₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
i'll be damned the day these fools answer a straight question without rushing to hide under the skirts of "show us evidence".

The way they cry you'd think they had ALL the evidence for the other stupid stuff they believe.

I dont need to "convince" myself that creationism is correct . . . as long as you cant provide a credible alternative and provide reason WHY i shld believe your alternative then i'll just go with Gen 1. Its better to believe in such "magic" than to carry on with life with absolutely no idea where the world came from in the first place.

what happened to krayola?  

The writes of genesis 1 like the proponents of the big bang or evolution have absolute no idea of how the universe came into existence. . . . they wrote down their own hypothesis and that's it. . . .the only difference is that they wrote that their tribal deity did it in seven days. . . .

davidylan:
i'll be damned the day these fools answer a straight question without rushing to hide under the skirts of "show us evidence".

The way they cry you'd think they had ALL the evidence for the other stupid stuff they believe.

i don't believe in evolution as a fact, i know that no body knows anything about how the world and the universe came to existence, people just make up different hypothesis some at least have some evidence to show that their hypothesis can be supported while you fool have no evidence to show for your belief in the hypothesis of the bronze age men who thought that the sky is divided by what they called the firmament which separates the waters above from the waters below.

davidylan:
1. What is the alternative to creationism? Surely if creationism is wrong there MUST be another narrative as to how the earth was formed . . . what is your opinion and why?

If creationism is true as you are trying so hard to convince yourself that it is, where are your evidence to show that it is?

noetic2:
The main question is: whats the basis of believing or assuming that I am yet to perform any of these miracles?


what are ur beliefs? whats the basis of this beliefs? whats the source of all things according to naturalism?
please feel free to expose ur ignorance  

have you ever healed a blind person? do you believe in the carpenter called jesus? did he not say that you will do better things than what was written about him? i know a christian child whose leg was amputated. . . should i bring him to you to heal him and make his amputated leg grow back?

davidylan:
how many threads do you see me put up refuting evolution? I couldnt be bothered about it except when you air heads run up making claims you dont understand.

as far as there is a thread here on evolution our resident "scientist" rushes there to let people know that evolution is false. . . .if evolution is truly false as you love to convince yourself i don't think it will be giving you such sleepless nights. . . .

noetic2:
is there any reason to believe that none of this miracles have happened?

how do this miracles help propagate ur evolution or naturalism? how do they refute creationism?
u never cease to amaze with ur regular gibberish.

do you believe in jesus? does the holy spirit reside in you? why haven't you ever healed a blind person or walked on water? did jesus not say that if you believe in him you will be able to do all these things?

davidylan:
there guys seem to be trying too hard to convince themselves the bible isnt real. for all their cries . . . they certainly do spend an unhealthy amount of time babbling about the bible.

Like the same way you spend too much time crying and blabbing about the "lie" called evolution. . . .

noetic2:
what a foolish tirade. does ur rant deny the effects and events called miracles all over the church?

Have you ever raised any body from the dead? have you ever healed a blind person? what about a person with a terminal disease like cancer how many have you healed?   . have you ever healed an amputee? have you ever walked on water or turned water into wine? Do you believe in jesus? why then can you not do any of the above? did jesus not say that if you believe in him you will do all these things? how many of the above have you eve done?  

Neotic wrote:[/b]u keep coming up with this ridiculous question. [b]This healing are prevalent all over the world in churches. That u choose to disbelieve does not deny or refute the fact that this miracles happen.

please say something new.

Can you give me one case of your imaginary deity healing an amputee and making his amputated limb or limbs grow back?

horse703 said: Mazaje your reason there is exactly why u wil not recognise a miracle even if it happened under your nose. y do u need scientisfic evidence to show that miracles do exist then it wont be a miracle wuld it? and are u guys saying scientists have explanations for everything in this world, ofcourse not and besides which group of scientists have ever stood up to start writing papers on miracles, if u have any please make it known to me.

If a person says that he was healed through prayers or through his pastors touch then there should be some evidence for that. Independent doctors or medical records to show that the person was truly sick and and an independent doctors report to show that he was really cured of his/her sickness will do. So far non of these has ever happened. All we hear are fraudulent claims of miracle healing, if god truly heals people why cant any of the imaginary deities heal an amputee and make his/her amputated limbs grow back? I thought you guys keep shouting and claiming that your imaginary deities can do all things?

Read this article "One of the most scientifically rigorous studies yet, published earlier this month, found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments."

"A review of 17 past studies of ''distant healing," published in 2003 by a British researcher, found no significant effect for prayer or other healing methods."

