Paleosols

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
This is basically a followup of the 'Buddika on the Genesis Flood' thread and the paleosol problem posted mainly by mark24:

​

"9-12 SUCCESSIVE forest layers. The roots of the in situ trees are in fine grained tuffaceous sandstone & NOT the conglomerate that lays atop each horizon."
--I do not find this observation to be completely problematic. Of course my notion is nothing like, 'tree stumps can be transported, so all occurrences can be dismissed'. Yuretich argues that:

​

[quote][i]
(3) The upper parts of some stumps and logs surrounded by conglomerates are severely abraded, but the lower parts contained within tuffaceous sandstones commonly have good root systems. This also suggests that mudflows moved over preexisting trees. (4)Thin sections show no evidence of extensive current activity in the tuffaceous sandstone in which the stumps are rooted. In contrast, most textural evidence indicates the existence of a soil around the roots (p. 161). [/quote]

​

[/i]

---

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, TC. This is exactly what we would expect from a number of local catastrophic and temporary innundations. The problem you should have is that there was time for trees to grow in between the events.

quote:

---

--As it pertains to #3, I believe since both columnar wood deposits lack in appendages & bark with the exception of root systems on the tufa inclusions that it is possible that all of the sets had been transported at one time or another.

---

What do you mean? You have just been given evidence that the trees were NOT transported. And 'one time or another?'

quote:

---

And in considering #4 I also see that the evidence can cope with a transportation of this set as well, latterly being rooted in soils. What other characteristics are attributable to the extant soils besides texture? From my readings a textural basis for distinguishing paleosols while it is possible they actually are, can fabricate in brief time spans(which of course are highly variable).

---

Yes, geologically short time spans. How long do you think that it would take for soils to develop AND for trees to grow in those soils? Your one-year flood is disappearing.

quote:

---

Their direct succession as well as having a degree of pedogeny indicates a halt in sedimentation for a span of time between each diagenic & depositional event.

---

Yes, a long time span for each.

quote:

---

--Also, the occurrence of rhizocretions in a significant minority of paleosols, and other trace fossil examples of calcified pupal cases of insects, burrows & termite nests. Even coprolites occur in paleosols rightly indicating periods of halted sedimentation as well as there not being serious pedogenic/diagenic disturbances with the exception of turbations (bio, argilli, crystal, or aero [it is unlikely though completely possible that cyroturbations would at all frequently occur]). There is also the often happening of bioturbations such as uprooting haploidizations, but that's another story. I do not find it inconsistent with flood geology that insects would create a cocoon to metamorphose, an animal to create shelter, or termites to form nests in paleosols. Truly, the only hope for it being problematic would be if these occurred in fully diagenic sediments rather than pedogenic sediment.

---

That's easy for you to say! Now how do you get all of these features in the few days between flood surges? And what the heck are 'diagenic sediments?'

quote:

---

--Thought I would finally assess this information before I forget the relevant text I've read.

---

I suggest that you keep reading.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I'm not sure what you are getting at here, TC. This is exactly what we would expect from a number of local catastrophic and temporary innundations.^[1] The problem you should have is that there was time for trees to grow in between the events.^[2] "

​

--[1] - Right, though I find it interesting that your explanation for their deposition, the presented data is also what is expected to be found in my scenario.
--[2] - I have yet to see this as a deduction.

---

Okay, how can I explain this?.... If you have mature trees with root systems, and other attendant fauna and flora, then they must have had time to grow. Each consecutive forest has been covered or partly covered by a debris flow, killing it. Then another layer of soil develops on top of the debris flow in which trees can take root. If each innundation is one of your surges, there for, they must have been many years apart. This does not match your scenario at all in which the surges are just days apart.

quote:

---

"What do you mean? You have just been given evidence that the trees were NOT transported.^[1] And 'one time or another?'^[2] "

​

--[1] - Yes I was. However, if the data shows that both tufa and conglomeratic logs are abraded and quantitatively without attached appendages this is [though not utterly] indicative of transport.

---

First of all, I don't think you mean 'tufa'. I seriously doubt that tufa deposits could form in a matter of days, expecially in a flood enivronment.If abrasion and lack of 'appendages' (I think you mean 'branches') is not 'utterly indicative' of transport it is hardly convincing evidence for your scenario. Why not give us something that clinches it? I think you are grasping at straws.In the mean time, what do you think a dead forest looks like? Check out the picture that Mark has provided. The branches are lost first. Imagine this picture after a debris flow. In fact, the lower parts of the trunks would probably be buried in fine grained sediments, and the tops sheared off and abraded by the debris flow itself. Now why do these trees show root systems but no branches? Your model must explain this.

quote:

---

That rhizocretions are commonly found attached to their bearer is not completely diagnostic that there was no translocation.

---

Again not completely diagnostic, but what makes the most sense? It is evidence that you cannot avoid. Take this in with other pieces of evidence an it becomes clear that the trees are basically in place.

quote:

---

--[2] - I said 'one time or another' because their transportation would have preceded their deposition. I am arguing that both burials are initially originated from a relatively remote location.

---

Then you should have said exactly that. Your prose is getting a bit heavy.

quote:

---

From my readings a textural basis for distinguishing paleosols while it is possible they actually are, can fabricate in brief time spans(which of course are highly variable).

---

You must be careful in going from 'can occur' to 'must always occur.' The latter is necessary for you model to be correct. In other words, if your soil takes a long time to produce just one time, then you are completely wrong. Then think about how long we believe that it takes soils to form today. What do you think the likelihood of all paleosols being formed in a matter of days?

quote:

---

"That's easy for you to say! Now how do you get all of these features in the few days between flood surges?^[1] And what the heck are 'diagenic sediments?'^[2]"

​

--[1] - does it take more than a few days for a mass of termites to create a nest, I have great doubt that these nests are on any severely significant scale.

---

I do not know, but I would assume that it takes some time to build up a population of termites that could start a colony. I know that they are prolific, but this would be ridiculous, especially since they would have to migrate across miles and miles of baren ground and would require plenty of wood or something to eat.

quote:

---

Does it take more than a few days for an animal to create a burrow? These burrows are not enormous.

---

Well considerding that they have been buried by the previous surge, it would seem unlikely that These creatures could mature and repopulate the new surface in just a few days.Tell us honestly, TC, what makes the most sense? And why would the trees be tranported but not the soils around them?And in reference to your earlier question, I have no direct evidence of current forests growing on top of older forests, but it would stand to reason that if we have a forested horizon eroding out of a hillside that one could easily have trees on the hill. From diagrams I have seen of the forests at Yellowstone, it would seem that there is an erosional surface above them all.

TC, I note that your reference says:(3) The upper parts of some stumps and logs surrounded by conglomerates are severely abraded, but the lower parts contained within tuffaceous sandstones commonly have good root systems. Why does it not tell us that the lower parts of the stumps are also abraded? To me, it seems there is a distinction between 'lower parts' and roots. I am under the impression that the lower parts, in at least some cases are NOT abraded.Also, why are the soils not completely removed from the root systems? Have you ever seen a tree root system that has been uprooted and transported by rapidly rushing waters as you and TB have described them? I have seen trees tranported very short distances and the soils are completely stripped off the roots. This is a very violent process.Further more, why are they called 'stumps' and not 'logs?' This intrigues me because it is a common feature in petrified forests that I have seen. We usually don't see the tops of the trees even when they are standing upright.By the way are we going to get back to Mount St. Helens on this topic? I always love that analogy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Not necessarily true, you say they 'must' have had time to grow, however it has not been determined that that is what happened without question.

