Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Paleosols
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 165 (32621)
02-18-2003 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by edge
02-18-2003 9:32 PM


"This is not what you said earlier. Please respond to the point where I quoted your earlier statement."
--This is what I have been saying for a month now, and I have responded to your quote.
"Which sediments?"
--The tuffaceous sandstones.
"Are you sauing that Yuretich and others agree with your model for transport and redeposition? "
--Nope, never did.
"Umm, then what are all those trees doing in the forest that people were walking through in the pictures? If you ever studied any geology you would have undestood this."
--No, it whether I have studied geology isn't the question, its whether you have studied the Lamar Ridge Formation.
"Then what are they? How do you support your trees."
--With...tuffaceous sandstones?
"How do you support your trees. At present, all we have is that they mysteriously became 'rooted' in the sediments."
--We have much more than this. And you still have yet to reason why your incredulity has any credibility in regards to my depositional model, unless you have something more than your incredulity you would like to unveil..
"Do you have a modern example? (oh, of course not, you admitted this earlier). What exactly DO you have?"
--Not an exactly analogous example, no. Though different aspects of the model, yes there are modern analogs. Bill has cited some for the condition of the trees after they have been deposited upright. Mt. St. Helens is an analog for how the trees could have had the potential to be deposited upright. And more examples for other aspects of the model. Just put it all together and it makes sense (I know you don't think so, so why doesn't it? what is missing?).
"Oh dear, it's worse than I thought. You have not only a wrong idea of what happens during sedimentation[1], you have set the entire science back 50 years.[1]"
--Explain [1] and [2].
"This will not work. You could start explaining, however, by showing us some of these tuffaceous sandstones."
--lol. Ok, this is getting tedious, go get some relevant resources and stop asking me this silly questions and futile inquiries. Tuffaceous sandstones are one of the prime constituents of the Lamar Ridge & Specimen ridge, et al. paleoformations. Not only that but almost every upright tree is rooted in these grain-supported strata.
"Oh heck, I just realized that you don't even know what 'tuffaceous sandstones' are! What a waste of time this has been!"
--I don't? What have I said they were and how is that incorrect?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by edge, posted 02-18-2003 9:32 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by edge, posted 02-19-2003 12:20 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 165 (32622)
02-18-2003 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by edge
02-18-2003 9:42 PM


"Correct, Yuretich does not say that anything supported the trees."
--Yes he does. He says that what it is rooted in is what supported them. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that.
"It may be pure data, but you have applied an interpretation that no one else does."
--There is a reason for that, I don't need to itterate it again.
"Please do not further associate yourself with respected geoscientists."
--Associate????
"I hardly think it matters in your case. If the standing water were a lake, the sediments would be lacustrine."
--I'll refer them to as lacustrine from now on, now that I know (at least I hope) you won't misinterpret what sediments I am referring to when I refer to them merely as lacustrine.
"If you cannot come up with a better argument than these, you continue to waste our time.
--This wasn't an 'argument'.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by edge, posted 02-18-2003 9:42 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 138 of 165 (32623)
02-19-2003 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by TrueCreation
02-18-2003 11:01 PM


quote:
"Which sediments?"
--The tuffaceous sandstones.
Now, show us these sediments in a photograph. Then support your argument that they support the trees.
quote:
"Umm, then what are all those trees doing in the forest that people were walking through in the pictures? If you ever studied any geology you would have undestood this."
--No, it whether I have studied geology isn't the question,...
I'm afraid it is. If you do not even understand what a tuffaceous sandstone is, we are wasting our time.
quote:
... its whether you have studied the Lamar Ridge Formation.
I have studied the photographs that Coffin provided and I have read Bill's posts. I have also worked in proximal volcanic environments.
quote:
"Then what are they? How do you support your trees."
--With...tuffaceous sandstones?
This is a great assertion, but you have yet to show us where these tuffaceous sandstones are and exactly how they would 'support' a tree.
quote:
"How do you support your trees. At present, all we have is that they mysteriously became 'rooted' in the sediments."
--We have much more than this.
You have shown nothing. You have not even shown us how much tuffaceous sandstone there is.
quote:
And you still have yet to reason why your incredulity has any credibility in regards to my depositional model, unless you have something more than your incredulity you would like to unveil..
My incredulity is based on something more concrete than a simple-minded understanding of geological processes and settings.
quote:
"Do you have a modern example? (oh, of course not, you admitted this earlier). What exactly DO you have?"
--Not an exactly analogous example, no. Though different aspects of the model, yes there are modern analogs. Bill has cited some for the condition of the trees after they have been deposited upright. Mt. St. Helens is an analog for how the trees could have had the potential to be deposited upright.
Yep, could'a. But tell us: what is the condition of those trees today... Tell us what would happen if the water escaped from Spirit Lake. Heck, they've been there 20 odd years, and you only have a year to do all this and a whole lot more in you model...
quote:
And more examples for other aspects of the model. Just put it all together and it makes sense (I know you don't think so, so why doesn't it? what is missing?).
But no actual examples of trees being deposited and supported in the way that you suggest... Why not?
quote:
"Oh dear, it's worse than I thought. You have not only a wrong idea of what happens during sedimentation[1], you have set the entire science back 50 years.[1]"
--Explain [1] and [2].
Perhaps when you explain how thin discontinuous sandstones will support a tree in a lake that has no known method of forming when flood surge ebbs away.
quote:
"This will not work. You could start explaining, however, by showing us some of these tuffaceous sandstones."
--lol. Ok, this is getting tedious, go get some relevant resources and stop asking me this silly questions and futile inquiries.
They are only futile because you cannot answer my questions. And they are only silly because I have to ask them in the first place. Besides, they are your assertions to support. Why should I do your research for you?
quote:
Tuffaceous sandstones are one of the prime constituents of the Lamar Ridge & Specimen ridge, et al. paleoformations. Not only that but almost every upright tree is rooted in these grain-supported strata.
Please see Bill's post regarding this. If the sandstones are so important, they should be readily apparent in some photography.
quote:
"Oh heck, I just realized that you don't even know what 'tuffaceous sandstones' are! What a waste of time this has been!"
--I don't? What have I said they were and how is that incorrect?
I believe you said something about 'tuffaceous inclusions.' You can go back and check. This makes no sense at all. It is also likely that the tuffaceous sandstones and the lacustrine sediments are one and the same. This all belies your lack of depth in this subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2003 11:01 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by TrueCreation, posted 02-19-2003 5:11 PM edge has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 165 (32686)
02-19-2003 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by edge
02-19-2003 12:20 AM


