|
Author
|
Topic: Paleosols
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
"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?
Check out BB's last post. He makes a convincing argument for them being virtually the same deposit, or at least an identical setting.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
--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.
Okay, I'd agree with that in the absence of actual data.
quote:
"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 you really think I don't know any creationists?
quote:
"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.
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. 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. The we do this again. Twenty-six times in the same place. In one year. Oh, and according to TB (I think) this is all done with marine waters. And the ebbing flood surge that cannot overcome a mudflow dam, but travels at fantastic speeds across the earth.... And never mind the stupendous rates of sedimentation necessary to form the lacustrine deposits to support the trees (sediments that are barely present anyway)... 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)...
quote:
--[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.
Oh well, just a little detail, eh?
quote:
"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.
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.
quote:
"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.
Okay, we can just ignore Bill's point on this. That is very convenient for you, of course.
quote:
--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: (references snipped)
Okay, so explain how these are different.
quote:
"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".
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.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
"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.
What I mean is that in the absence of any contradictory evidence, I fully accept this.
quote:
"Do you really think I don't know any creationists? " --I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
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.
quote:
"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'.
Well, I think you were the one who referred us to Spirit Lake.
quote:
"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.
Well, good, then you can show this.
quote:
"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.
Then you haven't explained yourself. How do we get in-place forests on top of in-place forests?
quote:
"Oh, and according to TB (I think) this is all done with marine waters. " --Thats because TB hasn't read the literature.
Well, he seemed pretty self-assured.
quote:
"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...
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?
quote:
"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.
Okay, then, where are the ash fall tuffs that supported the trees. I do not see them in Coffin's photos.
quote:
"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.
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. I also see soil development in identical deposits of the same age nearby. I also hear about well-developed root systems from several sources. I do not see submarine(?) mudflow dams, though they could be there, I suppose. And I do not see geological environments turning over like this in the modern world. But most of all, I do not see how this just-so story could be interpreted to support a global flood. Not having been to the site puts me at something of a disadvantage, but I think I am fairly capable of interpreting the literature and photographs.
quote:
"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.
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.
quote:
And what is this about horizontation? Either Bill made a typo, or its a simple variation in the pedogenic literature.
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...
quote:
"--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.
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.
quote:
"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.
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?
quote:
"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.
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.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
"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.
Have you redefined prejudice to be always negative? I rather think of it as critical analysis.
[quote]"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.[quote]
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.
quote:
"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.
Please point these out in some photos, such as Coffin's.
quote:
"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:
This did not explain it. The question is how you plant numerous forsts on top of each other.
quote:
"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.
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.
quote:
"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.
Are there photographs? It seems that each upright tree should be primarily encased in ash fall material.
quote:
"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]?
Mudflows. And you are the one who suggested them to form lakes.
quote:
"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].
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.
quote:
"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.
No, you have to explain why they are called 'well-developed' but refuse to acknowledge the fact.
quote:
"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.
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.
quote:
"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.
Twenty some (or more) times?
quote:
"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.
I trust we will never hear the old "circular reasoning" argument from you. Maybe more later. However, I don't see you helping yourself here.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
"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.
Nonsense. I have been critical of creationists since I stopped being one. But then, you are the expert.
quote:
"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.
But the trees you talk about in the Lamar River Fm. aren't floating. You are losing touch with reality again.
quote:
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."
So, they were floating and then they sank. Why are we wasting time on this?
quote:
"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...
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.
quote:
"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.
Good. Now all you have to do is go out and show the mudflow dams in the field and the lacustrine sediments.
quote:
"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.
I thought that your surges were part of a global flood. Why the change of story?
quote:
--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?
Actually, I'd rather seem them in person.
quote:
udflows. 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?
Yuretich sees 26 mudflow dams? Please document this. Actually, I do see mudflows, but why are the trees in them if they formed the dams?
quote:
u 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.
Ah, so there ARE some trees with well developed root systems. Why do you suppose that is?
quote:
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.
And he said they were transported?
quote:
"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.
It would also mean that they saw evidence for a global flood. Could it be that they didn't?
quote:
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).
Then why don't they look like the surge depostis everywhere else? Why do the look like lake sediments and ash falls?
quote:
The surge also brought in the trees and plant litter. What should we see as evidence of the surge which we don't see?
