Talk:Polystrate fossil

message: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-316.htm
--134.215.235.127 12:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a supporting external link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Evolution science response" replaced 

message: "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)
thread_title:  "Evolution science response" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Points of Grammatically-Induced Ambiguity 

message: ???
: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  why the hell is this in the "creationism" series? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  There is no such thing as polystrate fossils 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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'. HrafnTalkStalk 03:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Evolutionist ...? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Evolutionists writing wiki 

message: 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)
thread_title: Takapuna Reef image

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

message: 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:
:
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:
:
:
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)
replies: text: Done. Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed re-structure of lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace "Paleontology" sidebar with "creationsm" sidebar