Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Paleosols
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 151 of 165 (33494)
03-02-2003 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by TrueCreation
03-01-2003 11:14 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by TrueCreation, posted 03-01-2003 11:14 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by TrueCreation, posted 03-07-2003 11:12 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 152 of 165 (33497)
03-02-2003 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by TrueCreation
03-01-2003 11:32 PM


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....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by TrueCreation, posted 03-01-2003 11:32 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-06-2003 11:19 PM edge has not replied
 Message 156 by TrueCreation, posted 03-07-2003 11:26 PM edge has replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 153 of 165 (33810)
03-06-2003 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by TrueCreation
02-19-2003 5:11 PM


In Message 139 of 152,
True Creation quoted Fritz (1980) as stating:
"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 overlarge boulders. Remains of vertical trees
in the conglomerate facies normally have no organic zone
or weathering profile associated with the roots. The
organic zones probably do not represent soils but
rather are plant litter deposited by sheet wash,
possibly during intense rainstorms associated with
volcanic activity."
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. 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.
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). If fact, if Coffin
(1979, 1997) had bothered to look at the lahar
deposits downstream of Spirit Lake, he would have
found similar layers of detrital organic material
within the historic and prehistoric lahar deposits
that have accumulated along the Toutle River.
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.
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". The deposits, which have
any of the characteristics of lacustrine sediments
comprise a relatively small portion of the Lamar River
Formation according to Fritz (1980). They are only
extensively developed at the base of Cache Creek and
Amethyst Mountain sections measured by Fritz (1980).
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.
One of the problems with Fritz (1980), like Retallack
(1981, 1985, 1997) and Amidon (1997) among others
have shown, is that like the vast majority of conventional
geologists and paleobontanists prior to him, was
simply unacquainted with what soils looked like. As
a result, he simply overlooked the presence of paleosols
because he, like just about every conventional
geologist prior to the middle 1980s, didn't know what
to look for in terms of the diagnostic soil structures
Since soil scientists and geologists have been
talking to each other over the last 20 years, paleosols
overlooked for decades in well studied sedimentary
deposits, have been found in them by geologists
once they know what structures and features to look
for. The fact that Fritz (1980, 1982) recognize none
had nothing to do with paleosols being absent. It is
just that geologists at that time didn't know how to
recognize paleosols. In case of the Lamar River
Formation, everyone was so focus on the "organic
levels" that they overlooked the real paleosols
present within it.
References Cited:
Amidon, L. (1997) Paleoclimate study of Eocene
fossil woods and associated Paleosols from the
Gallatin Petrified Forest, Gallatin National
Forest, SW Montana. unpublished Master's thesis.
University of Montana. Missoula, MT 142 pp.
Coffin, H. G., 1979, The organic levels of the
Yellowstone Petrified National Forest. Origins.
vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 71-82.
Coffin, H. G., 1997, The Yellowstone Petrified
"Forests" Origins. vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 2-44.
Fritz, W. J., 1980, Depositional environment of the
Eocene Lamar River Formation in Yellowstone National
Park. unpublished Ph.D dissertation. University of
Montana, Billings, MT
Fritz, W. J., 1982, Geology of the Lamar River
Formation, Northeast Yellowstone National Park. In
Geology of Yellowstone Park area, S. G. Steven and
D. J. Foote, eds., pp. 73-101. Guidebook no. 33.
Wyoming Geological Association, Casper, WY.
Retallack, G. J., 1981, Comment on 'Reinterpretation
of Depositional Environment of the Yellowstone
"Fossil Forests"'. Geology. vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 52-53.
Retallack, G. J., 1985, Laboratory Exercises in
Paleopedology. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
http://www.uoregon.edu/...i/retall/Paleoclasses/geol435.html
Retallack, G. J., 1997, A Colour Guide to Paleosols.
Chichester, United Kingdom
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
Houston, Texas
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by TrueCreation, posted 02-19-2003 5:11 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by TrueCreation, posted 03-07-2003 11:46 PM Bill Birkeland has replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 154 of 165 (33813)
03-06-2003 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by edge
03-02-2003 12:31 AM


