Paleosols

"I have asked you to look at this thread before. It appears that you cannot trouble yourself so here is the link:http://EvC Forum: Undecayed Lake-Bed Vegetation Remains -->EvC Forum: Undecayed Lake-Bed Vegetation RemainsIf you need an interpreter, let me know."
--I don't remember you ever giving me a link to this thread and in searching the html of this thread I can't find it either. Anyways, I never doubted that this can happen or that it does happen. What you need to do is apply this to the Eocene successive forests for it to mean anything. There are no remnants of partially decayed specimens of any kind in the formation as far as I know. With so many different environments, transportation and similar factors, we should see this. It just isn't as simple as dropping a couple leaves in a lake and observing what happens.------------------

"I guess I have to explain everything to you. There is no correlation between areas and levels in the orientation of the horizontal logs. This is not what one would expect if they were deposited from a global flood surge as you suggest. Remember TB's 'continentally correlated, rapid paleocurrents'?"
--Fritz reported dominant orientations for logs in Amethyst Mountain and Cache creek. Even still though. Orientations of horizontal logs in my setting is more due to the direction of the mud flow at the L.R. Formation.

quote:

---

"He also points out tree trunks deposited from mudflows in an upright position without discussing the fact that all of the pictures of these trunks are from cut trees. In other words they have virtually no rotational inertia at all and would naturally try to land with the heavy root ball down."
--No kidding?

​

You: You obviously don't understand the implications. Think about it.

---

--I guess I don't, please educate me."More like skeptical. Why can he not give us the details? I would guess because he has an agenda. "
--I don't have coffins work (nor do I know exactly what work of his you cite), but I do know that Coffin has an abundance of citations on the subject. In my Yuretich & Fritz articles, they cite him 4 times. Despite your skepticism, it is just your guess."Well then, he needs to talk to Coffin since there are what Coffin calls 'organic zones' or something like that. He also states that the organic zones are up to 20 cm thick...."
--I didn't give you a full description. Fritz comments on organic zones as well, though I don't recall him giving them a characteristic of "20 cm thickness"

quote:

---

From Fritz, 1980:
These well preserved organic remains are common along specific horizons, in places associated with roots of vertical stumps; it has been suggested that these should be called paleosols. However, no A, B, or C horizons can be distinguished, and the zones are very thin, are well laminated, have no decayed organic debris, and in places are draped over large boulders. Remains of vertical trees in the conglomerate facies normally have no organic zone or weathering profile associated with the roots. The organic zones probably do not represent soils but rather are plant litter deposited by sheet wash, possibly during intense rainstorms associated with volcanic activity.

---

--He discusses the organic zones more briefly in other areas of the article, but this would be the most relevant."So you are saying that don't have an explanation for the lack of bark mats? Nice two-step, TC. But yes, actually, I have a good possibility based on my experience with pyroclastic flows. But I want to hear your just-so story first."
--No, actually I'm saying that you need one, because I have antecedent abrasion, you don't."I am skipping much of your posts. They are simply more of the fantastic stuff that you have given us before. But, if I miss any questions, you can repeat them in shorter posts."
--Some of it may not have been relevant on both our parts and we ended up trailing off into things, so I'm glad they are gone(if they are brought up again, I guess I'll just end up quoting myself), though I would like responses from some segments of post #99:

quote:

---

--You've said that the presence of 'soils' extinguished the veracity of my model before, so how do they?

---

quote:

---

--How about you present something which is diagnostic evidence for yours and against mine or something?

---

--^I'd like to see this.

quote:

---

--[2] - Right, root systems which are generally dwarfed in comparison to what should be observed (even though we do find occasional larger root systems, but this doesn't put aside the fact that we don't see this for the majority of the in situ trees). Again--hence the root ball appearance.

​

And:

​

If they didn't have a root ball appearance, they would extend much further from the stump. You need to explain the root ball appearance for in situ trees.

---

quote:

---

--Which resource have you located?[of Coffin]

---

--[edit] - I'd also like a response to post #98.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-02-2003]