Apart from scientific studies there is NO evidence to show that those who pray are batter off than those who do not. If miracles truly happen we won't be having this conversation as toneyb has said. . . . . . .

horse703:
ofcourse u can test christianity, every thing about it is in the bible, there are things in the bible that it says it can do for u, for example, "and ye shall receive power when the holy spirit has come upon you", if u really want to know if this is true believe in Jesus and wht the bible says, paraphrased ", and u shall do greater things( the supernatural) after i am gone" is this true, well i have seen a lot of people beign healed by this power that the bible talks about, yes i have seen miracles in Jesus name so there is evidence is it not?

there is a theory, the bible, tested yes, results, proven to be true.

Can you give me a case(medical verifiable case) where a person with terminal disease like cancer was prayed for and he/she was healed of his/her sickness by prayers alone without any form of medication. Please you should be able to do this.

As the saying goes if you really believe in something, you might start to "perceive" evidence for it even if your beliefs are erroneous.

War amongst the "body" of christ . Seven day adventist and protestants against the catholics who call themselves the mother church. . . .interesting

bindex ya na ga ka signing out? Ni zan je na kwanta sobuda gobe zan je singapore. . . . . . kar ka manta ka kira moritz gobe fa.

davidylan:
[size=18pt]its ridiculously funny how all these loud but empty barrels deliberately pretended not to see horse 703's post.[/size] 

could it be because it asked salient questions they couldnt provide an answer to?

What are these salient points that he asked? He said he is a "biologist" but he says things like these. . . . .

mutations that occur have been proven to be harmful, at least 99%, so how did the organism know how to mutate harmlessly, maybe it had magic powers? or im wrong.
Please atheist answer these questions

This is false because most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful. Mutations have been observed by scientist to make completely novel genes many times such as the evolution of nylonase in certain bacteria.

This link from talk origins explains it in much details.

Interesting thread. . .Evolution vs creationism. ,  . . Biological evolution explains with some evidence at least. . . how living forms developed from ancient single-celled organisms,  . . while creationism is about how bronze-age man explained how he thought the world came to be, so no proponent of creationism can provide any scientific evidence to support his claim because non exist.

noetic2:
What stops u from producing this OBVIOUS evidence that supports ur misinformation?

1. first u FALSELY claim that there is nothing called a soul
2. secondly u IGNORANTLY attributed thoughts and emotions to be attributes of the soul but done by the brain.
3. thirdly u now state again that the soul exists separately from the brain if at all it exist.

are all these three not contradictions? whats the basis of assuming that the soul is separate from the brain "if at all it exists"?
whats the basis of FALSELY claiming that soul has to do with just thoughts and emotions?

on let me for the sake of this discussion assume that i don't know what the soul is. since you pretend to know what it is, i will like you to tell me what it is, where it resides in the human body and how or in what way does it affect the human body. please go ahead and tell me.

keep ejaculating ur ignorance . . . . .u have never heard of near-death experiences, have u?

is this your evidence that shows that there is a part of the human consciousness that survives bodily death? Mind you near death experience have all been linked to the brain it is NOT an evidence that shows that there is any part of the human consiusness that survives bodily death. recent advances in neuroscience are bringing us closer to a brain-based understanding of the NDE as an altered state of consciousness.  people have these experiences ONLY when they are alive. near death experiences are come about or occur due to blockade of brain receptors (drug binding sites) for the neurotransmitter glutamate. These binding sites are called the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors. Conditions such as low oxygen, low blood flow, low blood sugar, temporal lobe epilepsy etc which precipitate Near death experience.

There is a drug called  Ketamine which is used to induce the Near-Death Experience. Near death experince is NO evidence to show that there is a part of the human body that survives bodily death. It is only an altered state of consciousness which can be induced using drugs.

Near-death experiences (NDE's) can be induced using the dissociative drug ketamine. Advances in neuroscience have recently provided us with new insights as to the mechanisms involved at the mind -brain interface. On the 'brain' side, it is now clear that these NDE's are due to blockade of brain receptors (drug binding sites) for the neurotransmitter glutamate. These binding sites are called the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors. Conditions which precipitate NDE's (low oxygen, low blood flow, low blood sugar, temporal lobe epilepsy etc.) have been shown to release a flood of glutamate, over-activating NMDA receptors. This overactivation can kill brain cells ('excito' toxicity). Ketamine prevents excitotoxicity. Conditions which trigger a glutamate flood may also trigger a flood of ketamine-like brain chemicals which bind to NMDA receptors to protect cells, leading to an altered state of consciousness like that produced by ketamine. On the 'mind' side, induction of NDE's has psychotherapeutic value via several routes which will be explored in this article. To facilitate reading, in some cases references have been grouped together at the end of a paragraph.

