Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Petrified Yellowstone forrests: transport only or succession + transport?
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 23 (30604)
01-29-2003 6:43 PM


We have danced around this issue for long enough. It's time it had its own thread.
The creationist proposal (of transport only as opposed to 27 generations of forests + some transport) is published in the mainstream literature:
Coffin, H.G., Orientation of trees in the Yellowstone petrified forests, Journal of Paleontology 50(3):539—543, 1976
and the AIG site contains many aspects that favour the transport only theory:
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
In particular the root systems are not extensive, branches/bark are systematically absent, trees do enter the next layer, horizontal trees are aligned indicating a high energy event, the fossils are not consistent with an actual forest habitat and leaf fossils indicate rapid burial.
The creationist scientist Veith recounts his interactions with mainstream sceince on the issue:
‘I gave a lecture at the University of Cape Town once, and presented the evidence from my slides that the famous Yellowstone petrified forests were not a succession of separate forests over vast ages, but were the result of a catastrophic event.5
‘The geologists were so furious they exploded and called me a liar, that such research had never been done. Knowing where it had been published, I asked them, What journal would you like it to be published in? They said, If it was in something like The Journal of Paleontology it would have been acceptable. I said, That’s exactly where it is, and you’ll have a copy on your desk.6 So I sent them a copy, with the article by a creationist scientist. And the next day they came back and said, But it says nothing about a world-wide Flood. I said, Exactly. If it said it was a world Flood, nobody would ever publish it. But it’s clear that these logs were deposited by massive catastrophism.’
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Spirit Lake at the foot of Mt St Helens contianed 15,000 upright transported trees with small root systems in 1985.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 01-29-2003 11:46 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 11 by wehappyfew, posted 01-31-2003 8:23 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 2 of 23 (30627)
01-29-2003 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
01-29-2003 6:43 PM


quote:
We have danced around this issue for long enough. It's time it had its own thread.
I remember TC dancing around on this one, too.
quote:
In particular the root systems are not extensive,
As far as I know, all trees in the geological record are like this. It probably has to do with lack of preservation of finer details. The point is that there are root systems and they are not completely abraded as one sees in modern examples of uprooted and transported trees.
quote:
...branches/bark are systematically absent,
Ummm, TB, did you ever see a dead tree standing in a burn or in a lava flow?
quote:
...trees do enter the next layer,
No, they have usually been sheared off, but why did'nt this happen during the flood?
quote:
...horizontal trees are aligned indicating a high energy event,
And some are standing, what is your point?
quote:
... the fossils are not consistent with an actual forest habitat
And the evidence for this is? Do you know what a forest would look like in this type of volcanic environment?
quote:
... and leaf fossils indicate rapid burial.
LOL! How do you preserve the delicate leaf features in a catastrophic flooding event? This is silly!
quote:
The creationist scientist Veith recounts his interactions with mainstream sceince on the issue:
(whiney story snipped)
I would probably have been angrey at Veith, too, for wasting my time with a silly story.
quote:
Spirit Lake at the foot of Mt St Helens contianed 15,000 upright transported trees with small root systems in 1985.
Umm, yes, 1985, eh? Just what do those trees look like today? Do you see several layers of them in one place? Do you really wish to confuse lake sedimentation with that of Specimen Ridge? Sorry, but this comparison does not make sense. Oh, I know you have all of your experts, but I think I'll go with the ones who actually worked on the site and have studied a little bit of geological processes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-29-2003 6:43 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-30-2003 5:33 AM edge has replied
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2003 4:20 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 23 (30665)
01-30-2003 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by edge
01-29-2003 11:46 PM


