Paleosols

In Message 98, and on 02-02-2003,
TrueCreation posted the following reply:Edge wrote:
"You have a wide variation in ecological niches, ...
Hunh? Where?Truecreation wrote:
"...including cool-temperate, warm-temperate,
tropical, and paratropical."Edge wrote:
"These were present at Specimen Ridge?"Truecreation replied in message 98:
"Yes, the fossil florae at the Lamar River
Formation indicate these environments."In this case, Young Earth creationists indulge
in a type of hyper-uniformitarian thinking that
conventional paleontologists and paleobontanists
have long since abandoned. Unlike Young Earth
creationists, paleobeontantists, paleontologists,
and geologists now understand that 1. over the
last 50 million years there have been changes in
the environmental preferences of trees and 2. the
climate of the Eocene was a period of "hot house"
climates that contrast sharply with modern "cold
house" climates.As a result, during the Eocene, vegetation
communities were less well defined and the
and lacked the separation of vegetation into the
current recognized modern communities, e.g. "warm-
temperate, tropical, and paratropical environments",
which did not exist at that time. At that time all of
the fossil plants found in the Lamar River Formation
and once assigned to to "warm-temperate, tropical,
and paratropical" environments co-existed in a single
tropical / paratropical semideciduous community
for which no modern analogue exists as discussed
by Wolfe (1985). The diversity of plant communities
and environments argued by Young Earth creationists
is a false diversity that was created by earlier
conventional paleobontanists, in the past, and
continued by Young Earth creationists, in the present,
using hyper-uniformitarian assumptions that neither
the global climate of the Earth has nor
environmental preferences of the plants found
as fossils in Lamar River Formation have changed
over time. Wolfe (1985) among many authors
has provided an abundance of evidence that both
have changed to the point that it rather nonsensical
to interpret the flora of the Lamar River Formation
in terms of modern communities in the way that
Young Earth creationists continue to do for the
Yellowstone Petrified Forest trees.Reference cited:Wolfe, J. A., 1985, Distribution of major vegetation
types during the Tertiary. In: E. T. Sundquist and
W. S. Broecker, eds., pp. 357-375, The Carbon Cycle
and Atmospheric CO2: Natural Variations Archean
to Present. Washington. Pp. 357--375.Another more recent reference:Wolfe, J. A., 1994, Tertiary climate changes
at middle latitudes of western North America.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology.
vol. 108, pp. 195-205.More information about Hothouse versus Icehouse
climate can be found in "ICE HOUSE or HOT HOUSE at:Climate History
Paleoclimate VRand3.4.2. Global Climate and Phytogeography
Global Climate and Phytogeography in the Early Mesozoic"The Eocene Greenhouse" by: David Pacchioli
(Research/Penn State, Vol. 14, no. 3
http://www.rps.psu.edu/sep93/eocene.htmlHuber, B. T. and MacLeod, K. G., and Wing, S. L.
eds., 2000, Warm Climates in Earth History.
Cambridge University Press.Within the Lamar River Formation, there are only
two main plant communities. They are a tropical
/ paratropical semideciduous community and a
mixed coniferous community. The latter, like the
tropical / paratropical semideciduous community
has **no modern** analogue although it does
represent cooler and wetter environment than
the tropical / paratropical semideciduous
community. Although it might be something like a
cool temperate community, it is unlike anything
that is seem today and can easily be explained
as occupying the higher, and thus cooler and
wetter slopes of various adjacent volcanoes, from
which, the sediments of the Lamar River Formation
were derived. Changes in climate might even lower
the elevation of boundary between these communities
where the mixed coniferous community could have
ocassionally migrated downslope into and briefly
occupied areas within which parts of the Lamar
River Formation was accumulating. Since
increasingly cooler and wetter climate zones and
vegetational communities are typically found as
a person moves upslope on volcanic mountains, the
presence of fossils of the mixed coniferous
community in the Lamar River Formation is nothing
anomalous.Web pages to look are:Life Zones and Altitudinal Zonation
http://www.radford.edu/...SES/GEOG235/lifezone/lifezone.htmlMERRIAM'S LIFE ZONES
http://www.runet.edu/...LASSES/GEOG235/lifezone/merriam.htmlFinal Note:Amidon (1997) illustrated a number of in place /
non-transported / in situ stumps, some
with trunks, using photographs and line drawings.