Recent advances in neuroscience are bringing us closer to a brain-based understanding of the NDE as an altered state of consciousness. This discussion does not address the issue of whether there is life after death, but does argue that NDE's are not evidence for life after death. This would be appear to be self-evident on logical grounds: death is defined as the final, irreversible end. The Oxford English Dictionary (Sykes, 1982) defines death as the 'final cessation of vital functions'.According to this definition, 'Returnees' did not die - although their minds, brains and bodies may have been in a highly unusual state for a period of time. If these definitions are not accepted, then we need a new terminology to describe these states.

http://leda.lycaeum.org/?ID=9260

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE IS A PART OF THE HUMAN BODY THAT SURVIVES BODILY DEATH?

noetic2:
Another baseless misinformation.

where is ur evidence that suggests that no part of the human structure survives bodily death?
what makes u think that a soul is simply about thoughts and emotions?

What is the misinformation in what I have said? Do I need to provide any evidence for the obvious? It has been shown that the brain controls everything when it comes to thought and actions of the human body. Both voluntary and involuntary action are all controlled by the brain. If something bad happens to the brain the body suffers. The soul, apparently, must be somehow separate from the brain it it exist. there is no evidence for such part of the body existing, all empirical evidence point to the brain as the center of control of all activities in the body. If there is a soul then you are yet to show me where it is located in the human body and how it affects the human body as a whole.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL?

The brain controls everything when it comes to human consciousness and when the brain dies off everything dies with it.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE IS A PART OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS THAT SURVIVES BODILY DEATH.

Nothing like the soul exist, Empirical evidence as some have said points to the brain as the part of the body that controls all thoughts and emotions. The is no evidence to show that there is any part of the human body that survives bodily death. The soul exist only in the imaginations of theist.

Bindex yane? Na jidadin article da ka kopu ka yadda anan. . . . . .

davidylan:
I laugh when toneyb keeps crying that evolution is an established fact based NOT on any established evidence but on peer-reviewed papers by members of the NAS. Sometimes you gotta wonder if these folks have a brain.

You dont need NAS papers to prove gravity . . . even my grandfather in the village who never went to school believes it.

It this statement coming out from a market trader or some one that claims he has an idea of how the scientific process really works?  .

bindex:
Cry cry baby  . There are papers all over the place over 200,000 peer reviewed articles that most accomplished scientist agree with and accept as scientific facts with scientific evidence for evolution. You as a "scientist" can lay your hands on them and challange them can't you? Or don't you know how to write scientific papers challenging your peers(self acclaimed "scientist"?   Don't you want to win a Nobel peace prize and become an Instant celebrity for proving to the world of accomplished scientist(NAS and other bodies) that they are all wrong about evolution?  What a FOOLISH FOOL 

Kai kiyale wannan mahaukachin.

bindex:
And I read with absolute amazement the apologetics of this deluded fool who call himself a "scientist" but has keeps shwoing that he is am embarrassment to his peer.

Are you completely stupid? How on earth will some one that knows anything about lung disease talk life this According to theAmerican lung association Lung disease and other breathing problems constitute one of the[b] leading causes of death in babies younger than one year old[/b]. Do the babies smoke cigarette? What about chronic lung disease such as asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) otherwise known as emphysema and chronic bronchitis are they caused by cigarette smoking too? You are a disgrace.

A perfect designer will make them to act as a medium of gas exchange so that they will be more efficient.

Are these the only causes of arterial blockage? What about Genetic or family history,Air pollution,Eating processed foods,Hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated oils,Diabetes etc. . Is it your grand designer that designed the arteries so that arterial blockage can be passed genetically? Why does teflon have to be used as a temporary surrogate in emergency situations in the first place? A grand designer will design the arteries with with a teflon like material so that there wont be arterial blockage in the first place.

A more efficient digestive system will function is such a way that it will not only absorb food but also prevent diseases of the digestive track like Cholera, Colorectal cancer and peptic ulcer.

So many things are wrong with our eyes it could be better designed to be as sharp as that of an eagle or a hawk. The process of image formation is so poor hence it leads to many people to be born with natural eye defects. Our eyes could be better designed like that of the octopus where the photoreceptor cells in the eye of the octopus point toward the incoming light unlike ours where our own rod cells and cone cells point backwards and absorb light reflecting from the back of the eye which causes a lot of problems because its not every bodies eyes that can do that hence the natural eye defects.

And you believe you have made any point? What can be learnt from your own post? How have the nonsense you have written here negate the fact that 25-50 of conceptions spontaneously abort? Chromosomal abnormalities are found in more than half of embryos miscarried in the first 13 weeks. A pregnancy with a genetic problem has a 95% chance of ending in miscarriage.Most chromosomal problems happen by chance, have nothing to do with the parents Is it your grand designer that designed the female reproductive system with such vulnerabilities? Amongst the etiology of spontaneous abortions are certain viruses most notably cytomegalovirus, herpesvirus, parvovirus, and rubella virus—or from disorders that can cause sporadic or recurrent abortions (eg, chromosomal or mendelian abnormalities, luteal phase defects) is it your grand designer that designed all these too? Cause for spontaneous abortion is often unknown

Did you just type this because you wanted to say something or because you really wanted to present a case for your imaginary grand designer? So what if the risk of spontaneous abortion goes up significantly in older women? Why didn't your imaginary grand designer design a better reproductive system for women that will make sure that spontaneous abortion does not affect about 25-50% of conceptions?