Edge
As far as I know, all trees in the geological record are like this. It probably has to do with lack of preservation of finer details. The point is that there are root systems and they are not completely abraded as one sees in modern examples of uprooted and transported trees.
To you these forests must be sucessions of forests so you say this is what a forest habitat in the geo-col looks like! Maybe, maybe not. If the fossil record can preserve fine leaves, and entire dinosaurs, why not root systems? You have simly calibrated the geo-col to you model.
Ummm, TB, did you ever see a dead tree standing in a burn or in a lava flow?
Fair enough if we assume that each of your generations was destroyed by volcanism.
No, they have usually been sheared off, but why did'nt this happen during the flood?
Can you further explain your point please?
And some are standing, what is your point?
Again this may not necessarily bne a point of distinguishment since we are talking vulcanism.
TB: ... the fossils are not consistent with an actual forest habitat
Edge: And the evidence for this is? Do you know what a forest would look like in this type of volcanic environment?
The variety of both plant and animal fossils does not represent a realistic ecology.
LOL! How do you preserve the delicate leaf features in a catastrophic flooding event? This is silly!
By rapid burial. The flood is the source of the all or most of the worlds fossil graveyards.
I would probably have been angrey at Veith, too, for wasting my time with a silly story.
Too bad it was published in JoP by the creationist Coffin.
Umm, yes, 1985, eh? Just what do those trees look like today? Do you see several layers of them in one place? Do you really wish to confuse lake sedimentation with that of Specimen Ridge? Sorry, but this comparison does not make sense. Oh, I know you have all of your experts, but I think I'll go with the ones who actually worked on the site and have studied a little bit of geological processes.
Mt St Helens was a much smaller event. The layers of mud are not even sufficent to cover one forest so the multple forest idea is not tested. However, Spirit Lake does record 15,000 vertical (but transported) trees + some horizontals just like at Specimen Ridge and they were still there when the lake was partially drained some time ago. It is precisely the remaining roots which, being absorbing of water, cause the trees to sink root-end first.
Our experts who you so readily discount conducted sonar and scuba research at Spirit Lake shortly after the eruption. They were Austin, whose PhD was on the floating mat model of coal formation and Coffin who is the one that published the catastrophic theory for Specimen Ridge in the (mainstream) Journal of Paleontology.
, but I think I'll go with the ones who actually worked on the site
Coffin researched at Specimen Ridge (and published in JoP in 1977) and both Coffin and Austin conduicted field trips at Spirit Lake shortly after the Mt St Helens eruption in the early 1980s!! These are dedicated, thorough and smart guys.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 01-29-2003 11:46 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by edge, posted 01-30-2003 9:12 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 23 (30668)
01-30-2003 5:59 AM


Tranquility Base:
... The flood is the source of the all or most of the worlds fossil graveyards. ...
What is really remarkable is that an Internet search for "fossil graveyards" reveals mostly creationist sites; creationists seem exceptionally fond of this geological feature.
However, fossil graveyards can easily be produced by non-Noah's-Flood processes; in fact, their being scattered in space and time points to exactly that. Paleontologist Robert T. Bakker mentions them a bit in his book The Dinosaur Heresies, and he even discusses processes that can produce them.
* A flooding river overcoming a herd of big grazers. Their bodies would then accumulate some spot where the current slows down.
* Swamps and tar pits becoming carnivore traps. A mired-down dead animal attracts animals that like eating animal flesh, which in turn get mired down and attract more carnivores, which in turn ...
And over the immensity of geological time, the bodies add up, so it is easy for large numbers of fossils to be found in the geological record.

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 23 (30751)
01-30-2003 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by edge
01-29-2003 11:46 PM


"I remember TC dancing around on this one, too."
--The 'dancing' isn't over. Also, from skimming through the rest of this post, I suggest you grab the Geology sources, many of your assertions are accepted as having occured even in mainstream explanation, despite your suspicion of their 'silliness'.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 01-29-2003 11:46 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by edge, posted 01-30-2003 9:16 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 23 (30780)
01-30-2003 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tranquility Base
01-30-2003 5:33 AM


