable field that is still being looked into. This is the consensus of many. So on this issue I acquiesce. And, until further study remove it from my arsenal. Mind you, the argument put forth for the rapid laying down of the layers is still intact, considering my lengthy post, but Arct’s work should not be cited as “proof.”
Thanks Scott (great posts), and let it never be said that Sean G never folds to the evidence.
P.S. Would you like me to sum up the Technical Journal (TJ) articles when I get them? The TJ is a journal where creationists and intelligent design scientists can publish for the purpose of peer-reviewing. Most of the scientists I listed (a large list), if publishing a technical paper on these types of matters would do so here. The articles on dendrochronology that would bolster your case are in the ones coming to me.
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.”
Edited by - SeanG on 02/01/2003 10:16:05 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| 104 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:36 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|