See above. How about the beach deposits that the flood brought in everywhere else?
quote:
"Twenty some (or more) times? " --I don't think science has done enough observing to watch this occur twenty or so times anywhere.
Coffin himself counted up to 64 different levels.
quote:
"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.
I'll go over this later. However, I will accept that you do not agree with the 'circular reasoning' argument of most creationists.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
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.
I suppose we can also assume that mudflows entering a large body of water are also unlikely to form dams that would impress a substantial amount of water left behind by flood surge such as TC envisions. I was trying my hardest to imagine this occurring, and just coudn't quite buy it.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
Message 125 of 165 (32373)
02-16-2003 11:41 AM
|
|
|
[Bump] Any comments from TC or TB?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
From Bill B. :"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.?
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.
quote:
"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.
Then you'd better find sediments representative of such an environment.
quote:
" 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?
Hmm, when these were soils, I think you referred to them as too thin to be considered. At any rate, they are thin and discontinuous. Hardly the type that will support a tree in growth position.
quote:
"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." --???
That should probably be 'do not accumulate within lakes.'
quote:
"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;"? ...
Yes, 'some' tree roots. Do you have anything on thickness of those sediments?
quote:
Or do you simply misinterpret my model for exactly what the characteristics of this 'large lake' were?
Not important.
quote:
"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.
Then they would be density currents.
quote:
"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?
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 have seen no photos depicting such evidence. I imagine that they are describing rather limited deposits, that, once again are unlikely to support at tree.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
"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?
We don't. I was talking about the relative lack of lacustrine sediments which are a critical part of your model.
quote:
"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.
No. Please reread Bill B.'s post. You have missed the point entirely.
quote:
"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 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.
quote:
"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?
These are the sediments that you call upon to support your trees when the flood waters abate.
quote:
"Then they would be density currents." --Density current, turbidity, their synonymous.
Really!
quote:
"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.
Then how do you support your trees after they have been deposited by the flood surge and the water ebbs?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
"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.
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. But here is what you said:
quote:
"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."
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?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
"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.
This is not what you said earlier. Please respond to the point where I quoted your earlier statement.
quote:
"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.
Which sediments? Are you sauing that Yuretich and others agree with your model for transport and redeposition?
quote:
"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.
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.
quote:
"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.
Then what are they? How do you support your trees. At present, all we have is that they mysteriously became 'rooted' in the sediments. Do you have a modern example? (oh, of course not, you admitted this earlier). What exactly DO you have?
quote:
"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.
Oh dear, it's worse than I thought. You have not only a wrong idea of what happens during sedimentation, you have set the entire science back 50 years. This will not work. You could start explaining, however, by showing us some of these tuffaceous sandstones. Oh heck, I just realized that you don't even know what 'tuffaceous sandstones' are! What a waste of time this has been!
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
"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.
Correct, Yuretich does not say that anything supported the trees. It may be pure data, but you have applied an interpretation that no one else does. Please do not further associate yourself with respected geoscientists.
quote:
"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..
I hardly think it matters in your case. If the standing water were a lake, the sediments would be lacustrine.
quote:
While in all technicallity, yes they are lacustrine, ...
Well, we wouldn't want to be technical now, would we?
quote:
...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.
What? You make no sense at all. If the environment is determined to be lacustrine then the sediments that formed there would likewise be lacustrine. If you cannot come up with a better argument than these, you continue to waste our time.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
"Which sediments?" --The tuffaceous sandstones.
Now, show us these sediments in a photograph. Then support your argument that they support the trees.
quote:
"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,...
I'm afraid it is. If you do not even understand what a tuffaceous sandstone is, we are wasting our time.
quote:
... its whether you have studied the Lamar Ridge Formation.
I have studied the photographs that Coffin provided and I have read Bill's posts. I have also worked in proximal volcanic environments.
quote:
"Then what are they? How do you support your trees." --With...tuffaceous sandstones?
This is a great assertion, but you have yet to show us where these tuffaceous sandstones are and exactly how they would 'support' a tree.
quote:
"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.
You have shown nothing. You have not even shown us how much tuffaceous sandstone there is.
quote:
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..
My incredulity is based on something more concrete than a simple-minded understanding of geological processes and settings.
quote:
"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.