"The diversity of plant communities
and environments argued by Young Earth creationists
is a false diversity that was created by earlier
conventional paleobontanists, in the past, and
continued by Young Earth creationists, in the present,
using hyper-uniformitarian assumptions that neither
the global climate of the Earth has nor
environmental preferences of the plants found
as fossils in Lamar River Formation have changed
over time."
--I'm not sure what your trying to counter here. I never presented the existence of multiple paleobotanical ecologies as a problem. I suggested that with this wide variety of ecologies, decomposition should occur in one or all of them.
--Fritz and Yuretich argue in their papers that they don't believe that the presence of these multiple ecologies should be interpreted as having resulted from changing climatic tolerances for the plants since the Eocene."Within the Lamar River Formation, there are only
two main plant communities. They are a tropical
/ paratropical semideciduous community and a
mixed coniferous community. The latter, like the
tropical / paratropical semideciduous community
has **no modern** analogue although it does
represent cooler and wetter environment than
the tropical / paratropical semideciduous
community. Although it might be something like a
cool temperate community, it is unlike anything
that is seem today and can easily be explained
as occupying the higher, and thus cooler and
wetter slopes of various adjacent volcanoes, from
which, the sediments of the Lamar River Formation
were derived. Changes in climate might even lower
the elevation of boundary between these communities
where the mixed coniferous community could have
ocassionally migrated downslope into and briefly
occupied areas within which parts of the Lamar
River Formation was accumulating. Since
increasingly cooler and wetter climate zones and
vegetational communities are typically found as
a person moves upslope on volcanic mountains, the
presence of fossils of the mixed coniferous
community in the Lamar River Formation is nothing
anomalous."
--True."Also, as the section title implies, in addition to
solid evidence of **Rooted** trees within the
Gallatin part of the Yellowstone petrified forest,
Amidon (1997) also provides solid proof of the
fact that these stumps are rooted in well-developed
paleosols. Amidon (1997) recognized these "fossil
soils on the presence of well-developed soil horizons,
well-developed soil structures on both microscope
and megascopic scale, and demostrated alteration
of clay and other minerals that can be best explained
by the long-term weathering of sediments within an
active soil associated with a stable subaerial,
terrestrially exposed surface.Also, Amibon (1997) measured the orientation of logs
in the Yellowstone Petrified Forests. His results
show that Coffin greatly understated and misjudged
the variability of the orientations of horizontal logs
that are found within the Lamar River Formation.
Looking at Amibon (1997), I would have to conclude
that Coffin did an very bad job of measuring a
representative sample of logs in the Lamar River
Formation and that Coffin's paleocurrent are very
likely almost useless in making any inference about
the origin of the Lamar River Formation. Judging
from Amibon (1997), I suspect that Coffin's Journal
of Paleontology paper, eventually with further
research, will be shown to be an example of how even
sloppy and inaccurate research is published in a
peer-review journal. At the least, Amibon (1997)
certainly proves that Coffin's tight cluster of paleocurrent directions for logs in the Lamar River Formation
simply doesn't exist except in the wishful thinking
of Young Earth creationists."
--I don't have Coffin's work, so I couldn't comment on that, though his Origins Publication is available online and I've read some of it. He gives a wide variation for orientations in the horizontal trees, and doesn't seem to try and explain them away but admits that there is indeed a wide variation in orientations.
--I am interested in the Amidon (1997) paper. How do the Gallatin Paleosols/Successive fossil forests reflect that seen at the Lamar River Formation?--[Edit] - You wouldn't happen to be able to send me a copy of Amidon's research would you? I have limited access to my local university library, assuming they even have a copy. Thanks.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-02-2003]

"An extensive root system? That isn't what we have heard from Coffin and others. I feel like I am getting snapshots of a much larger scene here."
--I don't think Coffin did his work on the Gallatin location?------------------

"I was referring to the deposition of logs by flood surges as per your scenario. If the paleocurrents are so consistent as TB (and you?) contend, why are the log orientations so divergent?"
--Because their orientations are may have very little to do with the direction of water flow, but of the conglomeratic flow. Especially for those which are entirely encased in conglomerate.

quote:

---

Orientations of horizontal logs in my setting is more due to the direction of the mud flow at the L.R. Formation.

---

"See my response to Bill B. It is not a blind guess. It is an educated guess. Coffin is subtlely trying to advance an agenda of flood deposition of the trees (excuse me, that's a 'global flood' just so you aren't confused). Heck, even I can figure that out."
--It may not be a blind guess and could be an 'educated guess' as you say it, though I don't know how you come to the conclusion or even a confident speculation from just reading one paper of his. Do I admit that it is possible he is just trying to 'advance his agenda'? Sure, but I don't know."Actually, your story is so convoluted, I'm not so sure.^[1] However, if there was time for soils to develop, your one year (global) flood is in serious trouble.^[2]"
--[1] - Please explain one aspect where my 'story' is so convoluted.
--[2] - Not necessarily, but yes, if I don't have enough time to produce that seen in supposed "paleosols", I have a problem. This just isn't seen in the Lamar River Formation."The presence of documented paleosoils in the Gallatins and the presence of trees in growth position. These militate against a flood surge model such as you have proposed. You model cannot accomodate these items."
--This was the same argument you gave in regards to specimen ridge earlier, and has turned to insignificance. I have no documented source for the Gallaten fossil forests so I, nor you, could discuss this yet. Until Bill Birkeland would be able to either tell me where I could get a copy of his citation or have him give me a copy somehow, I couldn't comment on that seen in Gallatin."All I an say is read some of the descriptions, including Amidon, and then explain the divergence of opinions to us."
--Apparently Amidon studied that seen in the Gallatin fossil forests, and no matter what is seen at the Gallatin forests it does not plead for your case in regards to that seen in the Lamar River formation locations I have been discussing."--Which resource have you located?[of Coffin]You: See my response to BB."
--Then I see where some of your misunderstandings may have came from, his 1997 origins article isn't one of his more relevant field studies such as:Coffin, H., 1976, Orientations of trees in the Yellowstone petrified forests: Journal of Paleontology, v.50 p. 539-5431979, The organic levels of the Yellowstone petrified forests: Origins, v. 6 p. 71-821979, The Yellowstone petrified forests: Sectrum, v. 9, p. 42-43.1983, Mount St. Helens and Spirit Lake: Origins, v. 10, p. 9-17."I'll look it up. Is it still relevant in light of new information presented here?"
--It is until and unless you find that there is no requirement for in situ growth of those trees seen in the Lamar River Formation and Specimen Ridge fossil "forests".-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-08-2003]

