Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[McBell]

Any verifiable evidence for creationism yet?

Nope

 

[Riders]

None that I can see. To me primal man prehistoric man is proof enough for evolution for me

 

[SkepticThinker]

The wait continues then ...

 

[Sapiens]

Any verifiable evidence for creationism yet?

No, not yet. But there's a passel of them theosophists down the end of the bar raisin' the devil. Got him six foot off the floor they do..

 

[james bond]

Ah yes.
Your favourite go to safety net...

Wrong. Not a safety net, but the correct interpretation.

 

[james bond]

What's the point of this?

Do I have to stoop to the level of Mestemia to explain? You're much better than that. The key point is that the names of the layers do not have anything to do with time, but location.

The second point is the geologists made the rules to bring time or stratification chronology in. In other words, they made the time period rules to fit ToE.

Evos explanation - Click to see how the layers formed.

http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/biostratigraphy.shtml

Creation scientists explanation - Guy Berthault experiments

http://scienceandscientist.org/sedimentation.html

 

[Riders]

That doesn't make sense. Layers in the ground do mark time, location makes no sense at all, any persona can see that layers are a time mark. Theres roof of that too you know. Ah yes I finally have something smart to say.I watch Investigation Discovery channel where they show how they process the time a person died. If theyre buried in the ground they use layers to mark the time they've been there, or sometimes of theres bugs they use layers of bugs to mark.WHen the killer finally confesses after being on the run the date and time,how do you explain the fact the time goes along with the layering in the earth of burying the body?

 

[james bond]

I found something for the Mestemias, gnostics and metises -- show and tell via Flickr -- http://tiny.cc/5r5qey .

 

[james bond]

That doesn't make sense. Layers in the ground do mark time, location makes no sense at all, any persona can see that layers are a time mark. Theres roof of that too you know. Ah yes I finally have something smart to say.I watch Investigation Discovery channel where they show how they process the time a person died. If theyre buried in the ground they use layers to mark the time they've been there, or sometimes of theres bugs they use layers of bugs to mark.WHen the killer finally confesses after being on the run the date and time,how do you explain the fact the time goes along with the layering in the earth of burying the body?

It depends on how the layers got into the ground. Experimentation shows that the top layers became the bottom layers, in other words stratification occurred top-down instead of bottom-up. The question is does not have to do with the fossil record, but how it got there.

The key point is the layers are based on location, not time. However, the rules were made to bring time into it.

As for time, it happened very fast versus it took millions and millions of years or billions of years.

The strafication experiment shows...

EDIT: The fossils in the ground is explained by the creatures that were there at the time they became buried and fossilized. It's based on local area, not time.

 

[McBell]

Wrong. Not a safety net, but the correct interpretation.

Wrong.
A safety net.

And a dishonest one at that.

 

[McBell]

I found something for the Mestemias, gnostics and metises -- show and tell via Flickr -- http://tiny.cc/5r5qey .

*yawn*

one wonders if your favoured god approves of your dishonesty?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do I have to stoop to the level of Mestemia to explain? You're much better than that.

You could just explain it ...


What kind of crack is that anyway? You say you may have to stoop to someone's level to answer my question but I'm much better than that? LOL

The key point is that the names of the layers do not have anything to do with time, but location.

Who cares about the names?


The layers are actually associated with time, as your own links indicate.

The second point is the geologists made the rules to bring time or stratification chronology in. In other words, they made the time period rules to fit ToE.

False. Geologists (who were Christians) designed the rules of stratigraphy.


http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD103.html

Evos explanation - Click to see how the layers formed.


http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/biostratigraphy.shtml

Had you read this link you provided you would have seen the parts that say:


“Smith, who had little formal education, traveled throughout England as a surveyor and spent six years supervising the digging of the Somerset Canal in southwestern England. Along the way he became well acquainted with the rocks through which he cut the canals. He was surprised to find that the fossils in the layers often were arranged in the same distinctive order from the bottom to the top of the rocks. And as he traveled across England, he discovered the same sequences of fossils in rock layers. Each type of animal, he realized, had a widespread existence for a particular span of time , a span that partially overlapped with that of other animals. That made it possible for Smith to recognize the order in which rocks had been formed throughout much of England.