---

This would be the normal interpretation of root systems, etc. If you insist on denying the mainstream interpretation you should show where it is wrong.

quote:

---

I have no reason to argue against this representation of the mainstream explanation as long as I am not forced to embrace their mechanisms.

---

Oh, that's convenient for you.

quote:

---

--Years apart? How is it possible that you might come to deduce this conclusion? Almost every geologic event which would have caused such a surge is compacted in the most part to a years time span.

---

You have not shown this. How do you grow entire forests in less than a year. Where did your transported forests come from? How do they survive the violent surges with root systems and rhizocretions intact? Through hundreds of surges, no less...

quote:

---

You cannot tell me no such surges have taken place even in geologic time. Besides, Flood mechanics usually have much more 'magnified' geologic effects than uniformitarian.

---

That is exactly what I am telling you. There are no such surges occurring on a frequency of hundreds per year, that somehow flooded the entire earth. [/quote]--No, I am grabbing at meat. You are also taking my wording to an fallacied extreme. [/quote]Yes, there is a reason for that. It is to show you the limits of your scenario.

quote:

---

The reason I said '...are abraded and quantitatively without attached appendages this is [though not utterly] indicative of transport' is because it simply is not. Not in my scenario, not in your scenario, not in any.

---

Corrrect, but you are the one who is saying that it is.

quote:

---

It is indicative of transport though not 'absolute' if that is more understandable. Either way I word it, it is synonymous.

---

Then this is not very good evidence to support your point.

quote:

---

--The process of tree aging given relatively long periods of time will give the same effect that transport will give.

---

NOt at all. I would expect a transported tree to carry little if any soil.

quote:

---

So why is it that if your scenario explains this observation, that mine is then incorrect? It doesn't work that way because it is interrupted by the fact that mine, as far as this discussion goes, does also.

---

Because it keeps the root system intact. Not to mention all of the other evidence such as burrows, nests, etc.

quote:

---

--Root systems are more elastic and tree limbs are protrude perpendicular to the tree itself, so it is likely that limbs would be the more likely candidate for abrasive action. I would suspect that the rhizocretions are not going to be without abrasive induction. We may find that these fossil root systems are not as full as would be if they were undisturbed and developing in situ the soil.

---

May! Could'a. Might'a.

quote:

---

"You must be careful in going from 'can occur' to 'must always occur.' The latter is necessary for you model to be correct. In other words, if your soil takes a long time to produce just one time, then you are completely wrong. Then think about how long we believe that it takes soils to form today. What do you think the likelihood of all paleosols being formed in a matter of days?"

​

--I didn't say 'must always occur' and won't because it would then be a fallacious statement.

---

So then, if one of the soil layers took a hundred years to form, then your model is out the window.

quote:

---

I did however say that it is highly variable. In mainstream studies the usual consensus is that paleosols can take anywhere from 10 to 10,000 years to form, depending on the environment.

---

Yep, hardly fits a one-year model, does it?Though paleosols often have little characteristical indication for a pedogenic diagnosis. I gave my tid bit on Granulometric pedoturbation which is a mechanism which would produce a 'texture'. Texture is also the only supplied indication provided in the source by which they confirmed pedogeny. I also didn't say that they formed in a matter of days. We have at least a year for all paleosols.[/quote]But you have over a hundred paleosols!

quote:

---

--What does the data say on geochronology and the age of these strata and more importantly, the above & below stratum. Joe Meert gave a good example of a relatively mature paleosol in his article here:

​

Paleosols

​

quote:

---

The paleosol is developed on a granite dated to 1473 Ma and underneath the upper Cambrian-age Lamotte sandstone⁵

---

​

-- ~1000Ma is an extraordinarily vast geologic gap in time. And Proterozoic rock is pre-flood, very interesting when you think about it.

---

The problem is that you only see the LAST soil to develop. The rest are likely eroded away.

quote:

---

"I do not know, but I would assume that it takes some time to build up a population of termites that could start a colony. I know that they are prolific, but this would be ridiculous, especially since they would have to migrate across miles and miles of baren ground and would require plenty of wood or something to eat."

​

--Termites don't have to find a man made house to go and infest on.

---

No, but they do like some kind of woody material. How did they find this on top of a flood surge deposit and repopulated an inundated region hundreds of miles wide in only a matter of days?

quote:

---

Nor does it require a tree directly though it is apparently a termite delicacy. I don't require that termites build up in population after local extinction. We don't find remnants of termite colonies in paleosols all too often. In between surges they would have migrated to other areas, some of which would have been across this plane.

---

Remember, we are dealing with 'vast' formations. And you have only days.

quote:

---

"Tell us honestly, TC, what makes the most sense?"

​

--Its a difficult question to answer, not because I see the scale, but because I can't directly see this being balanced out. That is to say, it is a subjective call, and deducing which one does in fact make the most sense is under the heavy influence of interpretation. Though it is safe to say that if such a distinction between possible diagnoses is so tremulous, they both will make sense in and of themselves. Of course their application on a more macro boundary of geologic study and in this case, flood geology, could be used as the basis for inferring its merit. However, if it is found that my explanation for their origins is feasible, it stands to indicate that it is not problematic for my model in which it is incorporated.

---

You have been given several reasons why your scenario is NOT feasible.

quote:

---

"And in reference to your earlier question, I have no direct evidence of current forests growing on top of older forests, but it would stand to reason that if we have a forested horizon eroding out of a hillside that one could easily have trees on the hill. From diagrams I have seen of the forests at Yellowstone, it would seem that there is an erosional surface above them all."

​

--I believe this may have been TB's inquiry.

---

Probably, I have so little time these days that I am quite rushed lately.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"This would be the normal interpretation of root systems, etc. If you insist on denying the mainstream interpretation you should show where it is wrong."

​

--I have far from denied that the mainstream interpretation is credible. My explanation may be favored by the evidence just as yours.

---

Only if one wishes to use fringe type premises to come up with the predetermined global flood.

quote:

---

"Oh, that's convenient for you."

​

--Does that mean there a problem with my statement?

---

Well, it sure makes it easier for you if you can just ignore our arguments.

quote:

---

"You have not shown this. How do you grow entire forests in less than a year. Where did your transported forests come from?"

​

--I'm not growing forests in less than a year. Please stop asserting this until you can at least begin by showing me why these specific paleosols took an inadequate period of time to reach their pedogenic condition, you have made no effort to illustrate this to any degree as of yet.

---

That is because you are the one trying to overturn a well-established theory. You must convince others that you are correct. Several here have pointed out that according to established mainstream principles used to intrepret the data, you need to grow trees. Such is the only logical explanation of several data sets. If those conclusions or principles are wrong, then you should show us where they are incorrect.

quote:

---

"How do they survive the violent surges with root systems and rhizocretions intact? Through hundreds of surges, no less..."

