Paleosols

"My contention is that we do not know for certain what 'narrow' means in this discussion."
--Lol, so then whatever happened to the assertion that I have no idea what 'narrow' means? Is my terminology still as scatty as you continue to presume?"It could mean 'thin' in which case, the system could be as broad as you please. It could mean narrow in one dimension and very long in another. It could mean narrow in all lateral dimensions, but not in the vertical (this is how I originally read the text)."
--The text is referring to the root 'system', it is therefore extremely unlikely and would be a bit of a sloppy description if the narrowness was not a lateral description. It is usually depth over narrowness, narrow does not describe the roots in a vertical prospect."Therefore, it is you who is boxing himself in. If anyone knows how narrow is used in this context, please give us a line."
--The narrow property is a lateral characteristic. Not a depth or vertical one. Your boxed in."When the roots are developed in near bedrock situations the system could be 'narrow' and deep. Pine trees today often do this living in vertical fracture systems in granite bedrock. These are quite healthy hundred(+) year old trees. I'll see if I have a picture from the Front Range to publish here. At any rate, there are virtually no soils at all in these locations."
--Were not dealing with a granite bedrock, so it couldn't be applicable to the situation in the Eocene fossil forests."Some root systems are abraded. I have seen this in driftwood. They look very different from untransported, in-place root systems."
--Right, then why don't we find any root systems which exhibit broad or deep root systems in these fossil forests. Both characteristics should be explained."TC, the tree I planted in my front yard had a 'root ball.' I've asked this before, but you never answered: Have you ever planted a tree?"
--Yes I have. The problem with their root ball appearance, is that they just don't grow like that, it is either an artificial process of packaging for transport by our means, or natural transport from getting ripped from the ground or abrasion due to transport."So, you say that saying 'well-developed' is more vague than 'narrow?' Sorry, but you are boxing yourself in by the 'narrow' word. I have decided the opposite, that the usage of 'narrow' is incomplete."
--Its a quibble. This would be the analogous to me trying to say that Yuretich might have been using in situ in the context of a place of deposition rather than growth. Sure it can mean it is an in situ place of deposition, but that isn't how he used it."This does not come close to answering any question, much less the one I asked. How do the trees stand up during the ebb flow of your surge?"
--Because they were already buried under the materials brought up with the trees. I think I explained this earlier."I have given you a scenario above."
--Your scenario isn't applicable."Well, you are using narrow in three dimensions when that is not usually the case. A narrow creek is nevertheless long in one dimension and might be quite deep."
--I have been using the narrow property as a lateral characteristic, the rest of the dimensions were inferred from other observations. I don't have a misunderstanding of their usage of a 'narrow' root system. I do say that their narrowness supports my model and is is one observation which my model explains more plausibly than in situ growth."Me: But the conglomerate wasn't just a tranquil raining down of conglomeratic materials, it was a flow.You: oh, so you were there! Dang, these creationists have got a distinct advantage. Well, TC, that's interesting because I have seen bedding preserved below all kinds of debris flows. In deed, it gets convoluted, but some kind of primary structures survive well into the lower metamorphic ranks. If nothing else we can usually see compositional layering."
--What? What does this have anything to do with what I said. You've listed nothing which contradicts what I've said. The sources we have say the conglomerate was deposited by a flow. I am saying that this flow probably would have erased diagnostic characteristics for fluid currents in the underlying sediment. Yes, it is convoluted."Well, since you have defined them as entisols, it is my guess that the roots penetrated bedrock (such as it is). "
--But the roots don't penetrate the bedrock, the most they penetrated is the sandstone. I didn't define them as entisols, Yuretich and Retallack did."But you yourself have said that there is no true soil."
--In my model, yes there is no soil, in yours there is."We'll ignore for the time that the references talk about horizontation, but you will need to explain this). Why even discuss how soil is formed?"
--The horizontation I'm sure is easily explained. Of course we would need to know the characteristics of the horizontation though (obviously)."I've read a lot of you statements but the get kind of convoluted. It is very convenient for you that there is no evidence then, but you can still adhere to this fantastic story."
--What are you talking about? That given so far does not refute transport at all. The only thing you have done which could carry even a bit of merit is your incredulity on their staying vertical, but even that isn't much of a problem. After all, almost analogous is the method for interpreting the veracity of the ToE itself, not questioning whether it happend (in our case, whether it was transported or not) but rather only considering the way the evolution occurred (in our case, the transport itself)."All of these theories have some independent, observable evidence. You have nothing but a just-so story."
--You can assert it all you like, but if you want it to be more than your incredulity, you need to give evidence to the contrary. It seems that the transport model for the fossil forests is in better condition than non-transport. If you don't think so, please explain why non-transport is favorable over transport, or even why non-transport is the only plausible explanation.-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-30-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"My contention is that we do not know for certain what 'narrow' means in this discussion."