"Now, show us these sediments in a photograph. Then support your argument that they support the trees."
--So you have a suspicion that the tuffaceous sandstone couldn't support trees in upright position? Just remember that if I have a problem here, you also have one. Of course this is not the case because that is what most if not all trees in the specimen ridge et al. locations are rooted in. Some with subscript comments can be found in Fritz [1980], Figure 2 [subscript: Figure 2. Horizontal log with roots, parallel to bedding in Amethyst Mountain section.]& Figure 5 [Subscript: Figure 5. Exposure 80 to 90 m from base of Cache Creek section showing matrix-supported mud-flow conglomerate on lower part of cliff and grain-supported braided-stream conglomerate on upper part.] In Yuretich [March, 1984] Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 8 [model schematic]. Subscripts:
Figure 2 - Large stump at 90 to 94 m in measured section of Fritz (1980b). Roots are in tuffaceous sandstone (hammer), and trunk projects up through overlying conglomerate (background).
Figure 3 - Photograph and sketch of vertical tree stump surrounded by conglomerate. Roots are in tuffaceous sandstone; conglomerate appears to have flowed around pre-existing stump.
Figure 4 - Photograph and sketch of horizontal log with roots. Roots are in sandstone; upper abrades surfaces of logs are overlain by conglomerate.
Figure 8 - Suggested depositional environments for Specimen Ridge section. Mudflow and lacustrine deposits cause discontinuous preservation of forest levels, but successive episodes of volcanism give rise to vertical sequence of deposits in which fossil forests were rooted.
"I'm afraid it is. If you do not even understand what a tuffaceous sandstone is, we are wasting our time."
--You've only made the assertion, you have not even given a good reason for this accusation. See my last comment for this post.
" have studied the photographs that Coffin provided and I have read Bill's posts. I have also worked in proximal volcanic environments."
--Evidently this isn't enough, otherwise you wouldn't be asking many of your silly questions.
"This is a great assertion, but you have yet to show us where these tuffaceous sandstones are and exactly how they would 'support' a tree."
From Fritz, 1980:
quote:
The tuffaceous sandstone is composed of 80% to 90% water-transported air-fall ash and 10% to 20% reworked detrital volcaniclastic material. Tuffaceous sandstone units are commonly well laminated and have load casts, flame structures, and ripple cross-laminations. These structures formed in sluggish streams choked with volcaniclastic and mud-flow debris, which was reworked as a mixture of air-fall ash and detrital grains. Generally, the tuffaceous sandstone beds are discontinuous within the mud flow and braided-stream facies; this suggests deposition in stream channels. Local upward decreases in grain size occurred either during times of volcanic eruptions as air-fall ash choked the streams or during periods of lower energy. In places intraformational conglomerate accumulated within the tuffaceous sandstone beds. On Amethyst Mountain and Specimen Ridge, the tuffaceous sandstone units are bright blue-green, but at other localities they are gray. Although the tuffaceous sandstone beds include fewer pieces of petrified than the conglomerate, they contain abundant pollen, leaves, needles, and some cones. These well-preserved organic remains are common along specific horizons, in places associated with roots of vertical stumps; it has been suggested that these could be called paleosols. However, no A, B, or C horizons can be distinguished, and the zones are very thin, are well laminated, have no decayed organic debris, and in places are draped over large boulders. Reemains of vertical trees in the conglomerate facies normally have no organic zone or weathering profile associated with the roots. The organic zones probably do not represent soils but rather are plant litter deposited by sheet wash, possibly during intense rainstorms associated with volcanic activity.
--How wouldn't they support a tree? And how exactly, in a mainstream model, would you compensate since we are dealing with the exact same environment, root structure, etc.
"You have shown nothing. You have not even shown us how much tuffaceous sandstone there is.
--Well you don't have to ask me, you could always take my suggestion and read the work of Fritz & Yuretich et al. why not just go give him another one of your e-mails?
"My incredulity is based on something more concrete than a simple-minded understanding of geological processes and settings."
--No, this is the problem, your incredulity takes place entirely in your mind. Do you have something concrete to base your incredulity on then? Rather than your subjective incredulity?
"Yep, could'a. But tell us: what is the condition of those trees today... Tell us what would happen if the water escaped from Spirit Lake. Heck, they've been there 20 odd years, and you only have a year to do all this and a whole lot more in you model..."
--While your giving me what if's, how's about you consider one of mine? What if spirit lake was much more shallow so that many of the trunks would almost drag on the bottom. While this occurs the tuffaceous sandstone is deposited by air-fall and having already been in the conglomerate of the surge. Water abates in many areas and conglomeratic mud flows occur to cover the apparently in situ fossil forest. We would have something practically identical to what is seen in specimen ridge and could successfully predict by my model the occurrence of horizontal logs, lack of bark deposits, root structure, fluvial and lacustrine lithofacies, organic remains which exhibit lack of any decay. All of which are more easily explained in my model as opposed to yours. I think this is considerably unequivocal.
"But no actual examples of trees being deposited and supported in the way that you suggest... Why not? "
--Actually, there are, Bill has referenced some, and if you read up on the models which Fritz and Yuretich suggest, it is highly similar and the only aspects which seem to be different are those which I explain much easier(see above) and the fact that my source of water is from a surge. Other than that, they are rather identical. If we consider the assumption that the global flood possibly occurred in this fashion, that my model is more adapted to the evidence presented so far[which is a lot].
"Perhaps when you explain how thin discontinuous sandstones will support a tree in a lake that has no known method of forming when flood surge ebbs away."
--I've explained this above. Now, if you don't mind, please give us your side of the story? What is your solution in a mainstream perspective? After all, we have exact same substrate to deal with.
"They are only futile because you cannot answer my questions."
--No, they are futile, because you only suffice your incredulity subsequent to my answers and solutions.
"And they are only silly because I have to ask them in the first place."
--I've explained the solutions and given the answers to many of your questions before, and some of them are even answered in that link source which we first used as a reference very early in this thread (eg. the tuffaceous sandstone).
", they are your assertions to support. Why should I do your research for you?"
--I will support my assertions and you should support yours. The problem is that you initially assert that my scenario is not compatible with the evidence, and then you latter inquire on the structure and composition of various aspects of the Lamar river formation.
--Please list for me what it is I must explain which is apparently still required for you to accept my model as scientifically plausible. What can't I explain in the Lamar River Formation?
"Please see Bill's post regarding this. If the sandstones are so important, they should be readily apparent in some photography."
--Of course they are important, they are the substrate in which virtually all the upright trees in the specimen ridge section are rooted and therefor are assumed to be their in situ growth position. They are very apparent and are highlighted in some photography.
"I believe you said something about 'tuffaceous inclusions.' You can go back and check. This makes no sense at all. It is also likely that the tuffaceous sandstones and the lacustrine sediments are one and the same. This all belies your lack of depth in this subject."
--No, it don't believe it does, this is just a simple misinterpretation on your part which you've taken to the extreme, no problem, but it does get tedious when you do this repeatedly in attempts to bash my credibility in relevant geologic processes. The "tuffaceous inclusions" I referenced as being included in succession. Earlier in this post I explained the characteristics of the tuffaceous sandstones themselves.
------------------
OYSI.Archive
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-19-2003]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-19-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by edge, posted 02-19-2003 12:20 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by edge, posted 02-20-2003 4:21 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 153 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-06-2003 10:16 PM TrueCreation has replied

