Paleosols

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--BTW, the absence since my last post is because I went snowboarding in North Carolina.

---

Do you wear headgear?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
No, we wouldn't see this, we would most certainly see full root systems, varnish, rhizocretions, or diagnostic root traces.

---

Ummm.... TC, I just explained to you that the 'full root systems' of a very large tree looked pretty much like a root-ball because most of the system is made of hair-like filaments that run through the upper foot or so of soil. I grew up in very heavily wooded forests and once you got deeper than a few inches in most spots, you could dig without hitting roots.Ever, like, actually tried to uproot a tree? The root system does not look like an upside down version of the above ground part. Most root systems are very shallow and most trees do not produce hulking root systems beyond a few feet from the trunk.

quote:

---

Most especially with the bracing roots which are the ones which are usually missing from the in situ trees.

---

hmmmm.... I have seen 150 foot trees the day after they fell and this 'bracing root system' didn't exist. Some trees have this adaptation, but not all trees.

quote:

---

My thoughts on their being allochthonous hold up quite well.

---

Not really.

quote:

---

Not a powerful surge huh?

---

What?

quote:

---

It matters because you don't find it easy to believe.

---

Again... what?

quote:

---

You think that the surge would have toppled all them trees with ease.

---

Yes, I do. Massive global floods are like that.

quote:

---

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.

---

What? Volcanic sources for the flood? Are you making this up as you go?

quote:

---

Not necessarily, (depending on whether you consider ~200-500 years a sapling)

---

What species of tree grows to a couple of meters in two hundred years?

quote:

---

their tops are often owing to abrasion so they are considerably short.

---

Which in fact means that they were originally much taller, so you may want to reconsider using the short heights as a crutch when trying to make deposited trees stand upright. That is exactly what you do. See. Taller trees are harder to balance.

quote:

---

Abrasion

---

Yes. I know that. How? How is a tree deposited and abraded in the time frame you have? Give details please.

quote:

---

I don't?

---

Correct.

quote:

---

How do you figure that?

---

You have to generate too many layers. This has been explained to you an embarrassing number of times. And you have to have water levels high enough to transport trees and stand them upright, then carry in enough sediment to keep them up. Then you must lop off the tops and start all over. How many layers are at specimen ridge? 25-50? In one year?

quote:

---

The eustatic level was likely already considerably inland in many locations.

---

You are forgetting tree tranport and erection. And... how do you figure it was 'likely'?

quote:

---

Why don't I have enough to 'give the illusion of a global flood',

---

The problem is larger THAT you must have enough to give the illusion of a global flood. The problem is with the consequences of that much water.

quote:

---

let alone your thoughts on planting a boat on top of a strato volcano.

---

Strato volcano? Did I say volcano? I said mountain. And did the Ark not come to rest on a mountain?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I'm posting this in this thread:From: Petrified Yellowstone forrests: transport only or succession + transport?

​

------

​

"LOL! Don't you understand that if ANY trees are in situ that your whole scenario evaporates?"
--Yup, and? Why do you think I am arguing that all trees have been transported at one time or another?

​

"Also, please explain this 'quality of abrasion' and how it indicates siginficant transport..."
--"Some of these logs were doubtless moved long distances, as evidenced by their abraded appearance; and others may have been derived locally." [Yuretich, 1984] This analysis was done on Specimen ridge, more catastrophic diagnosis can be made in different locations such as Cache Creek & Mount Hornaday. Even Sequoia specimens, bark is generally not preserved, a "peculiar condition for these trees...with thick resistant bark."

​

"I thought they were flood deposits. Now you say they are lakes and streams. That sounds like what we have out there today... Unless, you have changed your mind, please give us evidence that these are flood deposits."
--The point is that there is evidence that they were deposited in a water bodied environment. Exactly what would be expected in an inundation/abation event is seen there with abundant plant litter deposits (eg. leaves)[Fritz, 1980]. These remains are not decayed either, despite the fact that they probably should be in a mainstream scenario. Yuretich also points out that the that trees "may have been killed in place by rising waters from streams dammed by mudflows". Does this not qualify as a 'flood deposit"?

​

"Did you not read the post? Heck, I could consider the gneissic basement rock to be 'part of the package'. The point is that the substrate for the trees is composed of ashfall tuffs. Keep dancing if you want but but no one is watching."
--My point is, that that is no problem and would be expected. So I don't know what your talking about.

​

"And your point is? How do you know so much about the soil if so much of it was removed? Your logic evades me."
--lol, that's just it, we don't know much about the soil! Something I've attempted to get across your mind. Soil development in the root zones of the tree-stump layer (even in Specimen Ridge!) is not readily discernible[Yuretich, 1984]
--The Yuretich quote on the "volume of soil" piece also supports my former thoughts on why there may not be much evidence of current activity.

