Talk:Polystrate fossil

Added a supporting external link

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-316.htm

--134.215.235.127 12:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Evolution science response" replaced

I have restored this section, as you have removed it in error. Try a Google for "Polystrate fossil", and you will indeed see that the most common criticism is as I stated (well, if you rule out mere invective, it is the most common response).

Your stratigraphy link isn't especially relevant (to this discussion, anyway). Nobody is disputing that the strata are in chronological order; the dispute is the length of time between deposition. Nothing on that page serves to refute the creation argument of polystrate fossils. An actual refutation would be appreciated.

If you would like to improve the "Evolution science response" section (or even rename it to "mainstream science response" or the like), please do so. Simply removing it is misleading. I'd prefer to avoid an edit war. Pretending to assume your opponents away is a poor excuse for intellectual rigor.

Gregholmes 00:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Evolution science response"

"Most criticisms of the creation science position on polystrate fossils seem to assume that creation science explains all polystrate fossils with a worldwide flood. This is then "disproved" by showing examples of succesive layers of such fossils in areas subject to frequent local flooding." I removed this here, as it's bogus. No such "disproval" is offered. Some basics of stratigraphy can be gleaned from its Wikipedia entry. Normal science is not involved here in any way. Wetman 18:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

This needs POvvifying. Firstly, a proper geologist needs to take a look. But the mainstream position needs to be written about first and correctly (properly referenced), followed by the YEC nonsense. Dunc|☺ 19:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you might have marked this article NPOV a bit hastily. I think it was doing fine until 66.218.60.219 came along and added a lot of creationist POV. I just reverted/modified some of that, and I don't really see any pov left here... Although I agree that a proper geologist and proper references would be nice. I also don't see any problem with putting the creation science section after the mainstream one (except that I think the mainstream one should refer to the creation science section somehow and that flows better if the creation science part comes first). Also, I'm not necessarily saying it's wrong, but does anyone have a reference for polystrate trees going through coal seams? I've only heard of this from creationists, and it may not be something that both sides agree on. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 19:49, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Actually, two of the three articles linked in the "Mainstream Geological" section mention coal. -- I removed the NPOV tag; I think it was justified when it was added, but it seems fixed now. Rl 20:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They mention coal, but only that the trees are rooted in the top of the coal, it seems. Like I said, the claim that "In some cases they are actually found upright in the coal, even crossing the whole 2-3 foot thick seam," seems to be a uniquely creationist claim (or rather, I should say that I only hear it from creationists.) For example, one of the creationist links says that there is a 40 foot upright fossil penetrating a coal seam (see under the heading "The Mysterious 40 Foot Fossil Tree"). The author doesn't actually show any mainstream authors who discuss the tree, but infers its existence from two seperate passages written by two different authors. The article then goes on to provide documentation for the existence of polystrate trees in general. If mainstream geologists acknowledged the existence of such finds, it seems like he wouldn't have had to do all that to establish the fossil's existence.

One Talk Origins link has a section that mentions such a tree going through multiple coal seams, but it seems to be quoting a Usenet article critically. The article doesn't directly address the claim, but it doesn't seem to support it either. Again, I could be mistaken in this being a uniquely creationist claim, I'm just curious if anyone has a better reference to a confirmed polystrate fossil going through coal. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 21:55, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Good point. I don't have an answer, either. Rl 16:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the quote. It's preseved above in my previous commentary if anyone ever finds any decent source for it. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 18:54, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Just to answer Deglr6328's edit summary question: the creationist position is largely above the mainstream one for historical reasons. This page originally only dealt with "polystrate fossils" a term used by creationists to describe upright fossils. The term was almost always associated with creationist claims about the inability of mainstream science to explain those features. This page reflected that by defining the term, stating the creationist position and then having a mainstream "rebuttal" sort of paragraph. However, it seems that the upright fossils page has been merged with the polystrate fossils page, so it now makes more sense to put the mainstream position first. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 17:02, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

ALL CAPS IS SCREAMING

i clarified the grammar and removed the all caps(on "virtually NONE"), i learned the creationist theory when i was 10 and it is better explained without screaming. Iosef Aetos

Messiah jonz 07:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)==Create article: Polystrate fossil (non-religion)== I am pretty sure that the religious stuff in this article is ALL inappropriate. How it got in here is beyond me, but I assume that: "Polystrate fossil" refers to Fossils, and not to RELIGION. SonoranDesertIndividual ..-Mmcannis 18:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Polystrate fossil is a term coined by creationists, so the religion is entirely appropriate. ornis 19:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a geology student, and work with many geologists as well. I have discussed this term..."polystrate" with many of them. It does turn out to have been coined by creationists. In fact, geology professors do not recognize the term. It appears to only be used by those that try to perpetuate creationism and those that read their material. messiah_jonz September 26, 2007

If 'polystrate fossil' is a mainly creationist term, why does this article spend about 9/10 of its length discussing its use in geology? Shouldn't it begin '"Polystrate fossil" is a term used by creationists to argue against traditional geology...', or something like that?

