Dr A refuses to connect with what Just Being Real means about about the burying of the polystrate trees and I doubt that if JBR had said it even as precisely as possible he'd respond more to the point anyway:
Again, why is this kind of exchange allowed? Dr. A. and all the other evolutionists must know what the creationist objection is even if the creationist doesn't have all his i's dotted and t's crossed in his description.JBR: No I totally get that you are saying the layers were laid down quickly, what I don't get is that they are sepperated by ...millions of years.Dr. A: No they aren't. This is why no-one ever ever ever said they were.JBR: That sir, I do not get at all.Dr. A: The fact that the scenario which you have made up in your head seems implausible even to you might serve as a hint that it is not the scenario asserted by geologists.
The trees penetrate through TWO OR MORE LAYERS, layers that are normally identified by geologists by time period names that are assigned to periods of millions of years EACH. If the lower layer is supposedly 300 million years old and the layer above it supposedly 200 million years old then we have a time elapse of 100 million years between the two layers that no tree could possibly have survived intact if exposed to the elements for any part of that time. The lower part of the tree would have been fossilized in the lower layer, but the upper part would have had to wait for the upper layer to be deposited. Even evolutionists should be startled if they find part of a fossil protruding out of its "time period" into another.
THIS is what you should be answering, Dr. A. Your flat-out denial is actually against the rules at EvC, and someone should slap your wrist.
RAZD did give what may be the preferred geological explanation, which I note in the post on this subject below, that the first layer completely covered the tree and fossilized it at that time. Then, after becoming stone I assume (which itself is impossible without the weight of higher layers), it was eroded down to its current level and the next layer was deposited on top of it. That would fit the usual thinking of geologists who invent erosion between strata where obviously there was no erosion of any recognizable sort that normally occurs on this planet, the evidence against such a conjecture being the nice neat horizontal interface between the two layers.
No answers yet to the polystrate trees challenge, just the usual impossible fantasy answers and the usual flat-out bullheaded denials.