​

"Then why bring them up?"
--Because it is relevant.

​

------

​

--I have also confirmed that you still have a problem with root structure. So you can bring that quibble about them being "narrow" to a halt. Since the trees exhibit small root systems and do in fact have a bit of a root ball appearance.
--My previous speculation, "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" is true.

​

--[!] - Please explain the root systems exhibited at the Lamar River Formation.

​

"First you say that the soils are entisols and then you seem to disavow that by saying that someone else actually said it."
--I wasn't the one that said they were incipient. Yuretich, Fritz, & Retallack did. Also, please take notice of my comments above regarding the soils.

​

"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."
--I have been discussing pedogeny because it is relevant to YOUR setting for the Lamar River Formation.

​

"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."
--I never said such a thing, I challenge you to show me otherwise. They never came from across the ocean basins.

​

"Virtually all driftwood is horizntal with root balls exposed."
--Do you know what a root ball is? Then you should know why it is hard on your model and easily explained for mine.

​

--If I've missed anything, don't hesitate.

​

--ALSO! Yuretich sent me a copy of his e-mail reply. The reply was fine without your own made-up inclusion, "He is amazed at the ability of creationists to convolute any argument to suit their agenda". I have been in conversation with him via the telephone, and it was very informative.

​

------------------

​

"Ummm.... TC, I just explained to you that the 'full root systems' of a very large tree looked pretty much like a root-ball because most of the system is made of hair-like filaments that run through the upper foot or so of soil. I grew up in very heavily wooded forests and once you got deeper than a few inches in most spots, you could dig without hitting roots.Ever, like, actually tried to uproot a tree? The root system does not look like an upside down version of the above ground part. Most root systems are very shallow and most trees do not produce hulking root systems beyond a few feet from the trunk."
--The fact of the matter is that there should be relatively large root systems, especially for the Sequoias and Pines, we do not see this at the Lamar River Formation."hmmmm.... I have seen 150 foot trees the day after they fell and this 'bracing root system' didn't exist.^[1] Some trees have this adaptation, but not all trees.^[2]"
--[1] - Thats because they were in the ground.
--[2] - Many of those exhibited in the LRF, should, but don't."Yes, I do. Massive global floods are like that.
--Only because once you hear 'global flood' the first thing you think of is a tsunami sweeping across the earth. This is generally thought of as the bathtub strawman."What? Volcanic sources for the flood? Are you making this up as you go?"
--No, the volcanic sources proximal to some of the L.R. Formation sites where there has been experimentation. Likely being the Western Absaroka Belt vents."What species of tree grows to a couple of meters in two hundred years? "
--What are you getting at?"Which in fact means that they were originally much taller, so you may want to reconsider using the short heights as a crutch when trying to make deposited trees stand upright. That is exactly what you do."
--I think you misunderstand the setting. The trunks were abraded and broken by transport prior deposition. They would have been further abraded after the conglomeratic flows."Yes. I know that. How? How is a tree deposited and abraded in the time frame you have? Give details please."
--See above, what more detail do you need?"You have to generate too many layers. This has been explained to you an embarrassing number of times. And you have to have water levels high enough to transport trees and stand them upright, then carry in enough sediment to keep them up. Then you must lop off the tops and start all over. How many layers are at specimen ridge? 25-50? In one year?"
--I don't think that the amount of "layers" present in the L.R. Formation is too many. Also, "These forests are not neatly arranged in layer-cake fashion...rather, only isolated parts are preserved haphazardly according to the vagaries of the prevalent sedimentary process"[Yuretich, 1984 (reply to Fritz comment on "Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place {Yuretich, 1984}")]."You are forgetting tree tranport and erection. And... how do you figure it was 'likely'?"
--How am I forgetting these things? And I figure it was likely, because at about the Eocene, this is about the time where complete continental inundation is expected to have occurred. Eocene may have been shortly after."The problem is larger THAT you must have enough to give the illusion of a global flood. The problem is with the consequences of that much water."
--What are the consequences of that much water?"Strato volcano? Did I say volcano? I said mountain. And did the Ark not come to rest on a mountain?"
--While Mt. Ararat technically is a mountain, it is a stratovolcano. I would therefore, put into question whether we would even find the Ark intact and not obliterated by magma flows in the past.------------------