…..

By the time Smith received the Wollaston Medal, his map had helped trigger a revolution in geology. Geologists used his methods to discover even older geological formations whose outcrops were scattered across England. Meanwhile on the continent, Georges Cuvier and Alexandre Brongniart used much the same method to decipher the rocks around Paris. It became inescapably clear to geologists that Earth and its life were far older than a few thousand years.

Their maps also allowed them to organize the history of life into a series of chapters, from the Cambrian with its bizarre invertebrates to the dinosaurs of the Jurassic to the mammals of more recent times. Life in each stage was a unique collection of species. Exactly how it had changed from one stage to the next was a matter of fierce debate. Adam Sedgwick, a geologist at Cambridge University, suggested that God somehow brought new forms of life into existence at the beginning of each geological age. Richard Owen, England’s leading anatomist at the time, argued that over time God created new species by modifying a basic anatomical idea, an “archetype.” Darwin, finally, recognized that fossils recorded the evolution and extinction of life, as natural selection and other natural factors changed species through time.”

Creation scientists explanation - Guy Berthault experiments

http://scienceandscientist.org/sedimentation.html

"To illustrate the timing and relationships between events that have taken place throughout the history of the globe geologists, paleontologists and other earth scientists use geologic time scale represented by rocks, which provides the system of chronologic measurements. Geological column is also known as the stratigraphical column and is the most commonly used representation for separation of geological time (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary). Uniformitarianism doctrine was first proposed by James Hutton in his “Theory of the Earth” in 1795 and developed further by Charles Lyell in “Principles of Geology,” first published in 1830. This doctrine explains that changes in the earth’s surface that took place in past geologic time are referable to the identical causes as changes now being produced upon the earth’s surface. Following this geologists believe that sediments are being laid down little by little now, so they must have for all time been laid down little by little. Hence certain thickness of sedimentary rock must symbolize millions of years of time. This representation of earth’s surface as “onion skin” with successive layers representing the events throughout the history of the globe was never substantiated with enough experimental or empirical evidences. The recent developments in the field providing the greatest challenge to this widely used primeval methodology. Present paper is a brief technical communication to help the researchers aware of the recent developments in geology and its implication on chronology of geologic column.”

You should read your own links.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It depends on how the layers got into the ground. Experimentation shows that the top layers became the bottom layers, in other words stratification occurred top-down instead of bottom-up. The question is does not have to do with the fossil record, but how it got there.

The key point is the layers are based on location, not time. However, the rules were made to bring time into it.

As for time, it happened very fast versus it took millions and millions of years or billions of years.

The strafication experiment shows...

EDIT: The fossils in the ground is explained by the creatures that were there at the time they became buried and fossilized. It's based on local area, not time.

Your own links contradict your statements.

 

[viole]

You're joking, right? In case you've forgotten, Barrack Obama has a Nobel Prize for doing absolutely nothing whereas Barbara McClintock, who discovered transposable genetic elements, had to wait more than 4 decades to get recognized.

And you think the Nobel Prize actually measures something?! Puleaze.

Whatever. But I like to think that an obvious defeater of relativity would be all over the place. Some relatively recent experiments involving neutrinos seemed, prima facie, to defeat relativity. It was even on the front page of all normal newspapers, before we realized it was an experimental error. So, why do I not see any trace of your claim that gravitational influence travels at a speed higher than light's? Another case of scientific conspiracy that was sleeping during that neutrinos experiment (for some reason)?

True. On the Internet you can find everything, By posting google links you could probably make a case for a flat earth, that crystals absorb negative karma, that homepathy is more than expensive placebo, that QM entails superluminal communication or a cosmic consciousness or other things of the sort. I hope you indulge me if I mark those things as crack pottery, by default.