​

--Lol, so then whatever happened to the assertion that I have no idea what 'narrow' means?

---

It is accurate. You do not know.

quote:

---

Is my terminology still as scatty as you continue to presume?

---

As ever.

quote:

---

"It could mean 'thin' in which case, the system could be as broad as you please. It could mean narrow in one dimension and very long in another. It could mean narrow in all lateral dimensions, but not in the vertical (this is how I originally read the text)."

​

--The text is referring to the root 'system', it is therefore extremely unlikely and would be a bit of a sloppy description if the narrowness was not a lateral description. It is usually depth over narrowness, narrow does not describe the roots in a vertical prospect.

---

As usual, the creationist will quibble over definitions until doomsday. The point is that narrow does not describe all dimensions.

quote:

---

"When the roots are developed in near bedrock situations the system could be 'narrow' and deep. Pine trees today often do this living in vertical fracture systems in granite bedrock. These are quite healthy hundred(+) year old trees. I'll see if I have a picture from the Front Range to publish here. At any rate, there are virtually no soils at all in these locations."

​

--Were not dealing with a granite bedrock, so it couldn't be applicable to the situation in the Eocene fossil forests.

---

Same example holds. I don't care if it's jello. Trees will tend to find cracks because that is where the water is. You would know this if you ever studied hydrology.

quote:

---

"Some root systems are abraded. I have seen this in driftwood. They look very different from untransported, in-place root systems."

​

--Right, then why don't we find any root systems which exhibit broad or deep root systems in these fossil forests. Both characteristics should be explained.

---

And you fail to do so.

quote:

---

"TC, the tree I planted in my front yard had a 'root ball.' I've asked this before, but you never answered: Have you ever planted a tree?"

​

--Yes I have. The problem with their root ball appearance, is that they just don't grow like that, it is either an artificial process of packaging for transport by our means, or natural transport from getting ripped from the ground or abrasion due to transport.

---

No, not transport.

quote:

---

"This does not come close to answering any question, much less the one I asked. How do the trees stand up during the ebb flow of your surge?"
--Because they were already buried under the materials brought up with the trees. I think I explained this earlier.

---

So, the trees settled out in a vertical position before the clastic sediments? TC, you really need to publish this soon or I will beat you to it.

quote:

---

"Me: But the conglomerate wasn't just a tranquil raining down of conglomeratic materials, it was a flow.

​

You: oh, so you were there! Dang, these creationists have got a distinct advantage. Well, TC, that's interesting because I have seen bedding preserved below all kinds of debris flows. In deed, it gets convoluted, but some kind of primary structures survive well into the lower metamorphic ranks. If nothing else we can usually see compositional layering."

​

--What? What does this have anything to do with what I said.

---

It has to do with preservation of primary bedding features.

quote:

---

You've listed nothing which contradicts what I've said. The sources we have say the conglomerate was deposited by a flow.

---

Sure I have. Show me an occurrence where deposition of conglomerates, no matter how deposited, completely obliterates subjacent bedding. You can't. Just as you can't show a place where trees have been deposited in a growth position by a flood.

quote:

---

I am saying that this flow probably would have erased diagnostic characteristics for fluid currents in the underlying sediment. Yes, it is convoluted.

---

Then it is present and not erased. Your incomplete knowledge of geological processes is showing through.

quote:

---

"Well, since you have defined them as entisols, it is my guess that the roots penetrated bedrock (such as it is). "

​

--But the roots don't penetrate the bedrock, ...

---

How do you know?

quote:

---

... the most they penetrated is the sandstone.

---

Well, like I said...

quote:

---

I didn't define them as entisols, Yuretich and Retallack did.

---

Well, they must be wrong then.

quote:

---

"But you yourself have said that there is no true soil."

​

--In my model, yes there is no soil, in yours there is.

---

So you agree that it is an entisol? How long does it take an entisol to form on bedrock?

quote:

---

"We'll ignore for the time that the references talk about horizontation, but you will need to explain this). Why even discuss how soil is formed?"