Are chromosomal problems which happen by chance and which have nothing to do with the parents normal human problems? .


What is this nonsense? Are you hear to show your "knowledge" of biology or to make a case for your imaginary grand designer? Are pimples part of the grand design . Are body odour and pimples part of your grand designers design?


Yet scurvy still affects a lot of children no?

. A grand designer will create a body that does NOT need to go out and get vitamin D. It will be naturally provided or manufactured in the system the way dogs produce vitamin C naturally.

What has this got to do with the fact that the male testicles are outside the body and not inside and better protected?

This has nothing to do with the fact that the human testis are located out side the body and less protected than other internal organs.

I am talking about location and the level of protection compared to other internal organs.

What is this? Is it the grand designer that created the teeth to be constantly producing plaque and tarta which give us cavities in our teeth? A grand designer will do no such thing. A grand designer will not even design a teeth that needs toothpaste. Lions do not brush their teeth do they?

Sure a grand designer will design the human eyes to be as sharp as that of an eagle.

What kind of grand designer is that that designs such a poor system that that makes sure that parents pass on diseases like cancer and HIV to their offsprings? . Humans that devise ways to stop the transfer of diseases like HIV from parents to offsprings are far better designers and would have designed a better system.

. No the reproductive system which produced fools like you who can not read simple sentences and understand. The world populations has been growing due to advancement in the field of medicine and reproductive sciences. Is it your grand designer that causes some babies to stay in breech positions and have their umbilical cord tied around their necks? What about the painful process it self that man has been able to ameliorate with the use of epidural?

Did you fool ever wonder why your imaginary grand designer did not design a human system that is not vulnerable to obesity in the first place. what about congenital heart defect that affects mostly new borns? did you grand designer design that too? What about coronary heart disease that people with menopause are vulnerable to or which is transferred genetically (heredity)? I asked why the grand designer did not design the heart so that heart diseases are not one of the number one killer and you come up with this nonsense?

.

If the immune system works people will not be infected with chicken pox in the first place. if the immune system works there will be no need for vaccinations in the first place. Is it your grand designer that designed an inefficient immune system such as hours that need the supports of vaccines and drugs? Learn to read and understand before ejaculating like a known nothing slowpoke.

What about the genetic material of humans that carry cancer? natural birth defects and the inability of our immune system to fight off all kinds of germs and diseases?

Much MORE better than the way the human body is designed.

Sure they all have their flaws they could have been far better designed.

I can't believe you are asking me these, i said that there are over 4000 known birth defects and you are asking me to tell you ? . Ok here are some. Limb reduction defects, Down syndrome, Autism, Polydactyly, preaxial, Indeterminate sex, Cleft lip with or without cleft palate, Transposition of great vessels, Hypoplastic left heart syndrome, Spina bifida, Transposition of great vessels, Albinism, Cystic kidney, Renal agenesis and Diaphragmatic hernia. Here are just a few of them. Did your grand designer design them too?

Chances are 99% of them are down to us!


Evolutions has provided satisfactory answers to all these. You can write a scientific paper and present it to the members of the national academy of sciences who all believe in it's explanations for all the things you have outlined and debunk its claims if you do not accept the explanation that evolution provides. I rather believe the explanations of real and accomplished(NAS members) scientist, than listen to the rants of a disgruntled jesus freak who keeps crying about evolution because it puts to shame his holy bible that says the earth was created before the sun and that humans were created from dust. As for the liver all i have to say is this,is the same liver that is plagued with so many disease?


Evolution has explained all that again let me see your paper that disproves evolution after you must have presented it to the members of the NAS who happen to be accomplished scientist by the way not like you this deluded bible grabing goon who believes the words of equally deluded goons that the stars will fall from the sky on the day when jesus will come. What have your own imaginary designer got to say about science? Stripped goats can be produced by putting stripped sticks in front of mating goats. Very nice. Deluded goon.

I on the other hand I weep for any organization that employees a scientist pseudo-scientist that makes comments such as these.

Did the designer force a cigarette into your mouth to smoke? Why shld he design a filter so you can indulge in your own immorality and sin?[/b] Why are billions dying at 90 with NO lung disease?

You are a disgrace to the science community.

