Paleosols

quote:

---

--Yuretich nor has Fritz cited any one measured section[obviously its irrelevant, and that which is relevant is obvious when they describe the condition of the trees and their rooting in them].

---

Yes irrelevant to what they were reporting. Not irrelevant to what you want to prove.

quote:

---

Though Figure 5 of Fritz, July 1980 as explained in my last post shows the matrix-supported mud-flow conglomerate on the lower part of the cliff and grain-supported braided stream conglomerate on upper part. The superposing conglomerate is clearly at least 3 or 4 m thick.

---

And you lacustrine sediments?

quote:

---

"Ummmmm, because I've never seen it happen???"
--What are you talking about?

---

Observable phenomena.

quote:

---

"Well, that would explain a lot of things better than dams that can't exist and trees being rooted in 2 inches of sediment. "

​

--dams that can't exist? You need to talk to Yuretich... or actually go read his work [or fritz] because you don't know the mainstream model.

---

Not his dams. Yours.

quote:

---

"Because they are growing in the volcaniclastic substrate. Just as we see trees doing today. "

​

--But your trying to tell me that they probably aren't thick enough to support the trees. Yuretich and Fritz both put great emphasis on the fact that the roots are rooted in the tuffaceous sandstone esclusively.

---

This is not what Coffin's pictures show.

quote:

---

"As I said the descriptions I have heard from Yuretich, Coffin, Wehappy and Bill, are adequate to draw preliminary conclusions. "

​

--Not even, you've made it indicative that you don't know the mainstream model, why must you be persistent in trying to sidestep this fact and work with the highly inadequate information you already have?

---

The relevant part of the mainstream model is that the trees are in growth position. This is what you need to disprove.

quote:

---

"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."

​

--This is an irrelevant comparison.

---

Just as I said.

quote:

---

The fact of the mater is that Spirit lake is much larger and deeper than that which would be present at the Lamar Ridge formation.

​

e (from previous): "Yes, generally, small braided streams are shallower than Spirit Lake is."

​

--Point being?

---

That there are actually few lake beds.

quote:

---

"Because of the fast-slow, wet-dry, catastrophic flood conditions that you (all) keep referring to..."

​

--Yes there are, the problem you have is that you don't want to look at it in a systematic approach, you just look at it as one big story...

---

Well, that's the way it is usually done.

quote:

---

... which you regurgitate worse than those poor YEC's you deal with constantly which misrepresent evolutionary theory on such a gross degree. I am beginning to believe that the age of your 'expertise' is showing.

---

(not worth a response)

quote:

---

--All this assertion is is another exhibition of your incredulity.

---

Yes. I am incredulous about the tooth fairy, too.

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."

​

--No, this isn't a Non sequitur, you were talking about something being a "fantastic interpretation" and would therefore be more a science philosophy topic. What I supported was the fact that my interpretation of the evidence was scientifically sound, and is valid in accordance with the philosophical scientific method. If this were not true[as I showed] you might as well throw out all of cosmogony.

---

It is a non sequitur because you have not given us any specifics. Or are you talking about fantastic creationist notions?

quote:

---

"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."

​

--Yup I do, and this happens.

---

Evidence, please.

quote:

---

So my question for you is, why is this not catastrophic enough.

---

Well, let's see... First you have to form a large lake, bigger than Spirit Lake, wash trees into it and have them float around until they find exactly the right depth of water. THen you have to emplace a number of ash falls to support the trees and allow that tuffaceous sand to both settle and, to some degree, solidify. Then you have to drain the lake slowly so that there are no currents that might uproot all of the trees. Then you have to emplace at least one laharic breccia to lop off the top of the trees. Somewhere in here you need to develope a fluvial environment, also. And then you have to do this up to 64 times (according to Coffin) in very much less than a year. You don't have any problem with this yet, eh?

quote:

---

You haven't supported this, only that I have to do it 20 times. Despite the fact that this is merely a semantics game, I think that this occurring would be considered a catastrophic event in geology.

---

A single catastrophic event? LOL!

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."

​

--Explain, why is the climate and topography relevant, give details.

---

The organic debris is mass wasted by runoff and creep of the weathering bedrock. Trees grow in thin soils and roots actually penetrate into the bedrock.

quote:

---

"Another ad hoc theory to support previous ad hoc theories."