At the very least, the creationist POV should come first, since they're clearly the ones who have come up with and propagated this concept. The geology section reads like a counterargument to the creationist views, with statements like 'in sharp contrast to creationists...', which is rather odd since at the moment it comes first and the creationist views haven't been explained yet! Terraxos 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Points of Grammatically-Induced Ambiguity

There are several places in this article where there are points grammatical ambiguity, such as

"In sharp contrast to creationists like Dr. Harold Coffin and Dr. N. A. Rupke, geologists, who have studied polystrate fossils found in sedimentary rocks exposed in various outcrops for the last 30 years, have described polystrate fossil trees as being deeply rooted in place and typically rooted in recognizable paleosols."

Is this referring to the fact that the the gelogists have been studying polystrate fossils for 30 years, where as the creationists have not? Or is the intention to say that the findings are in conflict with the claims of the creationists. If that were the case, it would be better to say, "Geologists who have studied polystrate fossils found in sedimentary rocks exposed in various outcrops for the last 30 years have described polystrate fossil trees as being deeply rooted in place and typically rooted in recognizable palesols. This is in shart contract to the claims made by creationists such as Dr. Harold Coffin and Dr. N. A. Rupke."

This example is the most striking to me, and I think that the ambiguity should be resolved as soon as possible. This article should also be reviewed for any other ambiguity.

In6Days 21:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As it has been over 1 month, and no one has objected to this revision, I am going to go ahead and make it. If I find other points of ambiguity, I will post them here, so that people can see what I am revising. In6Days (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

why the hell is this in the "creationism" series?

???

While this is an interesting theological question, I believe that it is in the creationism series for its being referenced as evidence for catastrophic occurrences (multiple layers apparently deposited during a time which was short compared to the existence of the original object which became the 'polystrate fossil.' Dan Watts (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears the phrase "polystrate fossil" is not a standard geological term, and is used most often by creationists. I spoke to a geologist and they said this article needs some serious clean-up, as true "polystrate" (literally: many stratus) fossils are extraordinarily rare, and right-up fossilization usually occurs because of shifting tectonics (i.e., not entirely in situ). PyroGamer (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as polystrate fossils

Polystrate fossils are NOT merely "upright" fossils. The word polystrate etymologically means "multiple strata". Upright tree fossils are common, yes, but they occur because of:

1. Volcanic eruption covering trees in a few days. 2. Sand dunes covering trees on the scale of years (if you've ever been to the dunes around lake michigan you can see this happening right now) 3. By flooding in areas prone to periodical flooding, thus done in a few years.

If it is in multiple strata, it's because of #3, in which case each strata (likely mudstone), would be laid down consecutively each year.

There are even examples of upright trees being slowly buried today.

There are NO examples of "polystrate fossils" that cross stratum of more than a couple decades (about the time that a tree would be able to sit exposed).

This article needs a severe rewrite.

PyroGamer (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your point: "There are NO examples of "polystrate fossils" that cross stratum of more than a couple decades" is exactly in harmony with creationist flood theory. Your statement is worthy of being quoted. Thanks. Dan Watts (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of the claims made in the statement "There are NO examples of "polystrate fossils" that cross a stratum of more than a couple decades (about the time that a tree would be able to sit exposed)" are readily shown to be false by an examination of the published literature. This statement is certainly not worthy of being quoted by anyone. It should not be quoted by anyone as it is false. It would be of use only to people who want to manufacture arguments using the technique of "quote-mining".

