Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 5 of 190 (81076)
01-27-2004 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by roxrkool
01-26-2004 4:40 PM


Fossil Soils (Paleosols) at Joggins
It was written:
"quote:
---------------------------------
Yes, it's {polystrate trees - JRF}
a common attempted rebuttal , but
it's sadly lacking. Fossils of any
kind passing through strata are
pretty rare, and those that have
been found do not pass through
layers of strata that conventional
geology claims deposited at separate
times or over long perods of time."
As far as polystrate trees are concerned, I would recommend that Mr. Soracilla read my post about the polystrate telephone poles of the Philippines and the polystrate tree found in Atchfafalya River natural levee deposits of Louisiana that are clearly documented to be less two hundred years old. My posts can be found in the thread "Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines" at
http://EvC Forum: Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines -->EvC Forum: Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines
The Atchafalaya River polystrate tree occurs in sediments virtually identical to the Joggins deposits and the Philippine polystrate telephone poles occur in deposits virtually identical to the strata, in which the Yellowstone Petrified Forests are found. The fact of the matter is polystrate fossils are being formed in certain modern environments. This clearly demonstrates that they fail as distinctive proof of a Noachian or Biblical Flood.
Also, using Google, a person can find web pages about research demonstrating the presence of abundant fossil soils, called "Paleosols",within the strata at joggins containing the polystrate trees. Below are some web pages about fossils soils, called "paleosols", that occur throughout the strata containing the polystrate trees at Joggins.
1. MICROMORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED
PALEOSOLS OF LATE CARBONIFEROUS COAL-BEARING
ROCKS EXPOSED AT JOGGINS, NOVA SCOTIA,
CANADA by M.G. SMITH and I.P. MARTINI
MICROMORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PALEOSOLS OF LATE CARBONIFEROUS COAL
Publications
2. FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS AND PALEOSOL PROFILES OF
THE LATE CARBONIFEROUS CUMBERLAND BASIN, JOGGINS,
NOVA SCOTIA BY M.G. SMITH and I.P. MARTINI
FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS AND PALEOSOL PROFILES OF THE LATE CARBONIFEROUS
3. STOP 2 - JOGGINS FOSSIL CLIFFS
http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/english/VT/ns/cumberland/2/
"The Joggins Formation section is
characterised repeating beds of river-
deposited ( fluvial) sandstones
occurring in channels and as more
extensive sheets, interbedded with
floodplain- deposited siltstones and
mudstones that often have paleosol
(fossil soils) development.
Paleosols are often deep red colour."
4. Teniere, Paul, 1998, Sedimentology,
Facies Successions and Cyclicity of a
Section of the Joggins Formation, Joggins,
Nova Scotia. Unpublished M.S. thesis,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
An abstract of this thesis can be found at:
Oops! Page not found! - Dalhousie University
In part, its abstract stated about fossil soils (paleosols) found in the polystrate tree-bearing strata of Joggin:
"Grey clay-rich mudstones classify as "seat
earths" or Gleysol paleosols and grey platy
mudstones are hydromorphic soils that
experiences less vegetative activity. Red
mudstones are Vertisols formed under
seasonal, oxidizing conditions. Carbonaceous
shales are clastic swamp deposits
and are associated with coals (Histosol)
formed in peat mires."
Some other references documenting fossil soils (paleosols) within the Joggins strata and directly associated with the polystrate trees found there are:
Smith, Mark G. (1995) Floodplain deposits,
Paleosol profiles and evidence of climatic
change from the Late Carboniferous Joggins
Formation, Cumberland Basin, Nova Scotia,
Canada. Program with Abstracts - Geological
Association of Canada; Mineralogical
Association of Canada; Canadian Geophysical U
nion, Joint Annual Meeting. vol. 20, pp.99
Smith, Mark G. (1990) Floodplain and Paleosol
profiles of the Carboniferous Cumberland coal
basin, Nova Scotia, Canada. American Association
of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin. Vol. 74,
no. 8, pp.1310-1311
The Joggins locality is the focus of intensive study with papers being published every year about it. The research that Morris and Coffin did at Joggins has long since been rendered antiquated and obsolete and repeatedly refuted by each additional paper and guidebook that is published on the geology of the Joggins cliffs. In fact, these papers show that the geologic observations made by both geologists are badly flawed by what they repeatedly overlooked to the point of being useless in any scientific discussion.
Some recent papers about Joggins are:
Falcon-Lang, H. J. (1999) Fire ecology
of a Late Carboniferous floodplain,
Joggins, Nova Scotia. Journal of the
Geological Society of London. vol. 156,
pp. 137-148.
Falcon-Lang, H. J. (2000) Fire ecology of
the Carboniferous tropical zone.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology. vol. 164, pp. 339-355.
Falcon-Lang, H. J. (2001) Fire ecology of a
Late Carboniferous floodplain, Joggins,
Nova Scotia. Atlantic Geology. Vol. 37,
no. 1, pp. 109-110.
Falcon-Lang, H. J. (2003) Response of Late
Carboniferous tropical vegetation to
transgressive-regressive rhythms at Joggins,
Nova Scotia.Journal of the Geological
Society of London, July 2003, Vol. 160,
no. 4, pp. 643-648
Gibling, M. R.,and Davies, S. J. (2003)
Architecture of coastal and alluvial
deposits in an extensional basin; the
Carboniferous Joggins Formation of Eastern
Canada. Sedimentology. Vol. 50, no. 3,
pp. 415-439
The papers by Falcon-Lang (1999, 2000, 2001) are interesting in they provide clear evidence of many of the Joggins polystrate trees had been charred by forest fires before being buried and the presence of abundant of charcoal within fossil soils that formed the former forest floor. A person needs to ask Dr, Morris how forest fires could char the Joggin trees while they are being washed around and later buried by a Noachian Flood. Also, these papers document clear examples of polystrate trees being firmly rooted in unmistakable fossil soils (paleosols) and soundly refute, along with other papers Young Earth creationists simply pretend don't exist, the claims by both Coffin and Morris that these trees were washed in and buried by a Noachian / Biblical Flood.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by roxrkool, posted 01-26-2004 4:40 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RandyB, posted 03-05-2005 7:16 PM Bill Birkeland has replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 7 of 190 (81950)
02-01-2004 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JonF
01-26-2004 10:09 AM


Morris's Impact Article No. 316 On Joggins Polystrate Fossils
JonF wrote:
"Actually, they are relatively common,
even according to evolutionist sources.
(See this link, second section.) For a
Creationist viewpoint, see this link,
and tell me what you think."
The "this link," to which Jon F refers, is "THE POLYSTRATE TREES AND COAL SEAMS OF JOGGINS FOSSIL CLIFFS - IMPACT No. 316 October 1999 by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*. Below I discuss each of the "reasons" used
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
It is hard to provide a short answer to all of the points raised by Morris (1999). However, the overall quality of the logic, research, and arguments of Young Earth creationists concerning polystrate fossils can be seen in "Arguments for Rapid Sedimentation" used by Morris (1999). First, Dr. Morris engages in a common Young Earth creationist misrepresentation that "rapid sedimentation" can only be the product of an extraordinary catastrophe, i.e. the Noachian of Biblical Flood. The reality of this situation is that there are numerous ordinary processes, from river floods to volcanic eruptions that can produce brief periods of rapid sedimentation sufficient to bury and preserve upright trees as polystrate fossils. For some documented examples, a person need only go back to a previous thread of mine, "Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines" at:
http://EvC Forum: Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines -->EvC Forum: Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines
Morris (1999) stated:
"Dr. Harold Coffin has listed several reasons
(summarized and extended below) to consider
that the trees have been moved to this location,
washed in during a time of extensive and
massive sedimentation.5"
NOTE: footnote no. 5 refers to Coffin (1993).
Reason No. 1
"1. A distinctive soil level is missing. Only a
few of the trees arise from the organic coal
layers. Often the trees rest on top of a coal
seam, but roots seldom penetrate into it as
they would if the tree grew in a peat bog.
Those stumps arising from non-organic layers
have no possible soil present."
Coffin (1993) is completely wrong in claiming that distinctive soil layers are missing within the sedimentary strata containing polystrate trees and exposed at the cliffs at Joggin. This claim is readily refuted by numerous studies of these coal measures such as:
1. MICROMORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED
PALEOSOLS OF LATE CARBONIFEROUS COAL-
BEARING ROCKS EXPOSED AT JOGGINS, NOVA
SCOTIA, CANADA by M.G. SMITH and I.P. MARTINI
MICROMORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PALEOSOLS OF LATE CARBONIFEROUS COAL
Publications
2. FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS AND PALEOSOL PROFILES
OF THE LATE CARBONIFEROUS CUMBERLAND BASIN,
JOGGINS, NOVA SCOTIA BY M.G. SMITH and I.P. MARTINI
FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS AND PALEOSOL PROFILES OF THE LATE CARBONIFEROUS
3. STOP 2 - JOGGINS FOSSIL CLIFFS
http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/english/VT/ns/cumberland/2/
"The Joggins Formation section is
characterised repeating beds of river-
deposited ( fluvial) sandstones
occurring in channels and as more
extensive sheets, interbedded with
floodplain- deposited siltstones and
mudstones that often have paleosol
(fossil soils) development. Paleosols
are often deep red colour."
4. Teniere, Paul, 1998, Sedimentology, Facies Successions and
Cyclicity of a Section of the Joggins Formation, Joggins, Nova
Scotia. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax,
Nova Scotia.
An abstract of this thesis can be found at:
Oops! Page not found! - Dalhousie University
In part, its abstract stated about the underclays, also called "seat earths,":
"Grey clay-rich mudstones classify as "seat
earths" or Gleysol paleosols and grey platy
mudstones are hydromorphic soils that
experiences less vegetative activity. Red
mudstones are Vertisols formed under
seasonal, oxidizing conditions. Carbonaceous
shales are clastic swamp deposits
and are associated with coals (Histosol)
formed in peat mires."
Some other references documenting fossil soils (paleosols) within the Joggins strata and directly associated with the polystrate trees found there are:
Smith, Mark G. (1995) Floodplain deposits, Paleosol profiles
and evidence of climatic change from the Late Carboniferous
Joggins Formation, Cumberland Basin, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Program with Abstracts - Geological Association of Canada;
Mineralogical Association of Canada; Canadian Geophysical
Union, Joint Annual Meeting. vol. 20, pp.99
Smith, Mark G. (1990) Floodplain and Paleosol profiles of the
Carboniferous Cumberland coal basin, Nova Scotia, Canada.