​

--Well there probably were no rhizocretions to be preserved, rhizocretions are permineralized or mineral-encrusted roots, not the root systems themselves. These roots I am sure, show signs of abrasion.

---

Then you need to have some kind of evidence to support you. But, your own reference specifically excludes the root systems and the lower parts of the trees from the 'abraded' description. Why do you think that is? Why do they not say the entire tree is abraded?

quote:

---

Can you show me that these paleosols still obtain in situ fully intact roots systems? Given the data presented already, there seems to be no room for appeals to erosion.

---

I do not have the data. Perhaps someone else here does. I do however have some confidence in the observations of professional geologists. I also have cored some of the Mesa Verde coals which have organic debris that can best be explained as roots.

quote:

---

"That is exactly what I am telling you. There are no such surges occurring on a frequency of hundreds per year, that somehow flooded the entire earth."

​

--We can discuss this later, until then, lets assume, for the sake of discussion, the frame work of flood geology, that Cambrian+ sediments are flood sediments.

---

There is however no evidence to make this assumption. I am not sure why I would want to do so.

quote:

---

"Yes, there is a reason for that. It is to show you the limits of your scenario."

​

--Are you telling me that there can be scientifically beneficial product by purposeful misinterpretation of my text? This is what you are saying and I must say, as I understand, it sounds rediculous.

---

Umm, no. I'm saying that your scenario does not match reality.

quote:

---

"Then this is not very good evidence to support your point."

​

--I surely hope I am misunderstanding what you are trying to allege, because if not, this is horrible scientific logic. You are trying to tell me that untill I show that my scenario is not only theoretically correct, but absolute, that it is hog-wash.

---

Not at all. I am not the absolutist here. If you want evidence to support your point it can't be so-so evidence that 'supports both sides.' Come on! Knock our socks of with some blockbuster data!

quote:

---

"NOt at all. I would expect a transported tree to carry little if any soil."

​

--I think you have misinterpreted what the article states. These trees are penetrating incipient soils, you may have had the impression that soils only encrusted around the roots. Or maybe it is me that is misinterpreting?

---

Well, I don't really see how a tree that has been abraded and limbed then fortuitously deposited in an upright position could penetrate anything.

quote:

---

See:

​

quote:

---

Retallack also commented on Fritz's (1980) paper, stating that "there are at least some cases of petrified tree stumps unquestionably in place," with roots penetrating incipient soils horizons that, "compared to previous accounts, are suprisingly well differentiated" (p. 52). In his reply to Retallack, Fritz (1981, p. 54) again stated:

​

Tall upright trees with unbroken trunks. narrow root systems, and intact roots penetrating the substrate were apparently preserved were they grew. Unlike the tall in situ trees, many upright stumps have short trunks and roots broken prior to burial in a conglomerate with no organic zone, weathering profile, or color change. The bark of these trees is rarely preserved, owing to abrasion

---

​

---

Two things. First I'm not sure what an incipient soil is. Does this mean the trees grew in soils without a developed profile? This does not bother me. The trees had to grow anyway and they certainly did not do so in a few days. Second, it seems that there are two types of trees, those that are tall and in situ and others that are short and abraded with little root systems. Why are they not ALL abraded with limited root systems?Now, your scenario seems to ignore the first set of data. Why do you focus only on the short, abraded trees?

quote:

---

And:

quote:

---

Thin sections show no evidence of extensive current activity in the tuffaceous sandstone in which the stumps are rooted. In contrast, most textural evidence indicates the existence of a soil around the roots (p. 161).

---

​

---

Good. Now we are getting somewhere. This is not an incipient soil, and the trees apparently grew in it.

quote:

---

--If your interpretation is correct, however, I find it extremely difficult to reason that the soils just happened to only be preserved around roots.

---

That's not what the article says.

quote:

---

You may have created your own problem at which even if considering occums razor, translocation seems to be the most likely candidate.

---

Please explain how you come up with this conclusion from the quotes you just cited. So, the trees are tall, in situ, penetrating surprisingly well-differentiated soils; and yet you maintain that they are transported.

quote:

---

"Because it keeps the root system intact. Not to mention all of the other evidence such as burrows, nests, etc. "

​

--This is not sufficient, see my input on your assertions regarding preservation of root systems and explain to me what I have asked you above. One liner responses are fine if they adequately address the problem, though if your not willing to do your part sufficiently, I don't know what to say.

​

quote:

---

"May! Could'a. Might'a. "

​

--Easy for you to say, now show me that it is not so. You should know more about this than me, your the geologist.

---

​

You have given plenty of evidence supporting my position above.

​

quote:

---

"So then, if one of the soil layers took a hundred years to form, then your model is out the window."

​

--Yes, now can you show me that they did take hundreds of years to form. If you can't your would seem to be contradicting yourself in that this is also a 'could'a. Might'a!'.

---

​

Except that we know that soil profiles do take long periods of time to develop today. There are no soils, incipient or otherwise that form in a matter of two or three days.

​

quote:

---

"Yep, hardly fits a one-year model, does it?"

​

--Yeah well the one-year model isn't mainstream is it?

---

​

No. And there is a reason for that. And your point is?

​

quote:

---

"But you have over a hundred paleosols!"

​

--In succession? Where? I must have been overmedicated to think it was shown to be 9-12, eh?

---

​

I thought you and TB had hundreds of surges that resulted in hundreds of cyclothems. Has that story now changed?

​

quote:

---

"The problem is that you only see the LAST soil to develop. The rest are likely eroded away."

​

--I only see the last soil to develop? What do you mean? And, 'the rest are likely eroded away' is this another 'could'a, might'a' notion, feel free to support that it was erosion if you'd like.

---

​

NOt sure what you are saying here. How many soil horizons are there at your house? Soil usually forms continuously and is often eroded away. We know this empirically.

​

quote:

---

Though the more relevant thing to present is this simple information for the specimen ridge formation. Again, your the geologist, you should have access to this information with relative ease, or do you simply lack the interest? If so you really don't, I'm not forcing you to continue this discussion.

---

​

This doesn't make sense. The Specimen Ridge information is widely available to anyone. Why should I present it again.

​

"No, but they do like some kind of woody material. How did they find this on top of a flood surge deposit and repopulated an inundated region hundreds of miles wide in only a matter of days? "

​

--Termites will feed on much more than 'some kind of woody material', including humus, and cannibalism. And how will they repopulate inundated areas? By what method did you find the 'hundreds of miles' extrapolation?

---

Well, TB was the one who referenced 'vast' sheets of sandstone up to half a continent in area. I am only using your side's information.

quote:

---

"You have been given several reasons why your scenario is NOT feasible."

​

--And I have refuted them individually.

---

Not at all. You have said that your information is not conclusive. That is hardly a refutation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--You seem to think I like to ignore your arguments, this is not the case. I am just staying within the topic of paleosols and specimen ridge, when we reach our conclusions regarding it, we then can move on and apply it to a bigger picture. This has not happened yet.

