Paleosols

"Now, show us these sediments in a photograph. Then support your argument that they support the trees."
--So you have a suspicion that the tuffaceous sandstone couldn't support trees in upright position? Just remember that if I have a problem here, you also have one. Of course this is not the case because that is what most if not all trees in the specimen ridge et al. locations are rooted in. Some with subscript comments can be found in Fritz [1980], Figure 2 [subscript: Figure 2. Horizontal log with roots, parallel to bedding in Amethyst Mountain section.]& Figure 5 [Subscript: Figure 5. Exposure 80 to 90 m from base of Cache Creek section showing matrix-supported mud-flow conglomerate on lower part of cliff and grain-supported braided-stream conglomerate on upper part.] In Yuretich [March, 1984] Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 8 [model schematic]. Subscripts: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).Figure 3 - Photograph and sketch of vertical tree stump surrounded by conglomerate. Roots are in tuffaceous sandstone; conglomerate appears to have flowed around pre-existing stump.Figure 4 - Photograph and sketch of horizontal log with roots. Roots are in sandstone; upper abrades surfaces of logs are overlain by conglomerate.Figure 8 - Suggested depositional environments for Specimen Ridge section. Mudflow and lacustrine deposits cause discontinuous preservation of forest levels, but successive episodes of volcanism give rise to vertical sequence of deposits in which fossil forests were rooted."I'm afraid it is. If you do not even understand what a tuffaceous sandstone is, we are wasting our time."
--You've only made the assertion, you have not even given a good reason for this accusation. See my last comment for this post." 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."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:

quote:

---

The tuffaceous sandstone is composed of 80% to 90% water-transported air-fall ash and 10% to 20% reworked detrital volcaniclastic material. Tuffaceous sandstone units are commonly well laminated and have load casts, flame structures, and ripple cross-laminations. These structures formed in sluggish streams choked with volcaniclastic and mud-flow debris, which was reworked as a mixture of air-fall ash and detrital grains. Generally, the tuffaceous sandstone beds are discontinuous within the mud flow and braided-stream facies; this suggests deposition in stream channels. Local upward decreases in grain size occurred either during times of volcanic eruptions as air-fall ash choked the streams or during periods of lower energy. In places intraformational conglomerate accumulated within the tuffaceous sandstone beds. On Amethyst Mountain and Specimen Ridge, the tuffaceous sandstone units are bright blue-green, but at other localities they are gray. Although the tuffaceous sandstone beds include fewer pieces of petrified than the conglomerate, they contain abundant pollen, leaves, needles, and some cones. These well-preserved organic remains are common along specific horizons, in places associated with roots of vertical stumps; it has been suggested that these could 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. Reemains 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.

---

--How wouldn't they support a tree? And how exactly, in a mainstream model, would you compensate since we are dealing with the exact same environment, root structure, etc."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?"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?"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? What if spirit lake was much more shallow so that many of the trunks would almost drag on the bottom. While this occurs the tuffaceous sandstone is deposited by air-fall and having already been in the conglomerate of the surge. Water abates in many areas and conglomeratic mud flows occur to cover the apparently in situ fossil forest. 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. All of which are more easily explained in my model as opposed to yours. I think this is considerably unequivocal."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]."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."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."And they are only silly because I have to ask them in the first place."
--I've explained the solutions and given the answers to many of your questions before, and some of them are even answered in that link source which we first used as a reference very early in this thread (eg. the tuffaceous sandstone).", 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.--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?"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."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, 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. Earlier in this post I explained the characteristics of the tuffaceous sandstones themselves.------------------
OYSI.Archive
------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-19-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-19-2003]

"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?^[1] What is their continuity?^[2] Are they lacustrine or fluvial deposits?^[3] I see nothing in the given descriptions that would lead me to believe that these sands could support trees.^[4]"
--[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.
--[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].
--[3] - Both actually. A fluvial environment was flooded and would then be recognized as a lacustrine environment.
--[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."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?"If you would answer them, I would have even less reason."
--I've done the answering too many times in many cases.

quote:

---

Originally posted by me:

​

--How wouldn't they support a tree?

---

"LOL! Good answer!"
--I must have been over medicated to think it were a question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by me:

​

--And how exactly, in a mainstream model, would you compensate since we are dealing with the exact same environment, root structure, etc.

---

"Compensate what?"
--How would you explain away the fact that if trees topple in my model, they topple in yours."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."Normally, I would refuse to answer until you answered my question, but then this could go on forever. Okay, shoot!"
--The answer to your question is a no brainer, the trees would be gone.

