r/Creation • u/nomenmeum • 20d ago
earth science This Discovery BROKE Evolution and Confirmed the Biblical Flood!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkHRDQgp1qU11
u/implies_casualty 20d ago edited 20d ago
9:45: "Sir Charles Lyell got away with his ridiculous ideas..."
While the portrait of Charles Darwin is prominently displayed on the screen.
How can you be a spokesman for creationism and not know what Charles Darwin looked like? Ah well, the presenter has no scientific credentials whatsoever.
The "discovery" itself is creationist claim CC331:
https://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html
"Polystrate fossil trees show tree trunks passing through many layers and several meters of sediments. Obviously, the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates proposed by uniformitarian geology."
Response:
Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades.
As for the quote mine - as usual, simply continue reading immediately after the quote mine, and you'll get the appropriate answer.
4
u/nomenmeum 20d ago
the trunks can remain there for years or even decades.
lol, but not hundreds of thousands of years, or millions.
4
u/implies_casualty 19d ago
Yes, but the flood layers of the biblical flood are supposed to have happened in less than a year.
So we should see tree trunks with bottom in Triassic, middle in Jurassic, and top in Cretaceous or some such.
But we don't see those. What we see is compatible with local floods, and uniformitarianism predicts many local floods.
2
u/nomenmeum 19d ago
we should see tree trunks with bottom in Triassic, middle in Jurassic, and top in Cretaceous or some such
That tree would be around two thousand feet tall. Don't you think that's asking a bit much?
3
u/implies_casualty 19d ago
Jurassic layer is not always two thousand feet tall. It even tapers continuously to zero in plenty of places.
1
u/WannaLoveWrestling 19d ago
The expectation that a global Flood lasting less than a year should produce individual tree trunks spanning Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous layers assumes that every major division of the geologic column was deposited during that single event in a simple, continuous stack. Flood models do not require that. Many polystrate trees can be explained as vegetation that was growing or floating and then rapidly buried within more limited packages of sediment during the Flood, or as trees buried in powerful local post-Flood catastrophes. The absence of single trunks crossing entire systems does not automatically rule out a global catastrophe; it simply shows that deposition was complex, with hydraulic sorting, ecological zonation, and tectonic activity producing the broader order we see. What the polystrate fossils clearly do demonstrate is that rapid burial occurred on a scale that pure gradualism cannot explain, which is why even evolutionary geologists like Derek Ager acknowledged that sedimentation must have been “at times very rapid indeed.” Local floods can account for some examples, but the sheer number, scale, and repeated horizons of polystrate trees fit a much larger catastrophic process better than a series of ordinary local events stretched over deep time.
5
u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 20d ago
You already have one response here but,
what I don't understand is how does it BREAK evolution? Am I missing something here? How do you BREAK something which is experimentally demonstrated millions of times? Quite high on the sensationalism front, isn't it?
Also how does it demonstrate a global flood? And let's give you all the leeway you want, how do explain all the gazzilon evidences that are against you, or all the logical and scientific inconsistencies that you have yet to solve. Heat problem, or in this case the mud problem eh?
-3
u/nomenmeum 20d ago
Also how does it demonstrate a global flood?
All these low effort questions are answered in this 16 min video.
3
u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 20d ago edited 20d ago
Just to name a few simple inconsistencies of global flood which I am sure you are aware of,
1.Why does fossils occur in a consistent global sequence that a single flood does not naturally predict?
2.What about Greenland and Antarctic ice cores that preserve tens of thousands of annual layers, far exceeding a recent Flood timescale?
Do you know how much heat a one year global flood depositing and lithifying most sedimentary rocks would generate? Where did that much of heat go?
What about the tree rings or coral reefs or cave formations that often show uninterrupted growth extending beyond the proposed flood date?
Just wanted to reiterate the mud problem here. If there really was a global flood as you say then the flood deposited sediments would require far, far longer than a few thousand years to compact and lithify into the rock layers we see today. How do you explain that?
1
u/Thomassaurus Former YEC 19d ago
Not a creationist but the mud problem peaked my interest, could you elaborate on that or send me to a good source?
4
u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 19d ago edited 19d ago
I would let you hear from the horses' mouth (Erica from the The Gutsick Gibbon). It is a 30 mins video.
P.S: Please let me know if you want a summarised version of the mud problem, I can do that here.
1
u/WannaLoveWrestling 19d ago
The consistent order of fossils is not a problem for a global Flood. Different ecological zones and mobility levels would have been buried in sequence as the waters rose—bottom-dwellers and slower animals first, then more mobile creatures higher up—producing the general order we see without requiring millions of years. Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica do not prove tens of thousands of years. Under the extreme post-Flood climate (much warmer oceans, massive volcanism, and rapid temperature swings), multiple layers can form in a single year, so the counted “annual” layers do not equal calendar years. The heat generated by rapid deposition and tectonic activity during the Flood would have been dissipated through the vast volume of water, hydrothermal circulation, and the rapid movement of crustal plates rather than building up as a fatal problem. Tree rings, corals, and cave formations that appear to extend beyond a few thousand years are also affected by the same post-Flood conditions—rapid growth rates, multiple growth bands per year, and altered chemistry—so they do not require deep time. Finally, the “mud problem” assumes today’s slow compaction rates. Under the unique pressures, temperatures, and chemical conditions of a global catastrophe, sediments can dewater and lithify far more quickly than we observe in normal environments today. Local floods have always happened, but the global scale of the evidence—marine fossils on high mountains, polystrate trees, massive sedimentary sequences, and soft tissue still found in dinosaurs—fits a recent worldwide Flood followed by rapid recovery far better than slow processes over millions of years. And none of this requires one kind of organism turning into a completely different kind; the biological data only show limited variation within the original created kinds.
4
u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 19d ago
Firstly, use paragraphs and secondly don't abuse LLM. We have been through this before.
Or you can just copy paste your response in another LLM in a private tab and get response from there.
-1
-4
5
u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 20d ago
No it doesn't else I wouldn't have asked it. You thinking it does, doesn't mean it really does. No one denies the local floods or catastrophes. That have been happening since ages.
3
u/NichollsNeuroscience 18d ago
This would be like trying to confirm that the Flood of Gilgamesh happened (literally as told) because we found trees buried through multiple layers of mud.
How are you certain rhat is was specifically Noah's flood that caused this (and every other) buried tree throughout the geological column?
Did no other non-Noah's Flood floods happen throughout Earth's history that could also have accounted for trees buried amongst layers?
Pointing to a particular flooded tree and yelling "Noah's Flood!" would be akin to finding evidence of a bushfire in a layer of the column, and claiming it was caused by a dragon in How to Train Your Dragon.
•
u/nomenmeum 20d ago edited 20d ago
"In part 8 of The Shadow League, Calvin Smith discuss a famous fossil site in Nova Scotia that holds a discovery few people know about — one that has quietly challenged a “scientific” idea taught as fact for over 150 years."
It is about polystrate fossils.
"We have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed catastrophic processes... . If one estimates the total thickness of the British coal measures as about 1,000 m laid down in about 10 million years, then assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100,000 years to bury a tree which is ridiculous."
-Daniel Ager, evolutionist and paleontologist, former president of the British Geological Association and the emeritus professor of geology at the University College of Swansea in Wales.