---

Actually, you have said that you can ignore our arguments."I have no reason to argue against this representation of the mainstream explanation as long as I am not forced to embrace their mechanisms."To me this means that since you do not embrace mainstream mechanisms, then you can safely ignore them.

quote:

---

--You have asserted that I must grow trees because 'Such is the only logical explanation of several data sets'. I have not seen this data. Could you present it here, seeing that you have already drawn conclusions from the research you can do this.

---

Actually, you have presented this data earlier. Your own source said,"Retallack also commented on Fritz's (1980) paper, stating that "there are at least some cases of petrified tree stumps unquestionably in place," with roots penetrating incipient soils horizons that, "compared to previous accounts, are suprisingly well differentiated" (p. 52)."and"In his reply to Retallack, Fritz (1981, p. 54) again stated:
Tall upright trees with unbroken trunks. narrow root systems, and intact roots penetrating the substrate were apparently preserved were they grew. Unlike the tall in situ trees, many upright stumps have short trunks and roots broken prior to burial in a conglomerate with no organic zone, weathering profile, or color change. The bark of these trees is rarely preserved, owing to abrasion"Is this satisfactory? If the trees, according to your own source, were buried in their original location, it must mean that they grew there. Or are you saying something else entirely?

quote:

---

--Simply asserting that soils don't form in a one or two days doesn't cut it. Not to mention it is a complete misrepresentation. What I want you to expand on are your notions that the specimen ridge paleosols can't form in less than a year, and that these trees most certainly were not translocated and have resided there since they began growth. You have made these assertions, with such a degree of confidence you should be able to support them, it is required.

---

I am sorry, but it would seem to me that the onus is upon you to show that they HAVE developed in a few days. It is common knowledge that soils do not develop in such a short period.

quote:

---

--Why does not my scenario 'match reality'? You are asking me for data, however, you have continually made assertions without supporting them with data. I can't do your part too.

---

The reality is that some of these trees grew in place over a long period of time. Your own reference confirms this. There is no way to rationalize trees being transported or growing miraculously fast.

quote:

---

"Two things. First I'm not sure what an incipient soil is. Does this mean the trees grew in soils without a developed profile? This does not bother me. ^[1]The trees had to grow anyway and they certainly did not do so in a few days. Second, it seems that there are two types of trees, those that are tall and in situ and others that are short and abraded with little root systems. Why are they not ALL abraded with limited root systems?^[2]"

​

--[1] - This seems to retract your argument that the soils could not form. If it doesn't, then see above and answer my request regarding your past related assertions.

---

I don't follow. You have not answered my question.

quote:

---

[Edit] - You later in your response state, 'Except that we know that soil profiles do take long periods of time to develop today'. And as I've stated earlier, this doesn't cut it. Show me that the specimen ridge paleosols did take long periods of time incompatible with my time constraints.

---

If most soils take a long time to develop then it would be good evidence that the Specimen Ridge soils similarly took a long time to develop. Nontheless, it makes no difference. You still have to grow trees in a matter of days.

quote:

---

--[2] - The source is extremely vague regarding whether they all are abraded or not.

---

Not at all. It says quite clearly, the 'upper parts' of the trees are abraded.

quote:

---

It simply does not consider whether they are or not in the ones which are supposedly 'in situ'.

---

Why then is it particularly clear that the shorter trees with poorly developed root systems are abraded, but say nothing of the like about the in situ trees?

quote:

---

I have read some literature and have not come across data which suggests that there is even a sufficient minority of adequately intact root systems. While they have their small roots in many cases, their larger roots do not penetrate long distances. I found something interesting here:

​

Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that... - The roots section

​

Figure 18. A tree torn out of the ground by the eruption of Mount St. Helens. Note that the large roots are broken while the small rootlets are largely intact.

---

I'm not sure how this supports your argument. I don't think anyone would mistake this tree for an in situ specimen. But where are the soils on these roots? Where are the rhizocretions?

quote:

---

--This is the preserved quality in specimen ridge I have seen as it pertains to rhizocretions. There should exist much more intact preserved root systems in those which you decline to attribute to transport. Is there?

---

I have seen nothing other than your source which indicates very strongly that the trees are in place. I will look into it more, perhaps tomorrow.

quote:

---

"Good. Now we are getting somewhere. This is not an incipient soil, and the trees apparently grew in it. "

​

--How do you know? We need detailed elaboration on this point, it is of the utmost relevance.

---

I can only go by your reference. It says the the soil is well-differentiated.

quote:

---

"Please explain how you come up with this conclusion from the quotes you just cited. So, the trees are tall, in situ, penetrating surprisingly well-differentiated soils; and yet you maintain that they are transported. "

​

--Because they show evidence of transport. Refute my above assertions.[

---

Well, just read your own reference on this. The trees are clearly not transported.

quote:

---

"I thought you and TB had hundreds of surges that resulted in hundreds of cyclothems. Has that story now changed? "

​

--I have not researched cyclothems yet and so wouldn't know how they would effect the specimen ridge formation. If you'd like, we may discuss them following the conclusions of this thread and find out if it does.

---

Well, you should get your story together. It's tough trying to make sense of your arguments if they change all the time. Besides, are you sure that the Specimen Ridge site is compatible, timewise, with the flood?

quote:

---

"NOt sure what you are saying here. How many soil horizons are there at your house? Soil usually forms continuously and is often eroded away. We know this empirically."

​

--You are telling me that 1000Ma passed before sediments would be preserved in Meerts paleosol example:
...

---

Actually, your question makes no sense. There is one paleosol. What do you expect?

quote:

---

--[Note] - It is further elaborated in his article that it is upper Cambrian.

---

Exactly what I would expect.

quote:

---

"This doesn't make sense. The Specimen Ridge information is widely available to anyone. Why should I present it again. "

​

--The information which I referenced Meert for is an example. Dates for the former and latter deposited sediments including the successions themselves. This information I cannot find but should be relatively easy for you if it exists.

---

I am glad that you know so well what should exist in the literature. I am not so sure about these things. What if it doesn't exist? Does that prove your point?

quote:

---

"Well, TB was the one who referenced 'vast' sheets of sandstone up to half a continent in area. I am only using your side's information."

​

--There are termite burrows in these sheets of sandstone you speak of?

---

I have no idea. I think the termite nests would be more in the soils. But just what is your point? Do you now deny the presence of vast continental scale sand deposits?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"My guess would be that any of us could find it stated quite firmly that soils can't form in a single year in any of the (hundred?) textbooks on soil science that have been published in the last century or so. Most were likely written by people that actually studied soils."

​

--You would also know that the pedogenic process can vary greatly depending on environment and resources. There are many factors which can effect time distribution, and obviously the degree of pedogeny will effect required time. What I am looking for is a sufficiently detailed analysis of the specimen ridge formation and its paleosols, showing how long it did take them to form.

---

I have a feeling that this is not a burning issue for most geologists. It is common knowledge that soils take long times to form on a human scale and that to develop a soil in a matter of days is kind of ridiculous. My own property has virtually no soil at all and I've lived here for 4 years.Do the times for soil development vary? Likely! However, it is well beyond anyone's imagination that a soil could develop in days.

quote:

---

--We simply can't state that 'well everyone knows that it takes longer than a year for soils to form', or anything along that line here. We need to present the analysis here and give reason for such. This 'detailed' analysis only is required to be detailed where it deems relevant to finding time constraints.