--I am posting this reply in this thread as well.From: Petrified Yellowstone forrests: transport only or succession + transport?"You said it was not diagnostic. If it does not help discriminate between models, why are we wasting time on it?"
--Because if a model can't explain it, it isn't plausible. Besides, I wasn't the one who braught it up. You said that it "is so much baloney", but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't discrimiate between the models."That is why I tried to terminate this irrelevant subject several posts back."
--You tried to do so by saying it was baloney, not by saying it doesn't "discriminate between models"."I cannot understand why you are so focussed on one piece of minutia that you do not see the forst in front of you."
--I'm not "so focussed on one piece of minutia". I've been waiting for you to present me with this 'forst in front of me'."Then why do you use this as evidence for transport?"
--Because it is, even Yuretich agrees with this fact."Actually, I predicted that you wouldn't. The point is that wehappy has given you a mechanisma and an example for in situ forests being terminated by volcanic activity. You have been able to do nothing of the sort to support your story. "
--What is it you need me to explain?"Unequivocal evidence, and preferrably an example, of transported trees such as you suggest for Specimen Ridge. So far most of your evidence has been non-diagnostic, as you have admitted."
--No, I havent admitted that 'most' of it hasn't been. Potential unequivocal evidence has been presented in the Paleosols thread."Nonsense. In most cases, the decayed portion of the tree is long gone."
--The whole tree isn't, you need evidence of decay on those logs which have been transported horizontally or for stumps which weren't further fractured by conglomeratic flow."Furthermore, decay in an arrid environment is not as relevant as it is in the Pacific Northwest"
--You have multiple environments to deal with, remains from all such sources don't seem to hold any evidence for biodecay. You have a wide variation in ecological niches, including cool-temperate, warm-temperate, tropical, and paratropical. You should have decay in many of these environments, we do not see it."And, we don't need three hundred years to grow a forest anyway. There may be that much time, but it is not necessary. Decay might be good to have, but it is not necessary at all. "
--I'm sure it is.------------------

"You said it was not diagnostic. If it does not help discriminate between models, why are we wasting time on it?"--Because if a model can't explain it, it isn't plausible. Besides, I wasn't the one who braught it up. You said that it "is so much baloney", but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't discrimiate between the models.[/quote]It is and continues to be a red herring. The argument is a waste of time. That is what I meant by baloney: the argument not the data.

quote:

---

"Then why do you use this as evidence for transport?"

​

--Because it is, even Yuretich agrees with this fact.

---

Then you agree with Yuretich that there are in situ trees at Specimen Ridge? Remember, you had two types of trees. Yuretich explains this. You do not.

quote:

---

"Actually, I predicted that you wouldn't. The point is that wehappy has given you a mechanisma and an example for in situ forests being terminated by volcanic activity. You have been able to do nothing of the sort to support your story. "

​

--What is it you need me to explain?

---

First of all you could read to my next sentence for an answer to this question. Nevertheless I will add some: How do you transport and redeposit trees into growth position using a flood surge model, as pertains to the Specimen Ridge fossil forests. Repeatedly...

quote:

---

"Unequivocal evidence, and preferrably an example, of transported trees such as you suggest for Specimen Ridge. So far most of your evidence has been non-diagnostic, as you have admitted."

​

--No, I havent admitted that 'most' of it hasn't been. Potential unequivocal evidence has been presented in the Paleosols thread.

---

WTF is potential unequivocal evidence? Are you okay?Funny that Yuretich among many others cannot see the same conclusions based on the same unequivocal evidence...

quote:

---

"Nonsense. In most cases, the decayed portion of the tree is long gone."

​

--The whole tree isn't, you need evidence of decay on those logs which have been transported horizontally or for stumps which weren't further fractured by conglomeratic flow.

---

Not at all. I see snags up at higher elevations that have been there for many years and show no overt evidence of decay. Besides in many petrified trees the upper parts have probably been decayed and washed away leaving the mineralized portions below ground. Besides, I can easily imagine the upper parts of the trees covered by air fall that might wash away over the ensuing centuries. Your "need for decay" is not crucial.

quote:

---

"Furthermore, decay in an arrid environment is not as relevant as it is in the Pacific Northwest"

​

--You have multiple environments to deal with, remains from all such sources don't seem to hold any evidence for biodecay.

---

Maybe this sentence makes sense to you, but for most of us it needs rephrasing. Why do we have multiple environments? How many were there at Specimen Ridge? What sources are you talking about? There is no need for decay as I have shown above.

quote:

---

You have a wide variation in ecological niches, ...

---

Hunh? Where?

quote:

---

...including cool-temperate, warm-temperate, tropical, and paratropical.

---

These were present at Specimen Ridge?

quote:

---

You should have decay in many of these environments, we do not see it.