"Okay, I'd agree with that in the absence of actual data."
--Well you don't have to take my word for it, just to get the "actual data", because its what I am quoting verbatim."Do you really think I don't know any creationists? "
--I don't know what that is supposed to mean."Okay, so we've got these trees floating on a flood surge and somehow they sink into the floodwaters and deposit themselves in an upright position. They are undisturbed because the ebb surge is blocked by a lake-forming dam of debris flow. Oh, yeah, the bark and plant litter also sinks at the same time.
--I didn't say anything about 'sinking' for the trees, but yes, much of the plant litter mats 'sank'."Then lacustrine sedimentation fills in around the trees to hold them upright so when the flood waters finally ebb the trees remain upright. After that, we have another debris flow to cut off the tops of the upright trees and redeposit them as horizontal logs miraculously at the same level as the upright trees."
--How would this be 'miraculous'? According to this model, its definite that they would be deposited in the conglomeratic deposits above the sandstone."The we do this again.Twenty-six times in the same place."
--I've explained how the stratigraphy of the Lamar Ridge Formation are is not in layered cake fashion, so this is a bit of a straw-man."Oh, and according to TB (I think) this is all done with marine waters. "
--Thats because TB hasn't read the literature."And the ebbing flood surge that cannot overcome a mudflow dam, but travels at fantastic speeds across the earth...."
--It was a surge, not a tsunami..."And never mind the stupendous rates of sedimentation necessary to form the lacustrine deposits to support the trees (sediments that are barely present anyway)...
--So which one is it? It isn't just lacustrine sediments in the tuffaceous sandstone."Are you getting the idea yet? I'm sure if we fit this in with some of your other timetables, such as the cyclothems of the Paleozoic, it would get even more interesting (and convoluted)..."
--I think you are starting to get it. But the only thing you've presented in this whole segment is your incredulity, you need to give me objective inconsistencies, not your incredulity."You have been given a direct quote in which horizonation (not 'horizontation' as you originally posted) was described along with a classic soil description. Just another thing to ignore, I suppose."
--No, I never said I would ignore it, only that it isn't of great significance until I can get the field studies. And what is this about horizontation? Either Bill made a typo, or its a simple variation in the pedogenic literature."--Apparently Amidon studied that seen in the Gallatin fossil forests, and no matter what is seen at the Gallatin forests it does not plead for your case in regards to that seen in the Lamar River formation locations I have been discussing.You: Okay, we can just ignore Bill's point on this. That is very convenient for you, of course."
--This isn't what I said. Even if Gallatin fossil forests has something different, this doesn't plead for your case against in situ deposition for the Lamar Ridge Formation. Which you still have to address."Okay, so explain how these are different."
--You earlier made speculation regarding Coffin and his descriptions of the organic zones, the horizontation of specimen ridge, etc. You've stated that 'he overlooks a lot of other details', though most of those details are in his other works."As yet, I have no reason to doubt that there were in situ forests at Specimen Ridge. At least certainly not by any arguments you have made."
--So you've come to a conclusion regarding the root systems of the Lamar Ridge Formation? Please reproduce them here please.
Thanks
-------------------

"What I mean is that in the absence of any contradictory evidence, I fully accept this."
--Ok."It means I KNOW that creationists ALWAYS have an agenda of 'proving' their point. Sometimes they are relatively subtle as Coffin was in the cited paper, but agenda are always there. "
--*Sniff Sniff*.. I smell prejudice."Well, I think you were the one who referred us to Spirit Lake."
--No, Spirit Lake wasn't referenced in our discourse regarding Paleosols (mainly in this thread) until Post #63, interestingly by TB. I don't think I made reference or any sort of appeal to that seen at Spirit Lake in this thread even once."Well, good, then you can show this."
--Well lets see, you've got some tuffaceous sandstone with a few trees which were deposited in situ. Then we have a conglomeratic flow plowing through this setting. What we get is the conglomeratic flow above the sandstone and trees getting abraded, broken, and uprooted by this flow (depending on the location in the L. R. Formation). Simple superposition."Then you haven't explained yourself. How do we get in-place forests on top of in-place forests?"
--I explained this in post #98:

quote:

---

My model consists of a surge which transports trees and plant litter to the location. Mud flows, previously existing or during its transpire made a dam so a temporary lake would be formed. While the trees were in the lake, those which were upright would become rooted in the sediments below from deposition of tuffaceous sandstones and ash fall. During which time, evidence of the lacustrine environment would be seen in the sandstones and larger deposits of lacustrine mudstones. Subsequent conglomeratic flows would spread across the formation, flattening many trees proximal the vents(all, with the exception of a few small intervals in the Specimen Ridge section, fossilized horizontal logs are most abundant and make up 60% - 100% of the total). Any questions?