Yep, could'a. But tell us: what is the condition of those trees today... Tell us what would happen if the water escaped from Spirit Lake. Heck, they've been there 20 odd years, and you only have a year to do all this and a whole lot more in you model...
quote:
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?).
But no actual examples of trees being deposited and supported in the way that you suggest... Why not?
quote:
"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].
Perhaps when you explain how thin discontinuous sandstones will support a tree in a lake that has no known method of forming when flood surge ebbs away.
quote:
"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.
They are only futile because you cannot answer my questions. And they are only silly because I have to ask them in the first place. Besides, they are your assertions to support. Why should I do your research for you?
quote:
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.
Please see Bill's post regarding this. If the sandstones are so important, they should be readily apparent in some photography.
quote:
"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?
I believe you said something about 'tuffaceous inclusions.' You can go back and check. This makes no sense at all. It is also likely that the tuffaceous sandstones and the lacustrine sediments are one and the same. This all belies your lack of depth in this subject.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
... (snip) Figure 2 - Large stump at 90 to 94 m in measured section of Fritz (1980b). Roots are in tuffaceous sandstone (hammer), and trunk projects up through overlying conglomerate (background). (snip) ...
I am sorry that I do not have access to these photos. Perhaps you could describe them a little bit better. What is the thickness of these sands? What is their continuity? Are they lacustrine or fluvial deposits? I see nothing in the given descriptions that would lead me to believe that these sands could support trees. As you will notice I have never said that there are no sands, so simply showing that they exists is irrelevant. The point is whether such deposits are capable of maintainin trees in an upright position during and after flood 'surges.'
quote:
" have studied the photographs that Coffin provided and I have read Bill's posts. I have also worked in proximal volcanic environments." --Evidently this isn't enough, otherwise you wouldn't be asking many of your silly questions.
If you would answer them, I would have even less reason.
quote:
"This is a great assertion, but you have yet to show us where these tuffaceous sandstones are and exactly how they would 'support' a tree." From Fritz, 1980: (snip)
Very interesting, but still you have not answered my question. Nothing new or unexpected here.
quote:
--How wouldn't they support a tree?
LOL! Good answer!
quote:
And how exactly, in a mainstream model, would you compensate since we are dealing with the exact same environment, root structure, etc.
Compensate what?
quote:
"You have shown nothing. You have not even shown us how much tuffaceous sandstone there is. --Well you don't have to ask me, you could always take my suggestion and read the work of Fritz & Yuretich et al. why not just go give him another one of your e-mails?
I have read enough to understand the situation. Their descriptions are enough to refute your interpreation.
quote:
"My incredulity is based on something more concrete than a simple-minded understanding of geological processes and settings." --No, this is the problem, your incredulity takes place entirely in your mind. Do you have something concrete to base your incredulity on then? Rather than your subjective incredulity?
Not worth a reply.
quote:
"Yep, could'a. But tell us: what is the condition of those trees today... Tell us what would happen if the water escaped from Spirit Lake. Heck, they've been there 20 odd years, and you only have a year to do all this and a whole lot more in you model..." --While your giving me what if's, how's about you consider one of mine?
Normally, I would refuse to answer until you answered my question, but then this could go on forever. Okay, shoot!
quote:
What if spirit lake was much more shallow so that many of the trunks would almost drag on the bottom.
You mean this didn't happen at Spirit Lake? Come on! Find us an example!
quote:
While this occurs the tuffaceous sandstone is deposited by air-fall and having already been in the conglomerate of the surge.
Well, for one thing, the sandstones wouldn't be fluvial as the ones Fritz described. And remember that the trees actually moved around on top of Spirit Lake. It is unlikely that they would take hold in any location without being eventually toppled. On the other hand, we have seen in many locations trees that were innundated, in growth position by a rise in sea level. Why go out and dream up some wild notion of ideal conditions for a fantastic interpretation?
quote:
Water abates in many areas and conglomeratic mud flows occur to cover the apparently in situ fossil forest.
Just 'abates?' What happened to the catastrophic events? You only have a year to do this so many times, remember. This should be a dramatic breakout that erodes the soft sediment in which the trees are set and send the trees tumbling.
quote:
We would have something practically identical to what is seen in specimen ridge and could successfully predict by my model the occurrence of horizontal logs, lack of bark deposits, root structure, fluvial and lacustrine lithofacies, organic remains which exhibit lack of any decay.
