Mummified Forest Discovered

One of the more remarkable discoveries reported towards the end of this year is an ancient mummified forest with well-preserved seedpods, leaves, and logs pretty deep in the Canadian Arctic. Scientists were on a mission to find out what impact with supposedly man-made global warming was having. The mummified trees were dated with an evolutionary assumption of  2 to 8 million years old.

What is very interesting about this story, the trees could still rot today! In fact, Science Daily reports…

“They also suspect that many more mummified forests could emerge across North America as Arctic ice continues to melt. As the wood is exposed and begins to rot, it could release significant amounts of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — and actually boost global warming.”

Another very interesting aspect, the mummified forest resembles one we observe today hundreds of miles further south which indicates the Arctic was in a much warmer period.  Scientists needed to rescue these young looking items in light of evolution by going beyond the science. They suggested a rapid burial happened with a landslide being the cause but lacked an answer on how many landslides must be would be cover enough rotting mummified trees to raise concerns about greenhouse gases.  However, the lack of answer is least of it’s problems with details on landslides mummifying a forest rather this fact, no living material can last forever in its original state, unless replaced by minerals, as in petrification and fossilization.  This is real wood that one could burn in a fireplace and could also rot!

“When we started pulling leaves out of the soil, that was surreal, to know that it’s millions of years old and that you can hold it in your hand,” one of the researchers announced to the American Geophysical Union last week.  A colleague familiar with fossil forests called this find “extraordinary,” speaking of “Finding wood that is millions of years old in such good condition—almost as if you just picked it up from the forest floor….”

These trees are not that old in reality (neither were the dinosaurs bones with blood vessels discovered last year) only in these scientists imagination based on a faulty framework.  Suggesting petrification or fossilization can be defied because it’s the only way to explain why real wood being able to last millions of years without minerals replacing its original form.  This is not science rather its forcing the data into a particular framework.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Mummified Forest Discovered

  1. If Michael had any knowledge, background, education, or other qualifications to discuss this subject, he would have known that this mummified forest is not the first to have been discovered. Mummified trees have been know for a long time. One doesn’t even need background knowledge—as quick Google search would turn up that fact. Or even reading the Science Daily article all the way through, instead of stopping at the headlines: “Mummified forests aren’t so uncommon,” scientist Joel Barker notes.[1]

    Once again, the news in this story is that the forest is bigger and farther north than previous examples of mummified trees. Michael then proceeds to further exhibit his ignorance by rhapsodizing; “What is very interesting about this story, the trees could still rot today!” Well, no kidding, Sherlock! Why should it not rot when water is reintroduced upon warming? What did you think mummification is, Michael? How did the ancient Egyptians mummify their dead?

    Let’s see whether Michael knows anything at all as he sneers his way through the alien corn of science. Michael, name a substance that helps to mummify both Egyptians and trees.Then name another substance that is removed from both Egyptians and trees when they mummify.

    Wrong, and wrong again.

    ===========

    [1] It’s about halfway through he article, Michael.

  2. It seems you have some very unkind self-righteous readers.

    I have no idea if this sort of thing is new or not, but its the first I’ve heard of it. I wonder if these “scientists” who dated this forest did any C14 dating. If ANY C14 is found you can take at least a couple of digits off the age. Of course they won’t C14 date it because that would prove their dating is whacked.

  3. “I have no idea if this sort of thing is new or not, but its the first I’ve heard of it.”

    Another news story reports that this mummified forest is the 12th one discovered so far in Canada alone.’

    “I wonder if these “scientists’ who dated this forest did any C14 dating.”

    Why do you place “scientists” in scare quotes? Do you have any reason whatever to doubbt that they are scientists? Would you mind terribly to present your qualifications to judge their status?

    None of the news stories I’ve seen mention dating methods explicity. Several, however, state that other scientists from the Univerversity of Minnesoota and from a commercial laboratory in Calgary have analyzed the carbon from wood, leaves, and pollen samples. Such analyses include isotope assays. If any C14 haed been found, it would have affected the dating, and certainly would have been reported..

    Please remember that these are scientists. Unlike creationists, their integrity is important; and, again unlike creationists, their work can be—and will be—replicated by others to verify their results.