But if you want to flter out things that might be important, I suggest you get some knowledge of the subject. The book Gravitation by Wheeler and co, is a nice introduction in the subject.

I'm not familiar with the word hironic. However, if winning the "Darwin Award" (whatever that is) is a factor, I can say that I have 6 kids so far from four different women, so I'm kicking Richard Dawkins' arse.

I am not sure what Dawkins has to do with it, but I might wrong. I think I heard him saying that further evolution of the human species is not necessarily related with intelligence. Not anymore. I would agree with him. A good football player has likely vastly more success and resources than the greatest physicist on earth. Maybe we will lose our arms, and get huge legs and a smaller brain, who knows?

But it is a good point. I am not sure whether people who already duplicated are eligible. I might drop an email to the committee and ask.

Again, this is covered by normative decision theory.

Decisions make sense when you have a set of alternatives to choose from. So, how do you know that the alternative "buggers feed on glucose" is better than "buggers are little evil spirits that can be eliminated with an exorcism", for instance? Has science nothing to do with it?

This is apropos of nothing. Studies indicate that the GMAT test has a .459 correlation with grad school success, a number superior to other factors such as undergraduate grades, which only clock in at .283. So you can pooh-pooh the test all you want, it is the test you need to take if you want to study Finance at Wharton or Marketing at Kellogg.

Marketing?

I always wondered whether throwing a coin, when faced with a difficult decision, has really a lower rate of success than decisions taken by the average over payed executive by other means.

This is more like arguing in favor of the test than arguing against it. Do you really think that executives will be faced with these problems in the real world without a calculator on hand to aid them in solving them? Of course not. So it isn't a math test or a test about memorizing times tables. The test is designed to measure mental flexibility and real-world problem solving. In fact, most math problems don't require you to solve them at all! Here's an example of a data sufficiency problem:

Q. A certain salesman's yearly income is determined by a base salary plus a commission on the sales he makes during the year. Did the salesman's base salary account for more than half of the salesman's yearly income last year?

(1) If the amount of the commission had been 30 percent higher, the salesman's income would have been 10 percent higher last year.

(2) The difference between the amount of the salesman's base salary and the amount of the commission was equal to 50 percent of the salesman's base salary last year.

A) Statement 1 is sufficient to answer the question whereas statement 2 is not sufficient.
B) Statement 2 is sufficient to answer the question whereas statement 1 is not sufficient.
C) Both statements together provide enough information but either statement separately is not sufficient.
D) Each statement is sufficient to answer the question.
E) Even with both statements, there are not enough data to answer the question.

You see, you don't need to answer the problem at all! You merely must know whether the data are sufficient to get an answer.

Yes, and those are ok. I have nothing aganst multiple choices in case of multiple inferences we can draw from a set of premises, for instance. I also ask often questions with multiple choices, usually two (yes/no). But if you ask me things like for which country Napoleon fought, then I think that multiple choices are dangerous, probably a mix would be better.

No, there is no need to write down any procedure. You can use common sense, gut feeling, actual calculations, or divine revelation. The only thing that matters is whether you answer correctly.

Which does not tell you much about the skills of the candidate, if the method to get the answers right is important to assess it.

By the way, what does the test says about event with probability one, or zero?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Given that ironic means: using words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning
I fail to see why that is ironic.

What I find ironic is that you pointed out my spelling error in your post while failing to spell correctly the name of your own President in the same post.

If the word "ironic" is not applicable, feel free to replace it with the proper one. The other alternatives I have in mind are not as charitable.

Ciao

- viole

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yet as already documented, I have a 100% reading comprehension score on several standardized tests whereas you have your balls in your hand and nothing more.

Good job on your standardized test scores!

Also, my balls are warm. It feels nice. There's nothing wrong with a little personal cupping.