In message 151 0f 153, Edge wrote:
"If you are going to wait this long to respond, you
need to include more of the background."
--------------------------------------------------
In a previous message, True Creation, stated:
"--The lacustrine sediments are what Fritz described
as, "grain-supported braided stream conglomerate on
upper part".
------------------------------------------------------
To which, Edge responded:
"Umm, TC? Braided stream deposits are not lacustrine"
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. 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.
The problem is that neither cross-bedded sands nor
gravels form at the bottom of lakes. This fact refutes
the possibility that "grain-supported braided stream
conglomerates" could be lacustrine deposits. This is
basic sedimentology as restrained by the fundamental
laws of fluid dynamics and sediment transport as
discussed in detail by Allen (1985).
In fact, Fritz (1983) stated:
"If Coffin (1983) believes that stumps floating in
large lakes explains the Yellowstone, he needs to
either (1) document coarse-grained sedimentation
like that of the Lamar River Formation at the
bottom of Spirit Lake (rather than normal fine-grained
lacustrine sedimentation) or (2) demonstrate that
previous observations are wrong and that, in fact,
most of the trees in Yellowstone do occur in lacustrine
rocks".
Before that, Fritz (1983) also noted:
"...most petrified wood in Yellowstone occurs in
fluvial-sediment-flow conglomerate facies and not
the low-energy fine-grained lacustrine facies..."
Reference Cited:
Allen, J. R., 1985, Principles of Physical
Sedimentology, The Blackburn Press, New York.
Principles of Physical Sedimentology
Coffin, 1983, Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake,
Washington. Geology. vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 298-299.
Fritz, W. J., 1980, Depositional environment of the
Eocene Lamar River Formation in Yellowstone National
Park. unpublished Ph.D dissertation. University of
Montana, Billings, MT
Fritz, W. J., 1983, Comment and Reply on "Erect
floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington".
Geology vol. 11, no. 12. p. 733.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
Houston, Texas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by edge, posted 03-02-2003 12:31 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by TrueCreation, posted 03-07-2003 11:52 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 165 (33899)
03-07-2003 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by edge
03-02-2003 12:10 AM


"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by edge, posted 03-02-2003 12:10 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by edge, posted 03-08-2003 9:53 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 165 (33900)
03-07-2003 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by edge
03-02-2003 12:31 AM


"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
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by edge, posted 03-02-2003 12:31 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by edge, posted 03-08-2003 10:28 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 165 (33901)
03-07-2003 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Bill Birkeland
03-06-2003 10:16 PM


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 message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-06-2003 10:16 PM Bill Birkeland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by edge, posted 03-08-2003 2:29 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 163 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-12-2003 3:40 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 165 (33902)
03-07-2003 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Bill Birkeland
03-06-2003 11:19 PM


"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-06-2003 11:19 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 159 of 165 (33918)
03-08-2003 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by TrueCreation
03-07-2003 11:12 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by TrueCreation, posted 03-07-2003 11:12 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 160 of 165 (33920)
03-08-2003 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by TrueCreation
03-07-2003 11:26 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by TrueCreation, posted 03-07-2003 11:26 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 161 of 165 (33921)
03-08-2003 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by TrueCreation
02-20-2003 11:00 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by TrueCreation, posted 02-20-2003 11:00 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 162 of 165 (33930)
03-08-2003 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by TrueCreation
03-07-2003 11:46 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by TrueCreation, posted 03-07-2003 11:46 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 163 of 165 (34215)
03-12-2003 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by TrueCreation
03-07-2003 11:46 PM