  4. Michael

    You say: “The mummified trees were dated with an evolutionary assumption of 2 to 8 million years old.”

    Once again, Michael confuses dating methods with evolution.. No wonder I have gotten bored with his posts..Read one, you read them all,

  5. @Olorin

    //Please remember that these are scientists. Unlike creationists, their integrity is important; and, again unlike creationists, their work can be—and will be—replicated by others to verify their results.//

    And what are your qualifications to judge the creationists? If you had integrity you would not need to accuse those who hold a different worldview of being without any.

  6. @Michael

    //Michael confuses dating methods with evolution.//

    The only reason to assume millions of years is if you hold an evolutionary worldview. Without a worldview predisposition of some sort there’s no reason to even guess at the age of the forests, be it in thousands or millions. You sound offended. It isn’t slander to associate millions of years with evolution, is it?

  7. @Lance Ponder

    You say “The only reason to assume millions of years is if you hold an evolutionary worldview. “

    First of all, evolution is not a world view. It is a scientific fact.

    Then you say “Without a worldview predisposition of some sort there’s no reason to even guess at the age of the forests, be it in thousands or millions. “

    Second of all…the first people to say the world was probably millions of years old were Creationist. Hutton, one of the founders of modern geology, was a creationist.

    Then you say “You sound offended. It isn’t slander to associate millions of years with evolution, is it?”

    No it isn’t. But it is stereotypical to say that assuming millions of years is qeuatable to accepting evolution..There are many Creationists who believe God created us ex nihlo who accept old ages, and THEY would say that associating an old age of the earth with evolution is silly.

  8. @Lance Ponder: “And what are your qualifications to judge the creationists? If you had integrity you would not need to accuse those who hold a different worldview of being without any.”

    I have been following creationism & intelligent design since the Kitzmiller v Dover trial five years ago. That trial revealed the lies of a number of the creationist witnesses—the Of Pandas & People publisher who denied that he had seen a document until he was shown his signature on it. The authors who claimed that ID had nothing to do with creationism until a comparison of drafts showed where “design had been cut-and-pasted from “creation,” leaving in one case the smoking gun “cdesignproponentists.” The school board members who denied knowing about book donations until checks with their names were produced.

    One of my favorite examples is Andrew Snelling, a geologist who writes papers for Answers in Genesis on why the Earth is only a few thousands years old. Another geologist has discovered that Snelling also writes mainstream geology papers that assume a 4.5 billion year ago. Is one or the other of those sets of papers a lie?

    Our host Michael routinely tries to persuade us that supposedly old “soft tissue” was discovered, when reading his source revealed that it was actually copper, calcium, and other minerals. One of his supporting commenters a couple months ago claimed that Kuhn had said that Darwinism was circular reasoning; this is a popular creationist canard, and is demonstrably false.

    Many creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics prevents increases in complexity and order, a statement that even high-school physics students laugh at as false. The Discovery Institute movie ‘Expelled” obtained interviews with biologists under false pretenses, stole a Harvard video, and pirated a rock-group song. The “Atlas of Creation” contains a number of pirated photographs. One of them, which purports to be a dragonfly, has been shown to be a fishing lure, stolen from Graham Owen. Another falsely shows a living spider as a fossil. The Discovery Institute writes positive reviews of intelligent-design books in Amazon under false names

    The Discovery Institute maintains a list of “700 scientists who doubt Darwinism.” An enterprising graduate student a couple years ago e-mailed the first 100 on the list. He found only TWO who were active researchers in any life science—and one of them asked to be taken off the list, that he had been misinformed as to its content.

    Creationists are infamous for inaccurate and misleading quotations of scientists. Stephen Jay Gould is a favorite target. Let’s see …. A week ago Evolution News & Views quoted a biochemist as saying in a PNAS paper that a class of biological reactions would require millions of years without enzymes, asking “How could cellular life have arisen so quickly?” When you actually read the paper, it turns out that this was a rhetorical question posed to introduce the author’s data demonstrating how the required enzymes in fact evolved very rapidly.