For example, pictures and line drawing of
**rooted** trees buried in place can be found in
the section on pages 63 to 83, which is titled
"Palesol Analysis", on of his thesis.Also, as the section title implies, in addition to
solid evidence of **Rooted** trees within the
Gallatin part of the Yellowstone petrified forest,
Amidon (1997) also provides solid proof of the
fact that these stumps are rooted in well-developed
paleosols. Amidon (1997) recognized these "fossil
soils on the presence of well-developed soil horizons,
well-developed soil structures on both microscope
and megascopic scale, and demostrated alteration
of clay and other minerals that can be best explained
by the long-term weathering of sediments within an
active soil associated with a stable subaerial,
terrestrially exposed surface.Also, Amibon (1997) measured the orientation of logs
in the Yellowstone Petrified Forests. His results
show that Coffin greatly understated and misjudged
the variability of the orientations of horizontal logs
that are found within the Lamar River Formation.
Looking at Amibon (1997), I would have to conclude
that Coffin did an very bad job of measuring a
representative sample of logs in the Lamar River
Formation and that Coffin's paleocurrent are very
likely almost useless in making any inference about
the origin of the Lamar River Formation. Judging
from Amibon (1997), I suspect that Coffin's Journal
of Paleontology paper, eventually with further
research, will be shown to be an example of how even
sloppy and inaccurate research is published in a
peer-review journal. At the least, Amibon (1997)
certainly proves that Coffin's tight cluster of paleocurrent directions for logs in the Lamar River Formation
simply doesn't exist except in the wishful thinking
of Young Earth creationists.Reference 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.Yours,Bill Birkeland
Houston, Texas

In Message 108 on 02-02-2003 04,
Truecreation stated:"Well then, he needs to talk to Coffin since there
are what Coffin calls 'organic zones' or something
like that. He also states that the organic zones
are up to 20 cm thick...." --I didn't give you a
full description. Fritz comments on organic zones
as well, though I don't recall him giving them a
characteristic of "20 cm thickness"In my opinion, the discussion of the organic zone is
a complete waste of time. I concluded this because,
at this time, the current position of conventional geologists
and pedologists who have studied the Lamar River
Formation, starting with Fritz in his 1980 dissertation
and ending with Amidon (1997), agree with Coffin
(1979, 1997) that the organic zones are: 1. not part of
any paleosol and 2. largely consist of water-rafted debris.Conventional geologists, at one time did argued that
the organic horizons are the O Horizons of fossil
soils. However, that is no longer the case. Thus,
arguments about whether they are paleosols or not
are now meaningless as far as current discussion of
the origins of the petrified forests found in the Lamar
River Formation are concerned.The paleosols that Retallack (1981) discussed and
illustrated in color by Retallack (1997), **are not
at all** associated with any of the "organic zones".
Rather they are layers of sediments characterized by
1. the horizonation found in soils, 2. the presence of
megascopic and microscopic features and textures
that are only found in soils and produced by soil
development, and 3. the actual alteration of the
sediment by in place weathering.References cited are: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.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.Retallack, G. J., 1997, A Colour Guide to Paleosols.
Chichester, United KingdomSuch paleosols are discussed by Amidon (1997).
For example, he 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 only 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, like those
noted by Amidon (1997) and illustrated by Retallack
(1985, 1997).This is significant because the Gallatin petrified forests
are not only identical to the Specimen Ridge petrified
forests but have been by geological mapping to be
shown to be part of the Lamar River Formation and
are approximately the same age as the Specimen
Ridge petrified forests. It is impossible to argue that
they have different origins as they are identical in
physical characteristics, stratigraphic position, and
wood taphonomy. They occur a few miles north of the
Specimen Ridge petrified forest.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.Retallack, G. J., 1985, Laboratory Exercises in
Paleopedology. University of Oregon, Eugene,
Oregon.http://www.uoregon.edu/...i/retall/Paleoclasses/geol435.htmlRetallack, G. J., 1997, A Colour Guide to Paleosols.