quote:
To you these forests must be sucessions of forests so you say this is what a forest habitat in the geo-col looks like! Maybe, maybe not. If the fossil record can preserve fine leaves, and entire dinosaurs, why not root systems? You have simly calibrated the geo-col to you model.
Entire dinosaurs? Surely, you jest. And yes some rather delicate features are preserved in very specialized environments. Well developed soil is not one of those...
quote:
No, they have usually been sheared off, but why did'nt this happen during the flood?
Can you further explain your point please?
Most in situ fossil trees I have seen are truncated. This could be a function of the few places I've seen them.
quote:
And some are standing, what is your point?
Again this may not necessarily bne a point of distinguishment since we are talking vulcanism.
Well, we ARE talking about Yellowstone here.
quote:
TB: ... the fossils are not consistent with an actual forest habitat
Edge: And the evidence for this is? Do you know what a forest would look like in this type of volcanic environment?
The variety of both plant and animal fossils does not represent a realistic ecology.
Says who?
quote:
LOL! How do you preserve the delicate leaf features in a catastrophic flooding event? This is silly!
By rapid burial. The flood is the source of the all or most of the worlds fossil graveyards.
So, those fine sediments were deposited in a rapidly deposited environment? LOL! You are cracking me up, TB. This is what I mean about your not understanding geological processes and ignoring so much of the evidence available to you.
quote:
Umm, yes, 1985, eh? Just what do those trees look like today? Do you see several layers of them in one place? Do you really wish to confuse lake sedimentation with that of Specimen Ridge? Sorry, but this comparison does not make sense. Oh, I know you have all of your experts, but I think I'll go with the ones who actually worked on the site and have studied a little bit of geological processes.
Mt St Helens was a much smaller event. The layers of mud are not even sufficent to cover one forest so the multple forest idea is not tested.
I'm glad you recognize this. Now why did you mention these trees?
quote:
However, Spirit Lake does record 15,000 vertical (but transported) trees + some horizontals just like at Specimen Ridge and they were still there when the lake was partially drained some time ago. It is precisely the remaining roots which, being absorbing of water, cause the trees to sink root-end first.
No, it is the density of the root ball and the fact that there is soil clinging to them that the roots sink first. Nevertheless, I asked if these trees are still standing upright. And how did the trees at Speciment Ridge manage to stay upright as the flood waters receded? I have never received an answer to this question that made any sense at all.
Actually, some upright and some horizontal sounds like a regular, existant forest to me, now I know that when I see such trees I will know that there must have been a flood!
quote:
Our experts who you so readily discount conducted sonar and scuba research at Spirit Lake shortly after the eruption.
That's my point. It was right after the eruption.
quote:
They were Austin, whose PhD was on the floating mat model of coal formation and Coffin who is the one that published the catastrophic theory for Specimen Ridge in the (mainstream) Journal of Paleontology.
Well, we know that Austin has lied to his follwers, so I really don't put much credence in what he says. He also intentionally collected rock samples that would give erroneous dates at MSH, to 'prove' his point about radiometric dating. NOT a very credible expert as far as I can see.
quote:
Coffin researched at Specimen Ridge (and published in JoP in 1977) and both Coffin and Austin conduicted field trips at Spirit Lake shortly after the Mt St Helens eruption in the early 1980s!! These are dedicated, thorough and smart guys.
Well, we know that you have been deceived by Austin. I'll check into Coffin. But I warn you that the results aren't likely to be what you think. I suggest that the main thing they are dedicated, through and smart about is getting you and others like you to contribute money to their 'research.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-30-2003 5:33 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2003 9:28 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 7 of 23 (30781)
01-30-2003 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by TrueCreation
01-30-2003 4:20 PM


quote:
"I remember TC dancing around on this one, too."
--The 'dancing' isn't over. Also, from skimming through the rest of this post, I suggest you grab the Geology sources, many of your assertions are accepted as having occured even in mainstream explanation, despite your suspicion of their 'silliness'.
Yes, many of my assertions are directly from mainstream geology. Are you saying now that mainstream geologists have abandoned Stokes Law, and there is a way to deposit trees as you say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2003 4:20 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2003 9:23 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 23 (30782)
01-30-2003 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by edge
01-30-2003 9:16 PM


"Yes, many of my assertions are directly from mainstream geology. Are you saying now that mainstream geologists have abandoned Stokes Law, and there is a way to deposit trees as you say?"
--I italicized Geology because I was referring to the the Journal Geology. The mechanism by which they were transported is not my point of emphasis regarding Specimen ridge and the rest of the Lamar Formation, but that they were transported.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by edge, posted 01-30-2003 9:16 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 23 (30784)
01-30-2003 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by edge
01-30-2003 9:12 PM