​

--The horizontation I'm sure is easily explained. Of course we would need to know the characteristics of the horizontation though (obviously).

---

So you are absolved from doing so, eh? Tell us how long it takes to develop horizontation.

quote:

---

"I've read a lot of you statements but the get kind of convoluted. It is very convenient for you that there is no evidence then, but you can still adhere to this fantastic story."

​

--What are you talking about? That given so far does not refute transport at all.

---

Not only is transport refuted, your entire concept of redopsition borders on the absurd.

quote:

---

The only thing you have done which could carry even a bit of merit is your incredulity on their staying vertical, but even that isn't much of a problem.

---

Good, then you can give us a good example of how and where it has happened.

quote:

---

After all, almost analogous is the method for interpreting the veracity of the ToE itself, not questioning whether it happend (in our case, whether it was transported or not) but rather only considering the way the evolution occurred (in our case, the transport itself).

---

You keep leaving out little details. Like evidence.

quote:

---

"All of these theories have some independent, observable evidence. You have nothing but a just-so story."

​

--You can assert it all you like, but if you want it to be more than your incredulity, you need to give evidence to the contrary.

---

My incredulity is based on experience and a basic knowedge of geological processes. Somethings that you do not possess.

quote:

---

It seems that the transport model for the fossil forests is in better condition than non-transport. If you don't think so, please explain why non-transport is favorable over transport, or even why non-transport is the only plausible explanation.

---

Oh, some logs are tranported. We can be fairly certain of this. The problem is that you have no clear cut evidence to support your position. You have no mechanism for redeposition, you do not explain how the trees can be uprooted and then redeposited more securely than they origianlly were. You do not discriminate between transported and untransported trees. You have no source of trees and do not explain how the transported trees can maintain an unabraided root system, and you do not explain the geometry of the root system very well. Other than that, you are fine.

quote:

---

Other than that, you are fine.

---

Except I still want to see how to transport those "materials" with the trees, which trees have 80% of their mass above the rootline (according to TC), and get the trees to stand up in the "materials" when the water subsides. The whole scenario makes my head hurt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coragyps:

quote:

---

Other than that, you are fine.

---

​

Except I still want to see how to transport those "materials" with the trees, which trees have 80% of their mass above the rootline (according to TC), and get the trees to stand up in the "materials" when the water subsides. The whole scenario makes my head hurt.

---

Ok. Since we are making a wish list...I want to know....1) How these trees are not killed during the uprooting process. I have transplanted small trees and not killing them is tough. I have seen very large trees that have been uprooted by wind and notice that there is a surprisingly small hole in the ground. The one I am thinking of was a elm(?) maybe 200 feet tall. It fell and left a hole about six feet across and two feet deep. Obviously, the root system that once occupied this hole didn't support the whole tree, so where are the other roots? Still in the ground. Millions upon millions of little filaments that couldn't survive being ripped up.2) How does a flood not topple the tree on the way out? Water packs a lot of punch. I'd think that retreating waters taller than the tree itself ( global flood, remember ) would have enough power to push it right back over, especially since its shredded root system is set in fresh thin mud at best.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coragyps:

quote:

---

Other than that, you are fine.

---

​

Except I still want to see how to transport those "materials" with the trees, which trees have 80% of their mass above the rootline (according to TC), and get the trees to stand up in the "materials" when the water subsides. The whole scenario makes my head hurt.

---

That would be an important part of the mechanism. Of course, I suppose he could say that the trees were deposited first and then the sediments settled in around them. Then he has to explain how this could happen since usually trees that float around in the ocean settle a tad slower than sands and silts. TC keeps getting deeper into a very sticky theory, buried (as it were) under all these band-aid theories designed to cover up previous weaknesses and often finding them contradictory.[This message has been edited by edge, 12-30-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
2) How does a flood not topple the tree on the way out? Water packs a lot of punch. I'd think that retreating waters taller than the tree itself ( global flood, remember ) would have enough power to push it right back over, especially since its shredded root system is set in fresh thin mud at best.

---

Remember, these are the same type of receding waters that cut the Grand Canyon in soft sediment...

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
2) How does a flood not topple the tree on the way out? Water packs a lot of punch. I'd think that retreating waters taller than the tree itself ( global flood, remember ) would have enough power to push it right back over, especially since its shredded root system is set in fresh thin mud at best.