Chichester, United KingdomSome web pages of interest:"SOILSCAPES OF THE PAST - This set of published
reconstructions of ancient landscapes and their
soils provide an overview of the evolution of
soils and landscapes through geological time" at:http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~dogsci/retall/soils.html"SCIENTIFIC DIAGRAMS - Much science can be conveyed
in diagrams: here are a few that capture the nature
of my research. Click on the image for greater detailhttp://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~dogsci/retall/figs.htmlBasics in soils:Lecture 4, Soil Morphology
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/...qp-p/courses/env320/lec4/Lec4.htmlBill Birkeland
Houston, Texas

Unfortunately, I am rather busy now, otherwise, I finish
replies to a couple of True Creation's previous posts
that I have started on. One matter that needs to be
cleared up is noted below.In message 122, True Creation wrote:------------------------------------------------------"I haven't left out this detail. The lacustrine deposits
and sandstone are the main result of the surge and what
it brought in (in regards to sediments)."------------------------------------------------------True Creations also mentions "ash falls" in several
places in this post.If a person takes the time to look at the graphic
descriptions and discussions in Fritz (1980, 1982),
the volume of either lake or actually air-fall ash
deposits within the Specimen Ridge, Specimen Creek,
Gallatin, and other sections are extremely small
to almost nonexistent. The vast majority of the
sediments consists of debris flow or reworked water
laid sediments, in many cases likely related to the
run-off of water from debris flows as well documented
at Mt. St Helens and many other volcanoes. Also, in
places, a person can find strata that have all of the
characteristics of fluvial deposits. Mr True Creation
and others greatly overestimate the abundance of any
possible fine-grained lacustrine and primary air-
fall ash deposits within the Lamar River Formation.References Cited:Fritz, W. J., 1980, Depositional environment of the
Eocene Lamar River Formation in Yellowstone National
Park. unpublished Ph.D dissertation. University of
Montana, Billings, MTFritz, 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.If there were massive lakes being formed, a person
should find some evidence of their deposits. There
is simply absolutely **no** evidence for the
existence of any large lakes postulated by True
Creation.This is also a problem because the Spirit Lake model
only works for deposition in a large, quiet lake. In
such a lake, the sediments surrounding the upright
trees should consist of fine-grained and possibly, in
places, organic rich sediments, that are virtually
absent from the Lamar River Formation. The sediments
that surround the upright trees in the Lamar River
Formation consist not of fine-grained lake deposits,
but rather matrix and clast supported conglomerates
that accumulate within lakes. These beds are perfectly
consistent with the deposits directly observed to have
been created by terrestrial lahars as described by:Rodolfo, K. S.., and Arguden, A. T., 1991, Rain-Lahar
Generation and Sediment-Delivery Systems at Mayon
Volcano, Philippines. SEPM Special Publication No. 45,
Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
pp. 71-88.Scott, K. M., 1988, Origins, Behavior, and Sedimentology
of Lahars and Lahars-Runout Flows in the Toutle-Cowlitz
River System. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1447-A. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 74 pp.Scott, K. M., 1989, Magnitude and Frequency of Lahars
and Lahar-Runout Flows in the Toutle-Cowlitz River
System. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1447-B. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.Smith, G. A., 1991, Facies Sequences and Geometries
in Continental Volcanoclastic Sediments. Sedimentation
in Volcanic Settings. SEPM Special Publication No. 45,
Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
pp. 109-121.Smith, G. A., and Lowe, D. R., 1991, Lahars:
Volcano-Hydrologic Events and Deposition in the
Debris flow-Hyperconcentrated Flow Continuum.
SEPM Special Publication No. 45, Society for
Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma. pp. 59-70.Volcanic mudflows and debris flows (lahars) are a very
typical feature of stratovolcanoes, as they are composed
of both poorly lithified and volcanics that are often
highly altered to clay. In case of such volcanic
material, all it takes for a major mudflow / debris
flow / lahar to form is either a minor eruption that
melts an ice or snow field formed on the summit of the
volcano or just an unusually heavy rain. This is all
document in the literature concerning volcanic
harzards. It is completely unnecessary to postulate
the existence of large lakes to explain any of these
deposits. For some pictures, go see:1. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Imgs/Jpg/Ruiz/30423808-021_med.jpg
Volcano Hazards Program2. Lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs114-97/
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/...t/fs114-97/resources/lourdes.jpg
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/...114-97/resources/BuriedHouse.jpg3. http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/...sons/volcano_types/lahar.htm
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/...ons/volcano_types/lahar1.jpg4. A polystrate church
http://perso.club-internet.fr/...fouie_sous_lahars_petit.jpg
http://perso.club-internet.fr/acatte/Pinatubo_in_english.htm5. another polystrate church
University of East Anglia6. http://www.avo.alaska.edu/volcanoes/redo/redoph4.htmlIn fact, had Coffin and Austin not been so transfixed
with Spirit Lake they could have found buried forests
within the valley of the Toutle River that are buried
in deposits virtually identical to Lamar River Formation.