​

--Yawn. Waiting for a refutation...

---

Yawn... Waiting for evidence...

quote:

---

"Then you are compounding your error."

​

--No, I don't think so.

---

No one familiar with stratigraphy would call interbedded deposits 'inclusions.' Neither would they call the study of bedded deposits 'petrology.'

quote:

---

"Given in my previous post."

​

--Your 'previous post' had nothing.

---

Except questions that you cannot answer. Actually, I dont' feel it very necessary to put much actual work into these posts. Bill did it and what did it get?

quote:

---

--Again, what data has been ignored? None? Good.

---

Answering your own question now, eh? Well, that easier than answering ours...

I have pulled this from the Grand Canyon thread since it is more pertinent here.

quote:

---

"I agreee. An example of this is the paleosoil thread where TC has assiduously avoided and dismissed any discussion of the rest of the geological record[1], even parts of it that are of the same age and only a few miles away from his topic of choice.[2]"

​

--[1] - Yup, that's because the topic is the deposition of the Lamar Ridge Formation and Specimen Ridge.

---

Umm, is that why you brought up the origin of the universe?

quote:

---

--[2] - If your talking about the Gallatin, if I had the information, I would readily discuss their implications.

---

Such a nice offer! In the meantime, you can conveniently ignore what Bill said about it.

quote:

---

"He wants to handle 'one problem at a time' and doesn't have time/access to those references, so they can be ignored."

​

--oh PLEASE! Your putting yourself in an embarrassing position. Your the one who has continued to post your misunderstandings all over the thread, ...

---

Well, if you were a little more clear and consistent it might help. And actually, I have only been discussing your misunderstandings. I'd think you be more appreciative.

quote:

---

...constantly like the plague and constantly claim that the information you have received is enough. You think that because you've read coffin [who's work isn't even being discussed] that you know enough about the Lamar Ridge Formation to enter into this discussion.

---

Well, Coffin's work was on the LRF. And, that is the topic of this thread, is it not?

quote:

---

I would be getting somewhere much faster if Yuretich or Fritz were the ones with whom there would be discourse, at least they know what is seen at the LRF.

---

And both of them disagree with you. Yuretich has specifically stated that the in-place trees have NOT been transported. (Of course to most of us, this was a unnecessary translation).It appears to me that you make a similar mistake to Gentry in his description of Po halos (sorry for the tangent here, but this is just an observation). It is the idea that in that creating a good description of a phenomenon gives one the right to also make fantastic interpretations of it that disregard surrounding facts.

quote:

---

Of course this is expected from someone who doesn't want to look at the information before drawing conclusions.

---

My preparation is adequate for the purposes of this thread.

quote:

---

--I'm not trying to attack your person, though it is a grave mistake of yours to come in unprepared in the way you have.

---

Suuurrrre.

quote:

---

"But the time to address those issues never arrives. Factoids that are specific to a single point in space or time can be safely extended to the entire geological record, despite the fact that there are ready, mainstream explanations that CAN apply to the entire geological record."

​

--In the case of what is seen in the paleosols thread, I don't think you would know.

---

Once again, your intent here is murky.

quote:

---

"The extension of MSH geology to the Grand Canyon is one of the most egregious examples of this. Does anyone think we will ever hear the end of it?"

​

--Maybe we will when we begin the on-topic discussion of the formation of Grand Canyon?

---

You think that you can get creationists to stop making this silly comparison? In that case, I have to conclude that you ARE deluded.

quote:

---

--No, its irrelevant to any scenario, if it is thick enough, its thick enough, period. Why would it be relevant in my model, and not in yours?

---

If you are going to wait this long to respond, you need to include more of the background.

quote:

---

"And you lacustrine sediments?"

​

--The lacustrine sediments are what Fritz described as, "grain-supported braided stream conglomerate on upper part".

---

Umm, TC? Braided stream deposits are not lacustrine.

quote:

---

"Observable phenomena."

​

--There are limitations to observation, most especially when dealing with origins of various things [life, grand canyon erosion, somewhat macro-scale geologic formations, etc.]...

