Fossil Forest Flusters Secular Geologists
There are several fossil forests, and one in particular was discovered a spell back a few hours' drive from my neck of the woods. Geologists and botanists reckoned that, since they were very old in Darwin years, a few simple trees would be all that existed. More evidence shows that they were riding up the wrong trail again.
Their problems lie in using uniformitarian ("the present is the key to the past", slow and gradual processes) assumptions, and those assumptions keep on failing. In fact, a form of catastrophism is used now and then when it's convenient. In the case of this forest, they're closing in on the truth (the Genesis Flood), but are still tied up in their worldview.
 |
| Assembled at Sign Generator |
There are many reports of fossil ‘forests’ across the earth that display vertical tree remnants. Vertical tree stumps and trunks are assumed to be in situ, which seems to be the definition of a fossil forest. Evolutionists think that the first forests would have been simple and composed of a single type of tree:To read the rest, click on "‘Earliest’ fossil ‘forest’ surprisingly complex".
“Think for a minute about ‘early’ life on land. Complexity is probably not the first thought that springs to mind. Botanists also tended to consider the earliest forests to be simple entities composed of a single type of tree.”Spectacular sandstone casts formed by fossilized stumps of hollow tree ferns over 6 m (19 ft) tall with slender trunks had been excavated. They resembled modern palms or tree ferns.
This was reinforced by the discovery in the 1920s of the ‘earliest’ fossil ‘forest’ in Gilboa, New York, that was believed to be composed of just one type of tree that grew in a swamp.