---

We should? Did you see the other thread where some biogenic material has remained undecayed for very long periods of time even in water-soaked sediments?

quote:

---

"And, we don't need three hundred years to grow a forest anyway. There may be that much time, but it is not necessary. Decay might be good to have, but it is not necessary at all. "

​

--I'm sure it is.

---

Well, I suppose necessity make one an expert. And I'm sure you are sure. After all you need it to prop up your faltering scenario. Do check out that other thread, I think it was lpetrich who started it.[This message has been edited by edge, 02-01-2003]

quote:

---

"LOL! Don't you understand that if ANY trees are in situ that your whole scenario evaporates?"

​

--Yup, and? Why do you think I am arguing that all trees have been transported at one time or another?

---

Because that has been your point here. Are you saying that some trees are in situ? If so, then you agree with mainstream science and we can simply dispense with this whole thread. This would mean that trees grew to mature size in between your flood surges and you need to explain this in the framework of a one-year flood.

quote:

---

"Also, please explain this 'quality of abrasion' and how it indicates siginficant transport..."

​

--"Some of these logs were doubtless moved long distances, as evidenced by their abraded appearance; and others may have been derived locally." [Yuretich, 1984]

---

Correct, some were transported by the mudflows and others were buried in situ. I am glad that you agree with this interpretation.

quote:

---

This analysis was done on Specimen ridge, more catastrophic diagnosis can be made in different locations such as Cache Creek & Mount Hornaday. Even Sequoia specimens, bark is generally not preserved, a "peculiar condition for these trees...with thick resistant bark."

---

Or perhaps they were abraded in situ by ash flows or fire or by the mudflows themselves. This is hardly diagnostic evidence of flood deposition.

quote:

---

"I thought they were flood deposits. Now you say they are lakes and streams. That sounds like what we have out there today... Unless, you have changed your mind, please give us evidence that these are flood deposits."

​

--The point is that there is evidence that they were deposited in a water bodied environment.

---

Oh. Are you saying then that we have to interpret every water-deposited sediment as a flood deposit? Sorry, but once again you fail the test of evidence.

quote:

---

Exactly what would be expected in an inundation/abation event is seen there with abundant plant litter deposits (eg. leaves)[Fritz, 1980]. These remains are not decayed either, despite the fact that they probably should be in a mainstream scenario.

---

Not necessarily. In various environments organic material can remain undecayed for long periods of time.

quote:

---

Yuretich also points out that the that trees "may have been killed in place by rising waters from streams dammed by mudflows". Does this not qualify as a 'flood deposit"?

---

Hardly. Does it to you? Are you redefining 'global flood' here so as to make it entirely meaningless?

quote:

---

"Did you not read the post? Heck, I could consider the gneissic basement rock to be 'part of the package'. The point is that the substrate for the trees is composed of ashfall tuffs. Keep dancing if you want but but no one is watching."

​

--My point is, that that is no problem and would be expected. So I don't know what your talking about.

---

Another point, if I might say. You do NOT understand.

quote:

---

"And your point is? How do you know so much about the soil if so much of it was removed? Your logic evades me."

​

--lol, that's just it, we don't know much about the soil! Something I've attempted to get across your mind.

---

So then, we are required in your world to create a theory based on what we don't know rather than what we do know...

quote:

---

Soil development in the root zones of the tree-stump layer (even in Specimen Ridge!) is not readily discernible[Yuretich, 1984]

---

Agreed. As you said, these are entisols. I see them all the time.

quote:

---

"Then why bring them up?"

​

--Because it is relevant.

---

Well, you can beat around the bush with details that are equivocal or we can get down to actual meaningful details.

quote:

---

"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."

​

--I have been discussing pedogeny because it is relevant to YOUR setting for the Lamar River Formation.

---

But I am saying that there are no true soils in the sense of a well-developed profile. Coffin does admit however that the soils are up to 20 cm thick. At this time I do not know enough about the root systems to explain them other than the fact that some experts who have worked there say that there are root systems. Coffin disagrees, but since he overlooks a lot of other details I tend to discount him for the time being.

quote:

---

"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."

​

--I never said such a thing, I challenge you to show me otherwise. They never came from across the ocean basins.

---

I am not going to search back through this thread. I will instead ask you where the trees came from so late in the flood sequence.

quote:

---

"Virtually all driftwood is horizntal with root balls exposed."

​

--Do you know what a root ball is? Then you should know why it is hard on your model and easily explained for mine.

---

But you have not explained it yet.

quote:

---

--ALSO! Yuretich sent me a copy of his e-mail reply. The reply was fine without your own made-up inclusion, "He is amazed at the ability of creationists to convolute any argument to suit their agenda". I have been in conversation with him via the telephone, and it was very informative.