---

Umm, yes. That's why I mentioned observable processes. If we can see a process that works, why dream up some fantastic notion?

quote:

---

... as opposed to experimentation and theoretical models. In our case, the latter is more important.

---

Okay, when you devise an experiment that proves the biblical story of origins, let me know...

quote:

---

"Not his dams. Yours."

​

--The dams are the same, why do you think they are different?

---

The difference is that yours are impossible. For the reasons that Bill suggested earlier.

quote:

---

"This is not what Coffin's pictures show."

​

--And? Its not all too good to draw conclusions from a lack of data. Just because you have access to this internet source, doesn't give you a warrant to disregard the work of Fritz & Yuretich et al.

---

Show me their pictures. I believe that you interpret what everyone else says so as to fit it into your scenario.

quote:

---

"The relevant part of the mainstream model is that the trees are in growth position. This is what you need to disprove."

​

--I don't need to disprove it, but produce a logical alternative.

---

Well, they either are or they aren't. If you say the the trees are transported you need to produce data to support your point to the exclusion of the competing theory. Otherwise we can cluttter up all rational thought with 'logical alternatives' that have no support whatever. What if I said that all of these trees were planted by hominids?

quote:

---

"That there are actually few lake beds."

​

--Not in my model.

---

I know that. The problem is that you model should have some relationship to reality. That IS one of the test of a model. If it doesn't pass, you need a new model.

quote:

---

"Yes. I am incredulous about the tooth fairy, too."

​

--again, not a good comparison. I have given a theoretical model, equip with plenty of evidence, ...

---

What evidence is that?

quote:

---

...some even quite unequivocal, ...

---

No, you have given us good descriptions, but they are descriptions that you do not understand. You have been given models by Yuretich and others that you have simply ignored because of this.

quote:

---

...but you think it's alright for you to just pass it off by your incredulity (and your satisfied with this??).

---

It is a rather simple minded analysis. Bsically, my incredulity is based on experience and training and there is nothing particualarly wrong with incredulity. That is what my analogy was all about. But yes, I dismiss your explanations because there are too many things that are unexplained.

quote:

---

"It is a non sequitur because you have not given us any specifics. Or are you talking about fantastic creationist notions?"

​

--I haven't given any 'fantastic creationist notions', and I think I'm giving quite a few more specifics than you are on the subject. But I could only wonder why, maybe its because I've tried and succeeded in getting some of this data?

---

I have no idea what you are talking about.

quote:

---

"Evidence, please."

​

--I don't think its whether I can give you evidence that it has happened (because all you would have to do is look at the sedimentary record in the Lamar River formation, it has been established that there are at least ~12),

---

All explainable by known, observable processes. What is your evidence that your scenario is correct?

quote:

---

...but whether you can present evidence against the notion that this could have occurred in my time constraints.

---

There are no known analogs. You have not explained a way for the trees to become rooted. You have not explained the geological context. You have not explained how this phenomenon that we have NEVER seen seems to have happened up to 60 times in one location. In one year! Yes, my credulity is stretched.

quote:

---

Me: So my question for you is, why is this not catastrophic enough.

​

You: Well, let's see... First you have to form a large lake, bigger than Spirit Lake, wash trees into it and have them float around until they find exactly the right depth of water. THen you have to emplace a number of ash falls to support the trees and allow that tuffaceous sand to both settle and, to some degree, solidify. Then you have to drain the lake slowly so that there are no currents that might uproot all of the trees.[1] Then you have to emplace at least one laharic breccia to lop off the top of the trees. Somewhere in here you need to develope a fluvial environment[2], also. And then you have to do this up to 64 times (according to Coffin) in very much less than a year. You don't have any problem with this yet, eh?

​

--I only have 2 problems with your description. With the italicized [1], the fact of the matter is that after studying the formation, you find that there are less proportions of vertical trees as you move in a certain direction.

---

Yes this is normal in a pyroclastic deposit.

quote:

---

So no, I don't have to do this. And with the italicized [2], the 'fluvial environment' is plausibly attributed to the current created by the abatement of the water by the erosion or break of a dam.

---

What dam? How did it form behind a flood surge?

quote:

---

--An even larger problem I have with this response is that you still haven't answered the question, only more of your incredulity. Why all this happening is implausible has not been explained or supported?