In Message 157 of 161, TrueCreation wrote:
"--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?"
The problem is that the sandstones have few, if
any of the characteristics of either **primary**
air fall ash or lacustrine deposits. They are too
discontinuous and patchy to be either **primary**
air-fall fall deposits or lacustrine deposits. The
set of sedimentary structures reported from the
beds interpreted by TrueCreation are not the
type that form in lacustrine deposits or **primary**
air fall ashes as both observed in known air fall
and lacustrine and **predicted by the deposition
processes** that formed these deposits. Besides, in
any lake, the sand size material would not accumulated
uniformly over the bottom of lake but rather around
its margins as lacustrine deltas. The primary way
any sand would be moved into a lake is by turbidty
currents, which would leave very distinctive sets of
sedimentary structures, which the tuffaceous
sandstones in the Lamar River Formation don't
have. A person can verify this problem by looking
in any basic textbook on sedimentology, like:
Boggs, Sam, Jr., 2001. Principles of Sedimentology
and Stratigraphy. Third Edition. Prentice Hall
Both air fall and lacustrine interpretations for the
formation of the tuffaceous sandstones are "avoided"
/ disputed by conventional geologist because they
lack the set of characteristics that would be produced
if they have been deposited in a lake.
Instead, the sedimentary structures, as Fritz (1980,
1982) concluded, are consistent only with deposits
deposited by either fluvial processes or run-out
from **localized** debris floods.
All the 80 to 90 percent of air-fall ash present
in the sandstones means is that after each
eruption, volcanic ash was eroded off surrounding
hillslopes and washed into local river valleys.
There it was reworked by fluvial and debris
flow processes. The people who read Fritz (1980,
1982) will find that primary air-fall ash beds
are very rare within the measured sections studied
by Fritz (1980, 1982) and the volcanic ash present
in the Lamar River Formation has been eroded,
reworked, and redeposited by fluvial and debris
flow processes.
=--------------------------------------------------------
In Message 157 of 161, TrueCreation also wrote:
"That this air-fall ash was deposited (in my model)
in a lacustrine environment, it is therefor considered
a lacustrine sediment."
Given that your alleged "lacustrine" and "air-fall
ash" has few of the physical characteristics, e.g.
sedimentary structures, layer geometry, and so
forth of either lacustrine or **primary** air-fall
ash beds, your model is based on nothing more
than wishful thinking. Just because a model
requires certain beds to be lacustrine doesn't
erase the fact that the so-called **lacustrine**
deposits lack the characteristic set of features
that lacustrine deposits should have and, as a
result, there is simply no hard, physical evidence
by which to interpret them as being lacustrine
deposits.
The specific processes that transport and deposit
sediment within any environment, e.g. braided stream,
lake (any large standing body of freshwater), and so
forth, are directly reflected by the geometry of the
beds, their internal features (sedimentary structures),
thickness, and other characteristics. As a result, lake
deposits have very specific characteristics as would
braided stream or debris flow deposits, which
specifically reflect the processes that transported
and deposited these sediments. Unfortunately, for
TrueCreation, what he calls "lacustrine" in his model
don't show a set of physical characteristics that
would indicate that they originated in a large
standing body of freshwater.
This all can be verified by reading about the
character of lacustrine deposits by starting with:
Boggs, Sam, Jr., 2001. Principles of Sedimentology
and Stratigraphy. Third Edition. Prentice Hall
and
Fouch, T. D., and Dean, W. E., 1982, Laucustrine
environments. In P. A. Scholle and D. Spearing, eds.,
pp. 87-114, Sandstone Depositional Environments.
AAPG Menoir 31, American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Tulas, Oklahoma.
Both books explains how a person goes about identifying
sedimentary strata that are truly the deposits of
lacustrine deposition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Message 157 of 161, Bill is quoted as stating
""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"."
In Message 157 of 161, TrueCreation commented
"--So where did he contradict himself?"
he contradicted himself as stating the lithology as
first being "fine-grained sandstones and siltstones"
and then calling them "mudstones". If a person
would look at any glossary of geology, he would
find that mudstone is a very different type of
sedimentary rock than "sandstones and siltstones".
Because sandstones and siltstones" are not the same
type of rock as a "mudtsone", he is contracting
himself regarding the lithology of the lake sediments.
In the measured sections and also in the same part
of his dissertation, he refers to them as "shales",
which is definitely a different rock type than
