Paleosols

"Have you redefined prejudice to be always negative? I rather think of it as critical analysis. "
--The problem here, is that there was no critical analysis, hence the prejudice."Well, then you need to elaborate how the trees were deposited in an upright position. I thought the Spirit Lake model was a panacea for creationists."
--I wouldn't call it a 'spirit lake model', probably the only thing I would apply as an observation from spirit lake is that trees are in upright position while floating in water. Since this occurs I would apply this to my assertion: "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.""Please point these out in some photos, such as Coffin's."
--What relevance would this be? From what I see of Coffins 97' Origins article, some of his images clearly show the deposits in which the in situ trees are rooted:Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that..."This did not explain it. The question is how you plant numerous forsts on top of each other."
--You get more than one surge and/or conglomeratic flow at different intervals of time."You show uncommon insight here. Now show us the same insight as to formation of numerous superimposed forests by sequential lakes formed by fortuitous mudflows."
--The mudflows may not have been fortuitous, being caused by local volcanic disturbances. This may be likewise for the surges."Are there photographs? It seems that each upright tree should be primarily encased in ash fall material. "
--Not only ash all material, their upper parts are encased in conglomerate for obvious and discussed reasons. They are rooted in a variety of substances. Lacustrine mudstone, tuffaceous sandstone, mixes of the two, sandstones with ash fall and fluvial remnants. Why do you need photographs? Why not just data?"Mudflows. And you are the one who suggested them to form lakes."
--Yes, me, Yuretich and Fritz. So now, why don't you see the 'types' of conglomeratic deposits that I should be seeing? Better yet, what do you see?"No, it is just that the soils are better preserved in the Gallatins. Probably this is a function of poorly developed entisols and better developed soils farther north."
--Possibly, I just don't have the relevant data for the Gallatins."No, you have to explain why they are called 'well-developed' but refuse to acknowledge the fact."
--Because there are some trees existing there which have "good root systems", the majority of them don't and those which are in situ are of concern. I have talked with Yuretich and inquired upon the characteristics of the root systems which he describes as being 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."Everyone has that model these days. The point is that noone has it damming a flood surge for which there is no evidence in the first place. Tell us which deposits at Specimen Ridge are the flood deposits. You have left out this little detail."
--Of course they don't have a flood surge, because if they did, they'd be accepting the Global Flood model for the deposition of the GC. I haven't left out this detail. The lacustrine deposits and sandstone are the main result of the surge and what it brought in (in regards to sediments). The surge also brought in the trees and plant litter. What should we see as evidence of the surge which we don't see?"Twenty some (or more) times? "
--I don't think science has done enough observing to watch this occur twenty or so times anywhere."I trust we will never hear the old "circular reasoning" argument from you."
--There is a difference between 'circular reasoning' and the concept of indirect evidence.-------------------

quote:

---

"Have you redefined prejudice to be always negative? I rather think of it as critical analysis. "

​

--The problem here, is that there was no critical analysis, hence the prejudice.

---

Nonsense. I have been critical of creationists since I stopped being one. But then, you are the expert.

quote:

---

"Well, then you need to elaborate how the trees were deposited in an upright position. I thought the Spirit Lake model was a panacea for creationists."

​

--I wouldn't call it a 'spirit lake model', probably the only thing I would apply as an observation from spirit lake is that trees are in upright position while floating in water.

---

But the trees you talk about in the Lamar River Fm. aren't floating. You are losing touch with reality again.

quote:

---

Since this occurs I would apply this to my assertion: "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."

---

So, they were floating and then they sank. Why are we wasting time on this?

quote:

---

"Please point these out in some photos, such as Coffin's."

​

--What relevance would this be? From what I see of Coffins 97' Origins article, some of his images clearly show the deposits in which the in situ trees are rooted:

​

Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...

---

The first two of these are not conclusively air fall tuffs. The last has no scale or any relationship to trees or roots. Sorry, still don't see it, though it could just be a function of the photos not being conclusive. I'll concede this point for now, but when I go out there next summer, I can tell better. Those hardly look like true ash falls.

quote:

---

"This did not explain it. The question is how you plant numerous forsts on top of each other."

​

--You get more than one surge and/or conglomeratic flow at different intervals of time.

---

Good. Now all you have to do is go out and show the mudflow dams in the field and the lacustrine sediments.

quote:

---

"You show uncommon insight here. Now show us the same insight as to formation of numerous superimposed forests by sequential lakes formed by fortuitous mudflows."

​

--The mudflows may not have been fortuitous, being caused by local volcanic disturbances. This may be likewise for the surges.

---

I thought that your surges were part of a global flood. Why the change of story?

quote:

---

--Not only ash all material, their upper parts are encased in conglomerate for obvious and discussed reasons. They are rooted in a variety of substances. Lacustrine mudstone, tuffaceous sandstone, mixes of the two, sandstones with ash fall and fluvial remnants. Why do you need photographs? Why not just data?

---

Actually, I'd rather seem them in person.

quote:

---

udflows. And you are the one who suggested them to form lakes."
--Yes, me, Yuretich and Fritz. So now, why don't you see the 'types' of conglomeratic deposits that I should be seeing? Better yet, what do you see?

---

Yuretich sees 26 mudflow dams? Please document this. Actually, I do see mudflows, but why are the trees in them if they formed the dams?

quote:

---

u have to explain why they are called 'well-developed' but refuse to acknowledge the fact."

