Hi Michael
It is very sad that someone has influential and knowledgeable as Sproul
should not have even thought to have passed his ideas to someone
scientifically literate before launching them into print. You have alerady
commented on the Kelly book, so I will take up the polystrate trees issue.
Following is an edited extract from a draft paper I am writing on
polystrate trees. I would appreciate if you could forward it to the ASA
list, as I subscribe to that from my home computer which currently
off-line, and posting this from by work one (which I keep for ACG stuff).
GB
Jonathan
"Polystrate" Trees of Yellowstone
"Polystrate" trees are commonly mentioned in literature, web sites, and
presentations by young earth creationists (YECs). They are supposed to
give clear proof that mainstream geology is wrong on the rate of geological
processes and the origin of the geological record. Along with the supposed
human footprints in ancient strata, they are perhaps the most commonly
mentioned "evidences" for a young earth, global flood, and the inadequacy
of mainstream geology that people bring to my attention.
John Morris (1995) has defined polystrate fossils thus:
"Polystrate" fossils refer to a fossil which is encased within more than
one (poly) layer of rock (strata) thus "polystrate or "many layers."'
Polystrate trees are therefore vertical or near vertically oriented fossil
trees that apparently poke up through overlying strata. They have been
known for more than a century, with some of the first-documented examples
occurring at The Joggins in Nova Scotia (Dawson 1854). The term "polystrate
trees" is widely used only by YECs.
Young earth creationists often attribute the formation of such polystrate
trees to very rapid deposition. Ken Ham (1999) provides a typical example:
"...at The Joggins, in Nova Scotia, there are any erect fossil trees that
are scattered throughout 2500 feet of layers. You can actually see these
fossil trees, beautifully preserved, penetrate through layers that were
supposed have been laid down over millions of years.
The fact is, the trees had to be buried faster than it took them to decay.
In other words, there's NO WAY these layers could have been laid down
slowly over millions of years. The trees would've rotted well before then
and not fossilized.
Genesis gives a better explanation - Noah's Flood, which occurred a few
thousand years ago."
Despite such bold statements there have been only about six papers by YECs
that actually are specific case studies. The two YEC studies on the
Yellowstone trees were carried out the Adventist geologist Harold Coffin
(1976, 1997).
Although not quite as well known in broader YEC literature as those from
Joggins the Yellowstone examples are quite spectacular. The exposures
occur Specimen Valley and Specimen Ridge consist of a 360m succession of
Eocene volcanic sediments that contain abundant plant fossils, including
numerous horizons of upright tree stumps. These have been interpreted as a
succession of fossils that have grown on successive volcanic deposits.
Early workers identified up to 27 such "forests" (Dorf 1964). Later studies
have recognised up 130 "forest" levels (Coffin 1997). Clearly, if these
truly are a succession of forests, they could not have formed during a
single, yearlong flood, or even in a period of several thousand years.
Studies indicate at least 200 years are necessary for the establishment of
a mature forest, and many of the fossil "forests" contain trees with 500 or
more annual rings. Indeed, calculations indicate that the succession
represents some 20,000 years of growth and deposition (Dorf 1964).
Coffin has attempted to interpret the succession in a way that is
consistent with such a mega catastrophic origin. To do this he has argued
that the trees did not grow in place, but were transported. In his papers
Coffin argues that the horizons of polystrate trees are actually stumps
transported to their present place by volcanic mudflows (lahars). The main
line of evidence presented in the first paper is that horizontal (fallen)
and vertical (standing) trees often showed a similar orientation. In a
buried forest Coffin believed there would be no such orientation, standing
and fallen trees having a random distribution. Coffin does not appear to
have considered the possibility of lahars in producing a preferred
orientation of upright trees and fallen logs as they engulf a pre-existing
forest.