---

"Oh, I guess it was TB who had the rapid currents. Hey, you know what some creationists would say if two evolutionists disagree on various points, don't you?"
--Yes I do know, this is one of the biggest problems with today's Young Earth Creationists. A good example being gradual evolution & punc Equ. I don't think I tackle such disputes the way most of my fellow YEC's might."Okay, then, where are the ash fall tuffs that supported the trees. I do not see them in Coffin's photos."
--Coffin goes over some of this in the stratigraphy section of his 1997 origins paper."No. I do not see the types of volcaniclastic deposits that you call upon in your model. Especially not in 26 (or whatever) consecutive deposits."
--What are these volcaniclastic deposits that "I call upon in my model" which I don't have and need[according to you]?"I also see soil development in identical deposits of the same age nearby."
--Your going to have to explain the problem here, I thought we already went over this, the "paleosols" in the Lamar Ridge formation, arent paleosols and were deposited as is[in my model]."I also hear about well-developed root systems from several sources."
--We've gone over the insignificance of the phrase 'well developed' here plenty of times. In accordance with the works of Fritz & Yuretich(and Coffin, which you have) which I have been citing, as well as personal conversation with Yuretich, you have short root systems with a root ball appearance. These short root systems are in situ the tuffaceous sandstone and the supposed 'paleosols'. This is something which you require for explanation, not me."I do not see submarine(?) mudflow dams, though they could be there, I suppose."
--Yuretich [1984] has a model which is similar to mine when it comes to the buildup of a temporary lacustrine environment in response to the mud flows. The main difference here is that in his case, the fluvial network was dammed by these flows. Mine is still similar, though the source of the water was due to a local rise in sea level."And I do not see geological environments turning over like this in the modern world."
--We might, I don't recall any reference to one. Even so, if your speculation were true, neither one of our models could be considered plausible."But most of all, I do not see how this just-so story could be interpreted to support a global flood."
--Initially I actually never attempted to try and make it diagnostic evidence for a global flood, but I've found that it is pretty good evidence. It is supportive because it requires successive surges which could only occur in a global flood scenario. Since they seem to have all been transported before their in situ deposition, this supports my model for them being transported by successive surges."Oh, it is significant all right. It directly refutes most of your statements. You might just say that it is presently unknown to you, but certainly not insignificant."
--It is insignificant until we can actually view this data. I am not saying that the data itself isn't insignificant. True, if the Gallatin fossil forests hold characteristics which I cannot explain, my hypothesis isn't going to hold up as well as it would without it. I just can't verify this until I get a hold of the information. Apparently it is an 'unpublished thesis' so it would be more difficult to get ahold of it. I still want Bill to give me a hand there if he can."Horizonation makes more sense, since soils develop A, B, etc. 'horizons.' Horisontation makes little sense in this discussion, but it did throw me for a long time..."
--I used 'horizontation' as opposed to 'horizonation' because that is how it was used in my resources from Rettallack (Soils of the Past, 2002) and the text I read, Diagenesis III which I quoted once or twice early in this thread."Please read for comprehension. Bill made the argument that the two locations are practically adjacent, they are of the same age and they exhibit the same fossil features. The Formations may correlate exactly. If you are saying he is wrong that is fine, but come out and say it. "
--No I am not saying he is wrong. What I am saying is that that doesn't effect the question for whether the root systems of the Lamar Ridge section are indicative of transport antecedent the in situ deposition (as opposed to in place growth)."Like the fact that all of his vertical tree trunks on the mud flow happen to be sawn trunks? Does he point this out? Does he show who most trees transported by mudflows end up laying flat?"
--I only have one of his articles and that is the one which you have. I wouldn't be able to argue much on this without them."Yes. From the descriptions that Coffin glossed over, and the evidence posed by Amidon (from Bill), I conclude that there likely were locally well-developed soil profiles with in situ trees with well-developed root systems growing in them. Anomalies in this situation are related to the proximal volcanic depositional environment.
"
--Funny. You haven't even read Amidon. And I'm not just talking about that seen in Gallatin, I'm talking about those root systems seen in the Lamar Ridge formation.
--So, were those trees in the Lamar Ridge formation deposited in situ? Or did they grow in situ If they grew there, please explain the short root systems. If you concur they were deposited there, I applaud, and we can then conclude that those successive forests seen in the Specimen Ridge, Amethyst Mountain, Mount Norris, Mount Hornaday and Cache Creek Lamar formations could plausibly have been deposited in the model which I have proposed. Then we can move on to another subject (eg. Gallatin).------------------