In fact, if Austin and Coffin weren't so blinded with
their focus on Spirit Lake, they would have found modern
lahar deposits containing buried forests that are quite
comparable to the Lamar River Formation associated with
stratovolcanoes within the Cascade Range and all over
the world. Some documented examples are:1. Buried Forests at Mt. St HelensKarowe, Amy L., and Jefferson, T. H., 1987, Burial
of Trees by Eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington:
Implications for the Interpretation of Fossil Forests.
Geological Magazine. vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 191-204.Yamaguchi, D. K., and Hoblitt (1995) Tree-ring dating of
pre-1980 volcanic flowage deposits at Mount St. Helens,
Washington. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
vol. 107, no. 9, pp. 1077-1093.2. Upright burial forests enclosed in sediments
almost indistinguishable from those found in the
Lamar River Formation have also been noted in the
volcanic sediments around Mt. Hood as documented in:Crandell, D. R., 1980, Recent Eruptive History of Mount
Hood, Oregon, and Potential Hazards from Future
Eruptions. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1492,
Reston, Virginia.Cameron, K. A., and Pringle, P. T., 1987, A Detailed
Chronology of the Most Recent Major Eruptive Period at
Mount Hood, Oregon. Geological Society of American
Bulletin. vol. 99, no. 6, pp. 845-851.Cameron, K. A., and Pringle, P. T., 1991, Prehistoric
buried forests of Mount Hood. Oregon Geology. vol. 53,
no. 2, pp. 34-43.Lawrence, D. B., and Lawrence, E. G., 1959, Radiocarbon
dating of some events on Mount Hood and Mount St. Helens.
Mazama. vol. 40, no. 14, pp. 10-18.These are just two local examples of innumerable buried
forests that, if a person is willing to look at modern
deposits with open eyes, can be found all over the world.
The bureid forests of Mt Hood and Mt St. Helen are in
no way unique.In advocating their Spirit Lake model, both Austin and
Coffin both neglect to either discussed or even mention
the implications of the buried forests that can be
found in lahar deposits all over the world that easily
explain the buried forests in Lamar River Formation.Other problems;1. The beds within the Lamar River Formation are
laterally discontinuous, as would be expected of
terrestrial lahar deposits and is quite atypical of
underwater mudflows and turbidity currents. (Because
of the laterally discontinuous nature of individual
beds in the Lamar River Formation, there are no real
continuous buried forest beds that can be traced outside
of any one outcrop. The number of buried forests will
vary from place to place. There is neither stratigraphic
nor chronologic lateral continuity of any one bed or
buried forest within the Lamar River Formation. The
individual events that buried forests covered over a
relatively limited area within the extent of the Lamar
River Formation. Thus, we are talking about very
localized events, on the scale of terrestrial debris
flows, that can't be correlated outside of individual
outcrops.2. In an underwater environment, unlike terrestrial,
environments, mass flows quickly entrains water into
them and rapidly develop from matrix supported flows,
such as mudflows, into turbidity currents, which create
very distinctive sedimentary structures, e.g. the Bouma
sequence (Lowe 1976, 1979, 1982). If the Lamar River
Formation was deposited underwater as Coffin and Austin
advocate, there should be direct evidence of the deposits
of turbidty currents within the Lamar River Formation.For examples of Bouma Sequences, a person can go to:http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/GEOLOCN_/8_image/8bouma.gif Geological Sciences - Department Geological Sciences - Arts and Science - University of Saskatchewan
Geological Sciences - Department Geological Sciences - Arts and Science - University of Saskatchewan Page not found | Penn State Department of GeosciencesIn the last web page, note that matrix supported muddy
gravels are restricted to the deposits nearest the
source and often to well defined channels, which simply
are not seen in the Lamar River Formation.The fact of the matter is that the sediments of the Lamar
River Formation lack Bouma sequences and are identical
in the types of sedimentary deposits and structures to what
can be found in sedimentary aprons surrounding modern
stratovolcanoes. Again, a person need only look at the lahar
deposits of Mt. St. Helens, e.g Scott (1998, 1989), Karowe
and Jefferson (1987) and Yamaguchi and Hoblitt (1995) to
find excellent modern examples of the sediments and
buried forests virtually identical, except in genera and
species, to those found in the Lamar River Formation.3. There are a couple lava beds within the Lamar River
formation. They lack any indication, e.g. hyrdoclastics
and pillow lava, that they were extruded underwater. The
lava flows found within and laterally equivalent to the
Lamar river Formation also lacks any indication of being
extruded underwater and quite clearly were all erupted
This by itself largely refutes a global flood origin for
the Lamar River Formation as suggested by Coffin and
Austin. It is impossible for any of these lava flows to
have been erupted underwater without producing both
hydroclastics and pillow lavas.References:Karowe, A. L., and Jefferson, T. H., 1987, Burial of
Trees by Eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington:
Implications for the Interpretation of Fossil Forests.