Kai ka editing post din ka soboda akwai kuskure dayawa a ciki. Sa ke maimaita shi ka giyara shi.

noetic2:
thou pathetic geologist . . . .why are u afraid to bring out ur evidence?

afriad of what?

noetic2:


But I asked u first? . . , please go to the right thread and provide ur scientific and intellectual evidence . . . ,

what is this back and forth worth? provide your evidence and i will provide mine. . . . . ka ji?

noetic2:
Oh dear mazaje. . . . where have u been? . . , . I have been waiting for ur scientific evidence . . . .u know the appropriate thread, so see u there.

provide your scientific evidence first then i will provide mine. . . . . . . .

segyemaro:
You sounded like mazaje's sister.

my sister doesn't go around complaining that her god is one sided. . . . . . . .by the way all she is saying is that why does her god allow some people to be born in war torn and poverty striken places like dafur or haiti and begin their lives at a very disadvantaged position and allows others to be born in finland or sweden where they have more than enough opportunities and advantages?. . . . . . .why does god allow some babies to be born with congenital diseases, others born blind, skin disease(like albinism)or deaf and dumb some with some form of mental illness and begin life at a very disadvantage position and allows others to be born without any form of disease or mental illness at all. i  believe you know my position that i don't believe in any god but since the poster does you guys can help give her answers instead of calling her names or writing he worries off as if it doesn't matter at all.

noetic2:
Typical ignorance.

why are u not on HIS side?

hundred of millions believe that they are on his side, they believe that they are covered and protected but their luck is no different than those that are not on his side at all.

davidylan:
Isnt it absurd that you a supposed "geologist" has to go ferret through talkorigins to refute noetic? Why have[b] you NO idea of polystrate fossils yourself[/b]?

i think i am very right when i say you are a block-headed slowpoke.

Besides the entry from talkorigins DID NOT refute noetic's claim, it was simply 6 lines of propaganda (with NO EXPLANATION), a copied drawing from wikipedia and the rest insults to creationists.

how will you see the refutations when you did not read it?

Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?

Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.

The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/dawson_tree1.gif
An upright tree preserved in the cliffs at Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Figure 35 of Dawson [1].

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/dawson_tree2.gif
Stratigraphy in association with an upright tree stump, Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Figure 41 of Dawson [1]
Original Caption:
"1.=Shale. 2.=Shaly coal, 1 foot. 3. Underclay with rootlets, 1 foot 2 inches. 4. Gray sandstone passing downwards into shale, 3 feet. Erect tree with Stigmaria roots (e) on the coal. 5. Coal, 1 inch. 6. Underclay with roots, 10 inches. 7. Gray sandstone, 1 foot 5 inches. Stigmaria rootlet continued from the bed above; erect Calamites. 8. Gray shale, with pyrites. Flattened plants."

The following is a more detailed post on polystrate fossil trees I presented previously in talk.origins:

In article <1994May22.133828.562@alc-ohio.alc.com> malone@alc-ohio.alc.com (Bruce Malone) writes:

   "[, ]

   "Fossil trees trunks, which extend upward through multiple layers of limestone, have been found in many areas of the world including Kingston, Ontario [there are no such trees in Kingston, Ontario -AM] and Joggins, Nova Scotia [emphasis added].

   "This suggests that these very thick deposits were deposited very rapidly. Similar polystata trees have been found extending upright through successive seams of coal. Some of these trees have supposedly stood upright while successive cycles of oceans and peat swamp have pasted through an area. You be the judge as to the most logical interpretation,  slow accumulation over thousands of years or,  rapid burial during a massive world wide flood."

One of the best, and longest-known "fossil forest" occurrences is a locality known as Joggins, in Nova Scotia. It is Carboniferous in age, and was first described in detail in the late 1800s. Here is a quote from Dawson 1868 (pp. 179-180) on the nature of the trees at this locality, in a beautiful cliff section over 1km thick:

   "In the [stratigraphic] section in the preceding chapter, the reader will observe the words 'Underclay, Stigmaria [a type of fossil tree trunk]' frequently recurring; and over nearly every underclay is a seam of coal. An underclay is technically the bed of clay which underlies a coal-seam; but it has now become a general term for a fossil soil [Dawson's emphasis], or a bed which once formed a terrestrial surface, and supported trees and other plants; because we generally find these coal underclays, like the subsoils of many modern peat-bogs, to contain roots and trunks of trees which aided in the accumulation of the vegetable matter of the coal. The underclays in question are accordingly penetrated by innumerable long rootlets, now in a coaly state, but retaining enough of their form to enable us to recognize them as belonging to a peculiar root, the Stigmaria, of very frequent occurrence in the coal measures, and at one time supposed to have been a swamp plant of anomalous form, but now known to have belonged to an equally singular tree, the Sigillaria, found in the same deposits (Fig. 30). The Stigmaria has derived its name from the regularly arranged pits or spots left by its rootlets, which proceeded from it on all sides. The Sigillaria has been named from the rows of leaf-scars which extend up its trunk, which in some species is curiously ribbed or fluted. One of the most remarkable peculiarities of the stigmaria-rooted trees was the very regular arrangement of their roots, which are four at their departure from the trunk, and divide at equal distances successively into eight, sixteen, and thirty-two branches, each giving off, on all sides, an immense number of rootlets, stretching into the beds around, in a manner which shows that these must have been soft sand and mud at the time these roots and rootlets spread through them.