"Have you redefined prejudice to be always negative? I rather think of it as critical analysis. "
--The problem here, is that there was no critical analysis, hence the prejudice."Well, then you need to elaborate how the trees were deposited in an upright position. I thought the Spirit Lake model was a panacea for creationists."
--I wouldn't call it a 'spirit lake model', probably the only thing I would apply as an observation from spirit lake is that trees are in upright position while floating in water. Since this occurs I would apply this to my assertion: "Mud flows, previously existing or during its transpire made a dam so a temporary lake would be formed. While the trees were in the lake, those which were upright would become rooted in the sediments below from deposition of tuffaceous sandstones and ash fall.""Please point these out in some photos, such as Coffin's."
--What relevance would this be? From what I see of Coffins 97' Origins article, some of his images clearly show the deposits in which the in situ trees are rooted:Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that..."This did not explain it. The question is how you plant numerous forsts on top of each other."
--You get more than one surge and/or conglomeratic flow at different intervals of time."You show uncommon insight here. Now show us the same insight as to formation of numerous superimposed forests by sequential lakes formed by fortuitous mudflows."
--The mudflows may not have been fortuitous, being caused by local volcanic disturbances. This may be likewise for the surges."Are there photographs? It seems that each upright tree should be primarily encased in ash fall material. "
--Not only ash all material, their upper parts are encased in conglomerate for obvious and discussed reasons. They are rooted in a variety of substances. Lacustrine mudstone, tuffaceous sandstone, mixes of the two, sandstones with ash fall and fluvial remnants. Why do you need photographs? Why not just data?"Mudflows. And you are the one who suggested them to form lakes."
--Yes, me, Yuretich and Fritz. So now, why don't you see the 'types' of conglomeratic deposits that I should be seeing? Better yet, what do you see?"No, it is just that the soils are better preserved in the Gallatins. Probably this is a function of poorly developed entisols and better developed soils farther north."
--Possibly, I just don't have the relevant data for the Gallatins."No, you have to explain why they are called 'well-developed' but refuse to acknowledge the fact."
--Because there are some trees existing there which have "good root systems", the majority of them don't and those which are in situ are of concern. I have talked with Yuretich and inquired upon the characteristics of the root systems which he describes as being generally well preserved, extending a short ways from the trunk, and curling in on themselves a lot. They do not exhibit the large bracing roots which should be there."Everyone has that model these days. The point is that noone has it damming a flood surge for which there is no evidence in the first place. Tell us which deposits at Specimen Ridge are the flood deposits. You have left out this little detail."
--Of course they don't have a flood surge, because if they did, they'd be accepting the Global Flood model for the deposition of the GC. I haven't left out this detail. The lacustrine deposits and sandstone are the main result of the surge and what it brought in (in regards to sediments). The surge also brought in the trees and plant litter. What should we see as evidence of the surge which we don't see?"Twenty some (or more) times? "
--I don't think science has done enough observing to watch this occur twenty or so times anywhere."I trust we will never hear the old "circular reasoning" argument from you."
--There is a difference between 'circular reasoning' and the concept of indirect evidence.-------------------