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


Message 140 of 165 (32759)
02-20-2003 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by TrueCreation
02-19-2003 5:11 PM


quote:
...
(snip)
Figure 2 - Large stump at 90 to 94 m in measured section of Fritz (1980b). Roots are in tuffaceous sandstone (hammer), and trunk projects up through overlying conglomerate (background).
(snip)
...
I am sorry that I do not have access to these photos. Perhaps you could describe them a little bit better. What is the thickness of these sands? What is their continuity? Are they lacustrine or fluvial deposits? I see nothing in the given descriptions that would lead me to believe that these sands could support trees. As you will notice I have never said that there are no sands, so simply showing that they exists is irrelevant. The point is whether such deposits are capable of maintainin trees in an upright position during and after flood 'surges.'
quote:
" have studied the photographs that Coffin provided and I have read Bill's posts. I have also worked in proximal volcanic environments."
--Evidently this isn't enough, otherwise you wouldn't be asking many of your silly questions.
If you would answer them, I would have even less reason.
quote:
"This is a great assertion, but you have yet to show us where these tuffaceous sandstones are and exactly how they would 'support' a tree."
From Fritz, 1980:
(snip)
Very interesting, but still you have not answered my question. Nothing new or unexpected here.
quote:
--How wouldn't they support a tree?
LOL! Good answer!
quote:
And how exactly, in a mainstream model, would you compensate since we are dealing with the exact same environment, root structure, etc.
Compensate what?
quote:
"You have shown nothing. You have not even shown us how much tuffaceous sandstone there is.
--Well you don't have to ask me, you could always take my suggestion and read the work of Fritz & Yuretich et al. why not just go give him another one of your e-mails?
I have read enough to understand the situation. Their descriptions are enough to refute your interpreation.
quote:
"My incredulity is based on something more concrete than a simple-minded understanding of geological processes and settings."
--No, this is the problem, your incredulity takes place entirely in your mind. Do you have something concrete to base your incredulity on then? Rather than your subjective incredulity?
Not worth a reply.
quote:
"Yep, could'a. But tell us: what is the condition of those trees today... Tell us what would happen if the water escaped from Spirit Lake. Heck, they've been there 20 odd years, and you only have a year to do all this and a whole lot more in you model..."
--While your giving me what if's, how's about you consider one of mine?
Normally, I would refuse to answer until you answered my question, but then this could go on forever. Okay, shoot!
quote:
What if spirit lake was much more shallow so that many of the trunks would almost drag on the bottom.
You mean this didn't happen at Spirit Lake? Come on! Find us an example!
quote:
While this occurs the tuffaceous sandstone is deposited by air-fall and having already been in the conglomerate of the surge.
Well, for one thing, the sandstones wouldn't be fluvial as the ones Fritz described. And remember that the trees actually moved around on top of Spirit Lake. It is unlikely that they would take hold in any location without being eventually toppled. On the other hand, we have seen in many locations trees that were innundated, in growth position by a rise in sea level. Why go out and dream up some wild notion of ideal conditions for a fantastic interpretation?
quote:
Water abates in many areas and conglomeratic mud flows occur to cover the apparently in situ fossil forest.
Just 'abates?' What happened to the catastrophic events? You only have a year to do this so many times, remember. This should be a dramatic breakout that erodes the soft sediment in which the trees are set and send the trees tumbling.
quote:
We would have something practically identical to what is seen in specimen ridge and could successfully predict by my model the occurrence of horizontal logs, lack of bark deposits, root structure, fluvial and lacustrine lithofacies, organic remains which exhibit lack of any decay.
Nope. There are large bark deposits in the bottom of Spirit Lake. And remember that some trees have 'well-developed' root structures, and at some locations, the soils are well horizonated. You need to explain these, also, not just your selected data.
quote:
All of which are more easily explained in my model as opposed to yours. I think this is considerably unequivocal.
Only if you ignore a lot of surrounding data. You have ignored the soils, you have ignored the well-developed root systems, the fluvial nature of the sands, the insufficient thickness of the sands, and the other inconsistencies between Spirit Lake and the fossilized forests. I know this is convenient for you, but that is not how we do science.
quote:
But no actual examples of trees being deposited and supported in the way that you suggest... Why not? "
--Actually, there are, Bill has referenced some, and if you read up on the models which Fritz and Yuretich suggest, it is highly similar and the only aspects which seem to be different are those which I explain much easier(see above) and the fact that my source of water is from a surge. Other than that, they are rather identical. If we consider the assumption that the global flood possibly occurred in this fashion, that my model is more adapted to the evidence presented so far[which is a lot].
That is the problem. You have assumed that a global flood occurred and then selected some facts to support that. Hey, we haven't even discussed the rest of the geological record that you attribute to the flood. In fact, less than 1 % I would guess...
quote:
"Perhaps when you explain how thin discontinuous sandstones will support a tree in a lake that has no known method of forming when flood surge ebbs away."
--I've explained this above. Now, if you don't mind, please give us your side of the story? What is your solution in a mainstream perspective? After all, we have exact same substrate to deal with.
Yes, but you omit a few facts. My interpretation is the same as the mainstream for the time being.
quote:
"They are only futile because you cannot answer my questions."
--No, they are futile, because you only suffice your incredulity subsequent to my answers and solutions.
Then provide a theory that explains ALL of the facts. Besides, I base my incredulity on something more substantial than your models is based.
quote:
", they are your assertions to support. Why should I do your research for you?"
--I will support my assertions and you should support yours. The problem is that you initially assert that my scenario is not compatible with the evidence, and then you latter inquire on the structure and composition of various aspects of the Lamar river formation.
And?
quote:
--Please list for me what it is I must explain which is apparently still required for you to accept my model as scientifically plausible. What can't I explain in the Lamar River Formation?
This reminds me of the blind men and the elephant. You have taken a few factoids and turned them into a grand theory without looking at all of the data.
quote:
"Please see Bill's post regarding this. If the sandstones are so important, they should be readily apparent in some photography."
--Of course they are important, they are the substrate in which virtually all the upright trees in the specimen ridge section are rooted and therefor are assumed to be their in situ growth position. They are very apparent and are highlighted in some photography.
Nonsense, they are fluvial sandstones. How did the trees manage to stand there as the stream filled in the sands around them?
quote:
"I believe you said something about 'tuffaceous inclusions.' You can go back and check. This makes no sense at all. It is also likely that the tuffaceous sandstones and the lacustrine sediments are one and the same. This all belies your lack of depth in this subject."
--No, it don't believe it does, ...
Well, you are the resident expert...
quote:
...this is just a simple misinterpretation on your part which you've taken to the extreme, no problem, but it does get tedious when you do this repeatedly in attempts to bash my credibility in relevant geologic processes. The "tuffaceous inclusions" I referenced as being included in succession.
Then your misuse of terms belies your lack of expertise. An interbedded deposit is not an inclusion.
quote:
Earlier in this post I explained the characteristics of the tuffaceous sandstones themselves.
Sure, anyone could cut and paste a rock description. What you lack is an understanding that comes with years of study and field work. You unwittingly leave out important facts that would harm your position because you have wed yourself to the myth of a global flood. This is common among creationists, so don't feel all alone.
[This message has been edited by edge, 02-20-2003]