American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin. Vol. 74,
no. 8, pp.1310-1311
The fossil soils within the strata exposed at Joggins, Nova Scotia demonstrate two important points, which refute the ideas of Dr. Coffin. First, they show that the rapid sedimentation, which formed some of the strata, wasn't continuous. Contrary to what Dr. Coffin's ideas require, brief period of rapid sedimentation were broken by long period of nondeposition during which the fossil soils formed. Finally, during the long period of nondeposition, the surface, in which the soil formed, was land, not underwater as Dr. Coffin argued. In some cases, the rate of sediment accumulation for the stack of sediments that comprise the strata exposed in the Joggins cliffs that soil formation occurred at the same time that sediment accumulated as indicated by overthickened A and B horizons within some of the fossil soils.
Papers by Falcon-Lang (1999, 2000, 2001) are also interesting in they provide clear evidence of many of the Joggins polystrate trees had been charred by forest fires before being buried and the presence of abundant of charcoal within fossil soils that formed the former forest floor. A person needs to ask Dr, Morris how forest fires could char the Joggin trees while they are being washed around and later buried by a Noachian Flood. Also, these papers document clear examples of polystrate trees being firmly rooted in unmistakable fossil soils (paleosols) and soundly refute, along with other papers Young Earth creationists simply pretend don't exist, the claims by both Coffin and Morris that these trees were washed in and buried by a Noachian / Biblical Flood.
Reason No. 2
"2. The vertical stumps often penetrate two
or more strata, including thin seams of coal.
Often they overlap other trees, arising from
overlying layers. A dead, hollow, and
submerged stump could not persist for the
long period of time necessitated for a
second forest to grow and collect as peat.
In case of reason no. 2, the problems envisioned by Dr. Coffins exist only in his imagination. The fact of the matter, in areas of high sedimentation, i. e., the Atchafalaya Basin of Louisiana, it is possible for a dead hollow stump to persist long enough for multiple strata to accumulate around it and for overlaping levels of forests to develop. For example, geologists and archaeologists are currently studying an area around Indian Bayou within the Atchafalaya Basin south of Krtoz Springs, Louisiana, where a person can find a modern analogue to the overlapping sets of tree trunks illustrated by Coffin (1993). In that area, the partially buried stumps of dead trees and trunks of live trees protrude through several feet of alluvium and are surrounded by younger trees growing on the surface of the floodplain. If an additional episode of alluviation was to deeply bury this area, then two layers of upright, vertically overlapping tree trunks as has been found in the Joggins Cl;iffs of Nova Scotia would be created. Thus, the presence of overlapping layers of polystrate fossils fails to provide any real proof that they were washed in from elsewhere and buried by any extraordinary catastrophe.
Reason No. 3
"3. Segments of roots are often found inside
the once-hollow trunks, while other fossil
roots are normally detached and buried in
the surrounding soil. This seems to be a
very unlikely scenario for any growth in
situ hypothesis."
There are a couple problems with the evidence presented in "Reason no. 3". First, as discussed by Ferguson (1970), it is virtually impossible to determine from a two-dimensional slice of a root exposed in the face of cliff whether it is either a fragment of a root or complete root attached to a fossil stump. It is impossible to follow the root or see into the cliff in order to determine whether the root either ends in a broken end or is connected to a stump. Because the rock has been eroded to form the cliff, it is also impossible to determine whether the part of the root that was eroded along the enclosing rock to create the cliff face ended in either with a broken end or was attached to an upright trunk.
Finally, if these trees were growing on the floodplain of active river systems, there would be nothing unusual about finding fragments of their roots inside hollow trunks and in the surrounding sediments. As a river laterally migrated back and forth across its floodplains, it devours the sediments exposed in it cutbanks. The trees, including their roots, that fall into the river along with the bank sediments would be broken into pieces. Then, currents would transport fragments of tree and roots downstream and, during floods, distribute them all across the floodplain. Naturally, some pieces of root would be caught within the hollow trunks and deposited along with sediments on floodplains. The nothing inconsistent or unusual about fragments of roots being found inside the hollow trunks of polystrate fossils.
Reason no. 4
"4. Leaves seldom remain on a forest or swamp
floor for long periods without decay, yet
well preserved fossil leaves are abundant,
thus indicating rapid burial.'
It is true that leaves would rapidly decay on the floor of a swamp or forest. However, Dr. Coffin incorrectly judges the abundance of the well-preserved fossil leaves within the strata exposed at Joggins Cliffs. He also mistakenly implies that they are found in the underclays and other paleosols, which represent the actual floor of the swamp or forest. Rather the well-preserved fossil leaves are largely restricted to laminated and otherwise cross-bedded sandy strata that enclosed many of the polystrate trees at Joggins. The fossil leaves are found mainly within these sediments because their rapid accumulation during major allowed for the preservation of these fossils. Such deposits are commonly deposited as the result of flooding within river valleys and delta plains.
Reason no. 5
"Some of the fossilized trees are inclined,
not directly in vertical growth positions.
A few are found upside down. None of the
tree root systems are complete; all have
been truncated.'
First, the presence of inclined trees and a few, rare, upside down stumps of fossilized trees fails to be indicative of an extraordinary catastrophe having deposited the strata exposed in the Joggins Cliffs and transported the polystrate trees before deposition. Major river floods are quite capable of pushing and burying standing trees in inclined positions. The upside-down trees illustrated by Dr. Coffin consist of stumps lacking any significant length of trunk attached to them. Again, a major river flood would be quite capable of transporting tree stumps, depositing some upside-down, and burying them. As also falsely argued for the trees in the Yellowstone Petrified Forest, the present of a few transported stumps and logs doesn't prove that well-rooted polystrate trees had been transported.
Finally, Dr. Coffin is simply wrong about "none of the tree roots" being complete and having all been truncated. The fact of the matter is that polystrate trees do have intact root systems. The presence of intact root systems, forced some of them to argue that these root systems sank intact downward into the underclay, while it was soft mud. Gastaldo (1983, 1999) has refuted such models.
Concerning the presence of intact roots, Ferguson (1988) stated:
"Short stumps usually have well
preserved root systems (Stigmaria)
because they were filled in before
the weight of accumulating sediment
was sufficient to crush them. Tall
stumps on the other hand have root
systems which are difficult to see
because they caved in under the weight
of the overlying sediment long before
it had accumulated enough to spill
over the rim of the trunk and thereby
enter the roots."
The erroneous statements made by Dr. Coffin about the fossil stumps lacking roots and the absence of fossil soils strongly demonstrate that the field observations made by him contain significant inaccuracies and serious factual errors concerning the geology of the Joggin Cliffs. Such errors clearly indicate that his observations are of doubtful reliability and in need of independent verification before they can accepted as valid and accurate observations.
Reason no. 6
"The marine tubeworm, Spirorbis,
frequently found in fossilized association
with the fossil trees, implies that all
were exposed to seawater."
A major problem with is argument is that Coffin (1993) has likely grossly overestimated the frequency with which fossil of Spirorbis occur within the strata exposed at the Joggins Cliffs. For example, within a measured section illustrated by figure 4 of Davies and Gibling (2003), the occurrence of Spirorbis is noteds only at **two** specific intervals just over 40 meters (130 ft) apart and about 400 meters (1300 ft) below the main polystrate forest beds. This measured section indicated that none of the seven beds containing upright stumps were associated with Spirorbis fossils. Instead, Davies and Gibling (2003) found that Spirorbis fossils occurred within thin, laterally persistent, fossiliferous, dark grey-black, brackish-water limestone beds containing ostracods, bivalves, gastropods, rare fish bones, shark spines, and agglutinated foraminifera.
What Dr. Coffin and other Young Earth creationists don't seem to understand is that there is nothing anomalous for thin brackish water beds containing a mixture of marine and nonmarine fossils to accumulate within either a coastal or deltaic plain setting. Within a low-lying coastal or deltaic plain setting, small changes in relative sea level, because of rising sea level, regional subsidence, or combination of both, can cause the formation large brackish-water bays either within the interdistributary marshes of deltas or the interchannel areas of floodplains. Such bays would be ideal for the accumulations of brackish-water limestones containing a mixture of marine, i.e Spirorbis, and nonmarine, i.e. ostracod and bivalve, fossils. The structural graben, in which the strata containing the Joggins fossil forest accumulated, and rapid, glacially-moderated sea level cycles happening at the time these sediments accumulated provided excellent mechanisms for the occurrence of rapid rises in sea level and associated rapid flooding of these plains (Heckel et al. 1998). Such flooding would quite easily explain the formation of extensive bays, within which the Spirorbis-bearing limestone beds would have accumulated (Davies and Gibling 2003). Thus, the Spirorbis fossils fail to provide any evidence that the polystrate trees were transported in from elsewhere.
Reason no. 7
"The surrounding sandstones are
crossbedded, implying rapidly
moving water."
This "reason" fails miserably both as an argument for an extraordinary catastrophe, i.e. a Noachian or Biblical Flood, either having deposited the strata containing the polystrate trees at Joggins or transported the polystrate trees into the Joggins area from elsewhere. As in case of the "rapid deposition" of sediments, "rapidly moving water" can occur and does occur as the result of ordinary processes, both noncatastrophic and catastrophic. In modern environments, ordinary processes and "normal" catastrophes, i.e. major floods and lahars, regularly deposit cross-bedded sediments. Both Dr. Morris and Dr. Coffin are apparently unaware that rapidly moving water and the cross-bedding that it creates are very common in many modern environments, including the flooding of alluvial and deltaic plains, as documented in basic publications such as:
Bridge, J., 2003, Rivers and Floodplains - Forms, Processes and
Sedimentary Record.Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK. 504 pp.,
Boggs, S., 2002, Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy,
3rd ed., Prentis-Hall, New York. 726 pp.
Reading, H. G., ed., 1996, Sedimentary Environments, 3 rd ed.
Blackwell Science, Oxford, 688 pp.
Walker, R. G., and James, N. P., eds., 1992. Facies models.
Geological Association of Canada, Toronto, Canada. 409 pp.
By themselves, neither cross-bedding nor "rapidly moving water" imply the existence of an extraordinary catastrophe like the Noachian / Bliblical Flood. Thus, of either cross-bedding or "rapidly moving water" imply nothing about the Joggin polystrate trees having been moved in from elsewhere by such an extraordinary catastrophe.
Reason No. 8
"The hollow vertical trees are
typically filled with different
sediments than the surrounding
matrix. The internal sediments
are themselves crossbedded."
As discussed and illustrated both by Ferguson (1988) and Gibling (1987), the infilling of the hollow lycopod trees by sediments of different types and the presence of cross-bedding within them is completely consistent with these polystrate trees having been buried on either alluvial or deltaic plains.
Reason No. 9
"The long axis of both the partial
roots and the rootlets have a
preferred orientation as would result
from movement, not growth in place.
The direction parallels current
direction as discerned from ripple
marks and crossbedding."