"fine-grained sandstones and siltstones".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Message 157 of 161, Bill is quoted as stating
""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.""
In Message 157 of 161, TrueCreation commented
"--Why are bioturbations and pedoturbations required
"for a thick deposit of tuffaceous sandstone(if that is
"what you mean by massive that is)?
"Massive" certainly doesn't mean "thick". :-) :-) This
term has nothing to do with the thickness of the bed
of sandstone or other sedimentary rock. Instead, it
means the bed lacks any internal sedimentary
structures. When a layer of rock is effected by
soil forming processes, the first modification of a
layer of sediment is churning by burrowing, rooting,
leaching, and other processes. These processes
quickly destroy any internal structures within surficial
layers resulting in massive beds of sediment. Often
such massive beds, when examined carefully in field
or in the laboratory using thin sections or polished
slabs will show the characteristic features of a fossil
soil. Over the last 20 years, re-examination of
innumerable beds once described as "massive" has
shown that they are not really "massive" but full of
all sorts structures and features indicative of palesols.
Of course, not all massive beds are associated with
palesols. Some are just bioturbated and some are
the result of dewatering after deposition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Message 157 of 161, Bill is quoted as stating
"Retallack, G. J., 1997, A Colour Guide to Paleosols.
Chichester, United Kingdom"
In Message 157 of 161, TrueCreation commented
"--Does Retallack illustrate some paleosols seen in
"the lamar river formation in this book?
Yes, he does in full color. Otherwise I would not
have cited it.
--------------------------------------------------------
In Message 158 of 161, Bill is quoted as stating
""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.""
In Message 158 of 161, TrueCreation commented
"--Why wouldn't ash fall and volcaniclastic materials
be deposited on the bottom of a shallow lake?"
Volcanic ash and and other volcanoclastic materials
do accumulate in lakes. However, if a person would
look at Boggs (1998) and Fouch and Dean (1982),
he or she would find out that because the processes
that transport and deposit sediments in a large
standing body of water are vastly different from
the process that transport and deposit sediments in
either debris flows or braided streams, grain or
matrix supported conglomerates typically do **not**
accumulate in lakes. According to the Spirit Lake
models, the upright trees would be enclosed by either
mudstones or shales, which the petrified trees in
Lamar River Formation are not. Therefore, there
is no scientific basis, just wishful thinking on the
basis of the Coffin, that Spirit Lake can be used
to explain the fossil trees found in the Lamar River
Formation because the grain or matrix supported
conglomerates are not the type of sediments which
accumulate over the bottoms of lakes. They get
dumped at the edges in lacustrine deltas and may
locally slide into a lake along its edges. They don't
form the blanket deposits that Coffin's interpretations
of the Lamar River Formation require.
I would suggest that lurkers and other interested
parties read look through the revellant chapters of:
"Volcanic Successions: Modern and Ancient
a Geological Approach to Processes, Products
and Successions" by R.A.F. Cas, Wright J.V.
published by Chapman & Hall (March 1987)
This book explains matters far better than I can in
the limited space of a message board.
Look at:
8313 Sedimentology-Volcaniclastic Sedimentation
Oxford Brookes University
8320 Petrology -Volcaniclastic sediments & rocks
Oxford Brookes University
References Cited
Boggs, Sam, Jr., 2001. Principles of Sedimentology
and Stratigraphy. Third Edition. Prentice Hall
Fouch, T. D., and Dean, W. E., 1982, Laucustrine
environments. In P. A. Scholle and D. Spearing, eds.,
pp. 87-114, Sandstone Depositional Environments.
AAPG Menoir 31, American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Tulas, Oklahoma.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
Houston, TX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by TrueCreation, posted 03-07-2003 11:46 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by TrueCreation, posted 04-22-2003 5:32 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 165 (37608)
04-22-2003 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Bill Birkeland
03-12-2003 3:40 PM


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.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-12-2003 3:40 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by edge, posted 04-25-2003 12:37 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 165 of 165 (37959)
04-25-2003 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by TrueCreation
04-22-2003 5:32 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by TrueCreation, posted 04-22-2003 5:32 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024