---

Answered above.

quote:

---

"The organic debris is mass wasted by runoff and creep of the weathering bedrock. Trees grow in thin soils and roots actually penetrate into the bedrock."

​

--What does this have to do with the lack in any bark deposit? The trunks on virtually all of the trees are abraded, where did it all go?

---

The deposits are subaerial.

quote:

---

"Yawn... Waiting for evidence..."

​

--The evidence was given earlier and is what you think is ad hoc.

---

Then you don't have much going for you. You need some kind of evidence that discriminates between the mainstream interpretation and yours. You are the challenger.

quote:

---

"No one familiar with stratigraphy would call interbedded deposits 'inclusions.'"

​

--Well excuse me then, I had forgotten I was being graded.

---

Every day, TC. And so am I.

quote:

---

Sure we should carry on discussions rather formally, though I don't think this is significant. I haven't misused the word, there were just better words which could have been used.

---

The point is that it is very likely that you have misconstrued what you have read. Your lack of experience in geological jargon supports this idea.

quote:

---

"Neither would they call the study of bedded deposits 'petrology.'"

​

--Petrology is the study of the origin, composition, and structure of rocks, I think attributing them as bedded could be considered a petrological reference.

---

Nope. Stratigraphy. Petrology is the classification and the study of rock constituents.

quote:

---

"Except questions that you cannot answer."

​

--Such as...? And what about the questions you aren't answering? The ones I am most interested in are in post #144, its still pending response...

---

For (another) one, what are the boundaries of your lake?

quote:

---

"Actually, I dont' feel it very necessary to put much actual work into these posts. Bill did it and what did it get?"

​

--Not in all the posts you have ever authored in this thread have you given much data at all.

---

Just common sense and logical explanations.

quote:

---

--Don't forget post #144 now.

---

I'm pretty sure it's been answered.

quote:

---

"Such a nice offer! In the meantime, you can conveniently ignore what Bill said about it."

​

--No, its just that unlike some people, I don't make conclusions from a lack of data. I think me and Gould have the same obsession with precision, accuracy, and detail. But this is beneficial. Until I can get a hold of information on Gallatin, I have no room for conclusions regarding it, and really, neither do you.

---

Except that we have a description from Bill. That is okay for me to accept for the time being.

quote:

---

"Well, if you were a little more clear and consistent it might help."

​

--Then why is it that after I explain some things to you and you understand, you subsequently bring it right back full circle?

---

Hmmm, because you haven't explained anything?

quote:

---

"And actually, I have only been discussing your misunderstandings. I'd think you be more appreciative."

​

--I would be more if I had some misunderstandings.

---

You mean like lacustrine sediments be stream-deposited conglomerates?

quote:

---

"Well, Coffin's work was on the LRF. And, that is the topic of this thread, is it not?"

​

--That isn't the problem, the problem is that you think his info is enough.

---

It's not a problem for me. Besides we have some info.

quote:

---

"And both of them disagree with you."

​

--Thats because they have to.

---

Riiiiight.

quote:

---

"Yuretich has specifically stated that the in-place trees have NOT been transported."

​

--And? Why then does some of the evidence tend to point otherwise, they merely see it as insignificant enough to reconsile it with a mainstream in situ growth explanation.

---

Because it doesn't. You have misunderstood it.

quote:

---

". (Of course to most of us, this was a unnecessary translation). "

​

--This is a perfect example of where you constantly bring things right back full circle. Your misunderstanding regarding how I interpreted Yuretich's words was discussed a long while ago and was conclusive, there never was a mistranslation on my part.

---

No. You said that 'in situ' and 'in place' could mean 'transported.' This is demonstrably wrong.

quote:

---

"It is the idea that in that creating a good description of a phenomenon gives one the right to also make fantastic interpretations of it that disregard surrounding facts."

​

--The only problem is that my interpretations just aren't fantastic enough to have 'disregarded surrounding facts' that have been brought up and discussed in detail here.

---

Then explain why we have adjacent deposits of identical character that are different?

quote:

---

"My preparation is adequate for the purposes of this thread."

​

--This is where you fail.

---

Ah. Your judgement.

quote:

---

"Once again, your intent here is murky."