   "It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes [these are local tidal marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and sediment]. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position."

There is very little, with the exception of terminology, that would be different in a "modern" interpretation of these features, and Dawson has much more detail on the other sedimentological features found at Joggins that support his interpretation. Dawson records well over a dozen horizons with large upright trees, and smaller ones are even more common. The section at Joggins can still be visited today, and is particularly well-known for the small reptile fossils found there (they often occur inside the upright tree stumps, apparently they fell in the hollow stump). There are usually a few upright trees exposed on the shore, although the rapid erosion of the 10m+ high cliffs means the exposed examples change every year.

Given that an "in place" occurrence was convincingly determined by observations made in the 19th century for this and many other "fossil forest" localities, it is surprising that these conclusions have not been recognized by modern "young Earth global flood" [YEGF] creationists as clear evidence of non-global-flood deposition for much of the geologic record. They often hinge their current arguments on the occurrence of upright trees in Yellowstone National Park, point to their volcanic setting, and then point to floating upright trees floating in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens [2], and say, "See? They could be transported during the flood.". This argument is completely fallacious, because most "fossil forests" do not occur in volcanic deposits, and do have the fragile roots of the stumps tightly penetrating into the surrounding sediment, often into a paleosol (fossil soil) [besides Joggins, see also 3]. One occurrence is even associated with dinosaur footprints on the same surface, on top of a coal seam [4, 5, 6]. The "transported floating upright stumps" model [2] is a complete red herring that does not apply to the vast majority of "fossil forest" occurrences.

As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not.

One of the most compelling features of Dawson's comments, from a YEGF creationist's perspective, may be the closing remarks of his book, in the conclusion section on p.671. Statements expressing similar sentiments can be found in most geological books of the period (e.g., Murchison's "Siluria", where the Silurian and other Paleozoic systems are first defined):

   "Patient observation and thought may enable us in time better to comprehend these mysteries; and I think we may be much aided in this by cultivating an acquaintance with the Maker and Ruler of the machine as well as with His work."

Dawson has no theological problems with the conclusions he drew, which are basically similar to the ones drawn by geologists now. Many other geologists of the period were devoutly religious, and clearly expressed the fact in their publications.

Apparently, many 19th century geologists share a common philosophical framework with modern creationists, but, strangely enough, modern creationists come to completely different conclusions from both the 19th century geologists and current geologists. The common appeal by modern creationists to an "atheistic" or "humanistic" philosophical framework that "taints" the interpretations of science is quite ridiculous in light of the strong beliefs of many historical scientists, particularly in geology. Why should creationists still have a problem with their conclusions, more than 100 years later?

Malone, along with many "young Earth global flood creationists", have no idea that even data from the 19th century, presented by a creationist geologist is enough to demolish the "polystrate fossil trees" part of their presentation. "Polystrate fossil trees" are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence YEGF creationists can offer for their interpretation. I wish they would stop using it.

The irony of the entire post was this - YE Creationists nit-pick about upright tree trunks but make no effort to square with the major features of the record. This calls to mind the phrase “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” by somebody or other.

Isnt it funny that this same talkorigins folks NIT-PICK isolated (artificially reconstructed) bones as EVIDENCE of our own evolution?

can you show me this quotes from talkorigin.org ? are you completely stupid? did you bother to understand where are what you were reading, or did you just type because you were too much in a haste to sound stupid?

Makes no difference . . . you were equally copying from websites . . . at least he tried to put his in context. You didnt even bother to read what you copied.

makes a lot of difference you were able to know my source because i sighted it. by the way i don't expect fools to understand simple english.

I'm sure you did, you're just lying because there is very little difference with the way both you and wikipedia phrased your statements. See below:

Wikipedia - The word polystrate is not a standard geological term, and is found most often in creationist materials. (unfortunately there was no citation for this claim . . . as usual).

Mazaje - by the way "polystrate fossils" is not even a STANDARD GEOLOGICAL TERM

Judge for thyself.

so because i use a word that is also found in wiki pedia that means i MUST have copied it from wikipedia? If i say that jesus died on the cross and the same comment is found in wikipedia that means i must have copied it from wikipedia, do you have a brain at all?

As usual . . . this must be what you learnt in geology class.

of course.

davidylan:
you're not "refuting" because even you are clueless. I notice a trend, it always takes you guys close to 30mins to respond to a post and usually 90% of your response is a quote from another website, very little (except insults of course) in terms of genuine response from you.