First, there are documented examples of "polystrate trees" that cut through ("cross") a layer (stratum) of sediment that took more than "a couple of decades to accumulate. One example is the "ghost forests" of dead trees, which are found partially buried within tidal flats and marshes along the coasts of Washington and Oregon. They are "polystrate trees" that "cross" a layer (stratum) of sediments that accumulated over a period of 320 years. These trees, whose trunks are still standing, were killed by a Cascadia earthquake that occurred in January of 1700. The January 1700 earthquake caused the land, on they grew, to sink such that it was submerged during high tide. As a result, they died because of this intrusion of salt water. Since 1700, they have been partially buried by tidal and marsh sediments that have accumulated over the last 320 years. This stratum of sediments, which these partially buried upright trunks "cross", definitely took more than "a couple decades" to form and soundly refutes the claim of there being no examples of such polystrate trees. They also refute the false claim that under the right circumstances, that in situ tree trunks cannot remain exposed for more than a couple of decades without completely decaying. These "ghost forests" has been studied in great detail by Dr. Brian Atwater of the United States Geological Survey. The age, origin, and nature of these trees are documented in several published papers, including:

Atwater B. F., S. Musumi-Rokkaku, K. Satake, Y. Tsuji, K. Ueda, and D. K. Yamaguchi, 2005, The Orphan Tsunami of 1700: Japanese Clues to a Parent Earthquake in North America. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper no. 1707. Reston, Virginia.

Monastersky, R., 1990, Rattling the Northwest. Science News. vol. 137, No. 7 (Feb. 17, 1990), pp. 104-106.

Satake, K., and B. F. Atwater, 2007, Long-Term Perspectives on Giant Earthquakes and Tsunamis at Subduction Zones. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. vol. 35, pp. 349-374.

In addition, the accompanying statement about a few decades being the maximum "time that a tree would be able to sit exposed" is another false claim that is readily refuted by an examination of the published literature. As noted previously the "ghost forests" found along the Washington and Oregon coasts have remained standing for the past 320 years after being killed by a Cascadia earthquake in January of 1700. In another case, in situ and upright trees trunks, called "snags", protrude from the bottom of lakes in Washington. These trunks have been exposed at the bottom of these lakes for a period of 1,000 to 1,300 years. At low lake levels, they are sometimes exposed above lake level. Given the right environmental conditions, tree trunks can be exposed and resist decay for over a thousand years. The upright tree trunks found in Washington lakes are discussed, documented, and illustrated in a number of papers, including:

Logan, R. L., and T. J. Walsh, 1995, Evidence for a Large Prehistoric Seismically Induced Landslide into Lake Sammamish. Washington Geology. vol. 23, no. 4 (December 1995) pp. 3-5. (Photographs of exposed upright tree trunks that are some 1,000-1,300 year old are illustrated on the cover of this issue of Washington Geology.)

Logan, R. L., R. L. Schuster, P. T. Pringle, T. J. Walsh, and S. P. Palmer, 1998, Radiocarbon Ages of Probable Coseismic Features from the Olympic Peninsula and Lake Sammamish, Washington. Washington Geology. vol. 26, no. 2/3 (September 1998), pp. 59-67.

Schuster, R. L., R. L. Logan, and P. T. Pringle, 1992, P rehistoric Rock Avalanches in the Olympic Mountains, Washington. Science. vol. 258, no. 5088, pp. 1620-1621.

Finally, if a person looks at the descriptions of "polystrate fossil trees", found in the published scientific literature, they will find that the typical "polystrate fossil tree" penetrates only one layer (stratum) of sedimentary rock. For example, the upright fossil trunks of the Yellowstone National Park petrified forests are typically restricted to a single layer (stratum) much like the upright fossil tree trunks found in Pleistocene and Holocene lahar deposits of Mount Hood and Mount St. Helens. Although, polystrate fossil trees penetrating multiple layers (strata) of sedimentary rock are known, they are exceedingly rare.Paul H. (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The observation that the vast majority of "polystrate fossils" / "polystrate fossil trees" are actually "monostrate fossils" / "monostrate fossil trees" is an excellent point.Paul H. (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionist ...?