​

--All I am saying is that you haven't read enough to understand the stratigraphic framework or the mainstream explanation for the lamar river formation, I have urged you to do this many times during the extant of this thread.

---

I didn't want to bring this up, TC, but I was mapping laharic breccias, ash flows and paleosoils before you were born. I think I've earned the right to make some interpretations based on photographs or descriptions I've read or been given. If you don't have any respect for that, then we have little to discuss, and you will have proven something that you didn't intend to.

quote:

---

"You think that you can get creationists to stop making this silly comparison? In that case, I have to conclude that you ARE deluded."

​

--Am I? this looks like another conclusion drawn without information or discussion of the question at hand. Grand Canyon will be discussed in the other thread.

---

Well, if you can get one creationist to recant this old story about MSH and the Grand Canyon, I'll take back everything I said about you....

quote:

---

"Umm, TC? Braided stream deposits are not lacustrine. "

​

--By my understanding of the stratigraphy of the lamar river formation in accordance with my model for its deposition, it technically is lacustrine.

---

Hence your complete misunderstanding of geological processes. I rest my case.

quote:

---

"Umm, yes. That's why I mentioned observable processes. If we can see a process that works, why dream up some fantastic notion?

​

--What I pointed out was that it wasn't some 'fantastic notion' I dreamt up, its a theoretical model. We don't see anything, sometimes not even the effects, only the remnants of those effects.

---

So, a global flood that causes scores of 'surges,' in combination with some unknown process that impounds the surges, creating lakes that have miraculously appropriate depths that allow trees not to sink, but remain motionless in an upright position while ash falls that look like braided stream deposits fill in around them, followed by draining of the lake which does not erode the sediments or upset the trees... all in the same place in but one tiny portion of the geological record that was laid down in one year. If this wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.Are you saying this is not a fantastic notion?

quote:

---

"The difference is that yours are impossible. For the reasons that Bill suggested earlier."

​

--So.. which didn't you understand? Those reasons he gave, or my comments?

---

I understand both completely. You have no reasonable method of creating such lakes.

quote:

---

"I know that. The problem is that you model should have some relationship to reality. That IS one of the test of a model. If it doesn't pass, you need a new model."
--Thats nice. So what is it that is required in order for it to 'have some relationship to reality'.

---

Your model has to explain what is seen in the field.

quote:

---

"What evidence is that?"

​

--The Unequivocal evidence are what I have listed in post 144 which you have not explained and I have.

---

And your explanation has been refuted.

quote:

---

"No, you have given us good descriptions, but they are descriptions that you do not understand. You have been given models by Yuretich and others that you have simply ignored because of this."

​

--Why are you saying that I have been given models by Yuretich when you don't even know what that model is? And you still haven't shown where I have misunderstood those descriptions.

---

I have repeatedly shown you various of your misunderstandings. For instance, to call braided stream deposits lacustrine is silly. Why do you insist on saying that your model is the same as Yuretich? You disagree with him completely.

quote:

---

"It is a rather simple minded analysis. Bsically, my incredulity is based on experience and training..."

​

--No, not in this case, at least you haven't shown it.

---

My model is the same as Yuretich's.

quote:

---

"That is what my analogy was all about. But yes, I dismiss your explanations because there are too many things that are unexplained. "

​

--Such as...

---

This has been answered numerous times.

quote:

---

"What dam? How did it form behind a flood surge?"

​

--The same way it formed in yours (it didn't form as a result of the surge). You do know how they formed in a mainstream literature right[eg, Yuretich, Fritz]?

---

This does not answer my question. Besides, I don't have a dam forming behind a surge. I have a dam formed by debris flows that filled in subaerial stream channels.

quote:

---

"The deposits are subaerial."

​

--...um..... sure. Please explain how this helps you regarding the lack in any bark deposit or inclusions in the conglomeratic mud flows which in your model are the means for severe abrasion.

---

This has been done before.

quote:

---

"The point is that it is very likely that you have misconstrued what you have read. Your lack of experience in geological jargon supports this idea."

​

--This is minute support and highly rudimentary. My problem with you saying this is that all you think is that it is 'very likely' and leave it at that, without reading anything but what is being quoted in this thread.