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by TrueCreation, posted 02-20-2003 8:44 PM edge has replied
 Message 144 by TrueCreation, posted 02-20-2003 11:00 PM edge has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 165 (32775)
02-20-2003 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by edge
02-20-2003 4:21 PM


"I am sorry that I do not have access to these photos. Perhaps you could describe them a little bit better. What is the thickness of these sands?[1] What is their continuity?[2] Are they lacustrine or fluvial deposits?[3] I see nothing in the given descriptions that would lead me to believe that these sands could support trees.[4]"
--[1] - Considerably thick. To take one general example of the LRF, being composed of 30-40% tuffaceous sandstone & siltstone, in an 80 m section [as cited by Yuretich] there are 8 successions we can deduce that the tuffaceous sandstone strata are about 3-4 m thick.
--[2] - Fritz makes the assertion that most beds occur as lenses or interfinger with other rock types and can be traced laterally only 100m or less. I've already made it clear earlier that the successions are laterally discontinuous and are not in layered cake fashion[as well as Bill].
--[3] - Both actually. A fluvial environment was flooded and would then be recognized as a lacustrine environment.
--[4] - Well you better believe it, because even if they were two inches thick, that's what all of our sources say that the upright trees are rooted in, exclusively.
"As you will notice I have never said that there are no sands, so simply showing that they exists is irrelevant. The point is whether such deposits are capable of maintainin trees in an upright position during and after flood 'surges.'"
--If they are for you, they are for me. Why can't you see this?
"If you would answer them, I would have even less reason."
--I've done the answering too many times in many cases.
quote:
Originally posted by me:
--How wouldn't they support a tree?
"LOL! Good answer!"
--I must have been over medicated to think it were a question.
quote:
Originally posted by me:
--And how exactly, in a mainstream model, would you compensate since we are dealing with the exact same environment, root structure, etc.
"Compensate what?"
--How would you explain away the fact that if trees topple in my model, they topple in yours.
"I have read enough to understand the situation. Their descriptions are enough to refute your interpreation."
--And what descriptions are those? You mean the ones you've never read? Oh ok, I see how it is.
"Normally, I would refuse to answer until you answered my question, but then this could go on forever. Okay, shoot!"
--The answer to your question is a no brainer, the trees would be gone.
quote:
Originally posted by me:
--What if spirit lake was much more shallow so that many of the trunks would almost drag on the bottom.
"You mean this didn't happen at Spirit Lake? Come on! Find us an example!"
--Nope, because Spirit lake is a massive lake and is deep. There is no requisite for there to be a perfect analog to the specimen ridge in the first place, despite those which Bill has cited.
"Well, for one thing, the sandstones wouldn't be fluvial as the ones Fritz described. And remember that the trees actually moved around on top of Spirit Lake."
--Keep in mind, Spirit lake is ten times the depth of what the specimen ridge one would have been. Yes they are fluvial.
"It is unlikely that they would take hold in any location without being eventually toppled."
--Why would they topple in a quiescent lacustrine environment?
"On the other hand, we have seen in many locations trees that were innundated, in growth position by a rise in sea level. Why go out and dream up some wild notion of ideal conditions for a fantastic interpretation?"
--Its no more fantastic than models for the origin of the earth and the cosmos.
"Just 'abates?' What happened to the catastrophic events? You only have a year to do this so many times, remember."
--What's wrong? Not catastrophic enough for you?
"This should be a dramatic breakout that erodes the soft sediment in which the trees are set and send the trees tumbling."
--This wasn't Niagra falls, and yes, hundreds of trees went tumbling, specimen ridge is just a location which was less effected by the abation.
"Nope. There are large bark deposits in the bottom of Spirit Lake."
--Thats right, so why don't we see them in the Lamar River formation? Anywhere?
"And remember that some trees have 'well-developed' root structures, and at some locations, the soils are well horizonated. You need to explain these, also, not just your selected data.
--These are the selected data, edge... I've explained all of these numerous times. The presence of well developed root structures in my model was explained here:
quote:
"Ah, so there ARE some trees with well developed root systems. Why do you suppose that is?"
--Because they werent subject to as much abrasion as other trees, possibly due to less transport time-frames or other factors. The problem here is that you still have to explain the origin of those trees which are in situ and have 'root balls' for root systems. Yuretich, via personal conversation, described them as curling in on themselves a lot as well as being exceedingly short.
--We've gone over the horizontation of the 'soils', Bill doesn't even agree they are paleosols. And as explained in the quote, and as I've explained numerous times antecedent to the posting of that quote, no they are not well horizontated. Yuretich and Fritz have elaborated on that. Your "soil" isn't a soil.
"Only if you ignore a lot of surrounding data."
--What data has been ignored? None? Good.
"That is the problem. You have assumed that a global flood occurred and then selected some facts to support that."
--I thought you said I don't know how science is done? This is how science is done. A perfect analog here would be radioisotopic dating, you know all the assumptions. The thing is, that if the assumptions can be supported, the assumptions are reasonable. This is what I am doing.
"Hey, we haven't even discussed the rest of the geological record that you attribute to the flood. In fact, less than 1 % I would guess..."
--Yup, but I think I'll just take things one step at a time.
"Yes, but you omit a few facts. My interpretation is the same as the mainstream for the time being."
--So what is the mainstream interpretation? Do you even know?
"Then provide a theory that explains ALL of the facts."
--I could have been over medicated here also to think that the scientific method involved misrepresentation.
"This reminds me of the blind men and the elephant. You have taken a few factoids and turned them into a grand theory without looking at all of the data."
--You must be the blind man in that analogy?
"Nonsense, they are fluvial sandstones. How did the trees manage to stand there as the stream filled in the sands around them?"
--I thought you said they weren't fluvial? The trees didn't stand there at this point, they floatedper se there.
"Well, you are the resident expert..."
--No need to take it out on yourself edge.
"Then your misuse of terms belies your lack of expertise. An interbedded deposit is not an inclusion."
--Cut it out edge, this became tedious long ago. An inclusion is something included, the bed is included in the successions, hence the context of the word in my sentence. I was not using it in the context as it would be used in petrology.
"Sure, anyone could cut and paste a rock description. What you lack is an understanding that comes with years of study and field work."
--If it only comes with years of study and field work, how's come I get it?
"You unwittingly leave out important facts that would harm your position because you have wed yourself to the myth of a global flood."
--Please cite ONE [think before you type..]
"This is common among creationists, so don't feel all alone."
--I do feel alone.. but it seems for the inverse reason you attribute my loneliness to..
-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-20-2003]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-20-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by edge, posted 02-20-2003 4:21 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Randy, posted 02-20-2003 10:09 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 145 by edge, posted 02-21-2003 12:06 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 142 of 165 (32786)
02-20-2003 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by TrueCreation
02-20-2003 8:44 PM