​

--Because there are some trees existing there which have "good root systems", the majority of them don't and those which are in situ are of concern.

---

Ah, so there ARE some trees with well developed root systems. Why do you suppose that is?

quote:

---

I have talked with Yuretich and inquired upon the characteristics of the root systems which he describes as being 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.

---

And he said they were transported?

quote:

---

"Everyone has that model these days. The point is that noone has it damming a flood surge for which there is no evidence in the first place. Tell us which deposits at Specimen Ridge are the flood deposits. You have left out this little detail."

​

--Of course they don't have a flood surge, because if they did, they'd be accepting the Global Flood model for the deposition of the GC.

---

It would also mean that they saw evidence for a global flood. Could it be that they didn't?

quote:

---

I haven't left out this detail. The lacustrine deposits and sandstone are the main result of the surge and what it brought in (in regards to sediments).

---

Then why don't they look like the surge depostis everywhere else? Why do the look like lake sediments and ash falls?

quote:

---

The surge also brought in the trees and plant litter. What should we see as evidence of the surge which we don't see?

---

See above. How about the beach deposits that the flood brought in everywhere else?

quote:

---

"Twenty some (or more) times? "

​

--I don't think science has done enough observing to watch this occur twenty or so times anywhere.

---

Coffin himself counted up to 64 different levels.

quote:

---

"I trust we will never hear the old "circular reasoning" argument from you."

​

--There is a difference between 'circular reasoning' and the concept of indirect evidence.

---

I'll go over this later. However, I will accept that you do not agree with the 'circular reasoning' argument of most creationists.