The data on which this "reason", argument, is directly derived from Rupke (1970). Ferguson (1970) noted the preferred orientation of the roots reported by Rupke (1970) corresponded to the orientation of the outcrops, the cliffs, at Joggins. Ferguson argued that Rupke (1970) failed to realize the fact that roots cut at lower angles by the cliffs would be more readily seen, found, and measured than roots that were cut at higher angles to right angles by the cliffs. Thus, the preferred orientation noted by Rupke (1970) reflects only the visibility of the roots in outcrops, instead their actual orientations. None of the geologists, who have visited the Joggins Cliffs, have been able to replicate the results of Rupke (1970) and have been unable tofind the orientations he found. As result, the arguments in Reason no. 9 only offers evidence, together with Dr. Coffin's inability to find any roots at the Joggins Cliffs, of the rather sloppy and error-prone fieldwork that is conducted by some Young Earth creationists. (NOTE: N. A. Rupke is a Young Earth creationist as demonstrated by Rupke (1973).
Overall, the so-called research concerning the Joggins Cliffs that Young Earth creationist have published and articles that they use to argue, i.e. Morris (1999), is the type of writing a person finds in term papers and projects undergraduate historical and physical geology classes. It is characterized by shallow research of existing research, simple-minded, full of all sorts of obvious errors, logically flawed, and just amateurish in it execution. It is the poor quality of writing in articles like Morris (1999) and textbooks like Coffin (1993) that have earned Young Earth creationists the distain and more typically, indifference, of conventional geologists.
Finally, Ferguson (1988, p. 15-16) described the process by which these polystrate trees were created as:
"The sequence of diagrams on the following page, shows how
a lycopod tree at Joggins was gradually preserved. The bottom
of each stump you see and any preserved roots are commonly
surrounded by shale, and this is overlain by several feet of
sandstone, which surrounds the lower part of the trunk. We
know that shale is formed when mud becomes rock under
pressure and that sandstone was originally sand.
So the sequence of sedimentary rocks we find around the
base of the fossil trees at Joggins suggests that mud was
slowly deposited in the flood plain, permitting trees to become
established and grow to maturity (A). Then, when the river
burst its banks after a heavy rainfall, it brought in coarser
sediment from the river channel which surrounded the tree
and killed it. Later, the top of the tree was blown over by
wind, leaving only a hollow stump (B). The inner tissues of the
stump continued to rot as sediment accumulated around the
trunk over the years (C). After the interior rotted and the
upper part of the tree was removed, sediment accumulated
until it reached the rim of the trunk, spilled into its interior
and rapidly filled it (D). It was at this stage that the hollow
stumps acted as traps for unwary reptiles and amphibians.
The bark of the tree was slowly converted to coal, which
explains why the tree stumps are now surrounded by a thin
cylinder of coal. The coaly layer, about 1 cm thick, is all that
is left of the bark around the base of the fossilized tree stump
shown in the photograph below."
This process is illustrated at:
http://museum.gov.ns.ca/places/joggins/tree.htm
References Cited:
Coffin, Harold, Origin by Design, 1993, Hagerstown,
Maryland Review and Herald Hagerstown, Maryland,
pp. 117-133.
Davies J. S., and Gibling, M. R., 2003, Architecture of
coastal and alluvial deposits in an extensional basin:
the Carboniferous Joggins Formation of eastern
Canada. Sedimentology. vol. 50, pp. 415-439.
Falcon-Lang, H. J. (1999) Fire ecology of a Late
Carboniferous floodplain, Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Journal of the Geological Society of London. vol. 156,
pp. 137-148.
Falcon-Lang, H. J. (2000) Fire ecology of the
Carboniferous tropical zone. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. vol. 164,
pp. 339-355.
Falcon-Lang, H. J. (2001) Fire ecology of a Late
Carboniferous floodplain, Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Atlantic Geology. Vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 109-110.
Falcon-Lang, H. J. (2003) Response of Late
Carboniferous tropical vegetation to transgressive-
regressive rhythms at Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Journal of the Geological Society of London,
July 2003, Vol. 160, no. 4, pp. 643-648
Ferguson, L., 1970, Sedimentary evidence for the
Allochthonous origin of Stigmaria, Carboniferous,
Nova Scotia: Discussion. Geological Society of
America Bulletin. vol. 81, pp.2531-2534.
Ferguson, L., 1988. The Fossil Cliffs of Joggins,
Peeper Books, Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova
Scotia. 48 pp.
Gastaldo, Robert A., 1999, Debates on autochthonous
and allochthonous origin of coal; empirical science
versus the diluvialists. In Kelley, Patricia H., Bryan,
Jonathan R., and Hansen, Thor A, eds., pp. 135-167,
The evolution-creation controversy; II, Perspectives
on science, religion, and geological education.
Paleontological Society Papers, Vol. 5. The
Paleontological Society. Lawrence, Kansas.
Gastaldo, Robert A., 1983, In situ Carboniferous
arborescent lycopods; a case against floating
arborescent lycopod peat mats. Geological Society
of America. Abstracts with Programs. vol. 15, no. 2,
p. 50
Gibling, M. R., 1987. A classic Carboniferous section;
Joggins, Nova Scotia. Geological Society of America
Centennial Field Guide - Northeastern Section. vol. 5,
pp. 409-414.
Heckel, P. H., Gibling, M. R.,and King, N.R., 1998,
Stratigraphic model for glacial-eustatic Pennsylvanian
cyclothems in highstand nearshore detrital regimes.
Journal of Geology.vol. 106, pp. 373-383.
Morris, J. D., 1999, Polystrate Trees and Coal Seams
of Joggins Fossil Cliffs. Impact no. 316, Institute for
Creation Research, Santee, California (October 1999)
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
Rupke, N. A., 1969, Sedimentary evidence for the
allochthonous origin of Stigmaria, Carboniferous,
Nova Scotia: Geological Society of America
Bulletin. vol. 80, pp. 2109-2114.
Rupke, N. A., 1973, Prolegomena to a Study of
Cataclysmal Sedimentation. In Walter E. Lammerts,
ed., pp. 141-179, Why Not Creation. Presbyterian
and Reformed, Nutley, N.J.
Some Additional URLS
THE FOSSIL CLIFFS OF JOGGINS
Laing Ferguson, Mount Allison University, Sackville, N.B.
Home | Science | University of Waterloo
The Joggins Fossil Cliffs
http://museum.gov.ns.ca/places/joggins/joggins.htm
http://museum.gov.ns.ca/places/joggins/tree.htm
STOP 2 - JOGGINS FOSSIL CLIFFS
http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/english/VT/ns/cumberland/2/
Coal-Age Reptiles
Learn and Explore - Canadian Museum of Nature
THE CLASSIC PENNSYLVANIAN LOCALITY OF JOGGINS, NOVA SCOTIA:
PALEOECOLOGY OF A DISTURBANCE-PRONE WETLAND ECOSYSTEM
http://gsa.confex.com/...2AM/finalprogram/abstract_38839.htm
DRYLAND VEGETATION IN THE PALEOZOIC: THE PENNSYLVANIAN
RECORD FROM JOGGINS, NOVA SCOTIA
http://gsa.confex.com/...3NE/finalprogram/abstract_50970.htm
LATE CARBONIFEROUS PLANT ECOLOGY ACROSS AN ALLUVIAL
PLAIN TO COASTAL PLAIN TRANSECT, JOGGINS, NOVA SCOTIA
http://gsa.confex.com/...01AM/finalprogram/abstract_8811.htm
SEDIMENTOLOGY AND FOSSIL BIOTA OF A PENNSYLVANIAN
WATERHOLE DEPOSIT IN A DRYLAND ALLUVIAL PLAIN
SETTING, JOGGINS, NOVA SCOTIA
http://gsa.confex.com/...2AM/finalprogram/abstract_41390.htm
Status Report on the Scientific Case for Designation of Joggins
as a World Heritage Site.
File Not Found | novascotia.ca.
The Joggins Fossil Cliffs
http://museum.gov.ns.ca/fossils/sites/joggins/index.htm
FOSSILS IN NOVA SCOTIA
404 Not Found
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 02-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JonF, posted 01-26-2004 10:09 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coragyps, posted 02-01-2004 11:50 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 02-01-2004 12:45 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 12 of 190 (84320)
02-07-2004 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Soracilla
02-06-2004 5:27 PM


Soracill commented:
...text deleted...
"Two, the polystrate tree rebuttals were mostly
composed of saying that Evolutionists in our
current age do not believe in uniformitarianism,,,,"
The polystrate tree "rebuttals", actually explanations instead of real rebuttals, said absolutely nothing about "Evolutionists" not believing in uniformitarianism. These interpretations, i.e. messages 4 and 7 of this thread, are excellent examples of the use of uniformitarianism to interpret the geologic record. The modern processes described in the rebuttals, i.e. the episodic accumulation of fluvial and deltaic sediments in a gradually subsiding coastal plain, as in case of the Joggins polystrate trees, along within sea level rise, coastal subsidence, the deposition of layers of sediments by major floods, and the deposition of a layer sediment by a lahar are all events that have been observed by geologists on modern flood or coastal plains. Using these modern processes and the characteristics of the sediments that they created to explain the formation of polystrate trees and the sediments enclosing them are excellent examples of how uniformitarianism is used to interpret the rock record.
I am quite baffled and amazed how anyone can state the so-called "polystrate tree rebuttals" were "composed of saying that Evolutionists in our current age do not believe in uniformitarianism" when uniformitarianism is an integral part of these rebuttals / explanations. In fact, the so-called "polystrate tree rebuttals" are clear examples of how uniformitarianism can be used to interpret how polystrate trees are formed contrary to what Mr. Soracill stated above.
Also, I am quite puzzled why Mr. Soracill talks about "Evolutionists" in this context. In a discussion about the origin of polystrate fossils, whether a person accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory is completely irrelevant. How polystrate fossils form has nothing to do with evolution, rather it a matter of sedimentology, pedology, stratigraphy, and other disciplines that can be independent of evolutionary theory. For example, an Old Earth creationist can be quite comfortable with the conventional explanation of how polystrate fossils formed and, still not accept evolution as a valid scientific theory.
Soracill also stated:
"and such trees can be created by the earth
quickly moving over a tree (by volcanic rock
moved by the eruption, sand dunes moving,
or other explanations). But one thing bothers
me: if such a quick movement of the land
happened and the tree was fossilized in that,
it still does not account for the different
layers the tree goes through."
First, the fossilization of the polystrate trees, or any other polystrate fossil, occurred after it was completely buried. During the time that polystrate trees were buried, they were still wood. It was only after burial that compression, coalificatiom, petrification, or other fossilization processes took place.
