|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Paleosols | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: If you are going to wait this long to respond, you need to include more of the background.
quote: Umm, TC? Braided stream deposits are not lacustrine.
quote: Umm, yes. That's why I mentioned observable processes. If we can see a process that works, why dream up some fantastic notion?
quote: Okay, when you devise an experiment that proves the biblical story of origins, let me know...
quote: The difference is that yours are impossible. For the reasons that Bill suggested earlier.
quote: Show me their pictures. I believe that you interpret what everyone else says so as to fit it into your scenario.
quote: 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: 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: What evidence is that?
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.
quote: 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: I have no idea what you are talking about.
quote: All explainable by known, observable processes. What is your evidence that your scenario is correct?
quote: 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: Yes this is normal in a pyroclastic deposit.
quote: What dam? How did it form behind a flood surge?
quote: Answered above.
quote: The deposits are subaerial.
quote: 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: Every day, TC. And so am I.
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.
quote: Nope. Stratigraphy. Petrology is the classification and the study of rock constituents.
quote: For (another) one, what are the boundaries of your lake?
quote: Just common sense and logical explanations.
quote: I'm pretty sure it's been answered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Except that we have a description from Bill. That is okay for me to accept for the time being.
quote: Hmmm, because you haven't explained anything?
quote: You mean like lacustrine sediments be stream-deposited conglomerates?
quote: It's not a problem for me. Besides we have some info.
quote: Riiiiight.
quote: Because it doesn't. You have misunderstood it.
quote: No. You said that 'in situ' and 'in place' could mean 'transported.' This is demonstrably wrong.
quote: Then explain why we have adjacent deposits of identical character that are different?
quote: Ah. Your judgement.
quote: 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: 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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2531 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
In Message 139 of 152,
True Creation quoted Fritz (1980) as stating: "These well-preserved organic remains are common alongspecific 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 Earthcreationists 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 tounderstand 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 thesepaleosols 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 clayformed by the weathering volcanic sediment associated with this paleosol. The fact of the matter is that Bt and Bq horizonsform 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 welllaminated and have load casts, flame structures, and ripple cross-laminations." and "Generally, the tuffaceous sandstone beds arediscontinuous within the mud flow and braided- stream facies; this suggests deposition in stream channels." I find it difficult to understand how a person canclaim 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 tuffaceoussandstones 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 Eocenefossil 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 theYellowstone 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 theEocene Lamar River Formation in Yellowstone National Park. unpublished Ph.D dissertation. University of Montana, Billings, MT Fritz, W. J., 1982, Geology of the Lamar RiverFormation, 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 'Reinterpretationof Depositional Environment of the Yellowstone "Fossil Forests"'. Geology. vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 52-53. Retallack, G. J., 1985, Laboratory Exercises inPaleopedology. 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 BirkelandHouston, Texas [This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-06-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2531 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
In message 151 0f 153, Edge wrote:
"If you are going to wait this long to respond, youneed to include more of the background." -------------------------------------------------- In a previous message, True Creation, stated: "--The lacustrine sediments are what Fritz describedas, "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) hadto 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 inlarge 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 influvial-sediment-flow conglomerate facies and not the low-energy fine-grained lacustrine facies..." Reference Cited: Allen, J. R., 1985, Principles of PhysicalSedimentology, 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 theEocene Lamar River Formation in Yellowstone National Park. unpublished Ph.D dissertation. University of Montana, Billings, MT Fritz, W. J., 1983, Comment and Reply on "Erectfloating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington". Geology vol. 11, no. 12. p. 733. Yours, Bill BirkelandHouston, Texas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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 ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
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. quote:--Whew. 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. quote:--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:--So where did he contradict himself? quote:--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 ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Hence your complete misunderstanding of geological processes. I rest my case.
quote: 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: I understand both completely. You have no reasonable method of creating such lakes.
quote: Your model has to explain what is seen in the field.
quote: And your explanation has been refuted.
quote: 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: My model is the same as Yuretich's.
quote: This has been answered numerous times.
quote: 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: This has been done before.
quote: It is clear that you do not have a grasp of volcanic and/or sedimentary environments. This has been shown repeatedly.
quote: Just one point among many.
quote: According to you. An explanation that does not reflect reality and violates common sense is a failure.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Credulity based on sound reasoning is different from blind faith. Or are they the same to you?
quote: 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: 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: The Gallatin Forest deposits that you continue to ignore.
quote: 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: 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 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: Ah, equivocating again! Okay, then: virtually any aspect of it.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Here is my response to post 144. I felt that these items had been explained before, but for the record:
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: The author is suggesting an explanation for the massive texture of the tuffaceous sands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2531 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
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, ifany 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 Sedimentologyand Stratigraphy. Third Edition. Prentice Hall Both air fall and lacustrine interpretations for theformation 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 presentin 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-fallash" 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 depositsediment 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 thecharacter of lacustrine deposits by starting with: Boggs, Sam, Jr., 2001. Principles of Sedimentologyand Stratigraphy. Third Edition. Prentice Hall and Fouch, T. D., and Dean, W. E., 1982, Laucustrineenvironments. 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 identifyingsedimentary 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 asfirst 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 tuffaceoussandstones 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". :-) :-) Thisterm 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 withpalesols. 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 nothave cited it. -------------------------------------------------------- In Message 158 of 161, Bill is quoted as stating ""This is the very same objection that Fritz (1983) hadto 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 materialsbe deposited on the bottom of a shallow lake?" Volcanic ash and and other volcanoclastic materialsdo 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 interestedparties read look through the revellant chapters of: "Volcanic Successions: Modern and Ancienta 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 inthe limited space of a message board. Look at: 8313 Sedimentology-Volcaniclastic SedimentationOxford Brookes University 8320 Petrology -Volcaniclastic sediments & rocksOxford Brookes University References Cited Boggs, Sam, Jr., 2001. Principles of Sedimentologyand Stratigraphy. Third Edition. Prentice Hall Fouch, T. D., and Dean, W. E., 1982, Laucustrineenvironments. 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 BirkelandHouston, TX
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
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.
-------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024