"Well developed soil is not one of those..."
--The 'soils' are not well developed, hence my suggestion in getting ahold of the Geology papers.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by edge, posted 01-30-2003 9:12 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by edge, posted 01-30-2003 9:43 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 10 of 23 (30785)
01-30-2003 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by TrueCreation
01-30-2003 9:28 PM


quote:
--I italicized Geology because I was referring to the the Journal Geology. The mechanism by which they were transported is not my point of emphasis regarding Specimen ridge and the rest of the Lamar Formation, but that they were transported.
Are you going to keep us in suspense? What do these references say about Specimen Ridge?
quote:
"Well developed soil is not one of those..."
--The 'soils' are not well developed, hence my suggestion in getting ahold of the Geology papers.
Well, maybe they were better developed than you think. Nevertheless, I did not mean to say that well-developed soils are the only environment that might eradicate delicate fossil features. Maybe poorly developed volcanic soils would be the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 01-30-2003 9:28 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 23 (30899)
01-31-2003 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
01-29-2003 6:43 PM


Particularly revealing is how thoroughly the Creationist "researchers" investigate modern examples of transported stumps while completely ignoring modern, in situ buried forests located a stone's throw away...
TB writes:
Spirit Lake at the foot of Mt St Helens contianed 15,000 upright transported trees with small root systems in 1985.
A few miles across the Columbia River, Austin and Safarti could have joined one of the regularly scheduled field trips to Mt Hood's buried forests:
"The purpose of the field trip was to observe ancient forests which had been buried by pyroclastic flows from Mt. Hood in the 1700's. In the two locations located in the forests at the base of Mt. Hood we saw numerous ancient Douglas fir and cedar snags poking through the forest floor..."
http://www.gsoc.org/july98.html
That snag is several hundred years old. Compare the obvious reality that dead trees can stand upright for centuries with AIG's comical cartoon version of geology:
"Some of the trees extend into the ‘forest’ layer above. But if the next layer had to wait hundreds of years for the ash covering to weather into soil (so the ‘next’ forest could grow), then the exposed tree top would have completely decayed."
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Isn't the irony of that statement painful for a Creationist to read? TC? TB? How can you maintain the cognitive dissonance required to accept AIG's position that dead trees from one layer can't escape rapid decay, while standing examples of centuries old snags exist today? Don't the many blunders by AIG, ICR, etc begin to cast some tiny shreds of doubt on the scientific accuracy of their entire position?
How is it possible that Safarti, Austin, Chadwick and Coffin all failed to read this article?
Karowe, A. and T. Jefferson, 1987. Burial of trees by eruptions of Mt. St. Helens, Washington: implications for the interpretation of fossil forests. Geology Magazine 124:191-204.
"...striking similarity between features of of trees buried in situ by Mount St Helens mudflows and features of upright fossil trees in the Specimen Ridge section of Yellowstone National Park strongly supports a depositional model of in situ burial for the upright trees at Yellowstone" (p. 203)"
Safarti's article in AIG cited by TB is so pathetically weak and erroneous that we probably don't need to waste time pointing out it's many problems.
It would take a severe case of religious blindness to ignore the evidence for both transported and in situ trees at Yellowstone, Mt St Helens, etc.
Time to face the music, the dance is over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-29-2003 6:43 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by edge, posted 01-31-2003 10:53 PM wehappyfew has not replied
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 01-31-2003 11:11 PM wehappyfew has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 23 (30917)
01-31-2003 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by wehappyfew
01-31-2003 8:23 PM


Wow, wehappy...
Look at that tree: No branches. The bark is clearly disappearing. Sounds kind of like TC/TB's transported trees. One might imagine eventually all of the snag above ground is gone, but remains would be protected inside the pyroclastics.
I always thought things like this must happen to in situ fossil trees but never saw any clear evidence before. At the Florissant Fossil Beds in Colorado, it seems that so many are somehow clipped off at what looks like a consistent erosional surface while the bases are preserved in ash or other fine grained pyroclastics. This is great stuff. Perhaps it's a 'snag' for the old creationist line...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by wehappyfew, posted 01-31-2003 8:23 PM wehappyfew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 01-31-2003 11:24 PM edge has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 23 (30921)
01-31-2003 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by wehappyfew
01-31-2003 8:23 PM