Unfortunately, I am rather busy now, otherwise, I finish
replies to a couple of True Creation's previous posts
that I have started on. One matter that needs to be
cleared up is noted below.In message 122, True Creation wrote:------------------------------------------------------"I haven't left out this detail. The lacustrine deposits
and sandstone are the main result of the surge and what
it brought in (in regards to sediments)."------------------------------------------------------True Creations also mentions "ash falls" in several
places in this post.If a person takes the time to look at the graphic
descriptions and discussions in Fritz (1980, 1982),
the volume of either lake or actually air-fall ash
deposits within the Specimen Ridge, Specimen Creek,
Gallatin, and other sections are extremely small
to almost nonexistent. The vast majority of the
sediments consists of debris flow or reworked water
laid sediments, in many cases likely related to the
run-off of water from debris flows as well documented
at Mt. St Helens and many other volcanoes. Also, in
places, a person can find strata that have all of the
characteristics of fluvial deposits. Mr True Creation
and others greatly overestimate the abundance of any
possible fine-grained lacustrine and primary air-
fall ash deposits within the Lamar River Formation.References Cited:Fritz, W. J., 1980, Depositional environment of the
Eocene Lamar River Formation in Yellowstone National
Park. unpublished Ph.D dissertation. University of
Montana, Billings, MTFritz, W. J., 1982, Geology of the Lamar River Formation,
Northeast Yellowstone National Park. In Geology of
Yellowstone Park area, S. G. Steven and D. J. Foote,
eds., pp. 73-101. Guidebook no. 33. Wyoming Geological
Association, Casper, WY.If there were massive lakes being formed, a person
should find some evidence of their deposits. There
is simply absolutely **no** evidence for the
existence of any large lakes postulated by True
Creation.This is also a problem because the Spirit Lake model
only works for deposition in a large, quiet lake. In
such a lake, the sediments surrounding the upright
trees should consist of fine-grained and possibly, in
places, organic rich sediments, that are virtually
absent from the Lamar River Formation. The sediments
that surround the upright trees in the Lamar River
Formation consist not of fine-grained lake deposits,
but rather matrix and clast supported conglomerates
that accumulate within lakes. These beds are perfectly
consistent with the deposits directly observed to have
been created by terrestrial lahars as described by:Rodolfo, K. S.., and Arguden, A. T., 1991, Rain-Lahar
Generation and Sediment-Delivery Systems at Mayon
Volcano, Philippines. SEPM Special Publication No. 45,
Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
pp. 71-88.Scott, K. M., 1988, Origins, Behavior, and Sedimentology
of Lahars and Lahars-Runout Flows in the Toutle-Cowlitz
River System. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1447-A. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 74 pp.Scott, K. M., 1989, Magnitude and Frequency of Lahars
and Lahar-Runout Flows in the Toutle-Cowlitz River
System. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1447-B. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.Smith, G. A., 1991, Facies Sequences and Geometries
in Continental Volcanoclastic Sediments. Sedimentation
in Volcanic Settings. SEPM Special Publication No. 45,
Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
pp. 109-121.Smith, G. A., and Lowe, D. R., 1991, Lahars:
Volcano-Hydrologic Events and Deposition in the
Debris flow-Hyperconcentrated Flow Continuum.
SEPM Special Publication No. 45, Society for
Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma. pp. 59-70.Volcanic mudflows and debris flows (lahars) are a very
typical feature of stratovolcanoes, as they are composed
of both poorly lithified and volcanics that are often
highly altered to clay. In case of such volcanic
material, all it takes for a major mudflow / debris
flow / lahar to form is either a minor eruption that
melts an ice or snow field formed on the summit of the
volcano or just an unusually heavy rain. This is all
document in the literature concerning volcanic
harzards. It is completely unnecessary to postulate
the existence of large lakes to explain any of these
deposits. For some pictures, go see:1. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Imgs/Jpg/Ruiz/30423808-021_med.jpg
Volcano Hazards Program2. Lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs114-97/
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/...t/fs114-97/resources/lourdes.jpg
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/...114-97/resources/BuriedHouse.jpg3. http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/...sons/volcano_types/lahar.htm
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/...ons/volcano_types/lahar1.jpg4. A polystrate church
http://perso.club-internet.fr/...fouie_sous_lahars_petit.jpg
http://perso.club-internet.fr/acatte/Pinatubo_in_english.htm5. another polystrate church
University of East Anglia6. http://www.avo.alaska.edu/volcanoes/redo/redoph4.htmlIn fact, had Coffin and Austin not been so transfixed
with Spirit Lake they could have found buried forests
within the valley of the Toutle River that are buried
in deposits virtually identical to Lamar River Formation.
In fact, if Austin and Coffin weren't so blinded with
their focus on Spirit Lake, they would have found modern
lahar deposits containing buried forests that are quite
comparable to the Lamar River Formation associated with
stratovolcanoes within the Cascade Range and all over
the world. Some documented examples are:1. Buried Forests at Mt. St HelensKarowe, Amy L., and Jefferson, T. H., 1987, Burial
of Trees by Eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington:
Implications for the Interpretation of Fossil Forests.
Geological Magazine. vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 191-204.Yamaguchi, D. K., and Hoblitt (1995) Tree-ring dating of
pre-1980 volcanic flowage deposits at Mount St. Helens,
Washington. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
vol. 107, no. 9, pp. 1077-1093.2. Upright burial forests enclosed in sediments
almost indistinguishable from those found in the
Lamar River Formation have also been noted in the
volcanic sediments around Mt. Hood as documented in:Crandell, D. R., 1980, Recent Eruptive History of Mount
Hood, Oregon, and Potential Hazards from Future
Eruptions. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1492,
Reston, Virginia.Cameron, K. A., and Pringle, P. T., 1987, A Detailed
Chronology of the Most Recent Major Eruptive Period at
Mount Hood, Oregon. Geological Society of American
Bulletin. vol. 99, no. 6, pp. 845-851.Cameron, K. A., and Pringle, P. T., 1991, Prehistoric
buried forests of Mount Hood. Oregon Geology. vol. 53,