Later studies by Fritz (1980a, b) on the depositional environments of the
volcanic sediments presented evidence that the mixture of cool temperate,
warm temperate, and subtropical plant taxa indicates that the fossil
assemblage consists of both in situ and transported plants. He noted that
the proportion of vertical logs in horizons varied from 0 to 39%. Fritz
drew a close parallel between the sediments hosting the forests of Specimen
Ridge to those deposited by the mudflows of the 1980 Mt, St. Helens
eruption, which transported logs and upright stumps and depositing them
alongside living trees. Fritz also noted the apparent absence of
differentiated palaeosols. These studies raised a possibility not
considered by Coffin, that the fossil assemblage includes both transported
and in situ trees. Discussion on Fritz's first paper by Retallack (1981),
a leading authority on palaeosols, pointed out that differentiated
palaeosols are present at the top of some lahar deposits and that at least
some upright trees are rooted in these palaeosols. In his reply Fritz
(1981) agreed that many trees were indeed in situ, including the tallest,
and were clearly rooted in the substrate. Thus the issue was clarified
into, not whether the trees were all transported or grew in place, but what
criteria are needed to establish each. Further research by Yuritech
(1984a) documented that although some trees were contained in lahar
conglomerate, most of those he studied were rooted in underlying material.
The conglomerates had flowed round and abraded the trees, however there was
no sign of flow or abrasion of the roots. He also showed that some of the
fine-grained organic rich deposits were probably lacustrine in origin.
Fritz's discussion of this paper (Fritz 1984) emphasised that he had never
stated that all upright stumps had been transported, only some of them. He
added that only 11% of the stumps were entirely within conglomerates, the
rest were rooted in underlying material. Furthermore that observations on
transported stumps at Mt. St. Helens indicates that no more than 15% of
these should be upright. Yuretich's closing comments (Yuritech 1984b) were
"we have at last gotten to the root of the forest problem and need no
longer be stumped by the origin of these fossil trees!"
Coffin's second paper is more detailed than his first and, in addition to
citing his paper on vertically floating tree stumps in Spirit Lake (Coffin
1983a), included studies of the plant fossils, proportions of upright
against horizontal trees, organic layers, and weathering of the sediments.
In it he argues that the organic rich layers are lacustrine deposits and
that there is no sign of weathering of the deposits. Coffin makes no
reference to the papers of Fritz (1980a, b, 1981, 1984), Yuritech (1984a,
b), or Retallack (1981) on the Yellowstone succession, even though his
paper post-dates them and he had cited them in reply to discussion (Coffin
1983b). This is despite the fact that Yuritech had previously identified
the organic rich deposits as lacustrine, that Retallack identified well
differentiated palaeosols, and that the papers and dialogue between Fritz
and Yuritech developed criteria by which transported as opposed to in situ
erect trees could be recognised. Nor did he mention Fritz's caution that
it was unlikely to be a significant process in formation of the Yellowstone
succession, or Coffin's agreement with this assessment. However, he did
quote Fritz's paper on upright stump transport by lahars from Mt St Helens
(Fritz 1983) as supporting evidence for his thesis. Coffin remained
convinced that the Specimen ridge "forests" were entirely transported, even
though, his own data showed that 28 to 75% of the trees were upright,
which, from comparison with Mt. St. Helens would indicate that these are
indeed buried forests, rather than simply transported stumps (where the
proportion of upright stumps was much lower).
Coffin was correct in identifying that the Specimen Ridge "forests"
contains transported material, and deserves credit for highlighting this
fact in his original paper. He is also quite likely correct in staying
that at least some of the organic rich layers represent accumulations of
plant debris under lacustrine conditions. However, Coffin is incorrect in
maintaining that therefore all of the upright trees in the succession have
been transported, and ignores the studies of others who have developed
criteria for recognising both transported and in situ trees. He also
ignores the presence of trees rooted in palaeosols noted by Retallack,
which is strong evidence for the in situ growth of the forests. Thus weight
of evidence shows that Specimen Ridge does indeed record a spectacular
succession of fossil forests along with transported and in situ plant
debris, some buried by lahars, and others drowned by lakes, and is not
evidence for a single widespread catastrophe.
References
Coffin, H. G. 1976. Orientation of trees in the Yellowstone petrified
forests. Journal of Paleontology 50(3): 539-543.
Coffin, H. G. 1983a. Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington.
Geology 11: 298-299.
Coffin, H. W. 1983b. Reply to "Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake,
Washington". Geology 11: 734.
Coffin, H. G. 1997. The Yellowstone petrified "forests". Origins
24(1):2-44. Can also be found at http://www.grisda.org/reports/or24_02.htm
Dawson, J. W. 1854. On the coal measures of the South Joggins, Nova
Scotia. Quarterly Journal Geological Society of London 10: 1-41.
Dorf, E., 1964. The petrified forests of Yellowstone Park. Scientific
American 210(4): 106-114.