---

LOL! He obviously excised that from his copy to you so as to not hurt your feelings. His actual words were, "I never ceased to be amazed by how creationists can twist any simple statement of any kind into something contrary to what the words actually say."So why don't you give us some of the details of your conversations. Could it be that he disagrees with your conclusions?I have finally located Coffin's report on Speciment Ridge and had time to read it. While he documents some interesting observations, (like Dr. Gentry) he fails primarily in his interpretation of the data.He goes into excruciating detail regarding interlamination of organic material and clean sand, and yet glosses over the dendrochronology with very little detail. He gives us good data regarding the orientation of horizontal tree trunks (which by the way, do no give us consistent orientations) and yet does not discuss any mechanism for depositon of the trees other than to say it was 'catasrophic.'He also points out tree trunks deposited from mudflows in an upright position without discussing the fact that all of the pictures of these trunks are from cut trees. In other words they have virtually no rotational inertia at all and would naturally try to land with the heavy root ball down. The fact that he only presents distant photos of these trunks in which it is difficult to see that some of the them are tilted is probably not an oversight.He does not adequately describe the soil horizons and kind of glosses over the fact that in some places they are up to 20 cm thick and that they could be eroded by the mudflows in many locations. He seems to think that entisols (as I understand them from discussing them with you) are not true soils and yet complains that there really isn't much soil present with normal soil profiles. This is confusing. Where I live there is virtually no soil in this sense at all and yet we have substantial trees growing in bedrock and what might be called the 'C' horizon. I have also seen an experiment where loose drill cuttings with only water and virtually no other organic material could support vegetation in just a few days. Hence, I do not see the big deal about how developed the soil is or how much organic material is present. Coffin simply does not address these aspects of volcanic 'soils.'The there is the ridiculous comparison between Spirit Lake and Specimen Ridge. If you want to get into this, I would be glad to, but it would best be served in another thread. Let's just leave it at the difference between lacustrine sedimentation and mudflow deposits, and perhaps the presence of bark mats on the bottom of the lake which have no counterpart at Specimen Ridge.

"Then you agree with Yuretich that there are in situ trees at Specimen Ridge? Remember, you had two types of trees. Yuretich explains this. You do not."
--Yes some of the trees found at The L.R. Formation were deposited in situ the tuffacous sandstone."First of all you could read to my next sentence for an answer to this question. Nevertheless I will add some: How do you transport and redeposit trees into growth position using a flood surge model, as pertains to the Specimen Ridge fossil forests. Repeatedly..."
--My model consists of a surge which transports trees and plant litter to the location. Mud flows, previously existing or during its transpire made a dam so a temporary lake would be formed. While the trees were in the lake, those which were upright would become rooted in the sediments below from deposition of tuffaceous sandstones and ash fall. During which time, evidence of the lacustrine environment would be seen in the sandstones and larger deposits of lacustrine mudstones. Subsequent conglomeratic flows would spread across the formation, flattening many trees proximal the vents(all, with the exception of a few small intervals in the Specimen Ridge section, fossilized horizontal logs are most abundant and make up 60% - 100% of the total). Any questions?"WTF is potential unequivocal evidence? Are you okay? "
--Yes I'm ok.. I inserted 'potential' because I was waiting to see what you had to say on the subject. I think that some of the evidence I have presented is unequivocal, but I am open to the possibility that it isn't."Funny that Yuretich among many others cannot see the same conclusions based on the same unequivocal evidence..."
--That's because if they did (even if mine is the more plausible scenario), he would then have to accept Flood dynamics and a near complete continental inundation. He isn't about to do that even if I were to offer a more plausible setting."Not at all. I see snags up at higher elevations that have been there for many years and show no overt evidence of decay."
--Should I take your word for it or are you going to provide some sort of documented example? Every time I've been in a forest (whether cool-temperate, warm-temperate, tropical, or paratropical) I've always noticed heavy rotting in an abundance of trees. And don't switch the burden of proof, give me something here. You need evidence for some sort of organic decomposition."Besides in many petrified trees the upper parts have probably been decayed and washed away leaving the mineralized portions below ground."
--Its hard to imagine that this would occur at specimen ridge, where trees with such dwarf root systems never tipped over."Maybe this sentence makes sense to you, but for most of us it needs rephrasing. Why do we have multiple environments? How many were there at Specimen Ridge? What sources are you talking about? There is no need for decay as I have shown above."
--Yes, I still think you need decay, if you don't you still have yet to reason in your favour. I have given you the environments which trees originate from in specimen ridge, Amethyst Mt. et al. below.----
"You have a wide variation in ecological niches, ...
Hunh? Where?...including cool-temperate, warm-temperate, tropical, and paratropical.These were present at Specimen Ridge?
----
--Yes, the fossil florae at the Lamar River Formation indicate these environments."We should? Did you see the other thread where some biogenic material has remained undecayed for very long periods of time even in water-soaked sediments?"
--You mean as illustrated by Wehappy? It merely said they were still standing due to their resistance to decay, this does not rule out that they exhibit a degree of decomposition. Also, you have many different types of trees, but evidence of decomposition is not seen.------------------