The entry from talkorigin perfectly refutes all his clueless arguments.

- you accused him of quoting creationist websites . . . then went ahead to quote talkorigins.com

when will this block-headed wannabe descendant of the mythical abraham learn to read. do you read with ur anus? i rightly accused him of not citing his reference and sources. i provided my own source which is there for every one to see.

- you accused him of using non-standard geological terms . . . when in fact you dont know, you're simply parroting what you saw on wikipedia. the term "polystrate fossils" was coined in the 1970s by a Dutch Geologist with a PhD from Princeton University here in the USA . . . NOT by christian apologetics as you FALSELY implied.

i didnt see that in wikipedia you are the one that did.

- you claim to be a "geologist" yet cannot provide a genuine counter-argument to noetic's claims.

are you blind?  , how did i even expect you that sees and reasons with ur anus to see anything at all.

Dude, we are not all stupid here.

you have clearly demonstrated that you are very stupid because you clearly can not read.

huxley2:
I guess you have found dinosaurs in the bible now, have you?

davidylan:
and you copied this from wikipedia . . . why didnt you give an acknowledgement?

at lest i am not like you that uses  wikipedia when i want to prove non existent points to muslims. but turn around almost immediately and call it an anti god site. if it is an anti god site as you claim when do you use it to prove non existent points to the muslims? thou ridiculous and directionless hypocrite?

davidylan:
and the "geologist" does NOTHING to refute noetic's claim, all he does is promptly rush to talkorigins website and paste a load of nonsense.

why should i refute his baseless claims when he uses non standard geological terms as evidence for his mystical noah's flood that never happened?   are you guys these desperate?

noetic2:
be right back. . .

when you come back make sure you acknowledge or give the source where you copied and pasted what you will post again, and pls try to make sure you use standard geological terms to support your claims, "polystrate fossils" is NOT even a standard geological term it is a term formulated by your forever lying christian apologist wh love lying for jesus all the time.

noetic2:
I am assuming u have a basic understanding of polystrate fossils,  . . . .

Polystrate fossils.

These are best explained as fossil trees that lie upright or prostrate above the surface of the ground. They are buried within a strata in either prostrate, oblique or upright positions. A collection of these upright trees are called a fossil forest.

Some of these fossil plants are found in Nova scotia strats in sydney as well as the united states and europe and other parts of the world. There are several evidences that suggest that these fossils were not planted in their current location but were transported there by massive water. . . . . NOAH'S FLOOD. Do u at least now have an idea of what a polystate fossil is now?

These evidences include that buttresses this fact include :

1. Quite unlike primordial geologist assumptions that these fossils were planted because of their long root, on closer observation, these assumption is found to be false based on the composition of these fossils,   . . . .I will lay more emphasis in other evidences.
There are massive sheet-like, sedimentary, flat lying deposits all over the world, which could NOT have been planted.

2. The top of the fossils on closer inspection is as preserved as the base of the fossils when unearthed from their burial spot. These other facts are deducible
a. The roots are truncated:
b. The roots are two feet long
c: The top is broken of, it is assumed that the top might be 10-15 feet high.

The truncated root implies that these trees were uprooted.     . . ,  . . . .mazaje, from where?
The broken off top suggests that it was taller and did break off along a transporting process. . . . . . . .mazaje, how did it break off?

An appreciative understanding of this is deducible from the fact that many of these rootless fossils are buried individually. . . . This lay credence to the fact that these trees did not grow there but were deposited there.

3. Fossils are formed when a plant or animal dies and is buried immediately. They are not formed in lakes, seas or the ocean. The present location of these fossils supports the notion of a massive flood that happened ages ago.

I cant paste images. . . . I could go on and on. . .  . .but please go do some reading. . . . .



Extensive Strata Or Pancake Layering:

Evolutionists believe that pancaked layer strata all over the world are either river deposits, delta deposits or deposits made over millions of years.

As u now know, Evolutionists are almost always WRONG,  . . . The facts that there are no evidences of erosion between the layers. And the size of these layers, which could as big as a city could not have been formed by rivers or delta's.

These layers also consist of marine fossils deposited by a ocean currents whose magnitude and effect could only have been caused by NOAH'S FLOOD.



be right back. . .

I am a geologist and I know for SURE that you do not know what you are taking about here, when next you visit creationist websites and steal their work make sure that you give some acknowledgements. Stop plagiarizing other peoples work without acknowledging them.

by the way "polystrate fossils" is not even a STANDARD GEOLOGICAL TERM so get your facts right before copying and pasting what you have absolute no knowledge of and stop lying for jesus all the time. creationists don't understand mountains basically, they find fossils in the tops of mountains and think that that is proof of noah's flood. now why they're in the mountain tops instead of on the mountain tops is something they rarely answer at all.