---

​

Remember, these are the same type of receding waters that cut the Grand Canyon in soft sediment...

---

Maybe these heavier-than-water trees were originally -- meaning after redeposition -- covered in miles of sediment so that when the flood waters receded the trees were UN-covered?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

"It is accurate. You do not know."
--Your assertions indicated that I was wrong, and you were right. But both of our interpretations of the 'narrow' characteristic are the same. Narrowness being a characteristic describing the horizontal. All of the texts I have read discussing root systems via the internet and Retallack never have used it as a 'depth' characteristic. I think its a bit of a quibble not to assume that the way we have interpreted its context is correct."As ever."
--Your making me yawn. My terminology is intensely in completely accurate context. You have given little if any reason to render my credibility in this area so much as to deserve such a comment."As usual, the creationist will quibble over definitions until doomsday. The point is that narrow does not describe all dimensions."
--I never said it did.."Same example holds. I don't care if it's jello. Trees will tend to find cracks because that is where the water is. You would know this if you ever studied hydrology."
--If you want to try and point out such geomorphic characteristics in the Eocene environment at the time be my guest. You need this and without it you will still need to explain the condition of the root systems. You just don't get cracks significant enough in such a case."Me: Right, then why don't we find any root systems which exhibit broad or deep root systems in these fossil forests. Both characteristics should be explained.You: And you fail to do so."
--No, actually, this is one of the most solid aspects of my argument in favour of non-transport. The root systems characteristics owing to abrasion is easy to envision. Its much more difficult for yourself. Sequoias and pines just don't grow the way we find them at specimen ridge. Granitic fissures don't hold up to explain that away either."Me: Yes I have. The problem with their root ball appearance, is that they just don't grow like that, it is either an artificial process of packaging for transport by our means, or natural transport from getting ripped from the ground or abrasion due to transport.You: No, not transport."
--Then please explain why they appear as root balls given a natural non-transport setting."So, the trees settled out in a vertical position before the clastic sediments? TC, you really need to publish this soon or I will beat you to it."
--I didn't say they settled out before the sediment did. Sediments would have been getting deposited but before sedimentation ceased. Either that or during the tranquil abation of the surge, they would have become slowly encased in backwashing sediments. Keep in mind the orientations of the trees, they don't have very good vertical alignment.
--Also, I don't have to worry about getting my stuff published as it pertains to being a factor regarding my credibility."Sure I have. Show me an occurrence where deposition of conglomerates, no matter how deposited, completely obliterates subjacent bedding."
--No you havent, only your incredulity on my proposed mechanism for transport, not that they were transported. I never said anything was completely obliterated.."Just as you can't show a place where trees have been deposited in a growth position by a flood."
--Good, were not arguing that here though (not growth position, place of transport and that would be specimen ridge for one)."Then it is present and not erased. Your incomplete knowledge of geological processes is showing through."
--How would it still be present? Yes my knowledge of geological processes is incomplete, no problem there. Am I supposed to be embarrassed or something? Please educate me."How do you know?"
--Because the link source says it:

quote:

---

The upright trees at Specimen Ridge are rooted in fine-grained tuffaceous sandstone and encased in conglomeratic mudflows.

---

"Me: I didn't define them as entisols, Yuretich and Retallack did.You: Well, they must be wrong then."
--ROFL! Oh, good edge, please explain this one. I thought only creationists were guilty of this argument ."Me: In my model, yes there is no soil, in yours there is.You: So you agree that it is an entisol? How long does it take an entisol to form on bedrock?"
--Listen to what I said, "In my model, yes there is no soil, in yours there is." In other words, in my model, it is the appearence of a soil."Not only is transport refuted, your entire concept of redopsition borders on the absurd. "
--Redeposition of what? If your talking about the trees, the 'redeposition' and 'transport' are the same."Good, then you can give us a good example of how and where it has happened."
--Were discussing an example in this vary thread."You keep leaving out little details. Like evidence."
--You must have missed the part where we talked about the condition of the root and trunk systems."My incredulity is based on experience and a basic knowedge of geological processes. Somethings that you do not possess."
--Your intelligent in the general spectrum of geology, but when it comes to pedology and paleopedology is lacking. You even admitted this and made it more than indicative in your assertions regarding pedogeny in this thread. Your incredulity has no meritable basis."You have no mechanism for redeposition, you do not explain how the trees can be uprooted and then redeposited more securely than they origianlly were."
--They were not redeposited more securely than they originally were. They were deposited with severely abraded trunks and root systems."You do not discriminate between transported and untransported trees."
--That's because in my setting every tree has been transported from its original growth position. After their deposition, though, many of them were completely knocked down (in lesser quantities distal the congomeratic flow's origin), displaced, and perturbed by the surge and latter conglomeratic flows."You have no source of trees"
--This was discussed earlier, there exists no problem in explaining the growth origin of the trees."and do not explain how the transported trees can maintain an unabraided root system"
--The root systems are abraded as would be predicted. The roots which extend broadly were abraded just as their trunk limbs were. Hence their narrow characteristic for the root systems."and you do not explain the geometry of the root system very well."
--Please list even one characteristic of the root systems at specimen ridge which are not explained sufficiently by transport."Other than that, you are fine."
--I'm in pretty good condition then.--BTW, the absence since my last post is because I went snowboarding in North Carolina.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-06-2003]