Second, in case of the volcanic deposits, each mudflow doesn't represent a volcanic eruption. Only the first, bottommost layer often represents a single eruption, as in case of Mt. St Helens, this mudflow was created when the eruption melted snow capping the volcano's summit. The additional layers that bury polystrate trees, found in volcanic sediments, represent later mudflows created by major rainstorms unrelated to the initial volcanic eruption. These later layers were deposited by mudflows created by the erosion of abundant loose volcanic material off of the volcanic summit. So within a period of a few years, multiple layers of volcanic sediments repeatedly enclosed, eventually bury, and preserved the trees within floodplains. After a few years, all of the loose material is either eroded off and the growth of vegetation on the volcano prevents any further erosion from forming mudflows that deposit layers. Then a hundred to a thousand years later, the volcano erupts and starts the process over again. Thus, every hundred to thousand years, multiples layers of volcanic sediments accumulate over a period of a decade or so, which often contain polystrate trees. In the time between each eruption, a soil develops in the uppermost layer before it is buried by mudflows from the next eruption. This process goes on and on as long as the volcano is, or line of volcanoes are, active. Over a long period of time, if there is regional subsidence, a thick sequence of volcanic sediments, as found in the Petrified Forest of Yellowstone accumulates. This is a classic example of a uniformitarianism explanation where processes that can be observed to happen in the present in Central America Mt. St. Helens, Philippines, and numerous other volcanic terrains, are used to interpret ancient deposits found in the geologic record.
Finally, in case of an alluvial or deltaic plain, each layer, enclosing a polystrate tree, represents individual, major flood events. As in case of the Atchafayala River, it starts with a backswamp along a minor bayou covered with trees far from the main river channel. At that point, because of regional subsidence and sea level rise, the valley is filling in at the rate of only a foot or so per thousand years. Then, the main river or deltaic distributary channel changes it course by occupying the former placid bayou. Immediately, each year, the annual river flood overflows the channel and dumps sediments across the former backswamp rapidly burying these trees with a layer for each major flood. The accumulation of sediment continues until the natural levees are high enough they are no longer flooded at regular intervals. At that point, the floodwater and sediment exits the river through breaks in the natural levees and build large delta-like features, called splays, over the adjacent backswamp. As thee splays built away from the river channel, more trees are buried. Eventually, the river builds a ridge that lies in elevation above the surrounding backswamp. At that time, the rates of accumulation within the floodplain are such that trees are no longer buried upright. Eventually, once every 1,000 to 2,000 years, the channel of river will shift into the backswamp, which now lies at a lower elevation and establish a new course. At that time, the rapid building of natural levees and splays along its new course will bury more trees upright and create a new set of polystrate trees along its new course. As long as the coastal plain over which a river flows continues to subside, its channel will continue to switch back and forth and deposit sediments and create new polystrate trees whenever it changes its course. The same thing will happen as delta periodically shift their courses and areas where they depositing sediments. This is a uniformitarianism explanation, in which river and deltaic processes observed in modern river and delta plains and the characteristics of the bedding, structure, and texture of the sediments that they produce can be used to interpret ancient strata found in the rock record.
Mr. Soracill further stated:
"For if the layers are divided because they are
marks of millions of years before, why would a
fossilized tree be polystrate if it fossilized in the
\same layer of earth that covered it?"
The fact of the matter is that layers are neither divided nor recognized because are "they are marks of millions of years before". Layers are simply defined by physical break of some sort separating a layer from the layer above and below it that can be observed in field. The amount of time represented by these breaks vary greatly, i.e. from two days, two months, two years, two thousand years, two hundred thousand years, two million years, to even more. As discussed above, it possibly for a polystrate tree to be buried within multiple layers of sediments, each deposited by single brief event followed by a longer period of nondeposition, i.e. two weeks, two months, two years, and so forth, before the next event adds another layer around the tree. Then, after those layers accumulate deep enough to bury the tree, the accumulation of layers ceased for a few thousand years before another set of layers accumulate. Of course, the break representing the few thousand years of nondeposition will be associated with a soil, when buried would become a paleosols (buried / fossil soil). The amount of time represented by any individual break between beds can vary from days to millions of years.
If a person reads the citations cited in my previous posts in this thread, they will find that breaks that are either major erosional unconformities or associated with fossil soils (paleosols) occur throughout the strata containing the polystrate trees at Joggins. The layers containing polystrate fossils are clearly periods of very rapid deposition followed by periods of nondeposition, as evidenced by fossil soils (paleosols), and major periods of erosion, as evidenced by unconformities consisting of valleys incised into underlying deposits and later refilled by renewed sedimentation. In case of the Joggins strata, a vast amount of time is represented by breaks associated with formation of paleosols and incised valleys.
(NOTE: An example of a cross-section of an incised valley can be found in "Fig. 6. Sequence stratigraphic model for the Tonganoxie paleovalley" at:
http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/Current/1998/buatois/buatois5.html
http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/Current/1998/buatois/GIFS/Fig6.GIF
How this incised valley was created by changes in sea level is illustrated in Figures 30 through 32 at:
http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/Current/1998/buatois/buatois10.html
Other figures in the "IFV Workshop" at:
http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/...VF2000/watney-ivf/tocnav640.html )
Mr. Soracill further stated:
"It seems to me that if a tree became fossilized,
regardless of how, it would remain in one layer,
the one in which it fossilized."
This simply is not true. If a series of events, which are closely spaced in time from days to months to years, each deposit a layer around a single upright tree, it can become encased in multiple layers of sediments. This is what was directly observed to happened over the space of 2 to 3 years at Mt. Pinatubo, Philippines, with telephone poles, houses, and nearby trees as discussed in previous posts. This also what happened to an upright tree found in the natural levees of the Atchafalaya River over about 200 years as discussed in a previous post. If multiple events each deposit a layer of sediment around a standing tree over a short period of time a series of layers will accumulate around a tree. Such a tree buried by multiple, individual layers, by definition, is a polystrate tree. Once buried, it will, with time, become fossilized and become a polystrate tree. There is simply no reason to argue that a tree should remain or become fossilized just in one layer when theoretical models and **modern examples,** demonstrate, as an absolute fact, that trees can be buried by multiple layers of sediments by either nromal (noncatastrophic) fluvial or volcanic processes and eventually become fossilized.
Mr. Soracill further stated:
"But we don't see that; the trees go through
layers that represent millions of years, and
I cannot possibly see how that is possible by
your view of the ages of the layers in the
earth."
As conventional geologists already know, the layers encasing a polystrate tree **don't** represent "millions of years" as Mr. Soracill, like many Young Earth creationists, mistakenly and falsely claim that conventional geologist argue. The set of layers containing a polystrate tree represents only a few years to a couple of hundred years of deposition. However, after that period of rapid deposition, as evidenced by fossil (buried) soil, the accumulation of sediments stops for hundreds to thousands of years, before sediment accumulation begin again for another couple of hundred of years and then stops again to resume later. If sea level falls and the river cut down into its floodplain, then sedimentation might stop for hundreds of thousands of years until sea level rises and the river fills in the valley and is able wander back and forth across the coastal plain again.
Thus, there is only a very brief period of rapid deposition, during which polystrate trees can form that alternate with very long periods of slow deposition, nondeposition, and, erosion. The vast amount of time in any sequence of fluvial and deltaic strata is represented by very long periods of either nondeposition or very slow deposition. Within any thickness of fluvial or deltaic sediments, the vast majority of time is found within major breaks separating **sets of layers** with not every break representing a long period of time. If a person has good outcrops to look at, they will find that these breaks are associated with well-developed fossil soils; major erosional unconformities, i.e. incised valleys; or some combination of these.
Mr. Soracill finally stated:
"Also I'd like to say that I was never
trying to prove that the Flood happened
by appealing to polystrate trees, just
that they show that the layers cannot
represent ages millions of years long."
The fact of the matter is that conventional geologists already know, and have known for many, many years, that the **specific layers** enclosing polystrate trees didn't accumulate over millions of years. Conventional geologists already agree with Mr. Soracill that the set of layers **surrounding a polystrate tree fossil** accumulated relatively rapidly within a period of years to a couple of centuries. Here, Mr. Soracill is trying to "prove" an idea that has already been accepted by conventional geologists, as a matter of common sense. If he would read the articles about the Joggins polystrate fossils cited in previous articles, he would find that there is no disagreement with him on this point by conventional geologists and paleontologists. The issue, which Mr. Soracill is trying to address, exists only in the imagination of Young Earth creationists. The fact that the Young Earth creationists, from whom Mr. Soracill obtained such misinformation, make this claim only showed how very little, if anything at all, these people actually understand how conventional geologists interpret the origin of polystrate fossils.
If a person looks above and below the set of layers containing the polystrate trees, they will find breaks associated with fossil soils (paleoesols) representing hundreds to hundreds of thousands of years nondeposition. Also, they will find erosional unconformities, such as incised valleys, which represent the long periods of time during which erosion and nondeposition occurred within the flood or deltaic plain. Also, within fluvial and deltaic sediments, there are thick layers of backswamp and interdistributary clays, which don't contain polystrate trees. These sediments also represent long periods of time during which sediments very slowly accumulated. These strata don't contain polystrate fossils because they accumulated over period of time. Although rapid deposition of a set of layers, resulting in the formation of polystarte trees, might have occurred within a flood or deltaic plain, either very slow, no deposition, or even erosion of sediments occurred for even vaster amounts of time. In fact, the vast majority of time lies within the breaks associated with fossil soils and unconformities. For good examples of fossil soils (paleosols) found in ancient floodplain deposits, a person can read:
Retallack, G.J., 1983, Late Eocene and Oligocene
paleosols from Badlands National Park, South Dakota.
Geological Society of America Special Paper no, 193,
82 pp.
Kraus, M. J., 1997, Early Eocene alluvial paleosols:
pedogenic development, stratigraphic relationships,
and paleosol/landscape associations: Palaeogeography,
Palaeoeclimatology, Palaeoecology. vol. 129,
pp. 387-406.
Kraus, M. J., 1999., Paleosols in clastic sedimentary
rocks. their geologic applications. Earth-Science
Reviews, vol. 47, pp. 41-70.
Kraus, M. J., and Gwinn, B. M., 1997, Controls on
the development of early Eocene avulsion deposits and
floodplain paleosols, Willwood Formation, Bighorn
Basin. Sedimentary Geology. vol. 114, pp. 33-54
Kraus, M. J., and Aslan, A., 1999, Paleosol sequences
in floodplain environments: a hierarchical approach,
In: Thiry, M., ed., Palaeoweathering, Palaeosurfaces
and Related Continental Deposits, International
Association of Sedimentologists, Special
Publication. 27, p. 303-321.
McCarthy, P. J., Martini, I. P. and Leckie, D. A., 1997,
Anatomy and evolution of a Lower Cretaceous alluvial
plain: sedimentology and paleosols in the upper Blairmore
Group, southwestern Alberta, Canada. Sedimentology,
vo. 44, pp. 197-220.