--Sorry for the absence, I've been busy also with various things but don't intend on ignoring this thread."If a person takes the time to look at the graphic
descriptions and discussions in Fritz (1980, 1982),
the volume of either lake or actually air-fall ash
deposits within the Specimen Ridge, Specimen Creek,
Gallatin, and other sections are extremely small
to almost nonexistent. The vast majority of the
sediments consists of debris flow or reworked water
laid sediments, in many cases likely related to the
run-off of water from debris flows as well documented
at Mt. St Helens and many other volcanoes. Also, in
places, a person can find strata that have all of the
characteristics of fluvial deposits. Mr True Creation
and others greatly overestimate the abundance of any
possible fine-grained lacustrine and primary air-
fall ash deposits within the Lamar River Formation."
--I don't dispute these observations. How do I overestimate them? I only pointed them out because they are remnants which shouldn't be overlooked when explaining the origin of the Lamar River formation. I wasn't attempting to say that the ash-fall or the lacustrine sediments were the primary constituent which held the trees upright. I don't have either of your Fritz sources, though I have one where he talks about this very thing:Fritz, W. J., 1980, Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone "fossil forests". Geology, v. 8, p. 309-313Fritz, W. J. & Yuretich, R. F., 1981, Comment and Reply on 'Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone "fossil forests"' and 'Stumps transported and deposited upright by Mount St. Helens mud flows'Fritz, W. J. & Yuretich, R. F., 1984, Comment and Reply on "Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place". Geology"If there were massive lakes being formed, a person
should find some evidence of their deposits. There
is simply absolutely **no** evidence for the
existence of any large lakes postulated by True
Creation."
--What do you mean? Yuretich and Fritz have both cited evidences for the existence of brief lacustrine paleoenvironments in Lamar R.?"This is also a problem because the Spirit Lake model
only works for deposition in a large, quiet lake."
--I do postulate that the depositional environment was quiescent." In such a lake, the sediments surrounding the upright
trees should consist of fine-grained and possibly, in
places, organic rich sediments, that are virtually
absent from the Lamar River Formation."
--What about the organic zones which are exhibited superposing the root zones of in situ trees?"The sediments that surround the upright trees in the Lamar River
Formation consist not of fine-grained lake deposits,
but rather matrix and clast supported conglomerates
that accumulate within lakes."
--???"Volcanic mudflows and debris flows (lahars) are a very
typical feature of stratovolcanoes, as they are composed
of both poorly lithified and volcanics that are often
highly altered to clay. In case of such volcanic
material, all it takes for a major mudflow / debris
flow / lahar to form is either a minor eruption that
melts an ice or snow field formed on the summit of the
volcano or just an unusually heavy rain. This is all
document in the literature concerning volcanic
harzards. It is completely unnecessary to postulate
the existence of large lakes to explain any of these
deposits."
--Am I at the fault of misunderstanding and must be made aware of findings which contradict those of Fritz, Retallack, and Yuretich in regards to the formation of lakes which Yuretich describes: "destruction of trees by rising water from dammed rivers; this would explain the lake sediments that are present around some tree roots;"? Or do you simply misinterpret my model for exactly what the characteristics of this 'large lake' were?"1. The beds within the Lamar River Formation are
laterally discontinuous, as would be expected of
terrestrial lahar deposits and is quite atypical of
underwater mudflows and turbidity currents. (Because
of the laterally discontinuous nature of individual
beds in the Lamar River Formation, there are no real
continuous buried forest beds that can be traced outside
of any one outcrop. The number of buried forests will
vary from place to place. There is neither stratigraphic
nor chronologic lateral continuity of any one bed or
buried forest within the Lamar River Formation. The
individual events that buried forests covered over a
relatively limited area within the extent of the Lamar
River Formation. Thus, we are talking about very
localized events, on the scale of terrestrial debris
flows, that can't be correlated outside of individual
outcrops."
--Yes I referenced the fact that these "fossil forests" are not in layered cake fashion. I am at a loss as to where this is problematic to my model, however. Unless you are speaking into regards to what would be expected had these conglomeratic flows occurred in a submarine environment, resulting in a turbidity current. I will explain in my next comment how I agree with this as either being problematic with my former model as a whole and would be suggestive for modification."2. In an underwater environment, unlike terrestrial,
environments, mass flows quickly entrains water into
them and rapidly develop from matrix supported flows,
such as mudflows, into turbidity currents, which create
very distinctive sedimentary structures, e.g. the Bouma
sequence (Lowe 1976, 1979, 1982). If the Lamar River
Formation was deposited underwater as Coffin and Austin
advocate, there should be direct evidence of the deposits
of turbidty currents within the Lamar River Formation.For examples of Bouma Sequences, a person can go to:http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/GEOLOCN_/8_image/8bouma.gif Geological Sciences - Department Geological Sciences - Arts and Science - University of Saskatchewan
Geological Sciences - Department Geological Sciences - Arts and Science - University of Saskatchewan Page not found | Penn State Department of GeosciencesIn the last web page, note that matrix supported muddy
gravels are restricted to the deposits nearest the
source and often to well defined channels, which simply
are not seen in the Lamar River Formation.The fact of the matter is that the sediments of the Lamar
River Formation lack Bouma sequences and are identical
in the types of sedimentary deposits and structures to what
can be found in sedimentary aprons surrounding modern
stratovolcanoes."
--I think I must fully agree with this as a potential falsification for my earlier notion that the mud flows may have occurred not only terrestrially, but in submarine environments. From your information, it seems that they generally could not have occurred in a submarine environment."3. There are a couple lava beds within the Lamar River
formation. They lack any indication, e.g. hyrdoclastics
and pillow lava, that they were extruded underwater. The
lava flows found within and laterally equivalent to the
Lamar river Formation also lacks any indication of being
extruded underwater and quite clearly were all erupted
This by itself largely refutes a global flood origin for
the Lamar River Formation as suggested by Coffin and
Austin. It is impossible for any of these lava flows to
have been erupted underwater without producing both
hydroclastics and pillow lavas."
--I concur."Anyone who takes a hard look at the character of the
sedimentary deposits of the Lamar River Formation
quickly finds a complete lack of any sedimentological
evidence that they were deposited underwater, as in a
global flood, and perfectly explainable as debris
flows coming off of local volcanoes. Also, a person
needs to understand that debris flows may or may not
be associated with a volcanic eruption. Imaginary
large lakes are unneeded to explain the creation of
the deposits within the Lamar River Formation."
--Then why do Yuretich & Fritz, et al. endorse lacustrines in their paleoenvironments to explain that seen in the Lamar River Formation? Was this imaginary to them also?-------------------