All right. Let's go with this nonsense. Please lay out a logical argument that starts with the premise:

There is a process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.

And concludes with: Therefore, all humans must have originated in Africa.

Well, your required premise is a bit flawed because genotypic characteristics aren't physically expressed, and we are talking about phenotypes here, but whatever...

"There is a process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency and, therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate those genotypic qualities to succeeding generations..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/asian-research-projects/earliest-humans-china

"...Therefore, all humans must have originated in Africa."

A robot-voiced, anti-"liberal media", Youtube video does not qualify as falsification of the Out of Africa prediction.

Meiosis. Google it.

??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis

So your answer for why genetic variations exist among human populations is...sex?
That's certainly how it happens, yes. You're only halfway there, Bon Jovi.

What biological force decides which features are to be preferred in a given setting? Which overarching factor in the life of an organism determines its fitness to a given environment?
Why do we find dark-skinned populations permeating warmer climates and light-skinned cultures permeating cooler ones? Why do we find eye and nose variations among populations that live in extreme environments, compared to those that live in more moderate locales?

Is the answer to those questions simply "Meiosis. Look it up"?

With even the slightest understanding of Natural Selection, those questions are readily answered.
Sexual reproduction is the way in which information is passed on and varied, yes. But it doesn't answer why certain features become prominent within a population - Natural Selection does.

Okay. Lay out a logical argument that starts with "Mutations occur" and terminates in "Therefore, natural selection." This should be good.

Mutations occur...

Similar to meiosis, mutations are simply one way in which information is changed in both individuals and populations over time. The amount of benefit or hindrance that mutations play in the life of any organism is directly related to it's function in a given environment, assuming of course that it's represented phenotypically. Non-beneficial mutations can be negative or netural. If they are detrimental to survival, they have a limited chance of being passed on to offspring. Beneficial mutations seem to permeate among populations because they increase an organism's fitness respective to their environment. What is beneficial in one environment may not be beneficial in another. Organisms reproduce for survival, and they pass on their own genetic make-up to their offspring. In doing so, positive or beneficial mutations have a better chance of becoming part of the standard gene pool of subsequent generations, creating a new common variation among a specific population.

....Therefore, natural selection.

Uhm?! This claim is demonstrably false.

Our results were incredibly different

I find it amusing that whenever someone commits a logical fallacy, he or she invariably wants the other party to assent to it and respond with evidence.

You are challenging a widely accepted academic standard and what is essentially the basis for all of Biology. You're going to have to support your position with just a little more finesse than screaming
"Tracking by disjunction! Logical fallacy!"

So you like Raven's Paradox. Why didn't you make some sort of an answer to it, though? And why paste all of that unformatted junk into the article? Tell me -- do you agree that finding billions of grains of sand on the beach makes it more likely that Richard Dawkins doesn't exist?

The logical response to the supposed flaw of the Raven's paradox is written very clearly in the linked article. You asked for a Bayesian equation disputing it and I provided one, via the link.

No. Billions of grains of sand have nothing at all to do with Richard Dawkins. If you want to study Richard Dawkins, you should study Richard Dawkins and not sand.
The same is true of the ravens being black. If you want to study Ravens you should just study Ravens. The color shoes that your mother wore when she married your father have nothing at all to do with ravens.

They're not confirmations. You don't seem to get it. Here, try this on: My theory is "Jesus is God & computers run on electrcity." Does that mean that every time I turn on a computer, I am confirming Jesus' divinity? No. Why? Tacking by disjunction, that's why.

Here's one... If you wanted to support the idea of Jesus' divinty, how would you do it?

Remember not to track by disjunction.

You asked what preyed upon the birds in question. I answered you. If the birds in question were not so gaudy that they can be seen from low Earth orbit, do you think they might be consumed less frequently by predators? If so, why aren't they more drab? Or what about:

Or are you going to tell me that fish have no real predators? Have you ever watched the movie Jaws?