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. There is no requisite for there to be a perfect analog to the specimen ridge in the first place, despite those which Bill has cited."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."It is unlikely that they would take hold in any location without being eventually toppled."
--Why would they topple in a quiescent lacustrine environment?"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."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?"This should be a dramatic breakout that erodes the soft sediment in which the trees are set and send the trees tumbling."
--This wasn't Niagra falls, and yes, hundreds of trees went tumbling, specimen ridge is just a location which was less effected by the abation."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?"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:

quote:

---

"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.

---

--We've gone over the horizontation of the 'soils', Bill doesn't even agree they are paleosols. And as explained in the quote, and as I've explained numerous times antecedent to the posting of that quote, no they are not well horizontated. Yuretich and Fritz have elaborated on that. Your "soil" isn't a soil."Only if you ignore a lot of surrounding data."
--What data has been ignored? None? Good."That is the problem. You have assumed that a global flood occurred and then selected some facts to support that."
--I thought you said I don't know how science is done? This is how science is done. A perfect analog here would be radioisotopic dating, you know all the assumptions. The thing is, that if the assumptions can be supported, the assumptions are reasonable. This is what I am doing."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."Yes, but you omit a few facts. My interpretation is the same as the mainstream for the time being."
--So what is the mainstream interpretation? Do you even know?"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."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."
--You must be the blind man in that analogy? "Nonsense, they are fluvial sandstones. How did the trees manage to stand there as the stream filled in the sands around them?"
--I thought you said they weren't fluvial? The trees didn't stand there at this point, they floatedper se there."Well, you are the resident expert..."
--No need to take it out on yourself edge. "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."Sure, anyone could cut and paste a rock description. What you lack is an understanding that comes with years of study and field work."
--If it only comes with years of study and field work, how's come I get it?"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..]"This is common among creationists, so don't feel all alone."
--I do feel alone.. but it seems for the inverse reason you attribute my loneliness to.. -------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-20-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-20-2003]

"TC,Why don't you ever use the quote functions? Trying to decipher your posts drives me up the wall."--Does it really? Hm.. I never noticed the difficulty in reading the format in which I post. I usually don't use the quote function for quoting the respondants text because its what everyone does [and with my previous assumption that it was still easiliy read] I thought it wouldn't hurt to differentiate myself in that. But I guess that since it is difficult to decipher, I'll consider using the quote function for the respondants text.
--Its just that I've been using this format for a year and 2 months now and havent gotten this type of complaint before. Thanks for the heads up.--Anyone else feel the same way about my posting style?--[edit] - I just edited my last post, it was pretty sloppy the way I quoted edge and all. I don't know now whether it is my usual format that is difficult to read or just the mistakes in the post and similar ones in other posts.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-20-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-20-2003]

--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."[2] - The lack of extensive bark deposits as those seen in spirit lake.[3] - Complete lack in organic remains exhibiting decay.------------------

"Okay then provide a measured section. And remember that these trees are found over a score of levels and over many square miles. "
--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]. 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."So, they are discontinuous. "
--Yup, I explained this earlier."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. "
--Yeah me too. I also doubt that they would support trees anywhere near that tall in a mainstream scenario as well, under quiescent conditions. The only thing is, they aren't 2 inches thick."Ummmmm, because I've never seen it happen???"
--What are you talking about?"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. There isn't 2 inches of sediment."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"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?"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. 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."Yes, generally, small braided streams are shallower than Spirit Lake is."
--Point being?"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 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.
--All this assertion is is another exhibition of your incredulity. There is absolutely no difficulty with the periods of 'fast' and quiescent current, or the 'wet' and 'dry' episodes you are referring to in my model..none.

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

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."Another ad hoc theory to support previous ad hoc theories."
--Yawn. Waiting for a refutation..."Yeah. Best to ignore all of that..."
--Get with it edge. I am not ignoring anything, quit it with your ridiculous misrepresentations of me. I'm sorry if I don't have inhuman research skills like you..."In situ trees."
--Yup, which according to you are rooted in insufficiently thick substrate. So.. I ask again, what is your solution in the mainstream perspective, you've only sidestepped the question."Then you are compounding your error."
--No, I don't think so."Given in my previous post."
--Your 'previous post' had nothing.--Again, what data has been ignored? None? Good.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-21-2003]

"Yes irrelevant to what they were reporting. Not irrelevant to what you want to prove."
--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?"And you lacustrine sediments?"
--The lacustrine sediments are what Fritz described as, "grain-supported braided stream conglomerate on upper part"."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.] as opposed to experimentation and theoretical models. In our case, the latter is more important."Not his dams. Yours."
--The dams are the same, why do you think they are different?"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."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. Just because the Solar Nebula is a more plausible theory than the Capture theory for the origin and early evolution of the solar system, doesn't mean the Capture theory is then disproven[sorry if you don't like my cosmogenic analogies]."That there are actually few lake beds."
--Not in my model."Well, that's the way it is usually done. "
--No, not really. I see your description of my model in the same way you would look at how most of your ill-informed YEC's would describe plate tectonics or the 'problems with macro-evolution'."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, some even quite unequivocal, but you think it's alright for you to just pass it off by your incredulity (and your satisfied with this??)."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?"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), but whether you can present evidence against the notion that this could have occurred in my time constraints.