The larger botanical fossil record contradicts flood geology over and over. For example, any Colorado Plateau tourist can view a petrified forest of conifers and tree ferns in the Chinle Formation, another within the Morrison Formation, and thousands of feet of rock in between these layers, including the desert Navajo Sandstone. There are no fossils of land plants at all in Cambrian rocks at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, or in Cambrian rocks anywhere on Earth for that matter. Thousands of feet of marine limestones overlie Grand Canyon Cambrian rocks. Above these, fossil fern leaves can be seen along the Kaibab trail in the Permian Hermit Shale . This layer is capped by a desert sandstone, then a limestone reef deposit. These all lie underneath the Chinle to the east, which is full of petrified wood. There are no flowering plant fossils (angiosperms) in any of this. For those you must go near to the top of the Grand Staircase. All this rock is interpreted by YE Creationists (and CESM in particular) as deposited in a single global flood! Why, then, are the major plants on Earth today never found in rocks below those with primitive tree ferns and cycads, for example? YE Creationists nit-pick about upright tree trunks but make no effort to square with the major features of the record. This calls to mind the phrase “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” by somebody or other.

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/dawson_tree1.gif
An upright tree preserved in the cliffs at Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Figure 35 of Dawson [1].

So where are we? YE Creationists effectively say that stubby vertical fossil tree trunks prove a single flood was responsible for 2 vertical miles of rock near where I live. Even though these fossil localities are quite limited in extent, they conclude the flood was global. I’m frankly astonished that anyone would think this leap of irrational imagination is persuasive! Nevertheless, I suspect the argument will stay around and provide another iota of false comfort to those who believe YE Creationism for reasons that have nothing to do with empirical evidence and everything to do with wishful thinking.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

http://www.astrobio.nau.edu/blog/?p=17

donnie:
Well let me leave this background for now and address the issue of dinosaurs. I think the book of job describes this creature even more vividly than any scientist would.

[a]“Can you catch[b] Leviathan[/b] with a hook
      or put a noose around its jaw?
    2 Can you tie it with a rope through the nose
      or pierce its jaw with a spike?
    3 Will it beg you for mercy
      or implore you for pity?
    4 Will it agree to work for you,
      to be your slave for life?
    5 Can you make it a pet like a bird,
      or give it to your little girls to play with?
    6 Will merchants try to buy it
      to sell it in their shops?
    7 Will its hide be hurt by spears
      or its head by a harpoon?
    8 If you lay a hand on it,
      you will certainly remember the battle that follows.
      You won’t try that again!
    9 [c]No, it is useless to try to capture it.
      The hunter who attempts it will be knocked down.
   10 And since no one dares to disturb it,
      who then can stand up to me?
   11 Who has given me anything that I need to pay back?
      Everything under heaven is mine.

   12 “I want to emphasize Leviathan’s limbs
      and its enormous strength and graceful form.
   13 Who can strip off its hide,
      and who can penetrate its double layer of armor?
   14 Who could pry open its jaws?
      For its teeth are terrible!
   15 Its scales are like rows of shields
      tightly sealed together.
   16 They are so close together
      that no air can get between them.
   17 Each scale sticks tight to the next.
      They interlock and cannot be penetrated
   18 “When it sneezes, it flashes light!
      Its eyes are like the red of dawn.
   19 Lightning leaps from its mouth;
      flames of fire flash out.
   20 Smoke streams from its nostrils
      like steam from a pot heated over burning rushes.
   21 Its breath would kindle coals,
      for flames shoot from its mouth.


   22 “The tremendous strength in Leviathan’s neck
      strikes terror wherever it goes.
   23 Its flesh is hard and firm
      and cannot be penetrated.
   24 Its heart is hard as rock,
      hard as a millstone.
   25 When it rises, the mighty are afraid,
      gripped by terror.
   26 No sword can stop it,
      no spear, dart, or javelin.
   27 Iron is nothing but straw to that creature,
      and bronze is like rotten wood.
   28 Arrows cannot make it flee.
      Stones shot from a sling are like bits of grass.
   29 Clubs are like a blade of grass,
      and it laughs at the swish of javelins.
   30 Its belly is covered with scales as sharp as glass.
      It plows up the ground as it drags through the mud.

   31 “Leviathan makes the water boil with its commotion.
      It stirs the depths like a pot of ointment.
   32 The water glistens in its wake,
      making the sea look white.
   33 Nothing on earth is its equal,
      no other creature so fearless.
   34 Of all the creatures, it is the proudest.
      It is the king of beasts.”

the leviathan is a monstrous sea creature according to the bible, are dinosaurs sea creatures? dinosaurs are terrestrial animals not sea creatures. did job live 65 millon years ago? because dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago. so leviathans are not dinosaurs.