TC,
Why don't you ever use the quote functions? Trying to decipher your posts drives me up the wall.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by TrueCreation, posted 02-20-2003 8:44 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by TrueCreation, posted 02-20-2003 10:37 PM Randy has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 165 (32788)
02-20-2003 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Randy
02-20-2003 10:09 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Randy, posted 02-20-2003 10:09 PM Randy has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 165 (32790)
02-20-2003 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by edge
02-20-2003 4:21 PM


--While in our main sequence of posts in this thread are more centered on the veracity of my position, I would like to inquire on yours in another set. Please explain the following:
[1] - Root systems - they are "generally well preserved, extending a short ways from the trunk, and curling in on themselves a lot. They do not exhibit the large bracing roots which should be there."
[2] - The lack of extensive bark deposits as those seen in spirit lake.
[3] - Complete lack in organic remains exhibiting decay.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by edge, posted 02-20-2003 4:21 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by edge, posted 03-08-2003 10:41 AM TrueCreation has not replied

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


Message 145 of 165 (32793)
02-21-2003 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by TrueCreation
02-20-2003 8:44 PM


quote:
--[1] - Considerably thick. To take one general example of the LRF, being composed of 30-40% tuffaceous sandstone & siltstone, in an 80 m section [as cited by Yuretich] there are 8 successions we can deduce that the tuffaceous sandstone strata are about 3-4 m thick.
Okay then provide a measured section. And remember that these trees are found over a score of levels and over many square miles.
quote:
--[2] - Fritz makes the assertion that most beds occur as lenses or interfinger with other rock types and can be traced laterally only 100m or less. I've already made it clear earlier that the successions are laterally discontinuous and are not in layered cake fashion[as well as Bill].
So, they are discontinuous.
quote:
--[4] - Well you better believe it, because even if they were two inches thick, that's what all of our sources say that the upright trees are rooted in, exclusively.
Yes they are rooted in it because they grew there. I seriously doubt that 2 inches of sediment would support trees at least 15 meters tall, especially under flood conditions.
quote:
"As you will notice I have never said that there are no sands, so simply showing that they exists is irrelevant. The point is whether such deposits are capable of maintainin trees in an upright position during and after flood 'surges.'"
--If they are for you, they are for me. Why can't you see this?
Ummmmm, because I've never seen it happen???
quote:
"LOL! Good answer!"
--I must have been over medicated to think it were a question.
Well, that would explain a lot of things better than dams that can't exist and trees being rooted in 2 inches of sediment.
quote:
"Compensate what?"
--How would you explain away the fact that if trees topple in my model, they topple in yours.
Because they are growing in the volcaniclastic substrate. Just as we see trees doing today.
quote:
"I have read enough to understand the situation. Their descriptions are enough to refute your interpreation."
--And what descriptions are those? You mean the ones you've never read? Oh ok, I see how it is.
As I said the descriptions I have heard from Yuretich, Coffin, Wehappy and Bill, are adequate to draw preliminary conclusions.
quote:
Originally posted by me:
--What if spirit lake was much more shallow so that many of the trunks would almost drag on the bottom.
"You mean this didn't happen at Spirit Lake? Come on! Find us an example!"
--Nope, because Spirit lake is a massive lake and is deep.
Hey, TC, you ever been in a real lake? Besides, Spirit Lake is small compared to an epicontinental sea. This is one reason why we have a hard time with drawing comparisons between it and the Cretaceous seaway, etc.
quote:
"Well, for one thing, the sandstones wouldn't be fluvial as the ones Fritz described. And remember that the trees actually moved around on top of Spirit Lake."
--Keep in mind, Spirit lake is ten times the depth of what the specimen ridge one would have been. Yes they are fluvial.
Yes, generally, small braided streams are shallower than Spirit Lake is.
quote:
"It is unlikely that they would take hold in any location without being eventually toppled."
--Why would they topple in a quiescent lacustrine environment?
Because of the fast-slow, wet-dry, catastrophic flood conditions that you (all) keep referring to...
quote:
"On the other hand, we have seen in many locations trees that were innundated, in growth position by a rise in sea level. Why go out and dream up some wild notion of ideal conditions for a fantastic interpretation?"
--Its no more fantastic than models for the origin of the earth and the cosmos.
Non sequitur. Try to stay on topic.
quote:
"Just 'abates?' What happened to the catastrophic events? You only have a year to do this so many times, remember."
--What's wrong? Not catastrophic enough for you?
Do you always answer questions with questions? No, this is not catastrophic enough. You have to do this at least 20 some times in just the Paleocene.
quote:
"Nope. There are large bark deposits in the bottom of Spirit Lake."
--Thats right, so why don't we see them in the Lamar River formation? Anywhere?
Because of the climate and topography.
quote:
"And remember that some trees have 'well-developed' root structures, and at some locations, the soils are well horizonated. You need to explain these, also, not just your selected data.
--These are the selected data, edge... I've explained all of these numerous times. The presence of well developed root structures in my model was explained here:
(snip)
Another ad hoc theory to support previous ad hoc theories.
quote:
"Hey, we haven't even discussed the rest of the geological record that you attribute to the flood. In fact, less than 1 % I would guess..."
--Yup, but I think I'll just take things one step at a time.
Yeah. Best to ignore all of that...
quote:
--So what is the mainstream interpretation? Do you even know?
In situ trees. (That is 'in situ' according to everyone else but, TC.)
quote:
"Then provide a theory that explains ALL of the facts."
--I could have been over medicated here also to think that the scientific method involved misrepresentation.
Not again!
quote:
"Then your misuse of terms belies your lack of expertise. An interbedded deposit is not an inclusion."
--Cut it out edge, this became tedious long ago. An inclusion is something included, the bed is included in the successions, hence the context of the word in my sentence. I was not using it in the context as it would be used in petrology.
Then you are compounding your error.
quote:
"You unwittingly leave out important facts that would harm your position because you have wed yourself to the myth of a global flood."
--Please cite ONE [think before you type..]
Given in my previous post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by TrueCreation, posted 02-20-2003 8:44 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by TrueCreation, posted 02-21-2003 4:54 PM edge has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 165 (32829)
02-21-2003 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by edge
02-21-2003 12:06 AM