---

No. You have to develop the argument since you are the one challenging mainstream concepts regarding soil development.

Before we get any further on this subject, perhaps a little clarification is in order. TC, on older threads, you have stated that the flood ended with the Cretaceous Period of mainstream reckoning. If that is so, why do you include the Specimen Ridge occurrence of petrified forests in with 9 to 12 surges of the flood? As far as I can tell, the Lamar River Formation is dated as Eocene and should be significantly younger than your global flooding event. So, has your estimate for the end of the flood changed?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--When I said, 'I have no reason to argue against this representation of the mainstream explanation as long as I am not forced to embrace their mechanisms.', I was speaking within the bubble of this topic. As I said in post #15: "When we reach our conclusions regarding it, we then can move on and apply it to a bigger picture."

---

Very well, I thought you were just trying to ignore mainstream arguments. Not that any creationists has ever done this, of course.

quote:

---

--Actually, it isn't necessarily my own source [http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/forests.htm], ...

---

Well, I thought that I saw it in your post. My apologies.

quote:

---

...mark24 referenced it in his first post of the other related thread. This really isn't satisfactory. So much so that it would be questionable to call it 'data' as opposed to 'information'. I have other sources claiming things that would contradict this references conclusions, however do not contradict the included tid-bits of data. The information actually suggests that it is apparent that they grew in their initial location.

---

But the other source said 'unquestionably in place.' I really don't think you understand how a scientist uses 'apparently'. What this means is that all of the evidence suggests non-transport, but they would be willing to address evidence to the contrary if it ever came up. Now, where is that evidence? If we are going to pick over every use of the word apparently and give it some magnified meaning, perhaps we should go over creationist tracts on this subject.... oh, except those are quite certain, aren't they?

quote:

---

I am arguing that these "Tall upright trees with unbroken trunks [and] narrow root systems" were translocated. I have not seen data which contradict this notion. What prevents my explanation from being feasible?

---

The fact that there is no evidence presented to support it.

quote:

---

--Well seing that your 'short period of time' is [again] a complete misrepresentation of what I supply as the time constraint, my first impression would to not disagree with you.

---

Maybe this goes back to the absurd cyclothem argument. As I remember you and TB, or maybe just TB says that there were over a hundred surges covering vast areas, all in one year. That comes out to less than a week per surge.

quote:

---

I think it would be difficult to have soils develop in two or three days unless they also were transported organic profiles. But must we seriously play this silly game of 'I asked you first'. An abundance of your assertions are rendered conjector without their required support. Why should I do research which you have already carried out. Since you are making these assertions, you should have done this. Or maybe you could ask me a direct more direct 'since we find blank, how is it your explanation doesn't fall from its finding' question?

---

Okay, I will check into it. However, I don't feel that the data exists, since this is not a major issue with geologists. I think rather it is easier to say that since we know modern soils take a long time to develop, then it is likely that paleosols do also.

quote:

---

--Not really, this reference simply makes the interpreted notion that the trees grew in place and is apparent, not certain.

---

Tell me, seriously, how you get through life not knowing every detail of every event and phenomenon that you encounter. Do you never make interpretations or assumptions? You have to understand that we are not absolutists such as you. To us there is nothing wrong with making an assumption as long as it is supported by some data. The articles in question have provided sufficient data in the fact that there are two versions of trees present. Some look transported, and others are different. So, why do they not ALL look transported? Could it be that they are in place? How are you going to explain the two populations of trees? I would really like an answer to this.

quote:

---

Why is it my explanation successfully explains the observation which is used as its indicative support. Or doesn't it? And why doesn't/can't it.

---

Your explanation explains some of the trees, not all of them.

quote:

---

"If most soils take a long time to develop then it would be good evidence that the Specimen Ridge soils similarly took a long time to develop."

​

--Flawed logic, you have not addressed the characteristic pedogenic properties of the Specimen Ridge paleosols.

---

So, you are saying that these soils are different? Please document this. Besides, I am using the characteristics of the trees, in conjunction with the observation that modern soils take a long time to form. You are selectively examining the data.

quote:

---

You concured that time can be greatly variable by degree of pedology and environmental conditions. Speaking generally for soils isn't sufficient, you have to use the Specimen Ridge paleosols. The two quotes we have been citing are not sufficient data to extrapolate from, you must agree.

---

You mean other than the fact that they come from people who have actually worked on them? Why have you suddenly dropped the idea that some trees do not show abrasion, etc.? Wouldn't the combination of facts that there are well developed soils and some trees standing upright with little abrasion best explained by the fact that they are in situ? You need to look at all of the facts, not just at one feature at a time.

quote:

---

Do you have access to more in-depth data, the source which the web-page cites also seems to further expand on the statements which would be extremely helpful. I have limited access to text references though. But if you think it is sufficient, you can attempt to deduce from such a devastatingly limited source.

---

TC, there is a difference between reading something by people like Austin (er, Nevins) and actual professionals in their own field. In the case of the latter, I would trust their interpretation in the absence of any contradictory data. If you have that data, please present it.

quote:

---

"Not at all. It says quite clearly, the 'upper parts' of the trees are abraded."

​

--Your right, it does:

​

quote:

---

The upper parts of some stumps and logs surrounded by conglomerates are severely abraded, but the lower parts contained within tuffaceous sandstones commonly have good root systems. This also suggests that mudflows moved over preexisting trees.

---

​

--It says that the upper parts are 'severely abraded' and vaguely indicates that the lower parts are not in this 'severely abraded' condition.

---

Why didn't they just come out and say that, then? Come on, TC, you are reaching here. Even if they are 'somewhat' abraded, why the difference? You need to explain this.

quote:

---

The question is, what is this condition? Perfect preservation, partial abrasion, or abrasion but not as severe as the upper parts? It does not say directly.

---

It doesn't really matter. The lower parts are different from the upper parts. Why is that? Perhaps the trees tipped on end and floated along with their stumps in the air? You need to explain this.

quote:

---

"Why then is it particularly clear that the shorter trees with poorly developed root systems are abraded, but say nothing of the like about the in situ trees?"

​

--I really couldn't know, I don't have the initial Yuretich source so I couldn't find what he says to expand on what the quote says. See above.

---

Well, you need to have that. As far as I can see you have a problem explaining the characteristics of these trees.

quote:

---

--Considering my above comments, it is evident that I can't agree, if your next two posts address this, I'll compile my response then.

---

'Can't agree' is an interesting way of putting it.

quote:

---

--You mean mark's reference, and saying that the soils are 'suprisingly well differentiated' shouldn't be expected to be very ironclad.

---

Why is that? Is this part of the evolutionist conspiracy?

quote:

---

What stage of pedogenic evolution is seen and other related horizontation properties would be more tenable.

---

Apparently this is a more advanced pedogenic stage than the author expected. This is data.

quote:

---

--Oh please. How on earth can you make such a confident deduction right after asserting that 'I have seen nothing other than your source...'. Its not much of a source in the first place, I'm sure you know this. Its not exactly a source I would list for any formal analysis of paleosols or the Specimen Ridge formation.