    As far as my qualifications to judge the science, I have a graduate degree in mathematical physics (what would today be called “systems theory”). Most of my career—from 1959 to 1995—was in computers, at IBM’s research laboratories. More recently, my work has involved biomedical devices and bioinformatics.
    I am a member of AAAS, and a member of their Committee on Societal Impacts of Science & Technology. My background as an attorney is useful in this area.

    In summary, creationists demonstrate no intellectual ethical standards whatever. The reason their authors cannot get published in scientific journals is not their different worldview; the the low ethical quality of their work cannot pass peer review. Scientists commonly refer to creationists as “Liars for Jesus.”

  9. @Lance Ponder: “The only reason to assume millions of years is if you hold an evolutionary worldview. Without a worldview predisposition of some sort there’s no reason to even guess at the age of the forests, be it in thousands or millions.”

    Well, no. There is atomic physics, which is independent of evolution theory. Then there is geology, which is also independent of evolution.

    The thing is, science does not, and cannot, look at just one area. If evidence from somewhere else conflicts or supports it, then it must be taken into consideration. One of the chief early objections to evolution was that no known physics could support an age of the earth required for it. Then physicists discovered radioactivity.

    Only creationists think that they can propose one bit of evidence independently as consistent with their theory, disregarding everything else..

  10. Quoth Michael: They suggested a rapid burial happened with a landslide being the cause but lacked an answer on how many landslides must be would be cover enough rotting mummified trees to raise concerns about greenhouse gases.”

    Michael, would you please explain the meaning, if any, of this sentence? It seems to be the product of a deranged word salad shooter.

  11. @Olorin

    Thank you for the information. I will do some followup research. I have looked up and read the trail summary (the entire thing is well over 100 pages). Though I have not read the body, I am not at all surprised by the summary. Even if there is religious motivation behind elements of the ID movement, and even though Darwinian theory is substantially silent on the matter of a supernatural divine Creator, these are red herrings. The courts are not supporting the first amendment, they are redefining it to suit a narrow view such that one worldview is allowed and another is not. That isn’t freedom of speech or freedom of religion. It pretends to be freedom from religion which is in the first place unconstitutional and in the second demonstrably false.

    But I’m one of those nutters who believes pretty much everything you come to this blog to rail against. I do not expect to change your mind and you’re not going to change mine, so it seems there’s little else to discuss here. You’re welcome to write out all the reasons I’m wrong about this, but I’m satisfied that I’ve said what I wanted to say under this post. I would raise objections to several other of your statements, but it seems pointless to enter those debates. Thank you for your civility. I do appreciate the time you’ve taken to clarify your objections.

  12. Lance, there is one matter I do wish to change your mind about: It is ridiculous to argue that a sceintific theory is false because some of its applications may have evil consequences.

    You probably realize that no one can eliminate hydrogen bombs by calling nuclear fusion evil. So why do creationists still attempt to disprove evolution by raging against eugenics?

    The problem is not that creationists have a different worldview. The problem is that they—like most Americans, unfortunately—are so entombed in this worldview that they cannot even conceive that a different epistemology might be appropriate for some purposes.

    Scientists often scratch their heads at a creationist assertion, thinking, “Now why would anyone even think that?” Those who participate in both science and religion, such as Kris and myself on this blog, have no problem with shifting paradigms.. Francisco Ayala, the evolutionary biologist and Catholic priest who won the $1.5M Templeton prize for advancing world spirituality this year, embraces both. Ayala, by the way, is an aggressively vocal opponent of intelligent design and creationism, as both scientifically and theologically vacuous.

    .

    Speaking of Kitzmiller, I have not only read the opinion several times, I have read almost all of the transcripts and most of the expert reports and amicus briefs.. (As an attorney, I eat footnotes for lunch.) Judge Jones, who said later he was initially sympathetic toward intelligent design, allowed the defendants as much time and as many witnesses as they wished—in the end, 40 days of testimony.

    Although the Dover decision is legally binding only in Pennsylvania, its thoroughness and clarity make it highly likely to be followed nationwide. For that reason, the opinion is a worthwhile read. Several engaging books have also been written about the trial: Lauri Lebo, “The Devil in Dover” (The New Press 2009); Edward Hume, “Monkey Girl” (HarperCollins, 2007); Matthew Chapman, “Forty Days and Forty Nights” (Harper 2008); and Gordy Slack, “The Battle over the Meaning of Everything (Wiley 2007).

