Polystrate Fossils, Moon Dust, and other creationist nonsense.

Sources/links:
MacRae, Andrew, 1994. "Polystrate" tree fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

Birkeland, Bill, 2004, 27 Jan. Fossil soils (paleosols) at Joggins. http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000116.html#7

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G4a

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• polystrate
• trees
• whales
• age
• of
• earth
• moon
• dust
• magnesium
• in
• the
• ocean
• young
• creationism
• intelligent
• design
• evolution

[creationliberty]

I would like everyone to notice that's he's showing you his ILLUSTRATION. Not the real pictures. This is a common tactic by evolutionists.

I've got real pictures here, and on my website, of petrified trees running through multiple rock layers. I also have one running through two different coal seams. If you want to BELIEVE those trees don't run through multiple layers you can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it part of science just because you want to believe it.

[DonExodus2]

@creationliberty Yes, a simplified illustration so that everyone would be able to comprehend it. Well, almost everyone.

I would give the rebuttal, but its obvious to anyone having watched the video.

Anywho, keep doing what you;re doing- atheists sincerely appreciate the embarrassment you bring to Christianity and religion. Keep up the good work!

[momentofsciencetx]

Nice video. As a geologist can tell you the word Polystrate is not a geological term. We use the term in-situ which means in place. I actually watched a video by Carl Baugh who made the claim that he could has never found the term Polystrate in any geological text and that this was evidence of science trying to hide the evidence. I wrote him to explain that geologist use the word in-situ and that on his next show he should make this correction. Of coarse I never got a response.

[simysimss]

you have some great stuff here

[sprattysy]

some really good stuff here

[rodswebdesign]

This is a great video

[bribribri56]

i enjoyed this vid

[SpaceOdyssey56]

@cctman

The constancy of atomic decay rates is based on observed evidence.

The analogy you are attempting to draw is false, but if decay rates had been thousands of times faster in the past, which would be required for a young earth to jibe with the data, the Garden of Eden would have been molten and more radioactive than Chernobyl.

Entertaining fanciful ideas without thinking them through to their logical conclusion is why creationists are not taken seriously by the scientific community.

[cctman]

Did I seriously just here an evolutionists use the argument of variable deposition rates? How completely and utterly hypocritical. They are going to claim we don't know that the rates have always been the same for moon dust but when it comes to parent to daughter isotopes in decay rates with Rubidium Strontium, Uranium, various Lead methods and Carbon dating when dating fossils they won't dare allow for that. But I guess really why should I be surprised?

[SkepticMajor]

On polystrat trees, the 7 or so deposits surrounding the tree, are not necessarily from one flood deposit containing different stone. Trees can sometimes stay stood up right for 1000s of years depending on environment and varios other factors. There could be 7 flood deposits, and each deposit containing one layer of that which is surrounding the tree, a tree would have no problem withstanding a dozen catastrophic events. Good video, what you said was allso accurate

[ferrel81]

Yet another example of don exodus propaganda. Polystrate fossils are a very good example of an evolutionary assumption coming undone. They have been found extending up through many sedimentary layers and through multiple separated coal seams.

detectingdesign[DOT]com/fossil­record.html#Polystrate

[realhomosapiens]

@DonExodus2

Mood slide all over the world? hmmm, suspicious, isn´t it?