"Because that has been your point here. Are you saying that some trees are in situ? If so, then you agree with mainstream science and we can simply dispense with this whole thread. This would mean that trees grew to mature size in between your flood surges and you need to explain this in the framework of a one-year flood."
--They didn't grow in situ, they were deposited in situ."Correct, some were transported by the mudflows and others were buried in situ. I am glad that you agree with this interpretation."
--I've agreed with this for months."Or perhaps they were abraded in situ by ash flows or fire or by the mudflows themselves."
--Yes this did happen, but it was more of an 'and they were abraded in situ...'"This is hardly diagnostic evidence of flood deposition."
--Not necessarily, but I do think that the root systems do pack a punch as diagnostic evidence for my model."Oh. Are you saying then that we have to interpret every water-deposited sediment as a flood deposit?"
--No, I havent done research on every water-deposited sediment in the world. But these ones are."Not necessarily. In various environments organic material can remain undecayed for long periods of time."
--Yeah, and Noah owned a rocket ship. You need to apply this thought to the eocene fossil "forests" for it to mean anything."Hardly. Does it to you? Are you redefining 'global flood' here so as to make it entirely meaningless?"
--I never said 'global flood' I said, 'flood'. You don't need to take me out of context. In other words, I was speaking of a local, isolated, event."Another point, if I might say. You do NOT understand. "
--I don't? (don't just say 'no you don't' you need to explain this stuff)"So then, we are required in your world to create a theory based on what we don't know rather than what we do know..."
--No, what I meant is that we don't see much evidence at all for soils in the fossil "forests"."Agreed. As you said, these are entisols. I see them all the time."
--You've said that the presence of 'soils' extinguished the veracity of my model before, so how do they?"Well, you can beat around the bush with details that are equivocal or we can get down to actual meaningful details."
--How about you present something which is diagnostic evidence for yours and against mine or something?"But I am saying that there are no true soils in the sense of a well-developed profile."
--Whew! Its about time."Coffin does admit however that the soils are up to 20 cm thick.^[1] At this time I do not know enough about the root systems to explain them other than the fact that some experts who have worked there say that there are root systems.^[2]"
--[1] - You didn't have to read coffins work to know how thick the soil was, its an entisol and I earlier informed you on about what the thickness of a characteristic entisol is.
--[2] - Right, root systems which are generally dwarfed in comparison to what should be observed (even though we do find occasional larger root systems, but this doesn't put aside the fact that we don't see this for the majority of the in situ trees). Again--hence the root ball appearance."Coffin disagrees, but since he overlooks a lot of other details I tend to discount him for the time being."
--I have the works of Fritz & Yuretich, looks like you might want to discount everybody on the quality of the root systems."I am not going to search back through this thread.^[1] I will instead ask you where the trees came from so late in the flood sequence.^[2]"
--[1] - Even if you did, you wouldn't find it.
--[2] - There is no reason to think that all the trees would have been gone during the flood. They came from the same vicinity of their deposition (The original origin couldn't be known, though the majority probably weren't transported more than a couple hundred miles)."--Do you know what a root ball is? Then you should know why it is hard on your model and easily explained for mine.But you have not explained it yet."
--I havent explained it yet? What are you talking about, I explained this months ago. Their root ball appearance is due to abrasion. If they didn't have a root ball appearance, they would extend much further from the stump. You need to explain the root ball appearance for in situ trees."LOL! He obviously excised that from his copy to you so as to not hurt your feelings. His actual words were, "I never ceased to be amazed by how creationists can twist any simple statement of any kind into something contrary to what the words actually say." "
--I'll assume this is false until you can show me otherwise."So why don't you give us some of the details of your conversations. Could it be that he disagrees with your conclusions?"
--Of course he would disagree with my conclusions, they require near total continental inundation!"I have finally located Coffin's report on Speciment Ridge and had time to read it. While he documents some interesting observations, (like Dr. Gentry) he fails primarily in his interpretation of the data."
--Which resource have you located?"He gives us good data regarding the orientation of horizontal tree trunks (which by the way, do no give us consistent orientations)"
--Fritz & Yuretich would beg to differ. There are predominant orientations of horizontal logs. Orientations would be more extreme in other locations of the Lamar River Formation such as Cashe Creek and Amethyst Mountain. Their preferentially orientations are northwest to southeast (somewhat peculiar since this is parallel to the Western and Eastern Absaroka Belts)."He also points out tree trunks deposited from mudflows in an upright position without discussing the fact that all of the pictures of these trunks are from cut trees. In other words they have virtually no rotational inertia at all and would naturally try to land with the heavy root ball down."
--No kidding?"The fact that he only presents distant photos of these trunks in which it is difficult to see that some of the them are tilted is probably not an oversight. "
--I think that would be a bit of a credulous assumption."He does not adequately describe the soil horizons and kind of glosses over the fact that in some places they are up to 20 cm thick and that they could be eroded by the mudflows in many locations. He seems to think that entisols (as I understand them from discussing them with you) are not true soils and yet complains that there really isn't much soil present with normal soil profiles. This is confusing. Where I live there is virtually no soil in this sense at all and yet we have substantial trees growing in bedrock and what might be called the 'C' horizon."
--I don't find it confusing at all. Coffins description seems quite accurate. Fritz describes the soils as lacking in distinguishable A, B, as well as C horizons and having excessively thin zones."I have also seen an experiment where loose drill cuttings with only water and virtually no other organic material could support vegetation in just a few days. Hence, I do not see the big deal about how developed the soil is or how much organic material is present. Coffin simply does not address these aspects of volcanic 'soils.'"
--The reason that the analysis of the soils is particularly crucial is more reserved for my setting, since I have more time constraints. Though for the mainstream, it is of interest because it helps in distinguishing whether the tree is or isn'tin situ; attempting to associate the soils with the roots of vertical stumps."The there is the ridiculous comparison between Spirit Lake and Specimen Ridge. If you want to get into this, I would be glad to, but it would best be served in another thread. Let's just leave it at the difference between lacustrine sedimentation and mudflow deposits, and perhaps the presence of bark mats on the bottom of the lake which have no counterpart at Specimen Ridge."
--No bark mats huh? Well that's an interesting thing isn't it? I would expect an abundance of bark to be found scattered throughout the mudflow conglomerates if that is ths sole reason for how they were abraded.--And don't forget:

quote:

---

--[!] - Please explain the root systems exhibited at the Lamar River Formation.

---

------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-02-2003]

quote:

---

"Then you agree with Yuretich that there are in situ trees at Specimen Ridge? Remember, you had two types of trees. Yuretich explains this. You do not."

​

--Yes some of the trees found at The L.R. Formation were deposited in situ the tuffacous sandstone.

---

No. That is not what Yuretich says. You are redefining in situ once again. This is a dishonest, and sophomoric method of debating.Yuretich says: "In place" means exactly what it says, e.g. those stumps are the remnants of trees that grew in the place they are now found.I will give you another chance. Since you agree that some of the trees are transported, do you also agree with Yuretich that there are in-place trees at Specimen Ridge.If you continue to play immature games, this discussion will just deteriorate into name calling and ad hominmens that you are so good at.

quote:

---

--And don't forget:

​

--[!] - Please explain the root systems exhibited at the Lamar River Formation.

---

I haven't forgotten. It simply requires time for me to check out some references and I'm not sure that I want to waste my time dealing with a teenager who is in a sutbborn, combative mood anyway.Once again, Yuretich says: "How old are the soils? Well, the tree rings in the stumps indicate that these buried trees were 200 years old, and since the roots go nicely into the soils, this is a good lower limit for the soils."This is good enough for me until I see the specimens myself.

quote:

---

"Not necessarily. In various environments organic material can remain undecayed for long periods of time."

​

--Yeah, and Noah owned a rocket ship. You need to apply this thought to the eocene fossil "forests" for it to mean anything.

---

I have asked you to look at this thread before. It appears that you cannot trouble yourself so here is the link:http://EvC Forum: Undecayed Lake-Bed Vegetation Remains -->EvC Forum: Undecayed Lake-Bed Vegetation RemainsIf you need an interpreter, let me know.

quote:

---

"He gives us good data regarding the orientation of horizontal tree trunks (which by the way, do no give us consistent orientations)"

​

--Fritz & Yuretich would beg to differ. There are predominant orientations of horizontal logs. Orientations would be more extreme in other locations of the Lamar River Formation such as Cashe Creek and Amethyst Mountain. Their preferentially orientations are northwest to southeast (somewhat peculiar since this is parallel to the Western and Eastern Absaroka Belts).