---

It is clear that you do not have a grasp of volcanic and/or sedimentary environments. This has been shown repeatedly.

quote:

---

"Nope. Stratigraphy. Petrology is the classification and the study of rock constituents."

​

--I recant that my terminology there was accurate.

---

Just one point among many.

quote:

---

"Just common sense and logical explanations."

​

--It isn't enough.

---

According to you. An explanation that does not reflect reality and violates common sense is a failure.

quote:

---

"I'm pretty sure it's been answered."

​

--Nope, you've only addressed one part of it, and your comments still haven't helped you. Post #144 is still patiently awaiting...

---

Perhaps the part I addressed made the rest of your model irrelevant. Nevertheless, I'll check, but my first take on this is that you have, once again, ignored a prior post of mine.

quote:

---

"Except that we have a description from Bill. That is okay for me to accept for the time being."

​

--Hence, your problem. Your following the same line of logic which corrupts many lay-YEC's. A perfect example of credulity.

---

Credulity based on sound reasoning is different from blind faith. Or are they the same to you?

quote:

---

"You mean like lacustrine sediments be stream-deposited conglomerates?"

​

--Hence your inability to comprehend my model. They are deposited in a lacustrine environment and the fluvial appearence is created by the abation of these small bodies of water.

---

Small bodies of water? Where did this come frome? How did your trees float around in small bodies of water of just the right depth covering many square miles? And what the heck do you mean by 'the fluvial appearance' of sediments? They are either fluvial or lacustrine. You are equivocating. Please explain.

quote:

---

"No. You said that 'in situ' and 'in place' could mean 'transported.' This is demonstrably wrong."

​

--Not in regards to his context...I never did, edge.

---

You said that the upright fossil trees of the Lamar River Formation were transported into place. You used Yuretich's papers which described them as 'in situ' and 'in-place' to support your statement. You often seem to imply that Yuretich agrees with you. How else can we interpret your statements? Perhaps you are not expressing yourself well.

quote:

---

"Then explain why we have adjacent deposits of identical character that are different?"

​

--Elaborate? What adjacent deposits are you refering to?

---

The Gallatin Forest deposits that you continue to ignore.

quote:

---

"I think I've earned the right to make some interpretations based on photographs or descriptions I've read or been given. If you don't have any respect for that, then we have little to discuss, and you will have proven something that you didn't intend to."

​

--I respect that you are a geologist who in the general scheme of things has much more experience than myself, though you are still following some flawed logic regarding interpretation of depositional models.

---

Quite to the contrary. I have repeatedly shown you where you follow a flawed and tortuous path of logic. You have ignored nearby deposits of identical character. You have ignored the rest of the geological record. You have ignored the interpretations of workers in the area. You have mistaken fluvial deposits for lacustrine. You have failed to provide a mechanism for impounding global surges. You have created a model that has no modern analogs. Basically, your model cannot be taken seriously.

quote:

---

You think that theres nothing new for you.

---

How can you say this? How do you know the current status of my research? Give me some EVIDENCE that all of the the trees were definitely transported and not grown in situ. Give me something concrete. You have failed so far, to do this.

quote:

---

You can think that since you know what a paleosol basically is, that you can read a description which says 'this is a paleosol' and automatically apply what you have learned about them generally without looking at the detailed data regarding that specific paleosol and be satisfied[in our case, what you have continually argued is a paleosol, isn't one].

---

You have been given some references referring specifically to well-developed soils and horizonated soils etc. Why do you consistently ignore them? And as I remember, you were the one who called them paleosoils ('entisols' as I recall). Actually, I don't require any soils at all. The fact that soils are present in some areas is simply additional evidence of in situ forests.

quote:

---

"Well, if you can get one creationist to recant this old story about MSH and the Grand Canyon, I'll take back everything I said about you...."

​

--Depends on what you are talking about in regards to MSH as an analog for the Grand Canyon.

---

Ah, equivocating again! Okay, then: virtually any aspect of it.

quote:

---

You can't just apply what we see there to the Grand Canyon and leave it at that, sure, though some of the processes are similar to a rapid erosion event for the GC.