"Okay then provide a measured section. And remember that these trees are found over a score of levels and over many square miles. "
--Yuretich nor has Fritz cited any one measured section[obviously its irrelevant, and that which is relevant is obvious when they describe the condition of the trees and their rooting in them]. Though Figure 5 of Fritz, July 1980 as explained in my last post shows the matrix-supported mud-flow conglomerate on the lower part of the cliff and grain-supported braided stream conglomerate on upper part. The superposing conglomerate is clearly at least 3 or 4 m thick.
"So, they are discontinuous. "
--Yup, I explained this earlier.
"Yes they are rooted in it because they grew there. I seriously doubt that 2 inches of sediment would support trees at least 15 meters tall, especially under flood conditions. "
--Yeah me too. I also doubt that they would support trees anywhere near that tall in a mainstream scenario as well, under quiescent conditions. The only thing is, they aren't 2 inches thick.
"Ummmmm, because I've never seen it happen???"
--What are you talking about?
"Well, that would explain a lot of things better than dams that can't exist and trees being rooted in 2 inches of sediment. "
--dams that can't exist? You need to talk to Yuretich... or actually go read his work [or fritz] because you don't know the mainstream model. There isn't 2 inches of sediment.
"Because they are growing in the volcaniclastic substrate. Just as we see trees doing today. "
--But your trying to tell me that they probably aren't thick enough to support the trees. Yuretich and Fritz both put great emphasis on the fact that the roots are rooted in the tuffaceous sandstone esclusively
"As I said the descriptions I have heard from Yuretich, Coffin, Wehappy and Bill, are adequate to draw preliminary conclusions. "
--Not even, you've made it indicative that you don't know the mainstream model, why must you be persistent in trying to sidestep this fact and work with the highly inadequate information you already have?
"Hey, TC, you ever been in a real lake? Besides, Spirit Lake is small compared to an epicontinental sea. This is one reason why we have a hard time with drawing comparisons between it and the Cretaceous seaway, etc."
--This is an irrelevant comparison. The fact of the mater is that Spirit lake is much larger and deeper than that which would be present at the Lamar Ridge formation.
"Yes, generally, small braided streams are shallower than Spirit Lake is."
--Point being?
"Because of the fast-slow, wet-dry, catastrophic flood conditions that you (all) keep referring to..."
--Yes there are, the problem you have is that you don't want to look at it in a systematic approach, you just look at it as one big story which you regurgitate worse than those poor YEC's you deal with constantly which misrepresent evolutionary theory on such a gross degree. I am beginning to believe that the age of your 'expertise' is showing.
--All this assertion is is another exhibition of your incredulity. There is absolutely no difficulty with the periods of 'fast' and quiescent current, or the 'wet' and 'dry' episodes you are referring to in my model..none.
quote:
"On the other hand, we have seen in many locations trees that were innundated, in growth position by a rise in sea level. Why go out and dream up some wild notion of ideal conditions for a fantastic interpretation?"
--Its no more fantastic than models for the origin of the earth and the cosmos.
"Non sequitur. Try to stay on topic."
--No, this isn't a Non sequitur, you were talking about something being a "fantastic interpretation" and would therefore be more a science philosophy topic. What I supported was the fact that my interpretation of the evidence was scientifically sound, and is valid in accordance with the philosophical scientific method. If this were not true[as I showed] you might as well throw out all of cosmogony.
"Do you always answer questions with questions? No, this is not catastrophic enough. You have to do this at least 20 some times in just the Paleocene."
--Yup I do, and this happens. So my question for you is, why is this not catastrophic enough. You haven't supported this, only that I have to do it 20 times. Despite the fact that this is merely a semantics game, I think that this occurring would be considered a catastrophic event in geology.
quote:
"Nope. There are large bark deposits in the bottom of Spirit Lake."
--Thats right, so why don't we see them in the Lamar River formation? Anywhere?
"Because of the climate and topography."
--Explain, why is the climate and topography relevant, give details.
"Another ad hoc theory to support previous ad hoc theories."
--Yawn. Waiting for a refutation...
"Yeah. Best to ignore all of that..."
--Get with it edge. I am not ignoring anything, quit it with your ridiculous misrepresentations of me. I'm sorry if I don't have inhuman research skills like you...
"In situ trees."
--Yup, which according to you are rooted in insufficiently thick substrate. So.. I ask again, what is your solution in the mainstream perspective, you've only sidestepped the question.
"Then you are compounding your error."
--No, I don't think so.
"Given in my previous post."
--Your 'previous post' had nothing.
--Again, what data has been ignored? None? Good.
-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by edge, posted 02-21-2003 12:06 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by edge, posted 02-22-2003 12:01 AM TrueCreation has replied

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


Message 147 of 165 (32850)
02-22-2003 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by TrueCreation
02-21-2003 4:54 PM