Geological Magazine. vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 191-204.Lowe, D. R., 1976, Subaqueous liquefied and fluidized
flows and their deposits: Sedimentology, vol. 23,
pp. 285-308.Lowe, D. R., 1979, Sediment gravity flows: Their
classification and problems of application to natural
flows and deposits: SEPM Special Publication no. 27,
pp. 75-82.Lowe, D. R., 1982, Sediment gravity flows II.
depositional models with special reference to the
deposits of high-density turbidity currents:
Journal Sedimentary Petrology, vol. 52, pp. 279-297.Scott, K. M., 1988, Origins, Behavior, and Sedimentology
of Lahars and Lahars-Runout Flows in the Toutle-Cowlitz
River System. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1447-A. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 74 pp.Scott, K. M., 1989, Magnitude and Frequency of Lahars
and Lahar-Runout Flows in the Toutle-Cowlitz River
System. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1447-B. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.Yamaguchi, D. K., and Hoblitt, R. P., 1995, Tree-ring
dating of pre-1980 volcanic flowage deposits at Mount
St. Helens, Washington. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, vol. 107, no. 9, pp. 1077-1093.There is an enormous amount of literature that describe
lahar deposits that are identical in character to the
Lamar River Formation. For example, some of these
references can be found on web pages like
"Bibliographie" at:Request RejectedAnyone who takes a hard look at the character of the
sedimentary deposits of the Lamar River Formation
quickly finds a complete lack of any sedimentological
evidence that they were deposited underwater, as in a
global flood, and perfectly explainable as debris
flows coming off of local volcanoes. Also, a person
needs to understand that debris flows may or may not
be associated with a volcanic eruption. Imaginary
large lakes are unneeded to explain the creation of
the deposits within the Lamar River Formation.Go read:Matthews, A. J., Barclay, J., Carn, S. A., Thompson,
G., Alexander, J, Herd, R. A., and Williams, C., 2002
Rainfall-induced volcanic activity on Montserrat
Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 29, no. 13),
no. 10.1029/2002GL014863 at:University of East Anglia"Montserrat: Volcanic activity and rainfall" at:University of East Angliaan old summary article on this subject is:Rodolfo, K. S.., and Arguden, A. T., 1991, Rain-Lahar
Generation and Sediment-Delivery Systems at Mayon
Volcano, Philippines. SEPM Special Publication No. 45,
Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
pp. 71-88.Also, look at:Vallance, J. W., and Scott, K. H. 1997, The Osceola
Mudflow from Mount Rainier: Sedimentology and hazard
implications of a huge clay-rich debris flow
Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 109,
No. 2, pp. 143-163.Some Thought
Bill BirkelandP.S. I did misspell horizonation as horisonation

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, MTFritz, 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.htmlRetallack, G. J., 1997, A Colour Guide to Paleosols.
Chichester, United KingdomYours,Bill Birkeland
Houston, Texas[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-06-2003]

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 SedimentologyCoffin, 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, MTFritz, 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

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 HallBoth 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 HallandFouch, 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 University8320 Petrology -Volcaniclastic sediments & rocks
Oxford Brookes UniversityReferences CitedBoggs, Sam, Jr., 2001. Principles of Sedimentology
and Stratigraphy. Third Edition. Prentice HallFouch, 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