---

That was not its intent. As I have said, I doubt that most geologists see this as a burning issue. Probably part of the evolutionist conspiracy.

quote:

---

"Actually, your question makes no sense. There is one paleosol. What do you expect? "

​

--I simply find it extremely difficult to find that 1000Ma of erosion took place over the expanse of the paleosol. Or that this extensive period of time passed without a single deposition after the soil became a paleosol. All this while mountains of sediments piled near by, without orogenic influence.

---

Again, this makes no sense. How long do you think undisturbed soils of the high plains have been around? How do you expec them to be different from a soil that's been around for twice as long?

quote:

---

"Me: It is further elaborated in his article that it is upper Cambrian.

​

You: Exactly what I would expect."

​

--I find this hard to believe.

---

No, it's easy. The paleosoil was arrested in development and preserved by the first sediments burying it. Those sediments happened to be Cambrian. If the soil was much older and did not continue to develop, it would have been eroded away.

quote:

---

"I have no idea. I think the termite nests would be more in the soils. But just what is your point? Do you now deny the presence of vast continental scale sand deposits?"
--I think they would be too. My point is that that means termites don't necessarily be required to migrate those hundreds of miles to create nests, since they don't exist in these vast sheets. You previously argued that I needed to have them perform this migration.

---

But, TC, those sheets have been buried by new sediments, probably thousands of feet thick with each surge? Not only that, but those sediments must have been water-saturated. How do you propose that termites survive this event. After all, the flood was DESIGNED to KILL all those animals.

quote:

---

"Before we get any further on this subject, perhaps a little clarification is in order. TC, on older threads, you have stated that the flood ended with the Cretaceous Period of mainstream reckoning. If that is so, why do you include the Specimen Ridge occurrence of petrified forests in with 9 to 12 surges of the flood? As far as I can tell, the Lamar River Formation is dated as Eocene and should be significantly younger than your global flooding event. So, has your estimate for the end of the flood changed?"

​

--Where did I indicate that I had moved to this? I remember that while discussing hoodoo's in another thread some time ago, I illustrated that I may be wavering on whether to move to a Cenozoic/Mesozoic flood boundary, though I never came to altering this concept.

---

It was just a question clarifying your position. When you keep presenting a moving target, it gets a bit disorienting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"But the other source said 'unquestionably in place.'"

​

--Yes they are unquestionably in place, though they are not unquestionably trees which originated in the soils.

---

TC, I don't know how much clearer the author can be. You may quibble over what in situ or 'in-place' means, but that will not change the normal geological usage of the word which indicates that the trees are in their original growth position. If you wish to question every definition in the glossary of geological terms we are obviously going to get nowhere. To anyone with a modicum of geological training the statement is very clear.Basically, your post consists of a bunch of rationalization and bending of facts and observations to fit your preconcieved notions of a flood. You go out on so many intellectual excursions that you are no longer in contact with your home planet.For example, you say:

quote:

---

--... We certainly don't say 'this zircon apparently has an age of blank, or some such.

---

This is utter nonsense. We talk about apparent ages all the time. I don't have a clue where you are getting your ideas.Then you go on to say:

quote:

---

... The context the article used when using the word 'apparently' is simply in that they cannot be certain, but they are open to further analysis in the future.

---

... which is exactly my point.Face it, the author states quite clearly that some logs are transported and others are not. That is his opinion based on experience and observations. Now, if you have such experience and have observed the trees at Specimen Ridge, please let us know, but dont just rationalize that 'well he didn't say the lower parts of the trees weren't abraded.'

quote:

---

--Sounds like something to look at following the conclusions of this thread. Though all I was saying is that your notion that I have one or two days to have an immature paleosol form is an incorrect strawman, and was getting a bit tedious with its continuous reference. depending on isotopic time constraints, I may have 3 or 4 weeks for each development. Though I would expect it to be somewhere in the vicinity of 1-2.5 weeks for each successive pedogeny.

---

Again, this does not make sense. You have a one-year flood. You have over a hundred cyclothems in the Pennsylvanian System alone. That adds up to only days between surges. YOu have not explained this except to make assertions that there are suddenly less surges in a geological age that you previously said was post-flood. I'm afraid that I cannot continue to take you seriously until you make yourself clearer.You go on to say:

quote:

---

--You do that and tell me your results when you feel it does or doesn't exist. I would have to think that it must exist, it is an extremely popular formation ...

---

A POPULAR formation? What ARE you talking about?

quote:

---

... and paleosols are are thought of very highly in geology ...

---

Hunh? By exactly whom? I hate to rain on your parade, but this is not exactly a burning issue with anyone but creationists.

quote:

---

--I still maintain that it is unreasonable to say that since soils take a while to develop today that the specimen ridge soils should have, why should it be?

---

Umm, maybe because that is what our data says??? Soils take longer than a few days to form? I know that you do not agree with uniformitarianism, but it has worked now for centuries.

quote:

---

--Me? An absolutist? Far, far from it, .... They are only quoting the conclusions that the source made, not the data. We do need more than what the article provides.

---

Just as I was saying, you require absolute certainty. You will ALWAYS need more data.

quote:

---

"The articles in question have provided sufficient data in the fact that there are two versions of trees present. Some look transported, and others are different."

​

--But the latter part are the segments they provide, 'some look transported, and others different'. That the data which indicates 'the fact that there are two versions of the trees present', is not really presented, only a vague simplification of it.

---

It is quite clear that the author interprets (oops, I'm sorry, absolutists don't accept interpretations, oh well...) some trees to be transported and others not transported. I'm not sure what alternatives you would like to bring up.

quote:

---

--I am arguing that both populations of trees in the successions have indications of transport. The lower trees I actually agree on to a degree with mainstream conclusions. That they were not transported by mud flows and that these mud flows were the cause for burial. The lower trees were transported and set in situ, and latterly buried by conglomeratitic flows.

---

Then why do they not have abrasion due to transport and why are they rooted in well-developed soil? Why do you have to go through such machinations? Well, obviously to create some story to fit your preconceived ideas.

quote:

---

--The source quotes Yuretich in saying: 'The upper parts of some stumps and logs surrounded by conglomerates are severely abraded, but the lower parts contained within tuffaceous sandstones commonly have good root systems'.

---

Yes, they appear untransported. (Oops another non-absoutist statement that must be wrong.)

quote:

---

They say that the logs buried by the conglomeratic flows are severely abraded but then move on to say that the lower parts contained within the tuffaceous sandstones commonly have good root systems. This could easily imply that the lower parts also are abraded, however the appearance of 'good root systems' plays an integral part in suggesting 'that mudflows moved over preexisting trees'.

---

Then why did he not say so?

quote:

---

--Of course I'm not selectively examining the data. These are successive paleosols, fossil forests and such. I am taking into account the characteristics of the whole formation. These soils, yes, may be very different. If they are in an early stage of pedogenic development, it would not difficult to assert that they did in fact form in a couple weeks time.