no. 2, pp. 34-43.Lawrence, D. B., and Lawrence, E. G., 1959, Radiocarbon
dating of some events on Mount Hood and Mount St. Helens.
Mazama. vol. 40, no. 14, pp. 10-18.These are just two local examples of innumerable buried
forests that, if a person is willing to look at modern
deposits with open eyes, can be found all over the world.
The bureid forests of Mt Hood and Mt St. Helen are in
no way unique.In advocating their Spirit Lake model, both Austin and
Coffin both neglect to either discussed or even mention
the implications of the buried forests that can be
found in lahar deposits all over the world that easily
explain the buried forests in Lamar River Formation.Other problems;1. The beds within the Lamar River Formation are
laterally discontinuous, as would be expected of
terrestrial lahar deposits and is quite atypical of
underwater mudflows and turbidity currents. (Because
of the laterally discontinuous nature of individual
beds in the Lamar River Formation, there are no real
continuous buried forest beds that can be traced outside
of any one outcrop. The number of buried forests will
vary from place to place. There is neither stratigraphic
nor chronologic lateral continuity of any one bed or
buried forest within the Lamar River Formation. The
individual events that buried forests covered over a
relatively limited area within the extent of the Lamar
River Formation. Thus, we are talking about very
localized events, on the scale of terrestrial debris
flows, that can't be correlated outside of individual
outcrops.2. In an underwater environment, unlike terrestrial,
environments, mass flows quickly entrains water into
them and rapidly develop from matrix supported flows,
such as mudflows, into turbidity currents, which create
very distinctive sedimentary structures, e.g. the Bouma
sequence (Lowe 1976, 1979, 1982). If the Lamar River
Formation was deposited underwater as Coffin and Austin
advocate, there should be direct evidence of the deposits
of turbidty currents within the Lamar River Formation.For examples of Bouma Sequences, a person can go to:http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/GEOLOCN_/8_image/8bouma.gif Geological Sciences - Department Geological Sciences - Arts and Science - University of Saskatchewan
Geological Sciences - Department Geological Sciences - Arts and Science - University of Saskatchewan Page not found | Penn State Department of GeosciencesIn the last web page, note that matrix supported muddy
gravels are restricted to the deposits nearest the
source and often to well defined channels, which simply
are not seen in the Lamar River Formation.The fact of the matter is that the sediments of the Lamar
River Formation lack Bouma sequences and are identical
in the types of sedimentary deposits and structures to what
can be found in sedimentary aprons surrounding modern
stratovolcanoes. Again, a person need only look at the lahar
deposits of Mt. St. Helens, e.g Scott (1998, 1989), Karowe
and Jefferson (1987) and Yamaguchi and Hoblitt (1995) to
find excellent modern examples of the sediments and
buried forests virtually identical, except in genera and
species, to those found in the Lamar River Formation.3. There are a couple lava beds within the Lamar River
formation. They lack any indication, e.g. hyrdoclastics
and pillow lava, that they were extruded underwater. The
lava flows found within and laterally equivalent to the
Lamar river Formation also lacks any indication of being
extruded underwater and quite clearly were all erupted
This by itself largely refutes a global flood origin for
the Lamar River Formation as suggested by Coffin and
Austin. It is impossible for any of these lava flows to
have been erupted underwater without producing both
hydroclastics and pillow lavas.References:Karowe, A. L., and Jefferson, T. H., 1987, Burial of
Trees by Eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington:
Implications for the Interpretation of Fossil Forests.
Geological Magazine. vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 191-204.Lowe, D. R., 1976, Subaqueous liquefied and fluidized
flows and their deposits: Sedimentology, vol. 23,
pp. 285-308.Lowe, D. R., 1979, Sediment gravity flows: Their
classification and problems of application to natural
flows and deposits: SEPM Special Publication no. 27,
pp. 75-82.Lowe, D. R., 1982, Sediment gravity flows II.
depositional models with special reference to the
deposits of high-density turbidity currents:
Journal Sedimentary Petrology, vol. 52, pp. 279-297.Scott, K. M., 1988, Origins, Behavior, and Sedimentology
of Lahars and Lahars-Runout Flows in the Toutle-Cowlitz
River System. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1447-A. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 74 pp.Scott, K. M., 1989, Magnitude and Frequency of Lahars
and Lahar-Runout Flows in the Toutle-Cowlitz River
System. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1447-B. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.Yamaguchi, D. K., and Hoblitt, R. P., 1995, Tree-ring
dating of pre-1980 volcanic flowage deposits at Mount
St. Helens, Washington. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, vol. 107, no. 9, pp. 1077-1093.There is an enormous amount of literature that describe
lahar deposits that are identical in character to the
Lamar River Formation. For example, some of these
references can be found on web pages like
"Bibliographie" at:Request RejectedAnyone who takes a hard look at the character of the
sedimentary deposits of the Lamar River Formation
quickly finds a complete lack of any sedimentological
evidence that they were deposited underwater, as in a
global flood, and perfectly explainable as debris
flows coming off of local volcanoes. Also, a person
needs to understand that debris flows may or may not
be associated with a volcanic eruption. Imaginary
large lakes are unneeded to explain the creation of
the deposits within the Lamar River Formation.Go read:Matthews, A. J., Barclay, J., Carn, S. A., Thompson,
G., Alexander, J, Herd, R. A., and Williams, C., 2002
Rainfall-induced volcanic activity on Montserrat
Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 29, no. 13),
no. 10.1029/2002GL014863 at:University of East Anglia"Montserrat: Volcanic activity and rainfall" at:University of East Angliaan old summary article on this subject is:Rodolfo, K. S.., and Arguden, A. T., 1991, Rain-Lahar
Generation and Sediment-Delivery Systems at Mayon
Volcano, Philippines. SEPM Special Publication No. 45,
Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
pp. 71-88.Also, look at:Vallance, J. W., and Scott, K. H. 1997, The Osceola
Mudflow from Mount Rainier: Sedimentology and hazard
implications of a huge clay-rich debris flow
Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 109,
No. 2, pp. 143-163.Some Thought
Bill BirkelandP.S. I did misspell horizonation as horisonation