Retallack, G.J., 2001, Soils of the Past. Blackwell
Science Inc; 2nd edition (February 15, 2001)
IIS 10.0 Detailed Error - 404.0 - Not Found
One last matter is that polystrate fossils are actually relatively rare. They have not been found within the vast majority of fluvial and deltaic deposits that have been described in detail. Thus, the conditions allowing for their formation aren't as common as Young Earth creationists pretend them to be. For example, the strata containing the vertebrate fossils in Badlands National Park are fluvial in nature and well explored. Yet, not one single polystrate fossil has been found within them. The rarity of polystrate fossils indicates that very special conditions are needed to create and preserve them. Thus, they represent depositional environments that can't be considered either typical or representative as falsely presumed by Young Earth creationists in their arguments.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 02-08-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Soracilla, posted 02-06-2004 5:27 PM Soracilla has not replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 21 of 190 (152630)
10-24-2004 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by RandyB
10-22-2004 12:14 PM


Re: Polystrate Fossils of Joggins
"I have personally looked into the fossil trees of Joggins,
Nova Scotia and came to the conclusion that most likely NONE
of the upright trees in all of this 14,000 feet of strata
are in situ -- meaning that it seems quite likely that they
were entombed in this strata as a result of a great flood,
such as what we read about in the book of Genesis. For those
who want to know more about why (or how) I came to this
conclusion, go to Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age and click on the
Polystrate Fossil Trees link."
Hwat "Randy S." refers to above is "The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia: A Review of the Literature", Parts 1 and 2, by Randy S. Berg. It can be found at:
The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth Age
and
The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth Age
Far from proving anything about "most likely NONE of the upright trees in all of
this 14,000 feet of strata are in situ", this article is an excellent example of the sloppy, antiquated, alleged "research" done by Young Earth creationists and how deaf, dumb, and blind they can be to evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs. If a person looks at the "review" by Randy S. Berg, they find that it was focused almost entirely on research published by Dawson and Lyell in the 1840s, 1850s, and 1860s about 140 to 160 years ago with a few "token" citations of modern papers published mentioned. In case of the few relatively token modern papers discussed in this "review", the evidence from them was cited and discussed out-of-context in a most misleading fashion. The antiquity of the papers focused on is a fatal problem, as pioneering as Dawson's and Lyell's work was, it has been long since superceded by numerous other papers. The so-called "review" by Mr. Berg completely ignored these papers and their far more detailed descriptions and interpretations of the lithology, sedimentary structures, paleontology, and innumerable ***fossil soils*** found in the strata exposed at Joggins. Relative to these modern studies, the descriptions of the strata at Joggins given in Dawson's and Lyell's are quite vague and overlook many important details to the point, that they now have little, if any, scientific value and are only of historical interest. Similarly, the figures presented by them would be considered far too vague and diagrammatic to be of any use in any modern discussion of the geology of the Joggins sequence. In short, the so-review by Berg, in part, is scientifically bankrupt in that it focuses almost entirely on research that has been superceded by more detailed studies, which the review almost completely ignores and completely refutes the arguments it makes. Berg's paper is more honestly called "The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia: A Review of the 19th Century Literature (with a Some Token 20th Century Citations Thrown in to Present a False Sense of Completeness)". (Also in the 20th Century citations, papers by either Young Earth creationists, i.e. Coffin, Rupke, Helder, Morris, and Austin, are cited disproportionally more than conventional geologists in respect to the actual number of their published papers about Joggins.)
For example, Davies & Gibling (2003), in their detailed study of the section of strata exposed in cliffs at Joggins, Nova Scotia, found that sedimentary strata consist of distinctive sedimentary facies, undescribed and unrecognized by either Dawson or Lyell in their pioneering, but now antiquated studies. In addition, these distinctive facies occur in repetitive cycles called "rhythms", which were also unrecognized by either Dawson or Lyell in their research. As summarized by Falcon-Lang (2004), Davies & Gibling (2003) found that the:
"Joggins Formation facies associations are
organized into eight sedimentary rhythms in the studied
section (Fig. 2). Rhythms 1 and 5-8 are 25-80 m thick,
and consist of retrogradational poorly drained coastal
plain units overlain by brackish open water units,
capped by progradational poorly drained coastal plain
units. Rhythms 2-4 are 70 m, 30 m and 210 m thick,
respectively, and comprise a very similar succession
differing only in the additional occurrence of multiple
intercalated partially drained and well-drained alluvial
plain units above the progradational coastal plain unit
and below the retrogradational coastal plain unit of the
following rhythm (progradational coastal plain deposits
are suppressed in rhythm 3)."
As demonstrated by Davies & Gibling (2003), it fits all of the data to interpret these sedimentary facies in terms of sediment accumulating within a coastal plain experiencing fault-induced subsidence and effected by sea level rising and falling by 75 meters during glacial-interglacial cycles. Episodes of faulting would cause rapid flooding of the coastal plain resulting in either poorly drained floodplains or large brackish water bays. Later filling of either the poorly drained floodplains or open bays by peat mires, overbank flooding, and delta would later built up the coastal plain to well-drained alluvial plain. Later fault-related subsidence would start the cycle over again with the extent of subsidence moderated by contemporaneous glacial - interglacial sea level changes (Falcon-Lang 2003, 2004). The cyclic repetition of these facies, as documented by Davies & Gibling (2003), is perfectly consistent with this model. The same cyclic model, including the many fossil soils (paleosols), subaerially / pedogenically weathered sediments, and entrenched valleys, described in this and earlier papers, are impossible to explain using deposition by a single Noachian Flood.
Similarly, Falcon-Lang (2003) demonstrated that in addition to a cyclic repetition of sedimentery facies, there was a cyclic repetition of very different fossil plants unrecognized and undescribed by Dawson and Lyell. Falcon-Lang (2004) found that each of the distinctive sedimentary facies is consistently associated with a specific and distinctive assemblage of fossil plants. As individual facies repeat themselves in cycles in the section of rocks exposed in the Joggins sea cliffs, the assemblage of fossil plants repeat themselves. Falcon-Lang (2003) demonstrated cyclic changes in the environment of a coastal plain as a result of glacial-interglacial sea level fluctuations within a subsiding basin explains not only the repetition of sedimentary facies, but also the observed repetition of fossil plants. A Young earth creationist is stuck with how can the Noachian Flood can precisely sort plants according to type that they always match each other and the specific sedimentary facies, in which they are found, and repeat cyclic manner throughout the outcrop at Joggins.
For additional comments on problems with Young Earth creationist interpretations of the outcrops at Joggins, Nova Scotia, a person should read:
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
If an interested lurker wants to examine something more recent than the 140 to 160-year old antiquated research, on which Mr. Berg's "review" narrowly focuses, they can read through:
Calder, J. H., Gibling, M. R., Scott, A. C., Davies, S. J.,
and Hebert, B.L. In press. A fossil lycopsid forest succession
in the classic Joggins section of Nova Scotia: paleoecology
of a disturbance-prone Pennsylvanian wetland. In Wetlands
through time. Edited by S. Greb and W.A. DiMichele. Special
Paper in press, Geological Society of America, Boulder,
Colorado.
Davies, S. J. and Gibling, M. R., 2003, Architecture of
coastal and alluvial deposits in an extensional basin: the
Carboniferous Joggins Formation of Eastern Canada.
Sedimentology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 415-439.
Falcon-Lang, H. J., 2003, Response of Late Carboniferous
tropical vegetation to transgessive-regressive rhythms,
Joggins, Nova Scotia. Journal of the Geological Society
of London. vol. 160, no. 4, pp. 643-648.
Falcon-Lang, H. J., 2003, Late Carboniferous dryland
tropical vegetation, in a dryland alluvial-plain setting,
Joggins, Nova Scotia, Canada. Palaios, vol. 18, no. 3,
pp. 197-211.
Falcon-Lang, H. J. 2004a, Pennsylvanian tropical rain
forests responded to glacial-interglacial climate rhythms.
Geology vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 689-692.
Falcon-Lang, H. J., and Bashforth, A. R., 2004,
Pennsylvanian uplands were forested by giant
cordaitalean trees. Geology. vol. 32, no.5, pp. 417-420.
Falcon-Lang, H. J., and Calder, J. H., 2004,b, UNESCO
World Heritage and the Joggins cliffs of Nova Scotia.
Geology Today. vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 135-143.
Falcon-Lang, H. J., Gibling, M. R., Calder, J. H., 2004.
An early Pennsylvanian waterhole deposit and its fossil
biota in a dryland alluvial plain setting, Joggins, Nova
Scotia. Journal of the Geological Society of London. vol.
161, no.2, pp. 209-222.
Falcon-Lang, H. J., Rygel, M. C., Gibling, M. R., Calder,
J.H. & Davies, S. 2004. A dance to the rhythym of time.
Geoscientist. vol.14, no. 4, pp.5-6, 8-9.
Rygel., M. C., Gibling, R.M., and Calder, J. H., 2004,
Vegetation-induced sedimentary structures from fossil
forests in the Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation, Nova
Scotia. Sedimentology. vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 531-552
In these papers, the interested lurker will find an abundance of well-documented evidence, which utterly refutes what "Randy S." has to say in his post and what Mr. Berg stated in his so-called "review". If nothing else, the new observations, data, and interpretations presented by other older publications, not discussed by Mr. Berg and in the above and other older papers, have rendered Mr. Berg's alleged "review" completely, scientifically obsolete and worthless.
Another example of how the so-called "review" of Mr. Berg can be blind to contradictory evidence, is shown in footnote no. 9 of Berg's so-called "review". This footnote stated:
"Another place where large tree stumps are preserved without
their roots is Axel Heiberg Island in Northern Canada."
Conventional geologists would consider this a remarkably ill-informed statement because both popular and scientific publications, it is obvious anyone, except the vision impaired, can find pictures of the large tree stumps that have been found at Axel Heiberg Island. For example, in both Basinger (1987) and Lemonick (1986), there is an undeniable picture of one of the scientists studying the Axel Heiberg Island forests standing on the very tree roots that Young Earth creationists claim don't exist. These and other pictures of these roots, documented fossil soils (paleosols), and other evidence presented in scientific publications, clearly show that the subfossil trees found at Axel Heiberg Island are, beyond any shadow of a doubt are rooted in place.
The inability of Young Earth creationists to observe rooted trees that quite clearly exist at the Axel Heiberg Island and in the Joggin, Nova Scotia, sea cliffs is a remarkable example of how people are so blinded by their preconceptions that they are totally deaf, dumb, and blind to reality. It is one of many reasons why convential geologists regards much of incredibly bad science that Young Earth creationists publish as alleged "research" with disdain and much humor.