---

Then you first need to document that soil profiles can develop in a few weeks time. Then you have to convince us that you actually have a lower number of surges.

quote:

---

--While sure we could take this into consideration, but an argument is no where near conclusive if is based on a tactic of argument from authority. Just because those who worked on interpreting the soils were professionals, doesn't mean we should conclude it as fact by that sole reason. I do agree, however, they shouldn't be ignored.

---

What a concession! But then why do you ignore the experts and twist their words to match your preconceived notions?

quote:

---

"Wouldn't the combination of facts that there are well developed soils and some trees standing upright with little abrasion best explained by the fact that they are in situ? You need to look at all of the facts, not just at one feature at a time."

​

--Of course I will do this. The source doesn't say that there are well developed soils, it says that there is a developed horizontation[to what degree or stage of horizontation that is is anyone's guess].

---

Horizontation? I think you mean well-developed profile. This unfortunately does not happen over night.

quote:

---

It also says that the trees standing upright have severe abrasion explained in the mainstream as resulting from a flow.

---

Yes. In their upper parts.

quote:

---

The lower parts I would expect to have abrasion, though not near as severe as the upper parts.

---

Well, then you do have some expertise in this field. You've been sandbagging, TC.

quote:

---

"Why didn't they just come out and say that, then? Come on, TC, you are reaching here. Even if they are 'somewhat' abraded, why the difference? You need to explain this."

​

--I explained this while addressing the quote in an above comment. They didn't just come out and say it because it is not necessarily required to make the same conclusion they have made.

---

Then why did they mention abrasion on the upper parts of the trees? Sorry, TC, but this is not how geology is done. If something is left out of the description, then it wasn't there.

quote:

---

"Apparently this is a more advanced pedogenic stage than the author expected. This is data."

​

--No, that's a conclusion from data, not data itself. My suggestion is a much more tenable requisite to extrapolate from.

---

If I were an absolutist, I would agree. However, when an interpretation is based on direct observation, sound geological principles and has not been overturned by later observations; I would say that it can be used as data.

quote:

---

"That was not its intent. As I have said, I doubt that most geologists see this as a burning issue. Probably part of the evolutionist conspiracy."

​

--No, not part of the evolutionist conspiracy, you can leave that at Hovind's door. I don't know if its a 'burning issue', though many of the observations in the specimen ridge formation such as paleosols, fossil forests and how they correlate should be in extensively high regard for geologists.

---

Well, we just continue to disappoint you.

quote:

---

"How do you expec them to be different from a soil that's been around for twice as long?"

​

--Extremely different, the soil was not subject to erosion and apparently developed over the course of a billion years! Don't you find that a bit surprising? I would put this into question for mainstream research.

---

TC, all soils are subject to erosion. In fact, they are partly due to erosion.

quote:

---

"No, it's easy. The paleosoil was arrested in development and preserved by the first sediments burying it. Those sediments happened to be Cambrian. If the soil was much older and did not continue to develop, it would have been eroded away. "

​

--But its a soil that developed over the course of a billion years. Don't you find it difficult even to imagin that this formation never let up?

---

You do not make any sense at all here.

quote:

---

"But, TC, those sheets have been buried by new sediments, probably thousands of feet thick with each surge? Not only that, but those sediments must have been water-saturated. How do you propose that termites survive this event. After all, the flood was DESIGNED to KILL all those animals."

​

--Not strictly, insects and this type of fauna for the most part weren't entirely killed off. The existence of paleosols should imply a gap in sedimentation during the flood event. Termites aren't slow critters, I'd give them anywhere from a couple weeks to a month or two [depending on the isotopic and paleopedogenic data] to do these types of migrations. In the areas where they did survive, they would latterly move to the new locations some of which would happen to be above the sediments of the last surge.
--What I recently have thought up as a potential mechanism would be to transport large quantities of termites via the surge abating by vegetation or inside logs. Many wouldn't survive this mechanism, but whose to say that those who abated with the flood waters were subject to certain extinction of the totality of the population?

---

More and more fantastic all the time! And aren't we getting just a bit extra-biblical here? A flood that does not kill off all terrestrial creatures and flood surges with soil development in between? You reach well beyond your grasp.{fixed quote structure - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC, I don't know how much clearer the author can be. You may quibble over what in situ or 'in-place' means, but that will not change the normal geological usage of the word which indicates that the trees are in their original growth position. If you wish to question every definition in the glossary of geological terms we are obviously going to get nowhere. To anyone with a modicum of geological training the statement is very clear."

​

--But the fact of the matter is that in situ does not only mean in its original position, it is also often used in geology as a location of deposition. The reference is of poor quality as a source for extrapolation, you can't argue against this.

---

Sure I can. TC, there are the terms 'in situ' and 'in-place,' and then there is 'transported'. They are different. If someone thinks a tree has been transported, they would not say either of the former. I don't quite see what your problem is with this. Yuretich has gone out of his way to explain the difference between the two types of trees and made it abundantly clear that some trees are NOT transported. If you cannot understand this, it will just be the beginning of your problems in reading mainstream science.My impression is that you so want them to be transported that your desire has literally altered the meaning of the passages that you have read. As I have noted earlier, the human mind can rationalize literally anything. This is a good example. Why not just take the easy, literal interpreation rather than go through the mental gymnastics to alter the meaning of the passages? Why all the 'might have meants' and 'should have saids?' Just read the articles.Very well, if you wish I will try to contact Yuretich and see what he actually meant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Basically, your post consists of a bunch of rationalization and bending of facts and observations to fit your preconcieved notions of a flood. You go out on so many intellectual excursions that you are no longer in contact with your home planet. "

​

--I haven't bent any facts presented in the specimen ridge link. I have, however, pointed out its extreme lack in relevant detail. You cannot make a conclusion from another conclusion, you have to make conclusions from given data, very little of which is illustrated in the source.

---

Certainly you have. YOu have turned 'in situ' and 'in place' to mean 'transported.' I am sorry that you do not understand the text. If you had more of a background in science this might make more sense to you.

quote:

---

"Me: ... We certainly don't say 'this zircon apparently has an age of blank, or some such.

​

You: This is utter nonsense. We talk about apparent ages all the time. I don't have a clue where you are getting your ideas."

​

--I can back up my assertions. This is not utter nonsense. Why do you think they call radioisotopic dating an "absolute" dating method? When they give their dates they give it an approximation such as 4.5Ga 0.05Ga and say that it 'is' this age, they don't say 'well apparently the rock says that its this old'.

---

Okay, everyone please note: Here is great example of how TC and others do not understand scientific literature.When we use the word 'absolute' it means that there is a quantifiable relationship such as an age of x years. It is used as opposed to 'relative' which just means that one rock is older than another without any implication as to a measured age, or as to how much older. Now, do you see why I cannot take your interpretation of Yuretich seriously?In a way, TC, ALL radiometric ages are apparent. Are you satisfied now? Do you get just a hint of why I get so exasperated with you and TB and wmscott?This example is important enough that I am going to close this post now so that it does not get lost in a bunch of verbiage.[This message has been edited by edge, 11-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Face it, the author states quite clearly that some logs are transported and others are not. That is his opinion based on experience and observations. Now, if you have such experience and have observed the trees at Specimen Ridge, please let us know, but dont just rationalize that 'well he didn't say the lower parts of the trees weren't abraded.' "

​

--But its a conclusion that the author drew from the data. How are we going to have any idea the merit of any conclusion without knowing the data?