---

I guess I have to explain everything to you. There is no correlation between areas and levels in the orientation of the horizontal logs. This is not what one would expect if they were deposited from a global flood surge as you suggest. Remember TB's 'continentally correlated, rapid paleocurrents'?

quote:

---

"He also points out tree trunks deposited from mudflows in an upright position without discussing the fact that all of the pictures of these trunks are from cut trees. In other words they have virtually no rotational inertia at all and would naturally try to land with the heavy root ball down."

​

--No kidding?

---

You obviously don't understand the implications. Think about it.

quote:

---

"The fact that he only presents distant photos of these trunks in which it is difficult to see that some of the them are tilted is probably not an oversight. "

​

--I think that would be a bit of a credulous assumption.

---

More like skeptical. Why can he not give us the details? I would guess because he has an agenda.

quote:

---

"He does not adequately describe the soil horizons and kind of glosses over the fact that in some places they are up to 20 cm thick and that they could be eroded by the mudflows in many locations. He seems to think that entisols (as I understand them from discussing them with you) are not true soils and yet complains that there really isn't much soil present with normal soil profiles. This is confusing. Where I live there is virtually no soil in this sense at all and yet we have substantial trees growing in bedrock and what might be called the 'C' horizon."

​

--I don't find it confusing at all. Coffins description seems quite accurate. Fritz describes the soils as lacking in distinguishable A, B, as well as C horizons and having excessively thin zones.

---

Well then, he needs to talk to Coffin since there are what Coffin calls 'organic zones' or something like that. He also states that the organic zones are up to 20 cm thick....

quote:

---

"The there is the ridiculous comparison between Spirit Lake and Specimen Ridge. If you want to get into this, I would be glad to, but it would best be served in another thread. Let's just leave it at the difference between lacustrine sedimentation and mudflow deposits, and perhaps the presence of bark mats on the bottom of the lake which have no counterpart at Specimen Ridge."

​

--No bark mats huh? Well that's an interesting thing isn't it? I would expect an abundance of bark to be found scattered throughout the mudflow conglomerates if that is ths sole reason for how they were abraded.

---

So you are saying that don't have an explanation for the lack of bark mats? Nice two-step, TC. But yes, actually, I have a good possibility based on my experience with pyroclastic flows. But I want to hear your just-so story first.I am skipping much of your posts. They are simply more of the fantastic stuff that you have given us before. But, if I miss any questions, you can repeat them in shorter posts.

"No. That is not what Yuretich says. You are redefining in situ once again. This is a dishonest, and sophomoric method of debating. "
--Nope[edited]. I've gone over this with you ever since we started this thread and have empathetically explained extensively on my use of in situ and in place. I gave you resources (including text from the American Geological Institute) which define in place and in situ as:In its natural position or place; said specifically, in geology, of a rock, soil, or fossil. when in the situation in which it was originally formed or deposited. See In place. [American Geological Institute: Golossary of Geology and Related Sciences - Second Edition 1966]--What more do you need? The page number?--Its not very often I have to bold anything to get a point across. I know that Yuretich did not use the word in the context of being a place of deposition. This was also cleared up long long ago."I will give you another chance. Since you agree that some of the trees are transported, do you also agree with Yuretich that there are in-place trees at Specimen Ridge."
--Not as he has used the word in context. In other words, I see that there are trees which were deposited in situ the tuffaceous sandstone."If you continue to play immature games, this discussion will just deteriorate into name calling and ad hominmens that you are so good at."
--I agree, except that the only thing which doesn't exist is the accusation that I play 'immature games'.--If you want to refute the definition, just know it isn't mine, I didn't make it up and no other Creationist made it up.--You can now comment on the rest of my post #98-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-02-2003]

"I haven't forgotten. It simply requires time for me to check out some references and I'm not sure that I want to waste my time dealing with a teenager who is in a sutbborn, combative mood anyway. "
--I remember Fred Williams made similar claims to his opposing evo's too. Well when you do this subsequent research please illustrate your argument."Once again, Yuretich says: "How old are the soils? Well, the tree rings in the stumps indicate that these buried trees were 200 years old, and since the roots go nicely into the soils, this is a good lower limit for the soils.""
--That the roots 'go nicely into the soils' isn't the problem, its the structure of the roots that is the problem. They are much too small.
--Also an interesting point in regards to the structure of some of these root systems are that they are flattened and therefore extend slightly broadly (even though they are still much too small) on some of the vertical stumps, something which is in support of my model that these stumps deposited on the bottom of a lacustrine environment."This is good enough for me until I see the specimens myself."
--I hope you mean on paper.. -------------------