Randy S. continued:
I also, while studying this, came across compelling evidence
that this strata is quite young (probably less than 10,000
years old). This is because of the organic material that is
still present in some of the fossilized logs and unfossilized
shells."
Neither the nature the organic matter in the fossilized logs nor so-called "unfossilized" shells provides any evidence of this strata being less than 10,000 years old. The nature of the organic matter and the shells in the Joggins outcrops are completely consistent with them being about 310 millions of years old.
Randy S. continued:
"In addition, I came across very strong evidence that these
deposits were not the result of "rivers" that overflowed
their banks, but rather for marine influences."
In Mr. Berg's paper given above, this conclusion is based by very selective, out-of-context portray of the evidence and a gross ignorance of basic principles of sedimentology. If a person looks at the few recent references cited by and those ignored by Mr. Berg in his so-called "review", they will find that the unquestionable marine fossils, i.e. the ostracods and agglutinated foraminfera discussed by Tibert (1999a, 1999b) and others, are limited to specific intervals. As well-documented in literature published in the 140 to 160 years since the articles published by Dawson and Lyell, the strata exposed within the at Joggins, Nova Scotia, accumulated within a coastal plain lying within a tectonically active basin subject to periodic fault-subsidence. The degree of subsidence was moderated by glacial - interglacial sea level changes on the order of 75 meters. As a result, tectonic subsidence of the basin during interglacial high stands of sea level would have periodically inundated, the Joggins area, as in many coastal plains, with marine waters. Once sea level had stabilized, thin beds of marine sediments would have accumulated until the shallow nearshore zone was filled in by deltas and built up as alluvial plains by the rivers supplying the deltas. Within the Mississippi Delta and Louisiana coastal plain and continental shelf, a person finds similar cyclic interplayering of marine, deltaic, and river deposits. The interlayering of these deposits, as in the Joggins sea cliffs, simply reflects the interplay between regional subsidence and glacial-interglacial sea level resulting in the back and forth movement of the shoreline over time. The presence of either marine of brackish-water fossil within the Joggin strata requires neither a global flood as an explanation nor is any evidence of it.
As far as tidal deposits and brackish water sediments and shells, a person can find such sediments interlayered with the fluvial and deltaic deposits beneath many a modern coastal plain just as they are found within the Joggins outcrops. Brackish and tidal water deposits often fill bays that extend long distances into coastal plains comprised of alluvial deposits. In the case of bays formed by the flooding of a valley created by the entrenchment of a river, these sediments would directly overlie fluvial deposits. If sea level were remain stable for a long enough period of time, alluvial deposits would eventually bury these tidal or brackish water sediments creating interlayered deposits similar to those found in the Joggins outcrops. Furthermore, brackish water and tidal strata also are associated with deltas. If "Randy S." was to go to the Mississippi River Delta, he would find that large parts of its delta plain, the interdistribuary areas, consist of brackish water marsh and bays. In this and many other deltas, brackish water sediments and shells are a typical part of the sediments, which accumulate in association with their peats. Similarly, there are many tide-dominated deltas in the world, in these deltas tidal sediments and fossils are an integral part of their deltaic sediments. Therefore, there is no need to invoke a Global Flood to explain the presence of tidal deposits and organisms within deposits of a deltaic /coastal plain, as found at Joggins, as they are often a typical part of them. This is all basic, beginning geologic knowledge, of which anyone, who is unaware of this, is woefully ignorant in their understanding of geology.
As pointed out by another geologist, who is working on an article about the Joggins polystrate fossils, the fossils found within deposits, interpreted to have been deposited within the floodplain of rivers, are all terrestrial in nature. They completely lack any fossil of either marine or brackish water origin as documented by Falcon-Lan et al. (2004) and Hebert et al. (2004). The brackish water fossils are restricted to specific intervals that have the physical characteristics of deltaic and bay sediments and the marine fossils are restricted to thin intervals, i.e. limestones, which consist of sediments having the physical characteristics of sediments deposited in nearshore environments. In the context of the physical characteristics of the sediments enclosing and the depositional cycles of which they are part of, there is nothing anomalous about the distribution of these fossils. The so-called "strong evidence" noted in Mr. Berg's "The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia: A Review of the Literature" doesn't exist. Thus, the occurrence of marine beds, brackish water fossil, and tidal deposits interbedded with fluvial and deltaic sediments proved nothing in terms of a global flood. The so-called "strong evidence" presented in the so-call "review" by Berg is readily explained by noncatastrophic sea-level change resulting from glacial-interglacial cycles and tectonic subsidence. How this happened is discussed in detail by Falcon-Lang (2003) and different papers found in Pashin and Gastaldo (2004).
References Cited:
Anderson, J. B., And Fillon, R. F., 2004, Late Quaternary
and Stratigraphy of the Gulf of Mexico Margin. SEPM special
Publication no. 79, Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
Bassinger, J. F., 1987, Our 'Tropical' Arctic. Canadian
Geographic. vol. 106, no. 6, pp. 28-37.
Brian L. Hebert and John H. Calder, 2004, On the discovery
of a unique terrestrial faunal assemblage in the classic
Pennsylvanian section at Joggins, Nova Scotia. Canadian
Journal of Earth Science. vol. 41, pp. 247-254
Davies, S. J. and Gibling, M. R., 2003, Architecture of
coastal and alluvial deposits in an extensional basin: the
Carboniferous Joggins Formation of Eastern Canada.
Sedimentology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 415-439.
Falcon-Lang, H. J., 2003, Late Carboniferous dryland
tropical vegetation, in a dryland alluvial-plain setting,
Joggins, Nova Scotia, Canada. Palaios, vol. 18, no. 3,
pp. 197-211.
Falcon-Lang, H. J., Gibling, M. R., Calder, J. H., 2004.
An early Pennsylvanian waterhole deposit and its fossil
biota in a dryland alluvial plain setting, Joggins, Nova
Scotia. Journal of the Geological Society of London. vol.
161, no.2, pp. 209-222.
Lemonick, M. D., 1986, Unearthing a Frozen Forest: Arctic
tree stumps provide a glimpse of the distant past. Time.
vol. 128, no. 12, p. 64.
Pashin, J. C., and Gastaldo, R. A., 2004, Sequence
Stratigraphy, Paleoclimate, and Tectonics of Coal-Bearing
Strata. AAPG Studies in Geology no.51, American Association
of Petroleum Geology. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Tibert, Neil E., 1999a, Ostracodes and agglutinated
Foraminifera as indicators of paleoenvironmental
change in an Early Carboniferous brackish bay, Atlantic
Canada. Palaios. vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 246-260
Tibert, Neil E., 1999b, Peat accumulation on a drowned
coastal braidplain; the Mullins Coal (Upper Carboniferous),
Sydney Basin, Nova Scotia. Sedimentary Geology. vol. 128,
no. 1-2, pp. 23-38.
I want to thank another geologist and "unindicted coconspirator" for letting me "steal some of his thunder" and use ideas and references that he might use in future popular papers on the Joggins polystarte fossils and the subfossil trees of Axel Heiberg Island.
Best Regards.
Bill
Houston, Texas
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 10-24-2004 11:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RandyB, posted 10-22-2004 12:14 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RandyB, posted 10-25-2004 11:44 AM Bill Birkeland has replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 22 of 190 (152635)
10-25-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by RandyB
10-22-2004 11:55 PM


Polystrate Whale
Randy S wrote:
"However, with that said, after reading over
my paper, if you have any specific comments
that you want to point out -- especially if you
find anything that I say that is inaccurate, then
please to contact me directly..."
There are so many factual errors it is hard to know where to begin: In terms of polystrate fossils, the story about the polystrate whale consists entirely of misinformation that Young Earth, Velikovskian, and other catastrophists have been mindlessly repeating for a long time.
At Addr.com .
it is stated:
"9. A "Whale" of a Fossil: Or should we say "a fossil of a
whale?" It's true, but what is most interesting about it is
how it was buried. In 1976, workers from the Dicalite
division of Grefco inc. found the remains of a baleen
whale entombed vertically in a diatomaceous earth quarry."
"They've found fossils there before; in fact the machinery
operators have learned a good deal about them and
carefully annotate any they find with the name of the
collector, the date, and the exact place found. Each
discovery is turned over to Lawrence G. Barnes at the
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The
Whale, however, is one of the largest fossils ever collected
anywhere... (It) is standing on end ... and is being
exposed gradually as the diatomite is mined. Only the
head and a small part of the body are visible as yet.
"The modern baleen whale is 80 to 90 feet long and
has a head of similar size, indicating that the fossil may
be close to 80 feet long." 34,35""
First, the whale is not standing on end. Instead, it is tilted at an angle. Finally, the whale is tilted at an angle because the ocean floor, on which it came to rest and was buried, has been tilted at that angle by later folding. Thus, Randy's short article is utterly wrong about this fossil whale being a polystrate whale. The real story of this non-polystrate fossil whale can be found in "Whale of a Tale" at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html
Best Regards,
Bill
Houston, Texas
Operation Air Conditioner
http://www.operationac.com/
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 10-24-2004 11:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RandyB, posted 10-22-2004 11:55 PM RandyB has not replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 35 of 190 (153216)
10-27-2004 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by RandyB
10-25-2004 11:44 AM


Re: Polystrate Fossils of Joggins
>I take it that you disagree with my conclusions.
What would make you think that? :-) :-) :-)
>That's OK. I don't agree with everything I read either.
>
>I am curious though as to what you think about the
>40 foot upright tree that I uncovered?
Actually, another geologist, whom I know, has been looking into that in great detail and has inquired with the geologists, who have been studying the Joggins outcrop. In the 140-160 since Dawson (1855) wrote about the Joggins locality, none of the numerous geologists, including creationists, Coffin and Rupke, have found an upright trunk anywhere near 40 feet high. The highest one that has ever been observed by them was 5.7 meters (18.5 feet high). An upright (polystrate) rooted cypress trunk about 4 meters (12 feet) high has been found buried in historic natural levee deposits by a backhoe trench along the Atchafayala River just south of Krotz Springs near Indian Bayou. This example indicates that noncatastrophic processes are quite capable of producing polystrate trees of such height.
(NOTE: According to informed sources, the report documenting this 12-foot high, 150-year old polystrate tree is in review and will available for purchase in about 3 months, more or less).