Don't rightly know what an "Evolutionist" is, don't recall seeing any university degree programs with that title. Nor have I heard of "Evolutionary geologists". Seems someone is attempting to insert a POV with those edits - nah, surely not... Vsmith (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

An evolutionist is one who accepts evolution as a theory or fact, just as a creationist is one who accepts creation as a theory or a fact. Evolutionary is a simple adjective, just a creationary is a simple adjective. A geologist who is an evolutionist promotes evolutionary geology. A geologist who is an creationist promotes creationary geology. There is no such thing as "neutral" geology. All scientifically studied geology is interpreted within a paradigm. S. J. Gould said in Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle, (paraphrased) First you determine the assumptions within which you do geology, then you go to the outcrop, not the other way around. Either you start with naturalism's uniformitarianism / actualism or you start with creationism's catastrophism. There is no middle ground. Christian Skeptic (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Evolutionary" in creationist parlance translates to "legitimate" (as applies to science or a practitioner thereof) in the real world. It is used in contrast to the made up word "creationary" which they consider to be nicer than its real-world equivalent "religiously-motivated pseudoscientific". The former violates WP:UNDUE ("an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view") and the latter is made-up, so neither should be used in wikipedia. "Creationary science" is simply pseudoscientific Christian apologetics. It serves no scientific purpose, merely to shore up the rigid religious presuppositions of its adherents. It provides neither practical applications, nor a platform for theoretical research. It simply takes, as an article of faith, that 'God did it', and proceeds on this basis to 'interpret' the evidence (suitably and heavily cherry-picked) to lead to the conclusion that <drum roll> 'God did it'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "evolutionist" once had a specific technical meaning, generally in the first half of the 20th century, At that time, this term meant a biologist who specialized in evolutionary biology just as "zoologist" is a biologist who studies animals and "ecologist" is a biologist who studies ecology. The term "evolutionist" as defined by mainstream scientists, had nothing to do with whether a person either accepts or promotes evolution as a valid scientific theory or fact. It meant that a biologist's specific subspecialty and research focus in biology is the specific study of evolution. Since geologists study rocks that do not reproduce and evolve like organisms do, terms like "evolutionary geology" in scientific terms are nothing more than meaningless and nonsensical technobabble. Radiometric dating, sedimentology, stratigraphy (even biostratigraphy), petrography, tectonics, "deep time", and so forth are all based on the direct observations and application of physical sciences that is independent of and does not promote evolutionary theory. Even biostratigraphy, although it can be explained by evolution and even was explained in creationist terms by George Cuvier, is based on the direct observation of how fossils are distributed in sedimentary rocks and developed before the theory of evolution was developed by Charles Darwin.Paul H. (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionists writing wiki

"The word polystrate is not a standard geological term, and is found most often in creationist materials."

Can you imagine a wiki paper saying something like

"The word ring-species is not a standard scientific term, and is found most often in evolutionist materials."

I think not despite the fact that dawkins use of the ring species in the herring gull as one "proof" of evolution being quietly falsified.

Accumulating sterility is a very grave problem that evolutionists cannot answer. If it is possible then why hasnt it been tested on mammilia taxa these past 100 years? Or perhaps it has and the results were not liked ...?

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.220.184 (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This comment is an attempt to convince you that evolutionists and creationists are somehow on equal footing. They are not. Creationists regularly ignore falsification of their ideas (see the Talk Origins reference in this very article). Evolutionists encourage you to try to falsify their ideas. Try harder next time "Matt". Jim Stuby (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If a person looks at any dictionary, glossary, or encyclopedia of geology, they will find that they as a rule lack any mention of the term "polystrate." If a person looks at the papers discussing the taphonomy of upright fossil tree trunks, i.e. Waldron and Rygel (2005) and DiMichele and Falcon-Lang (2011), they will find a complete absence of any mention of the term "polystrate" in them. Finally, on July 30, 2011, a search of GEOREF resulted in no hits for the term "polystrate." This striking absence of the term polystrate from geological dictionaries, glossaries, encyclopedias, peer-reviewed papers, and the GEOREF database is clear proof that the term "polystrate" is definitely not a standard geological term and that Young Earth and Old creationists are the primary people, who use "polystrate" as if it was a standard geological term. It is nothing more than a simple statement of fact to say:

"The word polystrate is not a standard geological term, and is found most often in creationist materials."

References Cited,

DiMichele, W.A., and H.J. Falcon-Lang, 2011, Pennsylvanian 'fossil forests' in growth position (T0 assemblages): origin, taphonomic bias and palaeoecological insights. Journal of the Geological Society. vol. 168, no. 2, pp. 585-605.

Waldron, J.W.F., and M.C. Rygel, 2005, Role of evaporite withdrawal in the preservation of a unique coal-bearing succession: Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation, Nova Scotia. Geology. vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 337-340.