Nope. There are large bark deposits in the bottom of Spirit Lake. And remember that some trees have 'well-developed' root structures, and at some locations, the soils are well horizonated. You need to explain these, also, not just your selected data.
quote:
All of which are more easily explained in my model as opposed to yours. I think this is considerably unequivocal.
Only if you ignore a lot of surrounding data. You have ignored the soils, you have ignored the well-developed root systems, the fluvial nature of the sands, the insufficient thickness of the sands, and the other inconsistencies between Spirit Lake and the fossilized forests. I know this is convenient for you, but that is not how we do science.
quote:
But no actual examples of trees being deposited and supported in the way that you suggest... Why not? " --Actually, there are, Bill has referenced some, and if you read up on the models which Fritz and Yuretich suggest, it is highly similar and the only aspects which seem to be different are those which I explain much easier(see above) and the fact that my source of water is from a surge. Other than that, they are rather identical. If we consider the assumption that the global flood possibly occurred in this fashion, that my model is more adapted to the evidence presented so far[which is a lot].
That is the problem. You have assumed that a global flood occurred and then selected some facts to support that. Hey, we haven't even discussed the rest of the geological record that you attribute to the flood. In fact, less than 1 % I would guess...
quote:
"Perhaps when you explain how thin discontinuous sandstones will support a tree in a lake that has no known method of forming when flood surge ebbs away." --I've explained this above. Now, if you don't mind, please give us your side of the story? What is your solution in a mainstream perspective? After all, we have exact same substrate to deal with.
Yes, but you omit a few facts. My interpretation is the same as the mainstream for the time being.
quote:
"They are only futile because you cannot answer my questions." --No, they are futile, because you only suffice your incredulity subsequent to my answers and solutions.
Then provide a theory that explains ALL of the facts. Besides, I base my incredulity on something more substantial than your models is based.
quote:
", they are your assertions to support. Why should I do your research for you?"
--I will support my assertions and you should support yours. The problem is that you initially assert that my scenario is not compatible with the evidence, and then you latter inquire on the structure and composition of various aspects of the Lamar river formation.
And?
quote:
--Please list for me what it is I must explain which is apparently still required for you to accept my model as scientifically plausible. What can't I explain in the Lamar River Formation?
This reminds me of the blind men and the elephant. You have taken a few factoids and turned them into a grand theory without looking at all of the data.
quote:
"Please see Bill's post regarding this. If the sandstones are so important, they should be readily apparent in some photography." --Of course they are important, they are the substrate in which virtually all the upright trees in the specimen ridge section are rooted and therefor are assumed to be their in situ growth position. They are very apparent and are highlighted in some photography.
Nonsense, they are fluvial sandstones. How did the trees manage to stand there as the stream filled in the sands around them?
quote:
"I believe you said something about 'tuffaceous inclusions.' You can go back and check. This makes no sense at all. It is also likely that the tuffaceous sandstones and the lacustrine sediments are one and the same. This all belies your lack of depth in this subject." --No, it don't believe it does, ...
Well, you are the resident expert...
quote:
...this is just a simple misinterpretation on your part which you've taken to the extreme, no problem, but it does get tedious when you do this repeatedly in attempts to bash my credibility in relevant geologic processes. The "tuffaceous inclusions" I referenced as being included in succession.
Then your misuse of terms belies your lack of expertise. An interbedded deposit is not an inclusion.
quote:
Earlier in this post I explained the characteristics of the tuffaceous sandstones themselves.
Sure, anyone could cut and paste a rock description. What you lack is an understanding that comes with years of study and field work. You unwittingly leave out important facts that would harm your position because you have wed yourself to the myth of a global flood. This is common among creationists, so don't feel all alone. [This message has been edited by edge, 02-20-2003]
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
--[1] - Considerably thick. To take one general example of the LRF, being composed of 30-40% tuffaceous sandstone & siltstone, in an 80 m section [as cited by Yuretich] there are 8 successions we can deduce that the tuffaceous sandstone strata are about 3-4 m thick.
Okay then provide a measured section. And remember that these trees are found over a score of levels and over many square miles.
quote:
--[2] - Fritz makes the assertion that most beds occur as lenses or interfinger with other rock types and can be traced laterally only 100m or less. I've already made it clear earlier that the successions are laterally discontinuous and are not in layered cake fashion[as well as Bill].