In case of the 40-foot long tree that Dawson (1855) reported, a person has to use the common sense that God gave them and a basic understanding of the English language. The quote, which Mr. Berg has on his web page, Dawson (1855) stated:
"Let us now endeavor to form an idea of the trees of this
singular genus. Imagine a tall branchless or sparsely
branching trunk, perhaps two feet in diameter, and thirty
feet in height. (One has been traced to the length of
forty feet in the roof of the Joggins main coal-seam )." 22"
The significant words in this description are "the length of forty feet in the roof of the Joggins main coal-seam". If the 40-foot length of this tree is in the "roof of the coal seam" and of the mine, Dawson's tree has to have been laying on top of the coal bed parallel to bedding, not perpendicular to it as a polystrate tree would be. Otherwise, coal mining wouldn't have exposed its full 40-foot length. That Dawson (1855) uses the word "length" instead of "height" is also a significant clue that this fossil tree wasn't upright, but rather lying prone on its side when buried. Therefore, this 40-foot tree isn't a real polystrate given that it was found lying flat on top of a coal bed.
According Mr. Berg's web page, Lyell (1881) stated:
"Wither I went to see a forest of fossil
coal-trees, the most wonderful phenomenon,
perhaps that I have seen, so upright do the
trees stand, or so perpendicular to the
strata .... trees 25 feet high, and some
have been seen of 40 feet, piercing the
beds of sandstone and terminating downwards
in the same beds, usually coal..." 23"
In this quote, the phrase "and some have been seen of 40 feet" will give any reasonable scientist a pause. The use of the passive tense in this quote from Lyell (1881) clearly indicates that Lyell (1881) **didn't personally observe** any 40 foot high polystrate tree, but rather was told by other, unnamed parties that 40 feet high trees had been seen. Other geologists and I have learned to be skeptical of second hand accounts, otherwise called "heresy", because, like either the fish that got away or was caught and eaten by the pet dog, the size of it tends to grow with the retelling. Undocumented second hand accounts by unknown parties of unknown expertise is extremely poor evidence on which to base an argument or a theory. That this second hand of a 40 foot polystrate tree was likely in error is indicated by the fact that nobody, out of the innumerable geologists, both creationist and conventional, who have visited the Joggins outcrops has reported a similar polystrate tree and documented this sighting in print. If such 40-foot trees actually exist, they are such spectacular features that someone should have seen and reported any such polystrate tree that was exposed in the Joggins outcrops within the 140 to 160 years since Dawson and Lyell did their research. During that century and half, the tallest documented polystrate tree, except possibly for the 25-foot tall polystrate tree reported by Lyell (1881), that anyone has seen was 5.7 meter (18.5 feet) high.
At best, A person can only consider the 25-foot high tree, which Lyell (1881) clearly directly observed, at best, as having any validity. As discussed in detail by Gastaldo et al. (2004), such a height can readily be explained by either subsidence of of deltaic / coastal plain deposits associated with seismic events, the regenerative growth of lycopods, or some combination of these factors. The basin, in which the Joggins sediments accumulated was a tectonically subsiding basin, which likely would have been subject to severe earthquakes. As has happened in modern earthquakes in Alaska, the liquefaction of unconsolidated coastal plain sediments could have easily caused as much as 10 to 20 feet of subsidence. Such a large large "hole" created by such subsidence would have been quite quickly filled in by sediment dumped into it by either local rivers or tidal currents preserving any upright trees sunk within it.
Also, as Gastaldo et al. (2004) noted, the fossil plants are quite different from the modern trees a person finds in modern swamps and floodplains. At the time, the plants, which occupied the local swamps and forests, were capable, as illustrated by **photographs**, i.e. figure 5 of Galstaldo et al. (2004), were capable of regenerating themselves after being partially buried as discussed in more detail by Gastaldo (1992). As a result, the partially burial of a lycopod by several feet of sediments wouldn't necessarily have killed it. Instead, the partially buried tree would form new roots just below the new land surface and continue growing upward to its former height above the new ground surface. Later on, if this tree had been partially buried again, it would form new roots just below the new land surface and grow up again to its former height relative to the new land surface. As long as the tree had time between being partially buried, it could over several episodes of partial burial produce a polystrate tree of a considerable **apparent** height. The interested lurker can find this behavior documented in Gastaldo (1992) and Gastaldo et al. (2004). There are various ways, ignored by Mr. Berg, in which really tall polystrate trees can be created by nocatastrophic processes.
References Cited:
Dawson, John W., 1855, Acadian Geology,
p. 159; See also ref. 4 p. 188.
Gastaldo, R.A. Regenerative growth in fossil
horsetails ( Calamites ) following burial by
Alluvium. Historical Biology 6(3):203-220.
Gastaldo, R.A., Stevanovic-Walls, I., and Ware,
W. N., In Situ, Erect Forests Are Evidence for
Large-Magnitude, Coseismic Base-Level Changes
within Pennsylvanian Cyclothems of the Black
Warrior Basin, USA: in Pashin, J.C., and
Gastaldo, R.A., eds., pp. 219-238. Coal-
bearing Strata: Sequence Stratigraphy,
Paleoclimate, and Tectonics: AAPG Studies in
Geology vol. 51, American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Citation given by Mr. Berger for Lyell (1881):
"Lyell, Sir Charles, "Life of Sir Charles
Lyell," Vol. II, 1881, p. 65."
>The one that Dawson and Lyell didn't want the
>public to know about? The one that went through
>a coal seam? Or what did you think about the other
>upright tree that is shown crossing a two foot
>thick coal seam? The one that is pictured on my
>Home Page at Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age ?
[NOTE: I find it quite curious that catastrophists, of all types, always seem to think that they have an obligation to make at least one slanderous remark about either geologists or other conventional scientists covering up findings while discussing whatever they are discussing. :-) :-) :-) ]
So what? The Joggin polystrate trees do have roots and there is abundant evidence that refutes that a global flood deposited the strata at Joggins. Obviously, Mr. Berg practices the very uniformitarianism, which Young Earth creationists abhor in assuming that rates of peat accumulation in the prehistoric times must always have been the same as the rates of peat accumulation observed in modern environments. However, the types of plants and ecology of the Carboniferous swamps were quite different than modern swamps. Given these and other documented environmental differences, the rates at which peat locally accumulated very likely could have been quite different and much faster than seen in modern swamps. As a result, the fact a few, quite rare polystrate trees allegedly penetrate coals means nothing.
>Or what did you think of all those upright trees that
>I show that don't have any roots attached? Or the
>ones that Brown even admitted that didn't have roots
>attached: the ones that Dawson chose to ignore in his
>books?
Mr. Berg is taking a 140-160 year-old schematic figure, drawn by a fallible human, far too seriously. Unlike God, geologists are fallible beings, who make mistakes and oversimplify their drawing to the point of leaving out important details. Part of the problem is that some of roots weren't filled with sand or other sediment when the tree was buried. Thus, they are now preserved as carbonized compressions. These can be easily missed, if either the person looking for them doesn't know what they are looking for or if the outcrop is dirty and too dangerous to clean off. What Mr. Berg ignores is that later geologists have demonstrated, as an absolute fact, that the polystrate trees of Joggins do have roots. This later research completely renders Dawson's figures and text moot and meaningless as proof of anything, except that he over simplified his drawnings to the point of leaving out important details and it is a serious mistake to regard his research as infallible.
The absolute fact of matter is that the polystrate trees at Joggins, Nova Scotia, do indeed have roots attached to them. This is documented by descriptions and pictures in published articles concerning the polystrate trees at Joggins, including Gibling (1987), Hacquebard, (1987), and Ferguson (1988), Although I haven't visited the Joggins sea cliffs myself, I know at least **four** fellow geologists, who have visited these outcrops at Joggins, Nova Scotia. In the specimens, where their base had neither been eroded away nor concealed, they were able find roots attached them. If anything, my friends were completely astounded that people could so utterly blind as not to see the presence of such obvious features as these tree roots. Thousands of conventional geologists have visited the outcrops at Joggins, Nova Scotia, and I am yet to hear any of them having problems finding roots attached to the polystrate trees there. Curiously, only creationists, whose religious beliefs are offended by such evidence contradicting their pet ideas, seem to have had problems finding these roots.
References Cited:
Ferguson, L., 1988, The Fossil cliffs of Joggins. Nova
Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Gibling, M. R., 1987, A classic Carboniferous section:
Joggin, Nova Scotia. In D. C. Roy, ed., pp. 409-414.
Northeastern Section of the Geological Society of
America Centennial Field Guide vol. 5. Geological
Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.
Hacquebard, P. A., 1987, Notes for the October 10,
1987 Fieldtrip to the Joggins and Springhill
Coalfields of Nova Scotia. In Field Trip Guide:
Parrsboro and Joggins areas, Nova Scotia, Canada,
October 10, 1987. The American society of
Stratigraphic Palynologists, Dallas, Texas.
>Or what did you think of those Quotes that I have on my
>page titled "More Flood Evidences" that tell us that there
>must have been a Worldwide Flood?
Yes, I have seen the quotes in your "More Flood Evidences" on your website. It is one-side collection of quote mining from conventional scientists and wildy inaccurate, often fictional, material cited from Young Earth creationist books and articles. Given the distorted and largely fictional nature of its contents, it presents a one-sided and scientifically bankrupt point of view. In terms of the quote mining, the interested lurker can read:
1. The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies
and Quote Mines, Edited by John Pieretat:
Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists
2. Claim CA113: Quotes from many non-creationist
authorities show that evolutionists themselves find
many various failures of evolution.
CA113: Quote mining
Some statements, i.e. " Fossils do not form on lake bottoms today; nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea." and there being "virtually no evidence of erosion between layers" are so blatantly wrong that they stand as solid proof that the people, who made them, were functionalyl illiterate in their understanding of geology. As far as the modern formation of fossils, the interested lurker can look read "Fossil Fish", Post of the Month: September 2002 at:
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: September 2002
The web page also includes a factually-impaired, tall-tale about a polystrate whale being found in California, which is discussed in "A Whale of a Tale" by Darby South at;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html
and
"Polystrate Whale" by Bill Birkeland at:
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
As far as a global flood goes, the interested lurker can read "Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition" by Mark Isaak at:
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
>Or how about the evidence I give that goes against the
>Flooding River scenario in favor of Marine influence one
>where the ocean swept over the land? You did read that
>part of my paper didn't you? It is in Part Two. I think
>it is the Section titled: "Evidence for Marine Influences"
>or something like that.
If Mr. Berg would read what I wrote, he would find that I specifically addressed his "Evidence for Marine Influences" in my previous post at:
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
If a person actually looks at the original references, they will find that Mr. Berg has completely ignored the context of the "evidence" and other data, which completely refute his ideas. In "Evidence for Marine Influences", Mr. Berg simply doesn't understand that there is nothing unusual about finding marine, brackish, and tidal sediments and fossils inlayered with alluvial and deltaic sediments within a coastal plain deposits created during glacial - interglacial cycles as the strata were deposited. Using Mr. Berg's illogic, I can equally argue that the Mississippi Delta currently being created by the Mississippi River must have been also been deposited by a global flood. His "Evidence for Marine Influences", as I discussed in my previous post fails completely as evidence for the deposition of the strata exposed at Joggins, Nova Scotia, by a global flood of any time.