Note: DiMichele and Falcon-Lang (2011) also can be downloaded from Smithsonian Digital Repository, National Museum of Natural History(Paul H. (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC))

You're replying to an old talk section. That said ... I agree with you, should we rename the page? What name would you suggest? Vsmith (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the page should be renamed. While wiki should be 100% scientific, Wikipedia isn't a scientific publication. The term DOES exist, and I think the name should be kept (unless there's a scientific term for them, although I haven't heard one) as long as it is made clear in the article that it is not a scientific term. --TAW (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Another reason for keeping "polystrate" in the name is that this is the terminology that is found all over the Internet in many articles and, unfortunately, even in the popular press. As a result, "Polystrate" is the term that the majority of lay people will use to search for information about this type of fossil. I agree with Alphawolf that there should not be a problem using this term as the article's subject heading "as long as it is made clear in the article that it is not a scientific term."Paul H. (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is about "upright tree fossils" and buried "upright trees" -- which are not uncommon in the geologic and archeologic record. I am aware that creationists invented a new term "polystrate fossil" in their "research" propaganda. As these upright fossil trees are an interesting feature that have been addressed multiple times in the scientific literature without using "polystrate", the article should be renamed to acknowledge that with a redirect left at polystrate fossil for those searching that term. That way the article could be written about the phenomena of upright tree fossils (as it basically is now) without the constant refutation stuff. The use of the term "polystrate fossil" by creationists should be included as a brief note. Vsmith (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Takapuna Reef image

The image of Takapuna Reef is misleading and I think it should be removed from this page. The caption states that the reefs were exposed by sea-level rise. Sea-level rise would in fact cover reefs that were previously exposed. I am not sure what this has to do with so-called polystrate fossils, in which the process under debate is related to speed of burial and subsequent exposure by erosion or mining. Jim Stuby (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

inaccurate statement

This sentence is inaccurate. "Contrary to the claims of creationists,[5] these sedimentary basins are considerably smaller than the state of Texas.[6][7]"

Source 5 does not state that creationists claim that basins are the size of Texas. Here is what it says; "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." There is nothing at all about the size of sedimentary basin. Texas is not mentioned either.

What source 5 does say is that "the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates", which is exactly what is stated in the article. Therefore source 5 does not contradict the article.

So, the above statement about the "claims of creationists" is not supported by the source so it needs to be removed or corrected. AlmondRocaFanatic (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed "Creationist claims" bit and smaller than Texas unless they can be verified. Vsmith (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

focus of article is changing

The article is about Polystrate fossils. however, most of the material is on fossil forests. These are different but related topics. They should each have their own article. AlmondRocaFanatic (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears there is a de facto consensus that the topic named "polystrate fossil" deserves coverage somewhere in this encyclopedia, yet there is an anti-fringe pushback that is giving a very lop-sided coverage of the topic (it would be like having the crop circle page go so far as to completely refuse to mention that some people have claimed involvement of aliens). I suggest a new section entitled "Creationism and polystrate fossils" with wording along the lines of:

(For further information see taphonomy) The term "polystrate fossil" is not traditionally used within mainstream geology or paleaology, but is most commonly introduced in young earth creationist materials. Polystrate fossils can be used to estimate the period of time over which an interval of rock layers was formed, because the strata had to be deposited before the upper exposed parts of the organism completely decayed.(Note those two preceding sentences are obvious and uncontroversial.) Creationists have argued that the existence of polystrate fossils contradicts the mainstream interpretation of strata being laid down over long periods of time.(cite 2-3 examples such as [1]) However, ... (give equally brief refutation, citing anti-creationism sources. Then, moving to a completely separate section of the page, go on to give a detailed mainstream account of their formation, including a contemporary example such as from Paul H's citations of dead trees on the bottom of a rather old lake that are documented not to be deteriorating at any significant rate as sediment accrues.). Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Young Earth creationist argument "that the existence of polystrate fossils contradicts the mainstream interpretation of strata being laid down over long periods of time." is based upon a gross misunderstanding (and often misrepresentation) of how mainstream Earth scientists interpret the strata containing polystrate fossils. Conventional Earth scientists interpret individual group of beds containing a single set polystrate fossils as having accumulated "rapidly" over the course of a single flood, multiple floods, volcanic eruption, or similar event(s) in terms of days, months, years, to decades with long hiatuses in time occurring between each group of beds, which is often represented by paleosols, that contain a single set of polystrate fossils. Thus, the beds containing polystrate fossils represent brief periods of rapid deposition that are separated by what are often very lengthy periods of nondeposition as indicated by paleosols and other features. As a result, the average sedimentation rates, which are misrepresented as indicating that conventional Earth scientists argue that sediments containing polystrate fossils accumulated at very slow rates are not the actual rates at which these beds actually accumulated. For more information go see:

