Halo there, please explain this for me, I'm feeling a bit slow tody
Many erect fossil trees in Nova Scotia were found "throughout 2,500 feet of geologic strata, penetrating 20 geologic horizons. These trees had to have been buried faster than it took them to decay. This implies that the entire formation was deposited in less than a few years." (Science says layers were deposited over millions of years)
Ok then, nice and simple asnwers please, no swaering and no ...
...and please type slowly, ok
Man is it hot here or noy
2006-12-15 01:28:35 · 5 answers · asked by (",)Smokey_-" 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
2,500 ft tall trees then? wow that is impressive. Ever seen the amount of sand moved by a river after a storm? The deposition of several beds before a tree-trunk decays is perfectly consistent with Geology. Logical thinking becoming blurred?
2006-12-15 04:36:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Many of the trees had fossil roots at two levels indicating that the region was prone to massive deposition events, and that they survived the first event. The fact that the different trees were found at different levels shows that the events occurred at different times. There are no 2,500 foot tall trees. Your 20 geological horizons indicate 20 separate events which had to occur long enough apart for new trees to grow. This indicates that the formation took at least hundreds if not thousands of years to form, minimum. No fossils would form in periods without a massive deposition.
It's a good thing you're feeling slow. You have just described a slow geologic process puntuated by twenty sudden events.
2006-12-15 13:30:58 · answer #2 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is hot.. I had to have the air conditioning on here at work today. Mid-December in the UK!
Your question would have carried more punch 50, even 25 years ago. Items like the vertical fossil trees were more of a problem for the old-earth model when uniformitarianism (things happen in geology at the tiny incremental rates now observed) held almost total sway.
Since then it has been realised that there is room for catastophic events in the history of the earth. In fact there is great evidence for them. Tectonic plate theory and major earthquakes, super volcanoes, asteroid strikes...
So, one site (or many) with rapid deposition does not prove a young earth, but it has done serious damage to the old theory of uniformitarianism. Which is not dead, but confined to locations where it is appropriate.
Which does not include Pompeii.
2006-12-15 10:00:25 · answer #3 · answered by Pedestal 42 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't be ridiculous. This is really splitting hairs. IT really doesn't matter, our rock formations simply couldn't be created in less than 10,000 years, never mind 1 million.
So if you have the debate varying from 4 billion to about 10,000. The less is obviously wrong and flawed on many common sense levels.
Who knows, the world could be 500,000,000! maybe 1 billion??? WOW! But 30,000? probably not, 20,000, nah, still not enough time to create geological formations.
10,000? Ok, now your just a retard if you believe that.
Does that make sense?
2006-12-15 09:42:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is well understood by geolgists and is not evidence for any global flood. Just because a few isolated places had rapid deposits of silt ( in this case a river bed ) does not mean the entire earth geologic column formed rapidly
2006-12-15 09:52:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