I mean, basically what you're saying is that if your theory is confirmed, then you're right whereas if your theory turns out to be a piece of shoot, then that means nothing.

Environment and Natural selection.

I wrote out a lengthy response to this, but I thought it might be easier to read a simpler explanation:
https://www.animalanswers.co.uk/animals/why-do-birds-migrate/

Why should I pick a definition of species given that there such a thing doesn't exist? Why don't you pick a definition of unicorn that we can work with?

We can use unicorn if you like - It wouldn't change anything. The point will remain that changes to populations occur, organisms adapt to their environment, and over the long-term whole populations evolve away from their parent populations becoming something else entirely. This happens anywhere along the taxonomic scale that you care to look.

You can call it a kind, you can call it a species, you can call it a family... It doesn't matter. It happens. It's observable. It's driven by a host of biological processes, all influenced by Natural Selection.

Now who's the one with poor reading comprehension skills? Did you not read that I said "no one can determine whether speciation occurs as no meaningful, universally-accepted definition of the word "species" exists."

Do you understand the difference between saying "It doesn't occur" and "No one can determine whether it occurs?"

Yes they can... Pick a starting point of what you want to call a species, I don't care what it is, and I'll show you evolution occurring via natural selection.

Sure. Electricity can kill people. Then you put someone in the electric chair and flip the switch. There's no tacking by disjunction involved in that.

How do you know it wasn't a change in the wood or metal of the chair? You're just tracking by disjunction! There's no way to be sure that it was the electricity that killed the person. Confirmations don't prove anything.

Your own link says:

"Mathematics is not a science, but there are grey areas at the fringes."

What was that you said about reading comprehension?

I'm glad you read the abstract. Read the rest of it.

I only partially agree with you. Yes, confirmations don't count, but no that has nothing to do with tacking by disjunction.

You wouldn't know - since you can only track by disjunction when testing predictions. Confirmations mean nothing.

 

[Riders]

Good job on your standardized test scores!

Also, my balls are warm. It feels nice. There's nothing wrong with a little personal cupping.



Well, your required premise is a bit flawed because genotypic characteristics aren't physically expressed, and we are talking about phenotypes here, but whatever...

"There is a process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency and, therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate those genotypic qualities to succeeding generations..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/asian-research-projects/earliest-humans-china

"...Therefore, all humans must have originated in Africa."

A robot-voiced, anti-"liberal media", Youtube video does not qualify as falsification of the Out of Africa prediction.


??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis

So your answer for why genetic variations exist among human populations is...sex?
That's certainly how it happens, yes. You're only halfway there, Bon Jovi.

What biological force decides which features are to be preferred in a given setting? Which overarching factor in the life of an organism determines its fitness to a given environment?
Why do we find dark-skinned populations permeating warmer climates and light-skinned cultures permeating cooler ones? Why do we find eye and nose variations among populations that live in extreme environments, compared to those that live in more moderate locales?

Is the answer to those questions simply "Meiosis. Look it up"?

With even the slightest understanding of Natural Selection, those questions are readily answered.
Sexual reproduction is the way in which information is passed on and varied, yes. But it doesn't answer why certain features become prominent within a population - Natural Selection does.



Mutations occur...

Similar to meiosis, mutations are simply one way in which information is changed in both individuals and populations over time. The amount of benefit or hindrance that mutations play in the life of any organism is directly related to it's function in a given environment, assuming of course that it's represented phenotypically. Non-beneficial mutations can be negative or netural. If they are detrimental to survival, they have a limited chance of being passed on to offspring. Beneficial mutations seem to permeate among populations because they increase an organism's fitness respective to their environment. What is beneficial in one environment may not be beneficial in another. Organisms reproduce for survival, and they pass on their own genetic make-up to their offspring. In doing so, positive or beneficial mutations have a better chance of becoming part of the standard gene pool of subsequent generations, creating a new common variation among a specific population.

....Therefore, natural selection.