"But the trees you talk about in the Lamar River Fm. aren't floating. You are losing touch with reality again."
--They were before in situ deposition."So, they were floating and then they sank. Why are we wasting time on this?"
--Your the one who told me that I "need to elaborate how the trees were deposited in an upright position.""The first two of these are not conclusively air fall tuffs. The last has no scale or any relationship to trees or roots. Sorry, still don't see it, though it could just be a function of the photos not being conclusive. I'll concede this point for now, but when I go out there next summer, I can tell better. Those hardly look like true ash falls."
--The ash fall is a constituent material in the sandstone, there generally are not exclusively ash fall strata. I never said there were either so why are you looking for them?
--Fritz mentions one exception, A prominent white 2-m-thick welded ash-flow tuff or ignimbrite is near the top of the section measured on Cache Creek, even still though, I don't see this as relevant."Good. Now all you have to do is go out and show the mudflow dams in the field and the lacustrine sediments."
--Get the Yuretich & Fritz sources I have been citing, they make multiple reference to these and take them into consideration when formulating their models."I thought that your surges were part of a global flood. Why the change of story?"
--I never said that they weren't part of a global flood."Actually, I'd rather seem them in person."
--I think the data is detailed enough to be sufficient here."Yuretich sees 26 mudflow dams?
--No, I as well as Bill now, explained the non-layer-cake fashion for the successions."Actually, I do see mudflows, but why are the trees in them if they formed the dams?
--See [Yuretich March 1984, p. 162] they weren't in layered cake fashion and the mud flows originated from different locations relative to the proximal vents. Mud flows formed dams on top of tuffaceous sandstones in which some of the trees were rooted. some of these same mud flows formed dams."Ah, so there ARE some trees with well developed root systems. Why do you suppose that is?"
--Because they werent subject to as much abrasion as other trees, possibly due to less transport time-frames or other factors. The problem here is that you still have to explain the origin of those trees which are in situ and have 'root balls' for root systems. Yuretich, via personal conversation, described them as curling in on themselves a lot as well as being exceedingly short."And he said they were transported?"
--No, if he did it would be difficult for him to explain it in a mainstream perspective."It would also mean that they saw evidence for a global flood. Could it be that they didn't?"
--No, this wouldn't be the case, because then, he'd have to risk being named scientifically incompetent because of all the rest of the evidence against the global flood scenario. Just because you have 'a' evidence for a global flood event doesn't mean that it is diagnostic for its occurrence and doesn't mean that the rest of the evidence in opposition is rendered futile."Then why don't they look like the surge depostis everywhere else? Why do the look like lake sediments and ash falls?"
--Because of the topography, resources and other factors. What do you think they should look like, and why?"See above. How about the beach deposits that the flood brought in everywhere else?
--What do they look like, and why would we observe the same deposits hundreds of miles inland?"Twenty some (or more) times? "
--I don't think science has done enough observing to watch this occur twenty or so times anywhere.You: Coffin himself counted up to 64 different levels."
--Did he? Where? And does this lend any credibility to your incredulity?"I'll go over this later. However, I will accept that you do not agree with the 'circular reasoning' argument of most creationists."
--ok, but what more is there to go over?------------------

"Emphasis here on the 'brief'. There are evidently few and thin lacustrine deposits. This is what I was trying to tell you earlier. None show up in Coffin's photos.
--I don't endorse coffin's model for their origin, so why do we keep tumbling over this?"Then you'd better find sediments representative of such an environment."
--The sediments do not show any predominant current activity, hence, the depositional environment was relatively quiescent."Hmm, when these were soils, I think you referred to them as too thin to be considered.[1] At any rate, they are thin and discontinuous. Hardly the type that will support a tree in growth position.^[2]"
--[1] - No I don't believe I did.
--[2] - And yet we find trees in situ these sediments? What are you trying to argue?"That should probably be 'do not accumulate within lakes.' "
--I would guess, but I'll wait for his comment."Yes, 'some' tree roots. Do you have anything on thickness of those sediments?"
--No, I don't think have anything on thickness, why do you feel it would be relevant?"Not important."
--It is if he has the misconception that I am endorsing the model of Coffin."Then they would be density currents."
--Density current, turbidity, their synonymous."TC, not all lacustrine deposition creates significant deposits. If you think that there are significant amounts of lacustrine deposits, then you should provide some evidence."
--I never argued that there were 'significant amounts of lacustrine deposits', only that there are lacustrine deposits."I imagine that they are describing rather limited deposits, that, once again are unlikely to support at tree. "
--I, nor is Yuretich et al. arguing that the lacustrine deposits are generally the independent supporters for the upright trees.-------------------