quote:

---

2. In an underwater environment, unlike terrestrial,
environments, mass flows quickly entrains water into
them and rapidly develop from matrix supported flows,
such as mudflows, into turbidity currents, which create
very distinctive sedimentary structures, e.g. the Bouma
sequence (Lowe 1976, 1979, 1982). If the Lamar River
Formation was deposited underwater as Coffin and Austin
advocate, there should be direct evidence of the deposits
of turbidty currents within the Lamar River Formation.

---

I suppose we can also assume that mudflows entering a large body of water are also unlikely to form dams that would impress a substantial amount of water left behind by flood surge such as TC envisions. I was trying my hardest to imagine this occurring, and just coudn't quite buy it.

[Bump]Any comments from TC or TB?

--Sorry for the absence, I've been busy also with various things but don't intend on ignoring this thread."If a person takes the time to look at the graphic
descriptions and discussions in Fritz (1980, 1982),
the volume of either lake or actually air-fall ash
deposits within the Specimen Ridge, Specimen Creek,
Gallatin, and other sections are extremely small
to almost nonexistent. The vast majority of the
sediments consists of debris flow or reworked water
laid sediments, in many cases likely related to the
run-off of water from debris flows as well documented
at Mt. St Helens and many other volcanoes. Also, in
places, a person can find strata that have all of the
characteristics of fluvial deposits. Mr True Creation
and others greatly overestimate the abundance of any
possible fine-grained lacustrine and primary air-
fall ash deposits within the Lamar River Formation."
--I don't dispute these observations. How do I overestimate them? I only pointed them out because they are remnants which shouldn't be overlooked when explaining the origin of the Lamar River formation. I wasn't attempting to say that the ash-fall or the lacustrine sediments were the primary constituent which held the trees upright. I don't have either of your Fritz sources, though I have one where he talks about this very thing:Fritz, W. J., 1980, Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone "fossil forests". Geology, v. 8, p. 309-313Fritz, W. J. & Yuretich, R. F., 1981, Comment and Reply on 'Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone "fossil forests"' and 'Stumps transported and deposited upright by Mount St. Helens mud flows'Fritz, W. J. & Yuretich, R. F., 1984, Comment and Reply on "Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place". Geology"If there were massive lakes being formed, a person
should find some evidence of their deposits. There
is simply absolutely **no** evidence for the
existence of any large lakes postulated by True
Creation."
--What do you mean? Yuretich and Fritz have both cited evidences for the existence of brief lacustrine paleoenvironments in Lamar R.?"This is also a problem because the Spirit Lake model
only works for deposition in a large, quiet lake."
--I do postulate that the depositional environment was quiescent." In such a lake, the sediments surrounding the upright
trees should consist of fine-grained and possibly, in
places, organic rich sediments, that are virtually
absent from the Lamar River Formation."
--What about the organic zones which are exhibited superposing the root zones of in situ trees?"The sediments that surround the upright trees in the Lamar River
Formation consist not of fine-grained lake deposits,
but rather matrix and clast supported conglomerates
that accumulate within lakes."
--???"Volcanic mudflows and debris flows (lahars) are a very
typical feature of stratovolcanoes, as they are composed
of both poorly lithified and volcanics that are often
highly altered to clay. In case of such volcanic
material, all it takes for a major mudflow / debris
flow / lahar to form is either a minor eruption that
melts an ice or snow field formed on the summit of the
volcano or just an unusually heavy rain. This is all
document in the literature concerning volcanic
harzards. It is completely unnecessary to postulate
the existence of large lakes to explain any of these
deposits."
--Am I at the fault of misunderstanding and must be made aware of findings which contradict those of Fritz, Retallack, and Yuretich in regards to the formation of lakes which Yuretich describes: "destruction of trees by rising water from dammed rivers; this would explain the lake sediments that are present around some tree roots;"? Or do you simply misinterpret my model for exactly what the characteristics of this 'large lake' were?"1. The beds within the Lamar River Formation are
laterally discontinuous, as would be expected of
terrestrial lahar deposits and is quite atypical of
underwater mudflows and turbidity currents. (Because
of the laterally discontinuous nature of individual
beds in the Lamar River Formation, there are no real
continuous buried forest beds that can be traced outside
of any one outcrop. The number of buried forests will
vary from place to place. There is neither stratigraphic
nor chronologic lateral continuity of any one bed or
buried forest within the Lamar River Formation. The
individual events that buried forests covered over a
relatively limited area within the extent of the Lamar
River Formation. Thus, we are talking about very
localized events, on the scale of terrestrial debris
flows, that can't be correlated outside of individual
outcrops."
--Yes I referenced the fact that these "fossil forests" are not in layered cake fashion. I am at a loss as to where this is problematic to my model, however. Unless you are speaking into regards to what would be expected had these conglomeratic flows occurred in a submarine environment, resulting in a turbidity current. I will explain in my next comment how I agree with this as either being problematic with my former model as a whole and would be suggestive for modification."2. In an underwater environment, unlike terrestrial,
environments, mass flows quickly entrains water into
them and rapidly develop from matrix supported flows,
such as mudflows, into turbidity currents, which create
very distinctive sedimentary structures, e.g. the Bouma
sequence (Lowe 1976, 1979, 1982). If the Lamar River
Formation was deposited underwater as Coffin and Austin
advocate, there should be direct evidence of the deposits
of turbidty currents within the Lamar River Formation.For examples of Bouma Sequences, a person can go to:http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/GEOLOCN_/8_image/8bouma.gif Geological Sciences - Department Geological Sciences - Arts and Science - University of Saskatchewan
Geological Sciences - Department Geological Sciences - Arts and Science - University of Saskatchewan Page not found | Penn State Department of GeosciencesIn the last web page, note that matrix supported muddy
gravels are restricted to the deposits nearest the
source and often to well defined channels, which simply
are not seen in the Lamar River Formation.The fact of the matter is that the sediments of the Lamar
River Formation lack Bouma sequences and are identical
in the types of sedimentary deposits and structures to what
can be found in sedimentary aprons surrounding modern
stratovolcanoes."
--I think I must fully agree with this as a potential falsification for my earlier notion that the mud flows may have occurred not only terrestrially, but in submarine environments. From your information, it seems that they generally could not have occurred in a submarine environment."3. There are a couple lava beds within the Lamar River
formation. They lack any indication, e.g. hyrdoclastics
and pillow lava, that they were extruded underwater. The
lava flows found within and laterally equivalent to the
Lamar river Formation also lacks any indication of being
extruded underwater and quite clearly were all erupted
This by itself largely refutes a global flood origin for
the Lamar River Formation as suggested by Coffin and
Austin. It is impossible for any of these lava flows to
have been erupted underwater without producing both
hydroclastics and pillow lavas."
--I concur."Anyone who takes a hard look at the character of the
sedimentary deposits of the Lamar River Formation
quickly finds a complete lack of any sedimentological
evidence that they were deposited underwater, as in a
global flood, and perfectly explainable as debris
flows coming off of local volcanoes. Also, a person
needs to understand that debris flows may or may not
be associated with a volcanic eruption. Imaginary
large lakes are unneeded to explain the creation of
the deposits within the Lamar River Formation."
--Then why do Yuretich & Fritz, et al. endorse lacustrines in their paleoenvironments to explain that seen in the Lamar River Formation? Was this imaginary to them also?-------------------

