Talk:Polystrate fossil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Added a supporting external link 2 "Evolution science response" replaced 3 "Evolution science response" 4 NPOV 5 ALL CAPS IS SCREAMING 6 Points of Grammatically-Induced Ambiguity

[edit] Added a supporting external link

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

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

[edit] "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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)