quote:
--Yuretich nor has Fritz cited any one measured section[obviously its irrelevant, and that which is relevant is obvious when they describe the condition of the trees and their rooting in them].
Yes irrelevant to what they were reporting. Not irrelevant to what you want to prove.
quote:
Though Figure 5 of Fritz, July 1980 as explained in my last post shows the matrix-supported mud-flow conglomerate on the lower part of the cliff and grain-supported braided stream conglomerate on upper part. The superposing conglomerate is clearly at least 3 or 4 m thick.
And you lacustrine sediments?
quote:
"Ummmmm, because I've never seen it happen???"
--What are you talking about?
Observable phenomena.
quote:
"Well, that would explain a lot of things better than dams that can't exist and trees being rooted in 2 inches of sediment. "
--dams that can't exist? You need to talk to Yuretich... or actually go read his work [or fritz] because you don't know the mainstream model.
Not his dams. Yours.
quote:
"Because they are growing in the volcaniclastic substrate. Just as we see trees doing today. "
--But your trying to tell me that they probably aren't thick enough to support the trees. Yuretich and Fritz both put great emphasis on the fact that the roots are rooted in the tuffaceous sandstone esclusively.
This is not what Coffin's pictures show.
quote:
"As I said the descriptions I have heard from Yuretich, Coffin, Wehappy and Bill, are adequate to draw preliminary conclusions. "
--Not even, you've made it indicative that you don't know the mainstream model, why must you be persistent in trying to sidestep this fact and work with the highly inadequate information you already have?
The relevant part of the mainstream model is that the trees are in growth position. This is what you need to disprove.
quote:
"Hey, TC, you ever been in a real lake? Besides, Spirit Lake is small compared to an epicontinental sea. This is one reason why we have a hard time with drawing comparisons between it and the Cretaceous seaway, etc."
--This is an irrelevant comparison.
Just as I said.
quote:
The fact of the mater is that Spirit lake is much larger and deeper than that which would be present at the Lamar Ridge formation.
e (from previous): "Yes, generally, small braided streams are shallower than Spirit Lake is."
--Point being?
That there are actually few lake beds.
quote:
"Because of the fast-slow, wet-dry, catastrophic flood conditions that you (all) keep referring to..."
--Yes there are, the problem you have is that you don't want to look at it in a systematic approach, you just look at it as one big story...
Well, that's the way it is usually done.
quote:
... which you regurgitate worse than those poor YEC's you deal with constantly which misrepresent evolutionary theory on such a gross degree. I am beginning to believe that the age of your 'expertise' is showing.
(not worth a response)
quote:
--All this assertion is is another exhibition of your incredulity.
Yes. I am incredulous about the tooth fairy, too.
quote:
"On the other hand, we have seen in many locations trees that were innundated, in growth position by a rise in sea level. Why go out and dream up some wild notion of ideal conditions for a fantastic interpretation?"
--Its no more fantastic than models for the origin of the earth and the cosmos.
"Non sequitur. Try to stay on topic."
--No, this isn't a Non sequitur, you were talking about something being a "fantastic interpretation" and would therefore be more a science philosophy topic. What I supported was the fact that my interpretation of the evidence was scientifically sound, and is valid in accordance with the philosophical scientific method. If this were not true[as I showed] you might as well throw out all of cosmogony.
It is a non sequitur because you have not given us any specifics. Or are you talking about fantastic creationist notions?
quote:
"Do you always answer questions with questions? No, this is not catastrophic enough. You have to do this at least 20 some times in just the Paleocene."
--Yup I do, and this happens.
Evidence, please.
quote:
So my question for you is, why is this not catastrophic enough.
Well, let's see... First you have to form a large lake, bigger than Spirit Lake, wash trees into it and have them float around until they find exactly the right depth of water. THen you have to emplace a number of ash falls to support the trees and allow that tuffaceous sand to both settle and, to some degree, solidify. Then you have to drain the lake slowly so that there are no currents that might uproot all of the trees. Then you have to emplace at least one laharic breccia to lop off the top of the trees. Somewhere in here you need to develope a fluvial environment, also. And then you have to do this up to 64 times (according to Coffin) in very much less than a year. You don't have any problem with this yet, eh?
quote:
You haven't supported this, only that I have to do it 20 times. Despite the fact that this is merely a semantics game, I think that this occurring would be considered a catastrophic event in geology.
A single catastrophic event? LOL!
quote:
"Nope. There are large bark deposits in the bottom of Spirit Lake."
--Thats right, so why don't we see them in the Lamar River formation? Anywhere?
"Because of the climate and topography."
--Explain, why is the climate and topography relevant, give details.
The organic debris is mass wasted by runoff and creep of the weathering bedrock. Trees grow in thin soils and roots actually penetrate into the bedrock.
quote:
"Another ad hoc theory to support previous ad hoc theories."
--Yawn. Waiting for a refutation...
Yawn... Waiting for evidence...
quote:
"Then you are compounding your error."
--No, I don't think so.
No one familiar with stratigraphy would call interbedded deposits 'inclusions.' Neither would they call the study of bedded deposits 'petrology.'
quote:
"Given in my previous post."
--Your 'previous post' had nothing.
Except questions that you cannot answer. Actually, I dont' feel it very necessary to put much actual work into these posts. Bill did it and what did it get?
quote:
--Again, what data has been ignored? None? Good.
Answering your own question now, eh? Well, that easier than answering ours...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by TrueCreation, posted 02-21-2003 4:54 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by TrueCreation, posted 03-01-2003 11:14 PM edge has replied

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


Message 148 of 165 (32886)
02-22-2003 5:34 PM


I have pulled this from the Grand Canyon thread since it is more pertinent here.
quote:
"I agreee. An example of this is the paleosoil thread where TC has assiduously avoided and dismissed any discussion of the rest of the geological record[1], even parts of it that are of the same age and only a few miles away from his topic of choice.[2]"
--[1] - Yup, that's because the topic is the deposition of the Lamar Ridge Formation and Specimen Ridge.
Umm, is that why you brought up the origin of the universe?
quote:
--[2] - If your talking about the Gallatin, if I had the information, I would readily discuss their implications.
Such a nice offer! In the meantime, you can conveniently ignore what Bill said about it.
quote:
"He wants to handle 'one problem at a time' and doesn't have time/access to those references, so they can be ignored."
--oh PLEASE! Your putting yourself in an embarrassing position. Your the one who has continued to post your misunderstandings all over the thread, ...
Well, if you were a little more clear and consistent it might help. And actually, I have only been discussing your misunderstandings. I'd think you be more appreciative.
quote:
...constantly like the plague and constantly claim that the information you have received is enough. You think that because you've read coffin [who's work isn't even being discussed] that you know enough about the Lamar Ridge Formation to enter into this discussion.
Well, Coffin's work was on the LRF. And, that is the topic of this thread, is it not?
quote:
I would be getting somewhere much faster if Yuretich or Fritz were the ones with whom there would be discourse, at least they know what is seen at the LRF.
And both of them disagree with you. Yuretich has specifically stated that the in-place trees have NOT been transported. (Of course to most of us, this was a unnecessary translation).
It appears to me that you make a similar mistake to Gentry in his description of Po halos (sorry for the tangent here, but this is just an observation). It is the idea that in that creating a good description of a phenomenon gives one the right to also make fantastic interpretations of it that disregard surrounding facts.
quote:
Of course this is expected from someone who doesn't want to look at the information before drawing conclusions.
My preparation is adequate for the purposes of this thread.
quote:
--I'm not trying to attack your person, though it is a grave mistake of yours to come in unprepared in the way you have.
Suuurrrre.
quote:
"But the time to address those issues never arrives. Factoids that are specific to a single point in space or time can be safely extended to the entire geological record, despite the fact that there are ready, mainstream explanations that CAN apply to the entire geological record."
--In the case of what is seen in the paleosols thread, I don't think you would know.
Once again, your intent here is murky.
quote:
"The extension of MSH geology to the Grand Canyon is one of the most egregious examples of this. Does anyone think we will ever hear the end of it?"
--Maybe we will when we begin the on-topic discussion of the formation of Grand Canyon?
You think that you can get creationists to stop making this silly comparison? In that case, I have to conclude that you ARE deluded.