"But the trees you talk about in the Lamar River Fm. aren't floating. You are losing touch with reality again."
--They were before in situ deposition."So, they were floating and then they sank. Why are we wasting time on this?"
--Your the one who told me that I "need to elaborate how the trees were deposited in an upright position.""The first two of these are not conclusively air fall tuffs. The last has no scale or any relationship to trees or roots. Sorry, still don't see it, though it could just be a function of the photos not being conclusive. I'll concede this point for now, but when I go out there next summer, I can tell better. Those hardly look like true ash falls."
--The ash fall is a constituent material in the sandstone, there generally are not exclusively ash fall strata. I never said there were either so why are you looking for them?
--Fritz mentions one exception, A prominent white 2-m-thick welded ash-flow tuff or ignimbrite is near the top of the section measured on Cache Creek, even still though, I don't see this as relevant."Good. Now all you have to do is go out and show the mudflow dams in the field and the lacustrine sediments."
--Get the Yuretich & Fritz sources I have been citing, they make multiple reference to these and take them into consideration when formulating their models."I thought that your surges were part of a global flood. Why the change of story?"
--I never said that they weren't part of a global flood."Actually, I'd rather seem them in person."
--I think the data is detailed enough to be sufficient here."Yuretich sees 26 mudflow dams?
--No, I as well as Bill now, explained the non-layer-cake fashion for the successions."Actually, I do see mudflows, but why are the trees in them if they formed the dams?
--See [Yuretich March 1984, p. 162] they weren't in layered cake fashion and the mud flows originated from different locations relative to the proximal vents. Mud flows formed dams on top of tuffaceous sandstones in which some of the trees were rooted. some of these same mud flows formed dams."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."And he said they were transported?"
--No, if he did it would be difficult for him to explain it in a mainstream perspective."It would also mean that they saw evidence for a global flood. Could it be that they didn't?"
--No, this wouldn't be the case, because then, he'd have to risk being named scientifically incompetent because of all the rest of the evidence against the global flood scenario. Just because you have 'a' evidence for a global flood event doesn't mean that it is diagnostic for its occurrence and doesn't mean that the rest of the evidence in opposition is rendered futile."Then why don't they look like the surge depostis everywhere else? Why do the look like lake sediments and ash falls?"
--Because of the topography, resources and other factors. What do you think they should look like, and why?"See above. How about the beach deposits that the flood brought in everywhere else?
--What do they look like, and why would we observe the same deposits hundreds of miles inland?"Twenty some (or more) times? "
--I don't think science has done enough observing to watch this occur twenty or so times anywhere.You: Coffin himself counted up to 64 different levels."
--Did he? Where? And does this lend any credibility to your incredulity?"I'll go over this later. However, I will accept that you do not agree with the 'circular reasoning' argument of most creationists."
--ok, but what more is there to go over?------------------

quote:

---

From Bill B. :"If there were massive lakes being formed, a person should find some evidence of their deposits. There
is simply absolutely **no** evidence for the existence of any large lakes postulated by True Creation."

​

--What do you mean? Yuretich and Fritz have both cited evidences for the existence of brief lacustrine paleoenvironments in Lamar R.?

---

Emphasis here on the 'brief'. There are evidently few and thin lacustrine deposits. This is what I was trying to tell you earlier. None show up in Coffin's photos.

quote:

---

"This is also a problem because the Spirit Lake model
only works for deposition in a large, quiet lake."

​

--I do postulate that the depositional environment was quiescent.

---

Then you'd better find sediments representative of such an environment.

quote:

---

" In such a lake, the sediments surrounding the upright
trees should consist of fine-grained and possibly, in places, organic rich sediments, that are virtually absent from the Lamar River Formation."

​

--What about the organic zones which are exhibited superposing the root zones of in situ trees?

---

Hmm, when these were soils, I think you referred to them as too thin to be considered. At any rate, they are thin and discontinuous. Hardly the type that will support a tree in growth position.

quote:

---

"The sediments that surround the upright trees in the Lamar River Formation consist not of fine-grained lake deposits,
but rather matrix and clast supported conglomerates
that accumulate within lakes."

​

--???

---

That should probably be 'do not accumulate within lakes.'

quote:

---

"Volcanic mudflows and debris flows (lahars) are a very
typical feature of stratovolcanoes, as they are composed
of both poorly lithified and volcanics that are often
highly altered to clay. In case of such volcanic
material, all it takes for a major mudflow / debris
flow / lahar to form is either a minor eruption that
melts an ice or snow field formed on the summit of the
volcano or just an unusually heavy rain. This is all
document in the literature concerning volcanic
harzards. It is completely unnecessary to postulate
the existence of large lakes to explain any of these
deposits."

​

--Am I at the fault of misunderstanding and must be made aware of findings which contradict those of Fritz, Retallack, and Yuretich in regards to the formation of lakes which Yuretich describes: "destruction of trees by rising water from dammed rivers; this would explain the lake sediments that are present around some tree roots;"? ...

---

Yes, 'some' tree roots. Do you have anything on thickness of those sediments?

quote:

---

Or do you simply misinterpret my model for exactly what the characteristics of this 'large lake' were?

---

Not important.

quote:

---

"The fact of the matter is that the sediments of the Lamar
River Formation lack Bouma sequences and are identical
in the types of sedimentary deposits and structures to what
can be found in sedimentary aprons surrounding modern
stratovolcanoes."

​

--I think I must fully agree with this as a potential falsification for my earlier notion that the mud flows may have occurred not only terrestrially, but in submarine environments. From your information, it seems that they generally could not have occurred in a submarine environment.