Our results were incredibly different


You are challenging a widely accepted academic standard and what is essentially the basis for all of Biology. You're going to have to support your position with just a little more finesse than screaming
"Tracking by disjunction! Logical fallacy!"


The logical response to the supposed flaw of the Raven's paradox is written very clearly in the linked article. You asked for a Bayesian equation disputing it and I provided one, via the link.

No. Billions of grains of sand have nothing at all to do with Richard Dawkins. If you want to study Richard Dawkins, you should study Richard Dawkins and not sand.
The same is true of the ravens being black. If you want to study Ravens you should just study Ravens. The color shoes that your mother wore when she married your father have nothing at all to do with ravens.



Here's one... If you wanted to support the idea of Jesus' divinty, how would you do it?

Remember not to track by disjunction.



Environment and Natural selection.

I wrote out a lengthy response to this, but I thought it might be easier to read a simpler explanation:
https://www.animalanswers.co.uk/animals/why-do-birds-migrate/



We can use unicorn if you like - It wouldn't change anything. The point will remain that changes to populations occur, organisms adapt to their environment, and over the long-term whole populations evolve away from their parent populations becoming something else entirely. This happens anywhere along the taxonomic scale that you care to look.

You can call it a kind, you can call it a species, you can call it a family... It doesn't matter. It happens. It's observable. It's driven by a host of biological processes, all influenced by Natural Selection.



Yes they can... Pick a starting point of what you want to call a species, I don't care what it is, and I'll show you evolution occurring via natural selection.



How do you know it wasn't a change in the wood or metal of the chair? You're just tracking by disjunction! There's no way to be sure that it was the electricity that killed the person. Confirmations don't prove anything.


I'm glad you read the abstract. Read the rest of it.


You wouldn't know - since you can only track by disjunction when testing predictions. Confirmations mean nothing.

The form of cell division that creates gametes, or sex cells (eggs or sperm) is called meiosis. It is a special form of reproduction that results in four next-generation cells, rather than just two, from each cell


WHat does this have to do with creationism? I call it sex, or having babies. It doesn't mean anything if it wiki or the dictionary would apply it to creationism. Theres nothing there.

 

[Riders]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis Wikipedia links meiosis with natural selection and proof of evolution YIKES? Am I mixed up?I thought the person using that was creationist,maybe I'm confused?

 

[jonathan180iq]

The form of cell division that creates gametes, or sex cells (eggs or sperm) is called meiosis. It is a special form of reproduction that results in four next-generation cells, rather than just two, from each cell


WHat does this have to do with creationism? I call it sex, or having babies. It doesn't mean anything if it wiki or the dictionary would apply it to creationism. Theres nothing there.

Are you asking me a question?

 

[james bond]

That doesn't make sense. Layers in the ground do mark time, location makes no sense at all, any persona can see that layers are a time mark. Theres roof of that too you know. Ah yes I finally have something smart to say.I watch Investigation Discovery channel where they show how they process the time a person died. If theyre buried in the ground they use layers to mark the time they've been there, or sometimes of theres bugs they use layers of bugs to mark.WHen the killer finally confesses after being on the run the date and time,how do you explain the fact the time goes along with the layering in the earth of burying the body?

I agree with your statements. However, we are talking about two different situations -- a macro situation versus a micro one. The Discovery channel refers to a local situation which takes place in a limited amount of time. I'm assuming it was during one's lifetime, but it could be more. What's used in these situations to tell how old something organic is is a form of radiometric dating -- carbon dating or Carbon-14 dating.

Carbon-14 dating is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or artifacts made from anything that once lived. Unlike many other radiometric dating methods, carbon dating has been calibrated for historical periods and within that range can give reliable results. There are limitations to this form of dating, as with radiometric dating methods, because it requires certain assumptions that cannot be scientifically proved. These include the starting conditions, the constancy of the rate of decay, and that no material has left or entered the sample.