    In a wider context, Peter Bowler’s “Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons” (Harvard 2007) surveys religious attitudes toward evolution over the past two centuries, by one of the world’s leading experts on the relation of science and religion. (Bowler also co-authored “Making Modern Science” (U. Chicago 2005), considered the definitive history by Science and Nature.)

  13. @Olorin

    //It is ridiculous to argue that a sceintific theory is false because some of its applications may have evil consequences.//

    I would agree completely with this statement. If this is the one thing you wish to convince me of, then there’s no need. I believe in the existence of evil. Not in things, but in the hearts of people who use things to do evil.

    //You probably realize that no one can eliminate hydrogen bombs by calling nuclear fusion evil. So why do creationists still attempt to disprove evolution by raging against eugenics? //

    Fusion isn’t evil. One could argue that a bomb is not evil unless used for evil ends. I see where you’re going, trying to equate this with the connection drawn between Darwinism and eugenics. Forgive me, I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think its exactly the same argument. More to the point, however, is the assertion you make that Creationists raging against eugenics disproves (in their minds) evolution. I don’t speak for everyone in the camp, but I don’t look at it that way at all. I see eugenics as the fruit of the evolutionary worldview. Perhaps the brush is a bit wide for your taste, but that’s how I paint it. I don’t think the arguments about the evils of eugenics have so much to do with the validity of evolutionary theory as it does the worldview of those who believe in evolutionary theory. To one who holds firmly the evolutionary worldview it is only logical to accept that eugenics is the ultimate good and charity toward inferior people is misplaced (dare I say evil). The Christian worldview is quite the opposite. If man is created in God’s image and all men are descended from one blood (Ac 17:26) then destroying human life to “improve the race” is the ultimate evil and charity toward the unfortunate is the greatest good. If there’s an argument against the validity of evolution in all that, its just that most people who stop to think about it will naturally be repelled by the former and warmed by the latter.

  14. @Lance P: I don’t think the arguments about the evils of eugenics have so much to do with the validity of evolutionary theory as it does the worldview of those who believe in evolutionary theory.”

    There are no “believers” in evolution. You are again conflating theology and science. Scientists accept evolution unless and until the evidence shows it to be incorrect. And there is no such thing as a worldview of those who accept evolution as true. If you thinjk there is, please cite a source.

    Forgive me, I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think its exactly the same argument.

    It is exactly the same argument. It even has a name: The argumentum ad Hitlerum. .

    I don’t look at it that way at all. I see eugenics as the fruit of the evolutionary worldview.

    Then hydrogen bombs are a fruit of the Einsteinian worldview. Botulism is a fruit of the germ-theory worldview. Cyanide is a fruit of the chemical-bonding worldview.

    To one who holds firmly the evolutionary worldview it is only logical to accept that eugenics is the ultimate good and charity toward inferior people is misplaced (dare I say evil).

    Once again, you’ll have to define what you mean by evolutionary worldview, because as far as I am aware there is no such thing.

    I have spent half a century working with research scientists in every discipline from astronomy to zoology, and I’m here to tell you that you have no grip on what scientists think or how they operate.. Unfortunately, as I noted before, the majority of Americans don’t either.

  15. @Lance Ponder

    You say “I see eugenics as the fruit of the evolutionary worldview.”

    Question, Lance: Concepts of Eugenics have been around thousands of years before Darwin, so by definition how can it be the “fruit” of evolution?

    Not to mention, why are you even suggesting that there is even such a thing as an “evolutionary worldview?”

    Then you say: “To one who holds firmly the evolutionary worldview it is only logical to accept that eugenics is the ultimate good and charity toward inferior people is misplaced (dare I say evil).”

    Another question: This looks related to the “evolution says you must kill your neighbor” argument… If that’s your meaning, then you don’t understand how evolution works. Evolution does not strive for “perfection,” or even “superiority,” It has no goal. — Evolution works with what is living, so the death of the individuals of a species would actually be of no benefit because it cannot work without life… Considering this detail, it could even be argued that life is what is aimed for, not death. Killing off of a population would actually be detrimental to the species.