---

Not at all. The environments are completely different. You are using circular reasoning here. You assume that that the GC sediments were soft like the unconsolidated MSH pyroclastics, therefor MSH is a good model and proves that the GC sediments were eroded while soft sediments.

quote:

---

But this was explained months ago the last time we discussed the Grand Canyon.

---

As I remember there was no rebuttal to the mainstream position. Most of the time these threads simply drop off the page because of a lack of response from the YEC side.

Here is my response to post 144. I felt that these items had been explained before, but for the record:

quote:

---

--While in our main sequence of posts in this thread are more centered on the veracity of my position, I would like to inquire on yours in another set. Please explain the following:

​

[1] - Root systems - they are "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."

---

I am not sure which trees are being described here, but this might be expected of trees growing in a coarse laharic breccia or in slightly consolidated pyroclastics. And then just why would the roots extend ANY distance from the trunk if they were transported as you suggest? Why are they 'well-preserved?' Why do you ignore the references stating that some root systems are 'well-developed' or that soils are also well-developed and horizonated?

quote:

---

[2] - The lack of extensive bark deposits as those seen in spirit lake.

---

Yes, this is something that you do not explain. On the other hand, the mainstream model handles this fairly well. The bark deposits are subaerial and easily eroded into streams etc. where they are removed from the area. This is the reason for no or poor soil development in most of the LRF.

quote:

---

[3] - Complete lack in organic remains exhibiting decay.

---

This is based on a big assumption that decayed materials would be preserved to any great extent. Nevertheless, in high, well-drained areas, tree trunks can survive for extended periods of time without signigicant decay. I have explained this to you before. I also suspect it possible that the latent heat of a pyroclastic flow that rapidly encases upright tress might promote permineralization and slow the process of decay.

quote:

---

--I found this out long before you entered the thread. Edge (hopefully until this point) has maintained his stance on them being paleosols which I have to explain in my model.

---

Yes, I am sorry that I took your word for it that there were true soils in the Lamar River Formation. Frankly, I didn't see any in the Coffin pictures. As I have stated elsewhere, there is evidence of paleosoils elsewhere (Amidon) and it actually isn't necessary for me to have soils at all.

quote:

---

...

​

--Very good, these are indeed valid observations requiring explanation in any transport model. I will admit that this presents a severe problem for me if it is as you say. My difficulty is that I don't have those Retallack or Amidon resources for me to anylize in depth on the subject. Can you direct me to where I might get ahold of them (Amidon in particular) I am willing to pay for them if required.

---

Finally, it appears that you intend to address this question. This is exactly why I have been making this point. It is crucial that you refute the presence of paleosoils in this environment wherever they may occur. Any valid examples of buried fossil forests will put your whole notion of flood surges related to a year-long, biblical flood in a serious cloud of doubt. You cannont ignore them. If you do not trust Bill to quote the articles accurately, and insist upon advancing your point, you need to acquire these references and deal with them before dismissing the in-place forest hypothesis.

quote:

---

It is quite likely that many of the massive tuffaceous
sandstones associated with upright trees are massive
because primary sedimentary structures have been
destroyed by bioturbation and pedoturbation associated
with the initial stages of soil development.

​

--Why are bioturbations and pedoturbations required for a thick deposit of tuffaceous sandstone(if that is what you mean by massive that is)?

---

The author is suggesting an explanation for the massive texture of the tuffaceous sands.

quote:

---

It seems that I have been correct on some fundamental points, but have also been incorrect on plenty. Some of my problem seems to be evident from my usage of(apparently) outdated material.

---

This is, perhaps a problem. But it also appears to me that some basic geology is called for. When a geologist reads a lithological description, it creates a very specific picture that most laymen may not appreciate. For instance, you had a problem with the term 'massive' which Bill later explained to you. This term has a very distinct connotation to a geologist that is meaningful in understanding the appearance of the strata and their origin.

quote:

---

I would like to get my hands on the works of Lorin J. Amidon. What do I have to do to obtain her(or his?) thesis study? Please be straight forward. I can't find anything up to date on the Lamar River Formation, let alone gallatin.

---

This reference is a master's thesis from the U of Montana. I'd think it would be available on interlibrary loan from your local university library. I will try to contact Amidon directly, but it could take a while.