If a correct reading of how old some deceased remains can be read assuming the limitations above, then it can be concluded that what occurred was within a limited amount of time and that layers occurred the way you describe.

However, in the case of a body being buried in a catastrophic event such as with Mt. St. Helens volcano, then the layer it was found would be different and have its own case. For one, it was a catastrophic event, so it happened in a short period of time. The Mt. St. Helens volcano happened within our lifetime, so we know what time period it occurred. We may have problems taking a C14-reading because volcanoes would add excess C-14. If one looks at the kind of stratification or layers of molten lava and rock occurred, then we get a different picture.

The Mt. St. Helens volcano is regarded by people today as the most significant geologic event of the 20th century because of its extraordinary documentation and scientific study. It may not be the largest natural explosion during the 1900s, but we learned much from it.

To cut to chase and what we're talking about, it shows rapid formation of stratification, rapid erosion and rapid formation of fossil deposits, rapid formation of peat layer and catastrophism.

"Rapid Formation of Stratification

Figure 2. Deposits exposed by mudflow erosion on the North Fork of the Toutle River. The laminated and bedded pyroclastic flow deposit of June 12, 1980, is 25 feet thick in the middle of the cliff. That three-hour deposit is underlain by the pyroclastic flow deposit of May 18, 1980, and overlain by the mudflow deposit of March 19, 1982. (Photo by Steven A. Austin)

Up to 600 feet thickness of new strata have formed since 1980 at Mount St. Helens. These deposits accumulated from primary air blast, landslide, water wave on Spirit lake, pyroclastic flows, mudflows, air fall, and stream water...

Figure 2 shows 25 feet of the stratified deposit accumulated within three hours during the evening of June 12, 1980. It was deposited from pyroclastic flows generated by collapse of the eruption plume of debris over the volcano. The strata are very extensive and even contain thin laminae and crossbedding. Within the pyroclastic flow deposits are very thin laminae. It staggers the mind to think how the finest stratification has formed in an event of the violence of a hurricane. Coarse and fine sediment were separated into distinct strata by the catastrophic flow process from a slurry moving at freeway speed. Conventionally, sedimentary laminae and beds are assumed to represent longer seasonal variations—or annual changes—as the layers accumulated very slowly. That is the typical uniformitarian interpretation. Furthermore, our natural way of thinking about catastrophic sedimentary process is that it homogenizes materials depositing coarse and fine together without obvious stratification. Mount St. Helens teaches us that stratification does form very rapidly by flow processes."

"Rapid Erosion
What is exceptional at Mount St. Helens is the variety of new erosion features and their concentration within a limited and intensely studied area.
If we reason from our everyday experience concerning the way rivers and creeks erode, we might assume that great time periods are needed to form deep canyons. At Mount St. Helens, however, very rapid erosion has occurred since the 1980 eruptions. These erosion features challenge our way of thinking about how landscapes form. What is exceptional at Mount St. Helens is the variety of new erosion features and their concentration within a limited and intensely studied area."

"Rapid Formation of Fossil Deposits
One million logs floated on Spirit Lake on the late afternoon of May 18, 1980, after they were uprooted and washed into the basin by the 860-foot-high water waves. Careful observation of the floating conifer logs in the lake indicates that such logs show a strong tendency to float upright, best seen from the eastern shore of the lake (see “Logs” in figure 1). Many upright deposited logs possess roots attached to the log, but many have no root ball, and those without roots also show strong tendency to float upright. It appears that the root end of these logs is denser wood and perhaps floods with water more easily, allowing the root ends to sink before the top of the log. All six of the common conifer species were observed to float in an upright position.