"Except I still want to see how to transport those "materials" with the trees, which trees have 80% of their mass above the rootline (according to TC), and get the trees to stand up in the "materials" when the water subsides. The whole scenario makes my head hurt."
--My hypothesis isn't flawless, though I think this segment of my last post is directed toward this:

quote:

---

Sediments would have been getting deposited but before sedimentation ceased. Either that or during the tranquil abation of the surge, they would have become slowly encased in backwashing sediments. Keep in mind the orientations of the trees, they don't have very good vertical alignment.

---

--[Edit] - Also, the 20:80% ratio isn't mine, but came from my Iowa State University source in my post #55.-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-06-2003]

"1) How these trees are not killed during the uprooting process."
--Who said they didn't die?"and notice that there is a surprisingly small hole in the ground."
--Thats correct! And along with it comes a about that much of root appendages. This is basically what we see in the specimen ridge in situ trees. Hence, their root ball appearence."2) How does a flood not topple the tree on the way out? Water packs a lot of punch. I'd think that retreating waters taller than the tree itself ( global flood, remember ) would have enough power to push it right back over, especially since its shredded root system is set in fresh thin mud at best."
--It did topple many trees over, but this was likely mostly due to the latter congomeratic flows. The trees are not very tall, a couple meters and many of them are just stumps. Either the regressing water was relatively tranquil or it occured while inundated. I am currently arguing for the former.-------------------

"Remember, these are the same type of receding waters that cut the Grand Canyon in soft sediment... "
--Hardly, the Grand canyon erosion event took place post flood. We tumbled on this relatively in considerable depth a while back and was made very clear.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-06-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"1) How these trees are not killed during the uprooting process."
--Who said they didn't die?

---

Actually, I wasn't sure.

quote:

---

"and notice that there is a surprisingly small hole in the ground."
--Thats correct! And along with it comes a about that much of root appendages. This is basically what we see in the specimen ridge in situ trees. Hence, their root ball appearence.

---

Yes, hence the root ball appearance, but think about it. This is what you'd see anyway, whether the tree had been transported or not. Because outside of that dense section the roots become tiny little delicate filaments and are easily and rapidly decomposed. The point is not necessarily that you are wrong, but that the argument you use in this case is faulty. Different scenarios will produce the same result. You cannot therefore use the presence of that result as an argument for one of the disputed theories.

quote:

---

It did topple many trees over, but this was likely mostly due to the latter congomeratic flows.

---

Ok? Hundred foot high surges couldn't knock down the trees but mudflows did? Hard to believe and why does it matter?

quote:

---

The trees are not very tall, a couple meters and many of them are just stumps.

---

A couple of meters? So we have sapplings?How do you account for the stumps?

quote:

---

Either the regressing water was relatively tranquil or it occured while inundated. I am currently arguing for the former.