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. 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.
--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?"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?"Yawn... Waiting for evidence..."
--The evidence was given earlier and is what you think is ad hoc."No one familiar with stratigraphy would call interbedded deposits 'inclusions.'"
--Well excuse me then, I had forgotten I was being graded. 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."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."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..."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.--BTW - I've contacted William Fritz via telephone and e-mail. He has agreed to mailing me photocopies of quite a few of his previous articles, discourses, and field studies on the topic. I will give you a synopsis upon my analysis of these.--Don't forget post #144 now.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------

"Umm, is that why you brought up the origin of the universe?"
--As an analogy and for clarification, I did bring it up. I wasn't bringing it up as a new debatable topic."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."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?"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."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."And both of them disagree with you."
--Thats because they have to."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.". (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."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."My preparation is adequate for the purposes of this thread."
--This is where you fail."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."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.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------

"If you are going to wait this long to respond, you need to include more of the background. "
--You can't look back?"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."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."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?"Show me their pictures. I believe that you interpret what everyone else says so as to fit it into your scenario."
--Sorry, I currently don't have access to a photocopy machine or a digital camera, so your going to have to deal with the library. To say that I 'interpret what everyone else says so as to fit it into my scenario' is ridiculous."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'."What evidence is that?"
--The Unequivocal evidence are what I have listed in post 144 which you have not explained and I have."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."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."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..."Yes this is normal in a pyroclastic deposit."
--Right, one which is applicable in my model as well.."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]?"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."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."Nope. Stratigraphy. Petrology is the classification and the study of rock constituents."
--I recant that my terminology there was accurate."For (another) one, what are the boundaries of your lake?"
--Depends on where you are and at which succession. The stratigraphic framework isn't in layered cake fashion."Just common sense and logical explanations."
--It isn't enough."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...Cheers,
-TC, OYSI Representative
http://www.oysi.pormisoft.net

"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."Hmmm, because you haven't explained anything?"
--Its getting to late for me to roll on the floor laughing.."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."Because it doesn't. You have misunderstood it.
--I will agree that I have misunderstood it if you can sufficiently answer at least my 3 questions for you posed back in post #144."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."Then explain why we have adjacent deposits of identical character that are different?"
--Elaborate? What adjacent deposits are you refering to?"I didn't want to bring this up, TC, but I was mapping laharic breccias, ash flows and paleosoils before you were born."
--Then why don't you understand them well? ?Most especially during the early parts of this thread."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. You think that theres nothing new for you. 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]."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. 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. But this was explained months ago the last time we discussed the Grand Canyon.Cheers,
-TC, OYSI Representative
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net------------------

quote:

---

A person should note that this was written in 1980,
some 22 years ago. This is before people with
a background in pedology, e.g. Retallack (1981, 1985,
1997) and Amidon (1997), started looking at the
Lamar River Formation.

​

This, in my opinion, is a point that Young Earth
creationists seem to be hopelessly and completely
confused about. In the above sentence, Fritz (1980,
1982) discusses what Coffin (1979, 1997) call "organic
levels" and prior to Fritz (1980) were mistaken for
paleosols by conventional geologists and
paleobotantists, who have studied the Lamar River
Formation. What Young Earth creationists, e.g. Coffin
(1997) still don't understand is that they are beating
a dead horse in their arguments about the organic levels
not being paleosols. Had Coffin bothered to read the
current literature about the Lamar River Formation
before publishing Coffin (1997), he would have found
that conventional geologists and paleobontanists since
Fritz (1980) agree with him that his organic levels
are **not** paleosols.

---

--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.

quote:

---

Contrary to what Coffin (1997)
and other Young Earth creationists falsely imply in
their arguments about the "organic levels", there, at
this time, is no disagreement on this point between
Young Earth creationists and conventional geologists. As
a result, what Coffin (1979), 1997) and Fritz (1980,
1982) stated about the organic levels in the Lamar River
Formation **not** being paleosols is completely
irrelevant to the paleosols recognized and discussed by
Retallack (1981, 1985, 1997), Amidon (1997), and others.