William, W. A., and H. J. Falcon-Lang (2011) Pennsylvanian ‘fossil forests’ in growth position (T0 assemblages): origin, taphonomic bias and palaeoecological insights. Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 168, 2011, pp. 585–605. doi: 10.1144/0016-76492010-103. Paul H. (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It was written: "...however, most of the material is on fossil forests. These are different but related topics." All of the fossils forests mentioned in this article are all polystrate fossils created by different methods. If a person wants different types of polystrate "fossils", they can add to the list the polystrate telephone poles, churches, and houses that were created as a result of being buried by lahars over a period of several years after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. For examples of polystrate telephone poles, churches, and houses in the processes of being formed go look at:

Newhall, C. G., and R. S. Punongbayan, R.S. (1996) Fire and Mud: Eruptions and lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London. 1120 pp. ISBN 978-0295975856 Paul H. (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that should be noted, that's precisely what I'm proposing. (The problem was only that, since the entire topic of this article comes solely from a bad argument for creationism, it would be POV and totally counter-informative to completely remove the explanation of why the term is used. By the way, you put your finger precisely on the creationists problem; it has to do with their failure to recognise that "uniformatiarianism" is in most part a straw man which they themselves constructed in a failed attempt to present the mainstream as mired in philosophical preconceptions of comparable footing as their own.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the proper scientific term?

We're using the term "Polystrate fossil" because it's the only term I'm aware of. We should use the proper scientific term. What is the proper term? Clearly this type of fossilization occurs, so it has likely been properly studied. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There is not a specific geologic term that I have found for all "polystrate fossils" as creationist defined them as being a fossil surrounded by multiple layers of sedimentary rock. Mainstream geologists and paleontologists do not judge this situation to be either special enough or "anomalous" enough to give it a special, "proper" term. In case of fossil polystrate trees, they are known as either "fossil forests in growth position" or "T0 assemblages." We should keep "polystrate fossil" as that is what they are known as to the general public within the popular context of the evolution - creation discussion. For scientific terminology, go see.

William, W. A., and H. J. Falcon-Lang (2011) Pennsylvanian ‘fossil forests’ in growth position (T0 assemblages): origin, taphonomic bias and palaeoecological insights. Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 168, 2011, pp. 585–605.Paul H. (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Trees are only one kind of polystrate fossil. There are many different kinds of fossils, other than trees, that are buried in multiple strata, including of course virtually all significantly 3-dimensional fossils buried in deposits marked by multiple microstratum, i.e., very narrow strata. There are also corporate fossils, so to speak, assemblages, of an entire school of jellyfish, for example, buried in multiple rock layers. And there's a related phenomena, of relatively large organisms, like nautiloids in the Grand Canyon's Redwall Limestone, buried in a single rock layer, but where that rock layer is explained to have formed at rates of hundreds to thousands of years per inch. The terms, "upright fossil trunks, upright fossil trees, or T0 assemblages" do not express the essential multiple-strata aspect of the fossils being discussed in this article and so would include organisms buried, for example, in a single homologous volcanic ash, which are not an example of polystrates. In fact, even whether the organism was buried "upright" or not, like a whale skeleton lying in apparently undisturbed diatomaceous sediments, doesn't capture the point. If geologists don't have a name for this phenomenon, it's not going to be properly studied, giving a virtual monopoly on the study of polystrates to young earth creationists. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It's basically a creationist fantasy concept, and they do not "study" anything. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

marine fossils

I put a pause on the following anonIP contribution because it reverses the meaning of the text and advocates a non-mainstream POV. Hopefully people might like to discuss this in more detail?

A detailed study of the microstructure of fossils, which have been traditionally identified as “Spirorbis” in the geological literature, by Taylor and Vinn (2006) revealed that they consist of the remains of at least two completely different animals. They discovered that the “Spirorbis” fossils found in sedimentary strata, including the Joggins and other Carboniferous coal measures, deposited from the Ordovician to Triassic periods are the remains of an extinct order of lophophorates (now called microconchids) unrelated to modern marine tube worms (Annelids) to which the genus Spirorbis belongs. This contradicts does not contradict arguments made by Harold Coffin and other creationists that "Spirorbis" fossils within strata containing polystrate fossils indicate their deposition in a marine environment, because these fossils are classified as the remains of extinct fresh and brackish water microconchids instead of the remains of the marine genera Spirorbis as they have been misidentified in the geologic literature.