---

Tranquil regressing walls of water? You don't have time. To have tranqil surges you need to surge SLOWLY and you need multiple surges big enough to give the illusion of a global flood ( and plant a boat on top of a mountain ) within a year------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

"Yes, hence the root ball appearance, but think about it. This is what you'd see anyway, whether the tree had been transported or not. Because outside of that dense section the roots become tiny little delicate filaments and are easily and rapidly decomposed."
--No, we wouldn't see this, we would most certainly see full root systems, varnish, rhizocretions, or diagnostic root traces. Most especially with the bracing roots which are the ones which are usually missing from the in situ trees. My thoughts on their being allochthonous hold up quite well."Ok? Hundred foot high surges couldn't knock down the trees but mudflows did? Hard to believe and why does it matter?"
--Not a powerful surge huh? It matters because you don't find it easy to believe. You think that the surge would have toppled all them trees with ease. Also, in the specific location of specimen ridge, this is an area where neither the flow nor the surge totally leveled the forests, though closer to the volcanic source the forests were pretty much completely flattened."A couple of meters? So we have sapplings?"
--Not necessarily, (depending on whether you consider ~200-500 years a sapling) their tops are often owing to abrasion so they are considerably short."How do you account for the stumps?"
--Abrasion"Tranquil regressing walls of water? You don't have time. To have tranqil surges you need to surge SLOWLY and you need multiple surges big enough to give the illusion of a global flood ( and plant a boat on top of a mountain ) within a year
--I don't? How do you figure that? The eustatic level was likely already considerably inland in many locations. Why don't I have enough to 'give the illusion of a global flood', let alone your thoughts on planting a boat on top of a strato volcano.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Your assertions indicated that I was wrong, and you were right. But both of our interpretations of the 'narrow' characteristic are the same.

---

No. My assertion was that you do not know, and to make a certain statement based on that lack of knowledge does not logically make sense.

quote:

---

--Your making me yawn. My terminology is intensely in completely accurate context. You have given little if any reason to render my credibility in this area so much as to deserve such a comment.

---

"Intensely in ... accurate context..." I rest my case. You really do not communicate well.

quote:

---

--If you want to try and point out such geomorphic characteristics in the Eocene environment at the time be my guest. You need this and without it you will still need to explain the condition of the root systems. You just don't get cracks significant enough in such a case.

---

What? How do you know this? What is your qualification to make this statement?

quote:

---

Right, then why don't we find any root systems which exhibit broad or deep root systems in these fossil forests. Both characteristics should be explained.

​

You: And you fail to do so."

​

--No, actually, this is one of the most solid aspects of my argument in favour of non-transport. The root systems characteristics owing to abrasion is easy to envision. Its much more difficult for yourself. Sequoias and pines just don't grow the way we find them at specimen ridge. Granitic fissures don't hold up to explain that away either.

---

Interesting assertions. Now support them.

quote:

---

"Me: Yes I have. The problem with their root ball appearance, is that they just don't grow like that, it is either an artificial process of packaging for transport by our means, or natural transport from getting ripped from the ground or abrasion due to transport.

---

Pleas show us where you get the evidence for making this assertion.

quote:

---

You: No, not transport."

​

--Then please explain why they appear as root balls given a natural non-transport setting.

---

Because that is how we describe the geometry of a root system.

quote:

---

"So, the trees settled out in a vertical position before the clastic sediments? TC, you really need to publish this soon or I will beat you to it."

​

--I didn't say they settled out before the sediment did.

---

Then how did they remain standing? I don't know of too many trees with their root balls exposed that would remain upright for very long.

quote:

---

Sediments would have been getting deposited but before sedimentation ceased.

---

Really????!!!

quote:

---

Either that or during the tranquil abation of the surge, they would have become slowly encased in backwashing sediments.

---

I think there's something else going on here besides tranquil abation...

quote:

---

Keep in mind the orientations of the trees, they don't have very good vertical alignment.

---

Where did you get this? I think you are making this up as you go, TC.

quote:

---

--Also, I don't have to worry about getting my stuff published as it pertains to being a factor regarding my credibility.

---

What? YOu make no sense at all, TC.

quote:

---

"Sure I have. Show me an occurrence where deposition of conglomerates, no matter how deposited, completely obliterates subjacent bedding."

​

--No you havent, only your incredulity on my proposed mechanism for transport, not that they were transported. I never said anything was completely obliterated..

---

So then we can see the bedding eh? Are you saying that you cannot give us an example?

quote:

---

"Just as you can't show a place where trees have been deposited in a growth position by a flood."

​

--Good, were not arguing that here though (not growth position, place of transport and that would be specimen ridge for one).

---

TC, what are you on tonight? This makes no sense at all, either, and I don't have the time to interpret. Please be more clear in your assertions.... or is that part of your debating technique?

quote:

---

"Then it is present and not erased. Your incomplete knowledge of geological processes is showing through."