Hundreds of upright, fully submerged logs were located by sidescan sonar, and scuba divers verified that they were indeed trunks of trees that the sonar detected. It was estimated that 20,000 upright stumps existed on the floor of the lake in August 1985. It would appear that about ten percent of the deposited logs were in an upright position. If Spirit Lake were drained, the bottom would look like a forest of trees. These, however, did not grow where they are now, but have been replanted"

"Rapid Formation of Peat Layer
The enormous log mat floating on Spirit Lake has lost its bark and branches by the abrasive action of wind and waves. Scuba investigations of the lake bottom showed that water-saturated sheets of conifer bark are especially abundant intermingled with volcanic sediment added from the lake shore, forming a layer of peat many inches thick. The peat shows coarse texture. The primary component is sheets of tree bark, which comprise about 25 percent, by volume, of the peat. Scuba divers recovered sheets of tree bark having lengths of greater than eight feet from the peat bed. Together with broken branch and root material, bark sheets impart the peat’s noteworthy coarse texture and dominantly layered appearance.

The “Spirit Lake peat” contrasts strongly with peats that have accumulated in swamps. Typical swamp peats are very finely macerated by organic degradation processes. They are “coffee grounds to mashed potatoes” in general texture. Furthermore, swamp peats possess a homogeneous appearance because of the intense penetration of roots which dominate swamps. Root material is the dominant coarse component of modern swamp peats while bark sheets are extremely rare"

...

"Conclusion
Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity to study transient geologic processes which, produced within a few months, changes what geologists might otherwise assume required many thousands of years. The volcano challenges our way of thinking about how the earth works, how it changes, and the time scale attached. These processes and their effects allow Mount St. Helens to serve as a miniature laboratory for catastrophism.

Mount St. Helens “speaks” directly to issues of our day. Catastrophism is documented as a viable theory of geologic change and may have far-reaching implications on other scientific disciplines and philosophical inquiries. Many scientists recognize that Darwin’s theory (which assumed slow evolutionary change) may be in error. Darwin built his theory of the evolution of living things on the notion that earth has slowly evolved. With catastrophism, we have tools to interpret the stratigraphic record including the geologic evidence of the Genesis Flood. Mount St. Helens “speaks” directly to issues of our day."

Next, Mt. St. Helens shows that stratification on the macro level occurs as with the experiment I posted a youtube on. The layers occur in a top down fashion where the top or younger levels to the bottom and the older levels end up on top. The reverse of what the evolution geologists claim.

"Sedimentation at Mt. St. Helens
On June 12, 1980 a 25 foot (7.6 m) thick stratified pyroclastic layer accumulated within a few hours below the Mt St Helens volcano (Washington, USA) as a result of pyroclastic flow deposits amassed from ground-hugging, fluidised, turbulent slurries of volcanic debris which moved at high velocities off the flank of the volcano when an eruption plume collapsed (see Figure 2). Close examination of this layer revealed that it consisted of thin laminae of fine and coarse pumice ash, usually alternating, and sometimes cross-bedded. That such a laminated deposit could form catastrophically has been confirmed by Berthault’s sedimentation experiments and applied to a creationist understanding of the Flood-deposition of thinly laminated shale strata of the Grand Canyon sequence."
http://creation.com/sedimentation-experiments-nature-finally-catches-up#r10

Figure 2: Fine layering was produced within hours at Mt St Helens on June 12, 1980 by hurricane velocity surging flows from the crater of the volcano. The 25-foot thick (7.6 m), June 12 deposit is exposed in the middle of the cliff. It is overlain by the massive, but thinner, March 19,1982 mudflow deposit, and is underlain by the air-fall debris from the last hours of the May 18, 1980, nine-hour eruption.

Sorry, this was long, but the experiments and actual evidence from Mt. St. Helens backs up the creation position versus that of evolutionist. Younger skeletons and remains can end up in the bottom and the older ones end up on top. Also, the trees are scattered going through the different layers as we witness from examining other stratified rock layers.

Polystrate fossils are fossils which occupy or span through more than one strata of rock. They are usually trees, and whole polystrate fossil forests have been found in various places. Rarely, they are fossilized bones. They are used by young Earth creationists as evidence against the uniformitarian timescale.