Fritz, W.J., 1980a. Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the
Yellowstone "fossil forests". Geology, 8: 309-313.
Fritz, W. J. 1980b. Stumps transported and deposited upright by Mt St.
Helens debris flows. Geology 8: 586-588.
Fritz, W. J. 1981. Reply on "reinterpretation of the depositional
environments of the Yellowstone fossil forests". Geology 9: 54-55.
Fritz, W. J. 1983. Comment on "Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake,
Washington". Geology 11: 733-734.
Fritz, W.J., 1984. Comment on "Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for
burial in place." Geology 12: 638-639.
Ham, K. 1999. Polystrate Fossils. Files X-Nihlo Volume 1, Number 6
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Creation_Clubs/docs/106polystrate.
asp
Morris, J. D. 1995. What are "polystrate fossils"? Back to Genesis 81b.
Institute of Creation Research. Can be found at
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-081b.htm
Retallack, G. K. 1981. Comment on "reinterpretation of the depositional
environments of the Yellowstone fossil forests". Geology 9: 52-53
Yuretich, R.F. 1984a. Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial
in place. Geology 12: 159-162.
Yuretich, R.F., 1984b. Reply on "Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence
for burial in place." Geology 12: 639.
At 05:23 PM 9/5/01 +0100, Michael Roberts wrote:
>I attach a quickie, superficial THEOLOGICAL critique of Kelly's book I did
>for the Assoc of Christian Geologists listserve a month ago. I omitted any
>scientific critique as I assumed most geologists could do that for
>themselves. Please take this as a rushed job which would need polishing. I
>am afraid I find it not a good book.
>
>This is to get the discussion going!!
>
>As I said his geology is poor.
>
>POLYSTRATE FOSSILS
>
>Ted be careful. Deposition does not occur at a steady rate but like a
>soldiers' life. Years of monotonous drill interpsersed by a few hours
>action. Take the cola measures. Work in the 80s by Fred Broadhurst of
>Manchester Univ showed that a coal seam could take 80,000 years to deposit
>and then the sevaral thick seams of sand inbetween could be laid rapidly e,g
>a foot in a weekend. Now apply that to Yellowstone and you will have the
>total time of the sevaral layers (27) taking 50 my but the depoistion of the
>sediment around the trees taking weeks for each strata (even if several) and
>then a long pause while the forests grew. (Jeff Greenberg I need your help
>here!) However Yellowstone can only be comparable with St Helens if nneither
>appear to have a root system.
>
>With the floods caused by heavy rainfall in the UK last year I noted that 6
>inches of sediment were laid down locally on occasion in a day. I had walked
>that river bank for 14 years and have never seen deposition before.
>
>Be careful in allowing oneself to be convinced because sedimentation can
>take place at a rate of feet per day it will keep it up for a long time.
>However the succesion of strata with clear top and bottoms of beds indicate
>a pause inbetween so the top can dry out or consilidate before the next
>layer. So how long does that take? For Wheaton gen ed geologists I tried to
>play with this in June. We were looking at a succession from the Cambrain to
>the Creataceous say 20,000ft thick. One day we were looking at a 40ft cliff
>of Cambrian sandstone and as half my students were YEC, I asked them to
>count the layers . They came to 70. Now I allowed a day to deposit each
>layer and asked how long a pause between layers. Suggestion - at least a
>week. So for that 40ft you needed 8X 70 days i.e. 560 days - which rules
>out Noah .
>There were about 20,000 beds in our succession so that would need 8X20,000
>days i.e. 160,000 days i.e 450 years assuming rapid depostion by rivers in
>flood.
>
>Clarely this needs to be put over in a sophiscated manner but then even
>allowing rapid depostion as Creationists insist on we end up with too long a
>time for YEC to be substantiated.
>
>Also there has been little deposition since Mt St helens blew up in 1980.
>
>OK a crude method but it does highlight the time needed.
>
>Anyway dear Charles Lyell knew all about rapid catastrophic events and even
>wrote about them in his Principles of Geology.