​

--How would it still be present? Yes my knowledge of geological processes is incomplete, no problem there. Am I supposed to be embarrassed or something? Please educate me.

---

Yes, you should be. And as far as educating you, I'm afraid the situation is hopeless. You have not attempted to learn a single thing from the pages and pages on this board.

quote:

---

"Me: I didn't define them as entisols, Yuretich and Retallack did.

​

You: Well, they must be wrong then."

​

--ROFL! Oh, good edge, please explain this one. I thought only creationists were guilty of this argument .

---

Well, make yourself clearer, then. First you say that the soils are entisols and then you seem to disavow that by saying that someone else actually said it.

quote:

---

You: So you agree that it is an entisol? How long does it take an entisol to form on bedrock?"

​

--Listen to what I said, "In my model, yes there is no soil, in yours there is." In other words, in my model, it is the appearence of a soil.

---

I thought you said it was an entisol. What is your point? Why all the discussion about soil formation and rhizocretions, etc., etc.? TC, I am becoming worried about you.

quote:

---

--Redeposition of what? If your talking about the trees, the 'redeposition' and 'transport' are the same.

---

Once again, your ignorance is glaringly displayed. Transport and deposition are considered to be different geological processes. And, yes, I am talking about the trees.

quote:

---

"Good, then you can give us a good example of how and where it has happened."

​

--Were discussing an example in this vary thread.

---

No, that would be circular reasoning. You are supporting your thesis with the conclusion. So, am I to understand that you cannot give us such an example?

quote:

---

"You keep leaving out little details. Like evidence."

​

--You must have missed the part where we talked about the condition of the root and trunk systems.

---

Not at all. You have not provided any evidence to support your position.

quote:

---

"My incredulity is based on experience and a basic knowedge of geological processes. Somethings that you do not possess."

​

--Your intelligent in the general spectrum of geology, ...

---

"My intelligent???"

quote:

---

...but when it comes to pedology and paleopedology is lacking.

---

But you just told us that there is no soil involved! Which is it, TC? Please answer me straight for just once!

quote:

---

You even admitted this and made it more than indicative in your assertions regarding pedogeny in this thread. Your incredulity has no meritable basis.

---

LOL! YOu mean compared to yours?

quote:

---

"You have no mechanism for redeposition, you do not explain how the trees can be uprooted and then redeposited more securely than they origianlly were."

​

--They were not redeposited more securely than they originally were. They were deposited with severely abraded trunks and root systems.

---

Then how do they remain standing? Please answer this question or yield.

quote:

---

"You do not discriminate between transported and untransported trees."

​

--That's because in my setting every tree has been transported from its original growth position.

---

But the trees are different!!!@!!

quote:

---

After their deposition, though, many of them were completely knocked down (in lesser quantities distal the congomeratic flow's origin), displaced, and perturbed by the surge and latter conglomeratic flows.

---

But why were some not knocked down?

quote:

---

"You have no source of trees"

​

--This was discussed earlier, there exists no problem in explaining the growth origin of the trees.

---

Yes, they came from across the ocean basins, and then were deposited in an upright growth position... Why have we never seen this on the seashores of today. Virtually all driftwood is horizntal with root balls exposed.

quote:

---

"and do not explain how the transported trees can maintain an unabraided root system"

​

--The root systems are abraded as would be predicted.

---

Please support this assertion.

quote:

---

"and you do not explain the geometry of the root system very well."

​

--Please list even one characteristic of the root systems at specimen ridge which are not explained sufficiently by transport.

---

The trees are in an upright position. This is virtually impossible in your scenario and you have given us exactly no mechanism by which it could happen.

quote:

---

"Other than that, you are fine."

​

--I'm in pretty good condition then.

---

Sure, TC, now let's just put your funny little white jacket back on.This has all been very much fun, but I think it's time for a reality check, TC. You are getting in deeper and deeper into this fantasy and your posts are becoming more and more incoherrent and contradictory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Remember, these are the same type of receding waters that cut the Grand Canyon in soft sediment... "

​

--Hardly, the Grand canyon erosion event took place post flood. We tumbled on this relatively in considerable depth a while back and was made very clear.

---

LOL! So you have waters transporting trees all the way to the elevation of Yellowstone from across the ocean basins and then the water just slowly ebbs away! Right! What ever happend to the rapid currents and catastrophic flood events? And you have to do this untold times in one year! Right! This is getting better and better.