So, they are discontinuous.
quote:
--[4] - Well you better believe it, because even if they were two inches thick, that's what all of our sources say that the upright trees are rooted in, exclusively.
Yes they are rooted in it because they grew there. I seriously doubt that 2 inches of sediment would support trees at least 15 meters tall, especially under flood conditions.
quote:
"As you will notice I have never said that there are no sands, so simply showing that they exists is irrelevant. The point is whether such deposits are capable of maintainin trees in an upright position during and after flood 'surges.'" --If they are for you, they are for me. Why can't you see this?
Ummmmm, because I've never seen it happen???
quote:
"LOL! Good answer!" --I must have been over medicated to think it were a question.
Well, that would explain a lot of things better than dams that can't exist and trees being rooted in 2 inches of sediment.
quote:
"Compensate what?" --How would you explain away the fact that if trees topple in my model, they topple in yours.
Because they are growing in the volcaniclastic substrate. Just as we see trees doing today.
quote:
"I have read enough to understand the situation. Their descriptions are enough to refute your interpreation." --And what descriptions are those? You mean the ones you've never read? Oh ok, I see how it is.
As I said the descriptions I have heard from Yuretich, Coffin, Wehappy and Bill, are adequate to draw preliminary conclusions.
quote:
Originally posted by me:
--What if spirit lake was much more shallow so that many of the trunks would almost drag on the bottom. "You mean this didn't happen at Spirit Lake? Come on! Find us an example!" --Nope, because Spirit lake is a massive lake and is deep.
Hey, TC, you ever been in a real lake? Besides, Spirit Lake is small compared to an epicontinental sea. This is one reason why we have a hard time with drawing comparisons between it and the Cretaceous seaway, etc.
quote:
"Well, for one thing, the sandstones wouldn't be fluvial as the ones Fritz described. And remember that the trees actually moved around on top of Spirit Lake." --Keep in mind, Spirit lake is ten times the depth of what the specimen ridge one would have been. Yes they are fluvial.
Yes, generally, small braided streams are shallower than Spirit Lake is.
quote:
"It is unlikely that they would take hold in any location without being eventually toppled." --Why would they topple in a quiescent lacustrine environment?
Because of the fast-slow, wet-dry, catastrophic flood conditions that you (all) keep referring to...
quote:
"On the other hand, we have seen in many locations trees that were innundated, in growth position by a rise in sea level. Why go out and dream up some wild notion of ideal conditions for a fantastic interpretation?" --Its no more fantastic than models for the origin of the earth and the cosmos.
Non sequitur. Try to stay on topic.
quote:
"Just 'abates?' What happened to the catastrophic events? You only have a year to do this so many times, remember." --What's wrong? Not catastrophic enough for you?
Do you always answer questions with questions? No, this is not catastrophic enough. You have to do this at least 20 some times in just the Paleocene.
quote:
"Nope. There are large bark deposits in the bottom of Spirit Lake." --Thats right, so why don't we see them in the Lamar River formation? Anywhere?
Because of the climate and topography.
quote:
"And remember that some trees have 'well-developed' root structures, and at some locations, the soils are well horizonated. You need to explain these, also, not just your selected data. --These are the selected data, edge... I've explained all of these numerous times. The presence of well developed root structures in my model was explained here: (snip)
Another ad hoc theory to support previous ad hoc theories.
quote:
"Hey, we haven't even discussed the rest of the geological record that you attribute to the flood. In fact, less than 1 % I would guess..." --Yup, but I think I'll just take things one step at a time.
Yeah. Best to ignore all of that...
quote:
--So what is the mainstream interpretation? Do you even know?
In situ trees. (That is 'in situ' according to everyone else but, TC.)
quote:
"Then provide a theory that explains ALL of the facts." --I could have been over medicated here also to think that the scientific method involved misrepresentation.
Not again!
quote:
"Then your misuse of terms belies your lack of expertise. An interbedded deposit is not an inclusion." --Cut it out edge, this became tedious long ago. An inclusion is something included, the bed is included in the successions, hence the context of the word in my sentence. I was not using it in the context as it would be used in petrology.
Then you are compounding your error.
quote:
"You unwittingly leave out important facts that would harm your position because you have wed yourself to the myth of a global flood." --Please cite ONE [think before you type..]
Given in my previous post.
|
™ Version 4.2