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by TrueCreation, posted 03-01-2003 11:32 PM edge has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 165 (33487)
03-01-2003 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by edge
02-22-2003 12:01 AM


"Yes irrelevant to what they were reporting. Not irrelevant to what you want to prove."
--No, its irrelevant to any scenario, if it is thick enough, its thick enough, period. Why would it be relevant in my model, and not in yours?
"And you lacustrine sediments?"
--The lacustrine sediments are what Fritz described as, "grain-supported braided stream conglomerate on upper part".
"Observable phenomena."
--There are limitations to observation, most especially when dealing with origins of various things [life, grand canyon erosion, somewhat macro-scale geologic formations, etc.] as opposed to experimentation and theoretical models. In our case, the latter is more important.
"Not his dams. Yours."
--The dams are the same, why do you think they are different?
"This is not what Coffin's pictures show."
--And? Its not all too good to draw conclusions from a lack of data. Just because you have access to this internet source, doesn't give you a warrant to disregard the work of Fritz & Yuretich et al.
"The relevant part of the mainstream model is that the trees are in growth position. This is what you need to disprove."
--I don't need to disprove it, but produce a logical alternative. Just because the Solar Nebula is a more plausible theory than the Capture theory for the origin and early evolution of the solar system, doesn't mean the Capture theory is then disproven[sorry if you don't like my cosmogenic analogies].
"That there are actually few lake beds."
--Not in my model.
"Well, that's the way it is usually done. "
--No, not really. I see your description of my model in the same way you would look at how most of your ill-informed YEC's would describe plate tectonics or the 'problems with macro-evolution'.
"Yes. I am incredulous about the tooth fairy, too."
--again, not a good comparison. I have given a theoretical model, equip with plenty of evidence, some even quite unequivocal, but you think it's alright for you to just pass it off by your incredulity (and your satisfied with this??).
"It is a non sequitur because you have not given us any specifics. Or are you talking about fantastic creationist notions?"
--I haven't given any 'fantastic creationist notions', and I think I'm giving quite a few more specifics than you are on the subject. But I could only wonder why, maybe its because I've tried and succeeded in getting some of this data?
"Evidence, please."
--I don't think its whether I can give you evidence that it has happened (because all you would have to do is look at the sedimentary record in the Lamar River formation, it has been established that there are at least ~12), but whether you can present evidence against the notion that this could have occurred in my time constraints.
quote:
Me: So my question for you is, why is this not catastrophic enough.
You: Well, let's see... First you have to form a large lake, bigger than Spirit Lake, wash trees into it and have them float around until they find exactly the right depth of water. THen you have to emplace a number of ash falls to support the trees and allow that tuffaceous sand to both settle and, to some degree, solidify. Then you have to drain the lake slowly so that there are no currents that might uproot all of the trees.[1] Then you have to emplace at least one laharic breccia to lop off the top of the trees. Somewhere in here you need to develope a fluvial environment[2], also. And then you have to do this up to 64 times (according to Coffin) in very much less than a year. You don't have any problem with this yet, eh?
--I only have 2 problems with your description. With the italicized [1], the fact of the matter is that after studying the formation, you find that there are less proportions of vertical trees as you move in a certain direction. So no, I don't have to do this. And with the italicized [2], the 'fluvial environment' is plausibly attributed to the current created by the abatement of the water by the erosion or break of a dam.
--An even larger problem I have with this response is that you still haven't answered the question, only more of your incredulity. Why all this happening is implausible has not been explained or supported?
"The organic debris is mass wasted by runoff and creep of the weathering bedrock. Trees grow in thin soils and roots actually penetrate into the bedrock."
--What does this have to do with the lack in any bark deposit? The trunks on virtually all of the trees are abraded, where did it all go?
"Yawn... Waiting for evidence..."
--The evidence was given earlier and is what you think is ad hoc.
"No one familiar with stratigraphy would call interbedded deposits 'inclusions.'"
--Well excuse me then, I had forgotten I was being graded. Sure we should carry on discussions rather formally, though I don't think this is significant. I haven't misused the word, there were just better words which could have been used.
"Neither would they call the study of bedded deposits 'petrology.'"
--Petrology is the study of the origin, composition, and structure of rocks, I think attributing them as bedded could be considered a petrological reference.
"Except questions that you cannot answer."
--Such as...? And what about the questions you aren't answering? The ones I am most interested in are in post #144, its still pending response...
"Actually, I dont' feel it very necessary to put much actual work into these posts. Bill did it and what did it get?"
--Not in all the posts you have ever authored in this thread have you given much data at all.
--BTW - I've contacted William Fritz via telephone and e-mail. He has agreed to mailing me photocopies of quite a few of his previous articles, discourses, and field studies on the topic. I will give you a synopsis upon my analysis of these.
--Don't forget post #144 now.
-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by edge, posted 02-22-2003 12:01 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by edge, posted 03-02-2003 12:10 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 165 (33488)
03-01-2003 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by edge
02-22-2003 5:34 PM


"Umm, is that why you brought up the origin of the universe?"
--As an analogy and for clarification, I did bring it up. I wasn't bringing it up as a new debatable topic.
"Such a nice offer! In the meantime, you can conveniently ignore what Bill said about it."
--No, its just that unlike some people, I don't make conclusions from a lack of data. I think me and Gould have the same obsession with precision, accuracy, and detail. But this is beneficial. Until I can get a hold of information on Gallatin, I have no room for conclusions regarding it, and really, neither do you.
"Well, if you were a little more clear and consistent it might help."
--Then why is it that after I explain some things to you and you understand, you subsequently bring it right back full circle?
"And actually, I have only been discussing your misunderstandings. I'd think you be more appreciative."
--I would be more if I had some misunderstandings.
"Well, Coffin's work was on the LRF. And, that is the topic of this thread, is it not?"
--That isn't the problem, the problem is that you think his info is enough.
"And both of them disagree with you."
--Thats because they have to.
"Yuretich has specifically stated that the in-place trees have NOT been transported."
--And? Why then does some of the evidence tend to point otherwise, they merely see it as insignificant enough to reconsile it with a mainstream in situ growth explanation.
". (Of course to most of us, this was a unnecessary translation). "
--This is a perfect example of where you constantly bring things right back full circle. Your misunderstanding regarding how I interpreted Yuretich's words was discussed a long while ago and was conclusive, there never was a mistranslation on my part.
"It is the idea that in that creating a good description of a phenomenon gives one the right to also make fantastic interpretations of it that disregard surrounding facts."
--The only problem is that my interpretations just aren't fantastic enough to have 'disregarded surrounding facts' that have been brought up and discussed in detail here.
"My preparation is adequate for the purposes of this thread."
--This is where you fail.
"Once again, your intent here is murky."
--All I am saying is that you haven't read enough to understand the stratigraphic framework or the mainstream explanation for the lamar river formation, I have urged you to do this many times during the extant of this thread.
"You think that you can get creationists to stop making this silly comparison? In that case, I have to conclude that you ARE deluded."
--Am I? this looks like another conclusion drawn without information or discussion of the question at hand. Grand Canyon will be discussed in the other thread.
-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by edge, posted 02-22-2003 5:34 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by edge, posted 03-02-2003 12:31 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024