Furthermore, evolution proponents have never been able to explain how such polystrate fossils remained standing across multiple layers of rock representing millions of years. No reasonable person would ever assume that the standing organism remained standing without decaying for millions of years, or that it grew at a later time pushing its way in the midst of the sedimentary layers. The only realistic explanation is that the fossilization occurred in a short amount of time as it became quickly buried, and that the surrounding layers of strata were also deposited and hardened in a short amount of time, despite the fact that radiometric dating finds these materials in the millions of years from one layer to the next.

Despite the persistent attempts of evolution proponents to explain such events as the product of uniformitarian gradual processes that took millions of years, it becomes very clear that much of the geological structure of our planet has been shaped by natural disruptions which only took a short amount of time. A prime example of this are the multiple canyons formed within a couple of months following the eruption at Mount St. Helen's in 1980, which display the same features and characteristics as the Grand Canyon. Pictures and videos of this abound on the Internet.

Cesiumfrog (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as “Spirorbis” is concerned, Taylor and Vinn (2006) provides a very detailed discussion that completely contradicts, even refutes, the interpretations made by Coffin (1975) and older papers that it was a marine organism. There is nothing in Taylor and Vinn (2006) that justifies the change in text from “contradicts” to ”does not contradict.” Such a change completely misrepresents the conclusions of and arguments provided in Taylor and Vinn (2006). The interpretations of Taylor and Vinn (2006) regarding Spirorbis have been further supported by more recently published paleontological papers. For example, Zaton et al. (2012) specifically states:

As a curiosity, it is here worth mentioning that creationists (e.g., Coffin, 1975) have argued for the rapid formation of coal deposits in the sea during the Biblical Flood, on the basis of some ‘‘Spirorbis’’ attached to terrestrial plant fragments in Carboniferous Coal Measures. Of course, as we now know that ‘‘spirorbiform’’ microconchids also occupied brackish and freshwater environments, such reasoning is completely faulty.

References Cited:

Coffin, H. G., 1975, The Spirorbis problem. Origins. vol. 5, pp. 51–52.

Taylor, P.D., and O. Vinn, 2006, Convergent morphology in small spiral worm tubes (‘‘Spirorbis’’) and its palaeoenvironmental implications. Journal of the Geological Society London. vol. 163, pp. 225–228.

Zaton, M., O. Vinn, A.M.F. Tomescu, 2012, Invasion of freshwater and variable marginal marine habitats by microconchid tubeworms – an evolutionary perspective. Geobios. vol. 45, pp. 603-610.Paul H. (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The other comments made in the changes associated with the “Spirorbis” edits are quite incorrect and highly misleading unsourced fringe material that sound very much like Young Earth Creationist talking points. First, these edits are quite wrong as neither geologists nor paleontologists argue that the sediments that buried polystrate fossils took million of years to accumulate. As the mainstream sources that are cited in the Polystrate Fossil article clearly demonstrate, geologists and paleontologists argue that the sediments surrounding polystrate fossils were deposited in a relativity short amount of time. For examples of the truth about how geologists and paleontologists interpret the length of time it took to bury polystrate fossils, a person can go read DiMichele et al. (2011), Gastaldo (1992), and Gastaldo et al. (2004). Second the associated and similarly unsourced fringe claim .. that radiometric dating finds these materials in the millions of years from one layer to the next. is also quite false, if not fictional in nature. Finally, the claim that the relatively shallow “canyons” of Mount St. Helens display the same features and characteristics as the Grand Canyon also lacks any scientific validity. For example, the Grand Canyon differs from the Mount St. Helens canyons it that it is at least a 100,000 times larger in volume of material eroded than any of them and is eroded into difficult to erode, hard, dense sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphics rocks instead of the very easily eroded unconsolidated debris flows and avalanche deposits of Mount St. Helens.

References Cited:

DiMichele, W.A., and H.J. Falcon-Lang, 2011, Pennsylvanian 'fossil forests' in growth position (T0 assemblages): origin, taphonomic bias and palaeoecological insights. Journal of the Geological Society, 168(2):585-605.

Gastaldo, R.A., 1992, Regenerative growth in fossil horsetails (Calamites) following burial by alluvium. Historical Biology, 6(3):203-220.