---

Then they would be density currents.

quote:

---

"Anyone who takes a hard look at the character of the
sedimentary deposits of the Lamar River Formation
quickly finds a complete lack of any sedimentological
evidence that they were deposited underwater, as in a
global flood, and perfectly explainable as debris
flows coming off of local volcanoes. Also, a person
needs to understand that debris flows may or may not
be associated with a volcanic eruption. Imaginary
large lakes are unneeded to explain the creation of
the deposits within the Lamar River Formation."

​

--Then why do Yuretich & Fritz, et al. endorse lacustrines in their paleoenvironments to explain that seen in the Lamar River Formation? Was this imaginary to them also?

---

TC, not all lacustrine deposition creates significant deposits. If you think that there are significant amounts of lacustrine deposits, then you should provide some evidence. I have seen no photos depicting such evidence. I imagine that they are describing rather limited deposits, that, once again are unlikely to support at tree.

"Emphasis here on the 'brief'. There are evidently few and thin lacustrine deposits. This is what I was trying to tell you earlier. None show up in Coffin's photos.
--I don't endorse coffin's model for their origin, so why do we keep tumbling over this?"Then you'd better find sediments representative of such an environment."
--The sediments do not show any predominant current activity, hence, the depositional environment was relatively quiescent."Hmm, when these were soils, I think you referred to them as too thin to be considered.[1] At any rate, they are thin and discontinuous. Hardly the type that will support a tree in growth position.^[2]"
--[1] - No I don't believe I did.
--[2] - And yet we find trees in situ these sediments? What are you trying to argue?"That should probably be 'do not accumulate within lakes.' "
--I would guess, but I'll wait for his comment."Yes, 'some' tree roots. Do you have anything on thickness of those sediments?"
--No, I don't think have anything on thickness, why do you feel it would be relevant?"Not important."
--It is if he has the misconception that I am endorsing the model of Coffin."Then they would be density currents."
--Density current, turbidity, their synonymous."TC, not all lacustrine deposition creates significant deposits. If you think that there are significant amounts of lacustrine deposits, then you should provide some evidence."
--I never argued that there were 'significant amounts of lacustrine deposits', only that there are lacustrine deposits."I imagine that they are describing rather limited deposits, that, once again are unlikely to support at tree. "
--I, nor is Yuretich et al. arguing that the lacustrine deposits are generally the independent supporters for the upright trees.-------------------

quote:

---

"Emphasis here on the 'brief'. There are evidently few and thin lacustrine deposits. This is what I was trying to tell you earlier. None show up in Coffin's photos.

​

--I don't endorse coffin's model for their origin, so why do we keep tumbling over this?

---

We don't. I was talking about the relative lack of lacustrine sediments which are a critical part of your model.

quote:

---

"Then you'd better find sediments representative of such an environment."

​

--The sediments do not show any predominant current activity, hence, the depositional environment was relatively quiescent.

---

No. Please reread Bill B.'s post. You have missed the point entirely.

quote:

---

"Hmm, when these were soils, I think you referred to them as too thin to be considered.[1] At any rate, they are thin and discontinuous. Hardly the type that will support a tree in growth position.[2]"

​

--[1] - No I don't believe I did.

​

--[2] - And yet we find trees in situ these sediments? What are you trying to argue?

---

That the grew on top of the mudflow deposits! Sheesh. This is not uncommon as Wehappy has tried to tell you in his earlier posts which you appear to have ignored or forgotten.

quote:

---

"Yes, 'some' tree roots. Do you have anything on thickness of those sediments?"

​

--No, I don't think have anything on thickness, why do you feel it would be relevant?

---

These are the sediments that you call upon to support your trees when the flood waters abate.

quote:

---

"Then they would be density currents."

​

--Density current, turbidity, their synonymous.

---

Really!

quote:

---

"TC, not all lacustrine deposition creates significant deposits. If you think that there are significant amounts of lacustrine deposits, then you should provide some evidence."

​

--I never argued that there were 'significant amounts of lacustrine deposits', only that there are lacustrine deposits.

---

Then how do you support your trees after they have been deposited by the flood surge and the water ebbs?

quote:

---

"I imagine that they are describing rather limited deposits, that, once again are unlikely to support at tree. "

​

--I, nor is Yuretich et al. arguing that the lacustrine deposits are generally the independent supporters for the upright trees.

---

Of course Yuretich isn't. He says that they grew there. I didn't think you could get any sillier about this, but imputing that Yuretich somehow agrees with you is absolutely delusional.But here is what you said:

quote:

---

"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."

---

Now, in case you didn't know it, sediments deposited in standing water would constitute lake sediments. Or are you going to redefine 'sediment' of some such nonsense now?