---

--Whew.

quote:

---

What the various Young Earth creationists need to
understand that the paleosols described and discussed by
Retallack (1981, 1985, 1997), Amidon (1997), and others
are **not** the organic levels discussed above by Fritz
(1980) and unnecessarily discussed at great length by
Coffin (1997). They are mineral soils, not organic soils,
which in no way correspond to the organic levels of
Coffin (1997). If a person reads Retallack (1981, 1985,
1997), Amidon (1997), and others, he or she would find
that these paleosols typical lack any O Horizon that
would correspond to an organic level. Instead, they are
layers recognizable on the basis of megascopic and
microscopic properties that are unique to soils and
indicative of pedogenic alteration. Where the mineralogy
of these layers have been studied by Amidon (1997), they
exhibit the mineralogical alteration consistent with the
physical weathering of the volcanoclastic material
within a soil profile.

​

Descriptions, pictures, and sketches of these
paleosols can be found in Amidon (1997). For example,
Amidon (1997) stated:

​

"Fossil tree V15 and associated palesol (Figure 26a)
are located approximately 80 m stratigraphically
above other units examined in detail. V15 consists
predominately of an extensive root system penetrating
a moderately well differentiated paleosol (Figure 26b).
The uppermost exposed layer is an olive gray Bt
horizon (B horizon with clay accumulate) consisting
of a massive, well indurated siltstone. The Bt horizon
is underlain by a Bq horizon (B horizon with quartz
accumulate) consisting of a greenish gray blocky
siltstone encased in a crystalline matrix which
grades to a brown, granular fine sandstone. The
lowermost C horizon exposed in this section is
composed of slightly modified parent material. Strata
associated with V15 are interpreted to be paleosol
formed in situ as a result of prolonged weathering."

​

Amidon (1997) also, reported the presence of clay
formed by the weathering volcanic sediment associated
with this paleosol.

​

The fact of the matter is that Bt and Bq horizons
form by the weathering of loose sediment. It is
impossible for the deposition of sediment to create
a sequence of soil horizons, identifiable by their
microscopic and megascopic characters, as discussed
by Amidon (1997) and illustrated by Retallack (1985,
1997). Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
realize that the paleosols discussed by reads Retallack
(1981, 1985, 1997), Amidon (1997), and others have
absolutely nothing to do with the "organic levels"
discussed by Coffin (1979, 1997).

---

--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.

quote:

---

Concerning the tuffaceous sandstones, Fritz (1980)
was quoted as stating:

​

"Tuffaceous sandstone units are commonly well
laminated and have load casts, flame structures,
and ripple cross-laminations."

​

and

​

"Generally, the tuffaceous sandstone beds are
discontinuous within the mud flow and braided-
stream facies; this suggests deposition in stream
channels."

​

I find it difficult to understand how a person can
claim that these sandstones, represent lacustrine
deposits. Not only are the tuffaceous sandstones
too coarse and discontinous to be credible lacustrine
deposits, but they don't even have the right assemblage
of sedimentary structures to be regarded as lacustrine
deposits.

---

--According to Fritz the sandstones are 80-90% air-fall ash, so why would its deposition be avoided just because there is a body of water? That this air-fall ash was deposited (in my model) in a lacustrine environment, it is therefor considered a lacustrine sediment.

quote:

---

Under the heading, "lacustrine Deposits", Fritz (1980)
noted "many of the fine-grained sandstones and siltstones
in the Lamar River Formation accumulated in small lakes".
However, he immediately contradicts this statement by
calling them "lacustrine mudstones". He describes the
lacustrine sediments as having more "siltstone and
claystone" and being "horizontally laminated" and lacking
"ripple cross laminations".

---

--So where did he contradict himself?

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)?"Retallack, G. J., 1997, A Colour Guide to Paleosols.
Chichester, United Kingdom"
--Does Retallack illustrate some paleosols seen in the lamar river formation in this book?Cheers,
-TC, OYSI Representative
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net------------------

"This is the very same objection that Fritz (1983) had
to Coffin's Spirit Lake model. Fritz (1983) objected to
the usefulness of the Spirit Lake observations made
by Coffin (1983) in understanding the origin of the
Yellowstone Petrified Forests. Fritz (1983) noted that
Coffin (1983) failed to provide a mechanism by which
either the matrix or grain supported conglomerates
encasing the upright fossil trees could have
accumulated within a lake. It is a matter of basic fluid
and transport dynamics that it is impossible for grained-
supported gravels with sedimentary structures identical
to those found in the "grain-supported braided stream
conglomerate" described by Fritz (1980) to have
accumulated on the bottom of a lake."
--Why wouldn't ash fall and volcaniclastic materials be deposited on the bottom of a shallow lake?"Similarly, matrix-
supported debris flow deposits don't cover the entire
bottom of a lake as they would quickly entrain water
and become turbidity currents with Bouma sequences."
--I have already agreed that they then must have generally flowed over dry land in my model.Cheers,
-TC, OYSI Representative
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

Bill, you seem to still be lurking around the forums. 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. 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.-------------------