"Isn't the irony of that statement painful for a Creationist to read? TC? TB?"
--Ouch!
"How can you maintain the cognitive dissonance required to accept AIG's position that dead trees from one layer can't escape rapid decay, while standing examples of centuries old snags exist today?"
--Who said we have to accept the assertions and points illustrated by AiG & ICR et al for our position and hypotheses on specific points (such as fossil forests) to hold water?
"Don't the many blunders by AIG, ICR, etc begin to cast some tiny shreds of doubt on the scientific accuracy of their entire position?"
--Yes
"How is it possible that Safarti, Austin, Chadwick and Coffin all failed to read this article?
Karowe, A. and T. Jefferson, 1987. Burial of trees by eruptions of Mt. St. Helens, Washington: implications for the interpretation of fossil forests. Geology Magazine 124:191-204."
--I think Coffins work was done in the most part in the early 1980's when Yellowstone was getting some attention in Geology.
""...striking similarity between features of of trees buried in situ by Mount St Helens mudflows and features of upright fossil trees in the Specimen Ridge section of Yellowstone National Park strongly supports a depositional model of in situ burial for the upright trees at Yellowstone" (p. 203)"
Safarti's article in AIG cited by TB is so pathetically weak and erroneous that we probably don't need to waste time pointing out it's many problems.
It would take a severe case of religious blindness to ignore the evidence for both transported and in situ trees at Yellowstone, Mt St Helens, etc.
Time to face the music, the dance is over."
--That both occurred, It seems I cannot dispute. I would, however, put into question whether that which occurred preceding the conglomeratic deposition (whether fluvial or mud flow in origin).
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by wehappyfew, posted 01-31-2003 8:23 PM wehappyfew has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 23 (30924)
01-31-2003 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by edge
01-31-2003 10:53 PM


"Look at that tree: No branches. The bark is clearly disappearing. Sounds kind of like TC/TB's transported trees.
--Lack of branches doesn't matter regarding Wehappy's exhibition, the trees existing at specimen ridge and Amethyst Mountain et al, are clearly abraded by transport and/or fluvial work or conglomeratic flow.
--The bark is disappearing? Are you trying to infer that since the rotting/infested tree in the foreground of the image doesn't seem to have much bark, and that there being no bark extant in the Lamar River Formation fossil forests it, therefore, isn't necessarily diagnostic of catastrophic erosion?
"One might imagine eventually all of the snag above ground is gone, but remains would be protected inside the pyroclastics.
--There are no instances of biodecay observed in the Lamar River Formation fossil forests as far as I know.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by edge, posted 01-31-2003 10:53 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 02-01-2003 12:07 AM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 16 by wehappyfew, posted 02-01-2003 12:24 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 23 (30930)
02-01-2003 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by TrueCreation
01-31-2003 11:24 PM


quote:
"Look at that tree: No branches. The bark is clearly disappearing. Sounds kind of like TC/TB's transported trees.
--Lack of branches doesn't matter regarding Wehappy's exhibition, the trees existing at specimen ridge and Amethyst Mountain et al, are clearly abraded by transport and/or fluvial work or conglomeratic flow.
Good, then you agree that TB's statement about the lack of branches being evidence for transport is so much baloney. Now, are you saying that subsequent pyroclastic eruptions might not abrade the standing snag? Are you saying that the part of the tree below ground level is not abraded? Yes, the trees are abraded ... they are abraded by transport ... of rock fragments.
quote:
--The bark is disappearing?
Are you trying to infer that since the rotting/infested tree in the foreground of the image doesn't seem to have much bark, and that there being no bark extant in the Lamar River Formation fossil forests it, therefore, isn't necessarily diagnostic of catastrophic erosion?
I'm saying that here is a clear, easily understood alternative to just-so stories from you and TB (which have NO modern counterparts by the way).
quote:
"One might imagine eventually all of the snag above ground is gone, but remains would be protected inside the pyroclastics.
--There are no instances of biodecay observed in the Lamar River Formation fossil forests as far as I know.
Really, TC! Do you think the climate was the same at Specimen Ridge? Do you think there are 300 years between all volcanic eruptions? Really, this is kind of elementary stuff here, TC. Your box confines your thinking. You need to get out more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 01-31-2003 11:24 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 02-01-2003 11:49 AM edge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024