  16. Kriss says, “Concepts of Eugenics have been around thousands of years before Darwin, so by definition how can it be the “fruit” of evolution?” Evolution was around before Darwin. Spontaneous generation for example started in the fourth century. The concept was falsified for living things and life is too complex to be rescued because the evolutionary time frame doesn’t work with it but it is still used today for non-living things. Krauss, a cosmologist who is a director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University stated in the Wallstreet Journal, “Think about it: If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero.” The universe popping out of nothing with zero energy? I thought about it, it’s not a viable scientific conclusion. Creation of the universe came from someone, namely God!

  17. @Micheal

    “Evolution was around before Darwin. Spontaneous generation for example started in the fourth century.”

    Newsflash!! Spontaneous generation has nothing to do with evolution.

    ““Think about it: If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero.” The universe popping out of nothing with zero energy? I thought about it, it’s not a viable scientific conclusion. Creation of the universe came from someone, namely God!”

    First of all, I never denied God was the ultimate origin of the universe… And second of all, the origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution either.

    But while we are on the subject of something comming from nothing: How is the universe comming from nothing inconsistent with God creating from nothing? I asked you this question before, and you never answered.

  18. Kris, what Michael, and lance, now seem to be contending is that the existence of evolution causes the horrors of eugenics.

    If that is the case, then it is still true that arguing against evolution serves no purpose. As Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

  19. We can’t lett this one slip by. Michael quotes Lawrence Krauss, “Think about it: If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero.” Then Michael sneers, “The universe popping out of nothing with zero energy? I thought about it, it’s not a viable scientific conclusion.”

    Apparently Michael didn’t think about it very much. Or, more likely, he doesn’t know anything about it. Most cosmologists agree that the total mass/energy of the universe in fact is zero, as nearly as can be determined from observation. In other words, we have another creationist misleading quote: Krauss was not denying that the universe’s mass is zero, he was most likely merely confirming a prediction that had been made..

    We also still have, of course, Michel’s refusal to define what he means by “nothing.” If he knew what he meant by that term, it might clarify his thinking. Or not.

  20. @Olorin

    The Lawrence Krauss quote is just another example of Creationists quoting what they do not understand… Or sometimes they get too excited by a certain sentence that they forget to read the rest of what is said which would many times disprove their own position..

    It’s not just scientists they do this to…They also misuse quotes from Hebrew scholars to back themselves.. A well known example of Creationist quote-mining of a Hebrew Scholar in order to prove that the Bible demands a young earth is James Barr. . . They quote a letter written by Barr which they cite as evidence that Genesis cannot be read in any other way…But they fail to quote the section of the letter in which he says that it has nothing to do with “linquistic competence.”

    In fact, I just wrote a post on that:

    http://evolutionid.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/yecs-misquoting-hebrew-scholars-on-the-genesis-interpretation/

    It appears YECs will misuse any source to back their own ends.

  21. @Lance Ponder

    “The only reason to assume millions of years is if you hold an evolutionary worldview.”

    Not quite true. There are people who believe in an “old Earth” but don’t believe evolution. Besides, I’m pretty sure none of the scientists involve are assuming the forests are millions of years old, they generally use a combination of dating methods to determine the age of the “find”. These dating methods span many fields: geology, physics, chemistry, etc…

    “I see eugenics as the fruit of the evolutionary worldview.”

    Broadly speaking, eugenics is just the view that we should work towards a “better” human gene pool. The possible ways of accomplishing this are not as limited as you’d think – a person with a rare genetic disorder who abstains from having children is practicing eugenics just as much as someone who commits genocide against an “inferior race”, and the morality of the two actions couldn’t be more different.

    Likewise, the bad kind of eugenics doesn’t necessarily follow from evolution. Evolution tells us what Nature is like, not what we ought to do. Nature may sometimes compel animal to rise against animal, or reward cruel and unjust behavior, but does this mean we should build civilization on the same rules? I don’t think so. We’ve done far better by working together, and “working together” obviously precludes trying to kill each other.

    Personally, I’m all for a “better gene pool”, if you can tell me what a “better gene pool” is, and if we can get there without coercing anyone. Those are tall orders, and I’m not holding my breath.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s