Gastaldo, R.A., I. Stevanovic-Walls, and W.N. Ware, 2004, Erect forests are evidence for coseismic base-level changes in Pennsylvanian cyclothems of the Black Warrior Basin, U.S.A in Pashin, J.C., and Gastaldo, R.A., eds., Sequence Stratigraphy, Paleoclimate, and Tectonics of Coal-Bearing Strata. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology. 51:219–238.Paul H. (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory paragraph?

There's a paragraph in this article which seems contradictory to me. Perhaps it could be re-written to be less ambiguous? The paragraph states:

"Geologists see no need to invoke a global flood to explain upright fossils. This position of geologists is supported by numerous documented examples…" But the paragraph then goes on to give examples of .

Thus, the paragraph seems to be saying: "We know these strata and fossils were formed very slowly, because we can observe it happening rapidly."

Is this nonsense, or am I missing something here? Grand Dizzy (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not what the paragraph is saying. It's saying what it says, that there are other ways of explaining upright fossils that don't depend upon a global flood. They are not suggesting anything else. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Doug. What the paragraph shows is that Young Earth creationists are incorrect in arguing that the "...rapid formations of 'strata' and 'polystrate' fossils..." is unique to any "Global Flood model." The paragraph shows that there are numerous mechanisms by which the episodic and rapid accumulation of strata and the burial of upright tree trunks can occur in conventional depositional environments according real-world observations and actualistic models. From what I have read, the incorrect claim that mainstream Earth scientists argue that polystrate trees were buried slowly is the result of many Young Earth scientists confusing sedimentation rates during a single depositional event with average sedimentation rates, which also include long periods of either nondeposition (as indicated by paleosol and condensed intervals); slow deposition; periods of erosion of preexisting strata; or combination of all of these.

I will look over the paragraph and see if it can be improved anyway. Paul H. (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, so from what I can understand it seems that everyone agrees that 'polystrate' fossils formed relatively rapidly under conditions of great turbulence - it just wasn't necessarily a global flood that did it. Would I be correct in saying then that no polystrate fossil has even been found which intersects strata identified as distinct geologic periods? Grand Dizzy (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I have not found any documented examples of polystrate fossils crossing either strata identified as distinct geologic periods or the major bounding surfaces recognized in Sequence stratigraphy. Over the year, I have gathered a big collection of publications documenting several score examples of polystrate fossils, including modern, Quaternary, and pre-Quaternary. Paul H. (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed re-structure of lead

Throughout this talk page, we are at pains to point out that the term "polystrate fossil" is not a geological term but rather one coined by creationists. My own university geology days here in the UK are a long time ago, but this rings true. Further a quick Google search shows all the main hits to be of a religious/creationist nature; there seemed to be no scientific 'hits' actively using this term to describe science.

Yet the lead relegates this to the very end, being currently structured:

A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum. This term is typically applied to "fossil forests" of upright fossil tree trunks and stumps that have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata. Within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata, it is also very common to find what are called Stigmaria (root stocks) within the same stratum. Stigmaria are completely absent in post-Carboniferous strata, which contain either coal, polystrate trees, or both. The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically found in creationist publications.

This gives the impression, albeit unintended, until almost the very end, that the term is a true scientific term and, almost as an afterthought, that it happens also to be a religious/creationist term.

This is in contrast to other WP articles about creationism and their organisations, which are upfront in stating that the topic is about "pseudoscientific creationism" or similar.

I propose instead a restructure, probably using two paragraphs:

A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum. The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically found in creationist publications.

This term is typically applied to "fossil forests" of upright fossil tree trunks and stumps that have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata. Within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata, it is also very common to find what are called Stigmaria (root stocks) within the same stratum. Stigmaria are completely absent in post-Carboniferous strata, which contain either coal, polystrate trees, or both.

At this stage, I'm leaving the wording alone; I'm focussing on the structure of what is already there and reasonably well settled. One might go further and qualify "creationist publications" as "pseudoscientific creationist publications" or similar. But that is perhaps a detail for later. For now, the purpose of this "talk" item is the overall shuffling of the existing text.

Thoughts?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Replace "Paleontology" sidebar with "creationsm" sidebar

In a highly visible manner, this article displays the sidebar Template:Paleontology. This lends the article an unmerited semblance of scientific respectability. I propose replacing it with Template:Creationism sidebar. Any objections? Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)