>
>Michael roberts
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
>To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>Cc: <Millerrj@rica.net>
>Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:02 PM
>Subject: Important creationist book/ RC Sproul
>
>
>> Last evening I attended a presentation by ICR geologist Bill Hoesch, who
>> gave the best creationist talk I can recall hearing, on the topic of Mt St
>> Helens. Several times I could guess what was about to come next in the
>> talk, such as when he examined surface formations produced quickly by
>steam
>> venting and suggested that other formations, similar in appearance, in
>other
>> places might also have been formed "quickly" rather than slowly by erosion
>> over many years; or when he claimed (I can't evaluate the accuracy of this
>> type of thing, since I am not a geologist myself) that some secular
>> geologists were now coming to think that the Grand Canyon may have been
>> formed very quickly, when a large lake near its head suddenly broke free
>> (sounds like a glacial dam but he didn't say that), and that this was not
>> too different from thinking that the flood did it; or when he noted the
>many
>> dead trees, floating vertically in Spirit Lake, and suddenly jumped to an
>> "explanation" of the vertical forests in Yellowstone Park, with a passing
>> comment about how a sign with the traditional scientific explanation of
>this
>> (that 27 forests had grown up in succession, roughly 50 Ma) had recently
>> disappeared from the park (one wonders why) after creationists had
>> challenged this, and that it has not been replaced b/c it is now "known"
>to
>> be "wrong". Much of the presentation was entertaining, with many slides
>of
>> the mountain before, during, and after the explosion--simply good
>> photography, with interesting narrative that was factual except when
>> describing the state of scientific opinion.
>>
>> At the end of his talk, Hoesch held up several books he was offering for
>> sale. I bought one that I want to comment on. According to Hoesch, this
>> book has recently led a leading conservative theologian, R.C. Sproul (whom
>I
>> have heard many times), to become a YEC. I can't verify this, though if
>> true it would be one more PCA person to go in that direction, the first
>> prominent one being D James Kennedy many years ago with several others in
>> recent years following the lead of various conservative layity in that
>> denomination, which does seem to have more than its fair share of
>> geocentrists and theonomists.
>>
>> The book itself is quite interesting and provocative. I am copying Roman
>> Miller (editor of PSCF) on this message, simply to suggest to him as well
>as
>> to the listserve that it might be worth a formal discussion. We might
>think
>> of a few theologians/biblical scholars in the ASA to respond to it in a
>> little symposium in PSCF, and ask the author to join in also. The details
>> are, Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1-2.4 in the light of changing
>> scientific paradigms (Fearn, UK: Mentor, 1997), by Douglas F. Kelly, prof
>of
>> systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte, NC). The
>> back cover advertises a forthcoming study guide and provides an ISBN for
>> that, but I have not seen this as yet.
>>
>> The book has "blurbs" promoting it by, among others, Nigel Cameron of
>> Trinity International University (though very well known in mainstream
>> American evangelicalism, Nigel is a Scottish creationist--he's even
>> mentioned in Ron Numbers' book), who (I am guessing) perhaps facilitated
>> publication with an English press; and Frederick Skiff, assoc prof of
>> physics at the Univ of Maryland. I haven't seen Dr Skiff's name before, I
>> gather he's a creationist from what he says about this book.
>>
>> Having not yet read this book except in a few places randomly chosen, I
>> can't summarize its arguments. I will say, however, that the author has
>> read widely on this issue, though I dare say his judgement is more than a
>> bit clouded. For example, he calls the gap view of Chalmers (which,
>nearly
>> all admit today, was a failed enterprise) "an exegesis of desperation". I
>> think I've read a lot more early 19th century geologists than Kelly
>has--he
>> shows no evidence of having read (say) Edward Hitchcock, the leading
>> American exponent of this view, or John Pye Smith, the English theologian
>> who recommended Hitchcock on the other side of the pond--and I would never
>> describe this view as given to despair. Frankly, they *knew* the earth
>was
>> a lot older than human beings (this is of course what Kelly means by
>> "desperation") and they did what made sense: they took another look at the
>> interpretation of Genesis One. Granted, their approach is probably weak
>on
>> exegetical grounds (much weaker, IMO, than the "day-age" approach) and
>> certainly pointless today on scientific grounds (since it utterly denies
>> evolution), but it made good sense to good minds at the time, for good
>> reasons.
>>
>> Enough of this for now. Has anyone else seen this book? If so, do they
>> share my view that this one is worth responding to?
>>
>> Ted Davis
>>
>>
>>
>
>Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Kelly on Creation1.doc"
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 05 2001 - 22:25:28 EDT