"We don't. I was talking about the relative lack of lacustrine sediments which are a critical part of your model."
--With the exception of some lacustrine mudstones, they are only useful to describe the setting, not the means for supporting upright trees."No. Please reread Bill B.'s post. You have missed the point entirely."
--Have I? Because I find nothing in Bill B.'s post which is detrimental to my model, and unless you disagree with the observations of Rettalack, Fritz, and Yuretich, my comment, "The sediments do not show any predominant current activity, hence, the depositional environment was relatively quiescent." is not false."That the grew on top of the mudflow deposits! Sheesh. This is not uncommon as Wehappy has tried to tell you in his earlier posts which you appear to have ignored or forgotten."
--No, they didn't grow in the mudflow deposits, they were encased in them. What Wehappy said earlier doesn't contradict this."These are the sediments that you call upon to support your trees when the flood waters abate."
--No, you keep giving me straw-men. I don't call exclusively for lacustrine sediments to support the trees in upright position in most relevant cases. I call for tuffaceous sandstones."Really!"
--Yup."Then how do you support your trees after they have been deposited by the flood surge and the water ebbs?"
--Again the lacustrine deposits are generally not the exclusive sediments which I require to have upright trees. The most relevant sediments are the tuffaceous sandstones in which the trees are rooted. The sandstones are brought in with the surge and the tuffaceous inclusions and more sandstones are deposited due to runoff.------------------

"I, nor is Yuretich et al. arguing that the lacustrine deposits are generally the independent supporters for the upright trees.Of course Yuretich isn't. He says that they grew there. I didn't think you could get any sillier about this, but imputing that Yuretich somehow agrees with you is absolutely delusional."
--What the heck are you talking about? I said nothing about their origin here, I said that what they are rooted in isn't exclusively lacustrine deposited.... where are you getting this stuff about any of this being silly? Its pure data, you don't really even need to interpret this."Now, in case you didn't know it, sediments deposited in standing water would constitute lake sediments. Or are you going to redefine 'sediment' of some such nonsense now?"
--Come on edge, use your brain, I know that if you are a geologist you can think like one. Just because sediments have been dumped through water, doesn't constitute them as being lacustrine.. While in all technicallity, yes they are lacustrine, but this is only because of the interpretation of their origin, not because they are independently diagnostic of a lacustrine deposition. Nothing is incorrect in your quote of me.-------------------

"This is not what you said earlier. Please respond to the point where I quoted your earlier statement."
--This is what I have been saying for a month now, and I have responded to your quote."Which sediments?"
--The tuffaceous sandstones."Are you sauing that Yuretich and others agree with your model for transport and redeposition? "
--Nope, never did."Umm, then what are all those trees doing in the forest that people were walking through in the pictures? If you ever studied any geology you would have undestood this."
--No, it whether I have studied geology isn't the question, its whether you have studied the Lamar Ridge Formation."Then what are they? How do you support your trees."
--With...tuffaceous sandstones?"How do you support your trees. At present, all we have is that they mysteriously became 'rooted' in the sediments."
--We have much more than this. And you still have yet to reason why your incredulity has any credibility in regards to my depositional model, unless you have something more than your incredulity you would like to unveil.."Do you have a modern example? (oh, of course not, you admitted this earlier). What exactly DO you have?"
--Not an exactly analogous example, no. Though different aspects of the model, yes there are modern analogs. Bill has cited some for the condition of the trees after they have been deposited upright. Mt. St. Helens is an analog for how the trees could have had the potential to be deposited upright. And more examples for other aspects of the model. Just put it all together and it makes sense (I know you don't think so, so why doesn't it? what is missing?)."Oh dear, it's worse than I thought. You have not only a wrong idea of what happens during sedimentation^[1], you have set the entire science back 50 years.^[1]"
--Explain [1] and [2]."This will not work. You could start explaining, however, by showing us some of these tuffaceous sandstones."
--lol. Ok, this is getting tedious, go get some relevant resources and stop asking me this silly questions and futile inquiries. Tuffaceous sandstones are one of the prime constituents of the Lamar Ridge & Specimen ridge, et al. paleoformations. Not only that but almost every upright tree is rooted in these grain-supported strata."Oh heck, I just realized that you don't even know what 'tuffaceous sandstones' are! What a waste of time this has been!"
--I don't? What have I said they were and how is that incorrect?------------------

"Correct, Yuretich does not say that anything supported the trees."
--Yes he does. He says that what it is rooted in is what supported them. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that."It may be pure data, but you have applied an interpretation that no one else does."
--There is a reason for that, I don't need to itterate it again."Please do not further associate yourself with respected geoscientists."
--Associate????"I hardly think it matters in your case. If the standing water were a lake, the sediments would be lacustrine."
--I'll refer them to as lacustrine from now on, now that I know (at least I hope) you won't misinterpret what sediments I am referring to when I refer to them merely as lacustrine."If you cannot come up with a better argument than these, you continue to waste our time.
--This wasn't an 'argument'.------------------