"We don't. I was talking about the relative lack of lacustrine sediments which are a critical part of your model."
--With the exception of some lacustrine mudstones, they are only useful to describe the setting, not the means for supporting upright trees."No. Please reread Bill B.'s post. You have missed the point entirely."
--Have I? Because I find nothing in Bill B.'s post which is detrimental to my model, and unless you disagree with the observations of Rettalack, Fritz, and Yuretich, my comment, "The sediments do not show any predominant current activity, hence, the depositional environment was relatively quiescent." is not false."That the grew on top of the mudflow deposits! Sheesh. This is not uncommon as Wehappy has tried to tell you in his earlier posts which you appear to have ignored or forgotten."
--No, they didn't grow in the mudflow deposits, they were encased in them. What Wehappy said earlier doesn't contradict this."These are the sediments that you call upon to support your trees when the flood waters abate."
--No, you keep giving me straw-men. I don't call exclusively for lacustrine sediments to support the trees in upright position in most relevant cases. I call for tuffaceous sandstones."Really!"
--Yup."Then how do you support your trees after they have been deposited by the flood surge and the water ebbs?"
--Again the lacustrine deposits are generally not the exclusive sediments which I require to have upright trees. The most relevant sediments are the tuffaceous sandstones in which the trees are rooted. The sandstones are brought in with the surge and the tuffaceous inclusions and more sandstones are deposited due to runoff.------------------

"I, nor is Yuretich et al. arguing that the lacustrine deposits are generally the independent supporters for the upright trees.Of course Yuretich isn't. He says that they grew there. I didn't think you could get any sillier about this, but imputing that Yuretich somehow agrees with you is absolutely delusional."
--What the heck are you talking about? I said nothing about their origin here, I said that what they are rooted in isn't exclusively lacustrine deposited.... where are you getting this stuff about any of this being silly? Its pure data, you don't really even need to interpret this."Now, in case you didn't know it, sediments deposited in standing water would constitute lake sediments. Or are you going to redefine 'sediment' of some such nonsense now?"
--Come on edge, use your brain, I know that if you are a geologist you can think like one. Just because sediments have been dumped through water, doesn't constitute them as being lacustrine.. While in all technicallity, yes they are lacustrine, but this is only because of the interpretation of their origin, not because they are independently diagnostic of a lacustrine deposition. Nothing is incorrect in your quote of me.-------------------

quote:

---

"We don't. I was talking about the relative lack of lacustrine sediments which are a critical part of your model."

​

--With the exception of some lacustrine mudstones, they are only useful to describe the setting, not the means for supporting upright trees.

---

This is not what you said earlier. Please respond to the point where I quoted your earlier statement.

quote:

---

"No. Please reread Bill B.'s post. You have missed the point entirely."

​

--Have I? Because I find nothing in Bill B.'s post which is detrimental to my model, and unless you disagree with the observations of Rettalack, Fritz, and Yuretich, my comment, "The sediments do not show any predominant current activity, hence, the depositional environment was relatively quiescent." is not false.

---

Which sediments? Are you sauing that Yuretich and others agree with your model for transport and redeposition?

quote:

---

"That the grew on top of the mudflow deposits! Sheesh. This is not uncommon as Wehappy has tried to tell you in his earlier posts which you appear to have ignored or forgotten."

​

--No, they didn't grow in the mudflow deposits, they were encased in them. What Wehappy said earlier doesn't contradict this.

---

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.

quote:

---

"These are the sediments that you call upon to support your trees when the flood waters abate."

​

--No, you keep giving me straw-men. I don't call exclusively for lacustrine sediments to support the trees in upright position in most relevant cases. I call for tuffaceous sandstones.

---

Then what are they? How do you support your trees. At present, all we have is that they mysteriously became 'rooted' in the sediments. Do you have a modern example? (oh, of course not, you admitted this earlier). What exactly DO you have?

quote:

---

"Then how do you support your trees after they have been deposited by the flood surge and the water ebbs?"

​

--Again the lacustrine deposits are generally not the exclusive sediments which I require to have upright trees. The most relevant sediments are the tuffaceous sandstones in which the trees are rooted. The sandstones are brought in with the surge and the tuffaceous inclusions and more sandstones are deposited due to runoff.

---

Oh dear, it's worse than I thought. You have not only a wrong idea of what happens during sedimentation, you have set the entire science back 50 years.This will not work. You could start explaining, however, by showing us some of these tuffaceous sandstones. Oh heck, I just realized that you don't even know what 'tuffaceous sandstones' are! What a waste of time this has been!

quote:

---

"I, nor is Yuretich et al. arguing that the lacustrine deposits are generally the independent supporters for the upright trees.

​

Of course Yuretich isn't. He says that they grew there. I didn't think you could get any sillier about this, but imputing that Yuretich somehow agrees with you is absolutely delusional."

​

--What the heck are you talking about? I said nothing about their origin here, I said that what they are rooted in isn't exclusively lacustrine deposited.... where are you getting this stuff about any of this being silly? Its pure data, you don't really even need to interpret this.

---

Correct, Yuretich does not say that anything supported the trees. It may be pure data, but you have applied an interpretation that no one else does. Please do not further associate yourself with respected geoscientists.

quote:

---

"Now, in case you didn't know it, sediments deposited in standing water would constitute lake sediments. Or are you going to redefine 'sediment' of some such nonsense now?"

​

--Come on edge, use your brain, I know that if you are a geologist you can think like one. Just because sediments have been dumped through water, doesn't constitute them as being lacustrine..

---

I hardly think it matters in your case. If the standing water were a lake, the sediments would be lacustrine.

quote:

---

While in all technicallity, yes they are lacustrine, ...

---

Well, we wouldn't want to be technical now, would we?

quote:

---

...but this is only because of the interpretation of their origin, not because they are independently diagnostic of a lacustrine deposition. Nothing is incorrect in your quote of me.

---

What? You make no sense at all. If the environment is determined to be lacustrine then the sediments that formed there would likewise be lacustrine. If you cannot come up with a better argument than these, you continue to waste our time.