---

First of all by the reputation of the writer. For instance, is he a creationist?

quote:

---

Sure you can just have faith or 'hope' that he's right because he's experienced but if scientists thought in this manor about others work 'current' science would be credulous we might as well consider it botched.

---

Sorry, but that is not blind faith. It is a judgement based on qualifications and experience.

quote:

---

The fact of the matter is, you don't have any idea of what the condition of the lower parts abrasion is.

---

If I were an absolutist like you, no, I wouldn't. However, I am pretty certain that this researcher has experience and some technical capability. I can tell by the wording of the statments that you seem to find so incomprehensible.

quote:

---

For all we know the lower parts could be chomped away with the exception of a short radial sliver, why not blame it on beavers or termites and leave it at that?

---

I would expect the observer to note this. If he does not then I will judge him incompetent in the future. Unlike you, I prefer to assume that people are competent and of good will. I do not have a gloomy outlook on people.

quote:

---

"Again, this does not make sense. You have a one-year flood. You have over a hundred cyclothems in the Pennsylvanian System alone. That adds up to only days between surges. YOu have not explained this except to make assertions that there are suddenly less surges in a geological age that you previously said was post-flood. I'm afraid that I cannot continue to take you seriously until you make yourself clearer."

​

--What do you mean? I have yet to even attempted to explain cyclothems? My comment was addressing the 9-12 successions of fossil forests as we have been discussing and has been the topic. Cyclothems are another deal.

---

But cyclothems were brought about by the same surges, were they not? Also, you did not answer my question. Does the flood now include the Eocene?

quote:

---

--Not in the least. I really have yet to see what any YEC's viewpoint would be on any paleosol at all. The conclusions section of; Developments in Sedimentology - Diagenesis, III; pg. 614

​

Verbatim:

quote:

---

There are many paleosols which exhibit complex, ...

---

​

--A very good percentage of the above book discusses the influence of paleosols.

---

Good, then you can find where soils develop in a matter of days.

quote:

---

"Umm, maybe because that is what our data says??? Soils take longer than a few days to form? I know that you do not agree with uniformitarianism, but it has worked now for centuries."

​

--And exactly how much data did you compile to come to that conclusion? Practically nothing of significance. I would greatly emphasize that there is a lot more to pedogenesis than 'well it looks surprisingly differentiated'. But I'm sure you already know that.

---

Mmmm, about the same amount as you.

quote:

---

"Just as I was saying, you require absolute certainty. You will ALWAYS need more data."

​

--Edge, all I am saying is that your going to need a load of more data than, 'it looks surprisingly differentiated'..

---

Well, that would mean that the soil is pretty well-developed and well-developed soils take a long time do so.

quote:

---

"Yes, they appear untransported. (Oops another non-absoutist statement that must be wrong.)"

​

--No they don't seem to. They don't seem to have undisturbed rhizocretions they look more like the image I supplied to you earlier. You haven't data to support that assertion, only the hope that the author of the article presented all the information which is relevant. And just to let you know, he hasn't.

---

This is an interesting observation from someone who clearly does not quite grasp the subject.

quote:

---

"You do not make any sense at all here. "

​

--Imagine the soil you have out in your back yard. Come back a billion years later, is it not difficult to imagine that it would still be there as well as there being void evidence of subsequent sedimentation? This is what Meerts paleosol indicates. The paleosol itself is a billion years older than the sediment lying directly above it.

---

Actually, it isn't, because the soil is being renewed all of the time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Increased precipitation would in turn produce haloclinic seas, which would concentrate salinity contents towards higher depths. [Haliocenic seas, that is, a halocline would be produced, (though more profoundly at higher latitudes) which is the depth at which the salinity changes rapidly; it forms the boundary between the two layers.]

---

You sound pretty convinced of this. But how do you manage to maintain a halocline while oceans are surging across the continents and draining back with such velocity that TB has made us aware of?On top of that, according to some creationists, you had a virtually explosive eruption of mid-ocean hydrothermal vents that must also have both disrupted the halocline, and introduced even more salts into the ocean.Also remember that you have to compress all of the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and now (according to your paleosol posts) early Cenozoic volcanism into a single year. I really don't think you can say with any confidence at all that the occurrence of rainfall produced a viable halocline.Besides, what the heck is a 'higher depth???'

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Certainly you have. YOu have turned 'in situ' and 'in place' to mean 'transported.' I am sorry that you do not understand the text. If you had more of a background in science this might make more sense to you."
--I've explained why this is a misconception. I know he obviously used the word as a place of maturation and in place for burial. I however, did not constrict the context to this specific meaning when I described the logs as 'in situ'.

quote:

---

"When we use the word 'absolute' it means that there is a quantifiable relationship such as an age of x years. It is used as opposed to 'relative' which just means that one rock is older than another without any implication as to a measured age, or as to how much older. Now, do you see why I cannot take your interpretation of Yuretich seriously? "

​

--Where in my comment does it indicate that I know it as anything other than this? I have known of this differentiation for quite a long time.. Its pretty fundamental in radioisotopic dating and analysis. I understand the text quite well.

---

Well, your statments certainly didn't show this. Let's see what you actually said. First, you said:--We certainly don't say 'this zircon apparently has an age of blank, or some such.To which I replied:e: This is utter nonsense. We talk about apparent ages all the time. I don't have a clue where you are getting your ideas."And you responded:--I can back up my assertions. This is not utter nonsense. Why do you think they call radioisotopic dating an "absolute" dating method? When they give their dates they give it an approximation such as 4.5Ga 0.05Ga and say that it 'is' this age, they don't say 'well apparently the rock says that its this old'.At this point, it became quite clear that you are confusing 'absolute age' with 'certain age', which is complete misunderstanding of geochronology. We do NOT call 4.5Ga an absolute age because we are certain of it. We call it 'absolute' because it is a quantity, as opposed to a 'relative age'; which would be to say 'well, it's older than anything else.' At the same time, all radiometric ages are 'apparent' because they actually measure a cooling age, or possibly some other event rather than the actual time of formation of a rock. That is because many rocks do not form instantaneously, despite what Dr. Gentry says.

quote:

---

"In a way, TC, ALL radiometric ages are apparent. Are you satisfied now? Do you get just a hint of why I get so exasperated with you and TB and wmscott?"

​

--If this is the reason, I do not see it. Sure, all radioisotopic ages are apparent that's why they give a position.

---

No. That is not why they are call apparent ages. Why do you just not admit that, once again, you are out of your depth on this and that you really don't understand what you are reading in the geological literature.

quote:

---

Radioisotopic dating gives an age and give them approximations. I have gone over this briefly in my comment. Nothing in my posts regarding this topic are contradicting what your saying. You would be deluding yourself to think it otherwise.

---

You keep compounding your error! Please, it is getting painful to watch! Those are not approximations, they are limits of analytical error.

quote:

---

"This example is important enough that I am going to close this post now so that it does not get lost in a bunch of verbiage."

​

--'Close this post'? I hope that you don't mean that as an excuse to leave the thread.

---

A tempting thought.