What Mr. Berg doesn't tell his readers, along many other lines of evidence that refute his submarine / global flood ideas, is that fossil soils (paleosols), which can found on dry land, have been found within the sedimentary strata at Joggins. In fact, fossil calcretes, a type of soil that formeds only on land and in arid and semiarid environments, has also been found in the sedimentary sequence to which the Joggins strata belong.
More discussion of the paleosols found within the Joggin strata can be found in a previous post, "Morris's Impact Article No. 316 On Joggins Polystrate Fossils", at:
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
The presence of calcretes within the strata, to which the Joggins strata belong, is documented beyond any shadow of a doubt in:
Tandon, S. K., and Giblking, M. R., 1994, Coal and
calcrete in Late Carboniferous cyclothems of Nova
Scotia: climate and sea-level changes linked. Geology.
vol. 22, pp. 755-758.
and
Tandon, S. K. & Gibling, M. R. 1997, Calcretes at
sequence boundaries in Upper Carboniferous
cyclothems of the Sydney Basin, Atlantic Canada.
Sedimentary Geology. vol. 112, pp. 43-67.
>Seriously Bill,
>You need to lighten up and maybe even (God Forbid) THANK ME
>for looking a little deeper than what others have done.
I have absolutely nothing to thank Mr. Berg for, except maybe for an excellent example of an analyses of these fossils that is so remarkably shallow that all of the other geologists, with whom I work, judged it to the work of a High School or Junior High School student. As far as the geology, paleontology, and taphonomy of the Joggins polystrate trees, his web site clearly shows Mr. Berg hasn't dug "deeper than what others have done" at all. He has a considerable number of papers to read. Mr, Berg is deluding himself quite terribly if he thinks he has done anything that is worth thanking him for, except maybe giving some well needed amusement to an office full of geologist stressed out by deadlines.
A list of some of the many citations published about the Joggins, Nova Scotia, outcrop and the polystrate trees it contains can be found in my previous post and in "Fossils of Nova Scotia: References by Site" at:
http://museum.gov.ns.ca/fossils/refs/site.htm
Also, the citations for a number of articles, of which just one geologist, Dr. R. M. Gibling, about the sedimentology of the strata exposed Joggins, Nova Scotia, can be found at:
http://meguma.earthsciences.dal.ca/...ibling/gibling.htm#mrp
>Perhaps it is just possible that the SAME OCEAN
>CURRENT THAT DEPOSITED THE MARINE SEDIMENTS IN
>THE COAL STRATA (also and Lepidodendrons and
>Sigillaria) in Tennesee and Kentucky and
>Pensylvania was the same event that also
>deposted the strata in Nova Scotia??? Perhaps
>even the Grand Canyon as well.
The fact of the matter is that there is now enough data, observations, and evidence to completely and utterly refute the above idea and consign it the same realm of antiquated and long disproved concepts such as the principles of the Flat Earth Society, Geocentricism, and phlogiston
>I also predict that in the next few years that there
>will be other papers published that support the same
>conclusions that I have come to.
I predict from past attempts that these papers will consist of arguments, logic, and research so badly flawed to the point of being regarded by conventional geologists as boring catastrophist or religious fiction. Given the intense desire of people to support specific, very narrow-minded interpretations of religious text, there will always be people willing write apologetics, in which science and logic are twisted, misrepresented, and, even falsified to "prove" what they believe to be one and only "Truth". However, I suspect that none of these publications will proved to be anything more than extremely boring fiction. However, I am always open to being surprised by some unexpectedly brilliant article.
>In fact, it is my hope that Geology students will
>look into this again for themselves and even
>challenge their Professors (especially if it turns
>out -- as I strongly suspect -- that they are wrong).
>
>I also hope that is OK with you. Or is there only
>one conclusion that you will accept?
>
>Good day, and Bless you all for searching out the truth.
It is not a matter of accepting one specific "conclusion". The matter is that truth cannot be found using falsehoods about fossil polystrate trees lacking roots, fictional stories about polystrate whales in California, and an utter ignorance of what other people, who have examined the outcrops at Joggins, have written and illustrated about them. If Mr. Berg is seeking the truth, I know he is not going to find it with the lies, falsehoods, and fiction that he mistakes for knowledge and has posted on his web site. He is not going to find the truth by discarding evidence, i.e. paleosols and incised valleys, simply because it completely refutes his pet ideas, instead of incorporating it into his models. If Mr. Berg wants to be taken seriously, he needs to incorporate into his models well documented facts, i.e. the ubiquitous presence of roots on the polystrate trees of Joggins and Axel Heiberg Island, and get beyond depending on literature that is now about a century and a half old. He needs to realize that we all current live the year 2004, not the 1860s.
Best regards,
Bill
Houston.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RandyB, posted 10-25-2004 11:44 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by roxrkool, posted 10-27-2004 1:17 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 63 by RandyB, posted 02-21-2005 10:22 AM Bill Birkeland has replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 44 of 190 (157242)
11-08-2004 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by RandyB
11-07-2004 9:18 PM


Re: You have no chance of learning
RandyB wrote:
"If God said there was a global flood, then there WAS a global
flood -- and there is also evidence of that: such as quoted
below. Whether or not you choose to accept that evidence is
up to you."
Did God tell you this personally? Or is this just your **personal** interpretation of Genesis, which is just one of many interpretations held by various Christians? There is a wide range of opinion as to whether or not the story of the Noachian Flood is to be taken literally as written in the Bible. The specific position taken on interpreting this story is matter of personal interpretation and belief. It is rather arrogant, if not a dishonest appeal to authority (God), for any one person to claim that their fallible personal interpretation of the Bible came directly from God.
RandyB quoted:
...text deleted...
"The cores were analyzed in two separate investigations, by Cesare
Emiliani of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the
University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge
University. Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity,
providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into
the Gulf of Mexico. Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of
the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600 years
ago." 1 To Emiliani, all the questions and arguments are minor
beside the single fact that a vast amount of fresh melt water
poured into the Gulf of Mexico. 'We know this,' he says, 'because
the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a
marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the
Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period
of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago... There was no
question that there was a flood and there is no question that
it was a universal flood 1.
The reference to this is:
"Warshofsky, Fred, "Noah, The Flood, the Facts," Readers Digest,
Sept. 1977, pp.132-134."
This is a popular article, whose author grossly misinterpreted the findings of these scientists. If a person goes back to the original article, they find that the data shows that the flooding was restricted only the Mississippi River. There is simply no evidence that any "universal flood" was involved.
What Randt B doesn't realize in this case, is that the antiquated research cited by Warshofsky, Emiliani et al. (1975), has been rendered obsolete in the 28 years since it was published. If a person looks at the latest research on the meltwater / freshwater events in the Gulf of Mexico, i.e. Aharon (2003), they would find that during the last 18,000 years, large floods of meltwater flowed down the Mississippi River and into the Gulf of Mexico at 13,400; 12,600; 11,900; 9,900; 9,700; and 9,100 BP. The period of time, argued by Emiliani et al. (1975) to have been a "period of flooding", in fact, was a period of complete cessation of meltwater flow down the Mississippi River between 11,900 and 9,900 BP. Thus, more recent research has disproved Emiliani et al. (1975)'s timing of meltwater floods down the Mississippi, which is used above by Warshofsky to argue for a global flood. In addition, it shows that there were many of these floods than proposed by Emiliani et al. (1975). Using Warshofsky's faulty interpretation of Emiliani et al. (1975), a person would have to admit that there had been **six**, not just one, alleged "global floods" during the last 18,000 years. If the pre-18,000 BP record from the Gulf of Mexico is considered, than the number of alleged "global floods" increases considerably.
References Cited:
Aharon, Paul, 2003, Meltwater flooding events in the Gulf of Mexico
revisited: Implications for rapid climate changes during the last
glaciation. Paleoceanography, Vol. 18, no. 4, 1079, doi: 10.1029/2002PA000840
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002PA000840.shtml
Emiliani, C., Gartner, S., Lidz, B., Eldridge, K., Elvey, D. K.,
Huang, T. C., Stipp, J. J., and Swanson, M. F., 1975,
Paleoclimatological Anaylsis of Late Quaternary Cores from
the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Science. vol.189, no.4208,
pp. 1083-1088.
RandyB quoted:
"Emiliani's findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett and
Shackleton, who concluded that there was a 'massive inpouring
of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi
River system. At the time of maximum inpouring of this water,
surface salinities were...reduced by about ten percent."1
Again Kennett and Shackleton (1975) is research that was published 29 years ago, as Warshofsky's article was published 27 years ago. In that period of time, the record in the cores, from which the data came, was found to have been greatly distorted by slow sedimentation rates and bioturbation, which made the recognition of individual flood events and their accurate dating impossible. The same problem existed in case of the cores used by Emiliani (1976).
References Cited:
Kennett, J. P. and Shackleton, N. J., 1975, Laurentide ice sheet
meltwater recorded in the Gulf of Mexico. Science. vol. 188,
pp. 147-150.
RandyB continued:
Could Worldwide Orderly = A Worldwide Flood?
"Such a hypothesis would require assumption of a highly unlikely
pattern of faunal migrations, where swarms of species of Manticoceras
are followed, everywhere at the same distance and the same time
interval, by swarms of species of Cheiloceras, the two waves
preserving their separate identities on a staggered mass migration
around the world ... without evolutionary changes and without ever
becoming mixed..."
...rest of text deleted...
In this argument, the author just shows how ill-informed he is of how interconnected the world's ocean are and how easily and quickly ocean currents transport pelagic organisms. Given the ease, by which surface currents distribute pelagic organisms, there is simply no need to invoke "mass migrations" of them to explain their global distribution. The animals didn't need to move. Rather the ocean currents did it for them. The global distribution of any pelagic organism would only take a period of several decades to a few thousand years to occur by ocean currents. Such "small" intervals of time rarely can be resolved in the geologic record. When it can be, a person finds that there are "small" differences in timing of the appearance and disappearence of species between ocean basins.
I suggest people go read "Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood" by Glenn R. Morton at:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htm
Best Regards,
Bill Birkeland
NOTE: I corrected an incorrect citation.
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 11-09-2004 02:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RandyB, posted 11-07-2004 9:18 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RandyB, posted 11-08-2004 11:36 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 47 of 190 (157629)
11-09-2004 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
11-09-2004 3:17 AM


Re: Evidence for a Worldwide Flood
>I have some questions:
>1) DID Emiliani claim to have evidence for a global flood ?
First, in interpreting both articles, a person needs to understand that the submergence of coastal plains around the world by a 120 meter rise in sea level, discussed in part by Emiliani et al. (1975) and Emiliani (1976), and the Noachian-type global flood of Young Earth creationists are two completely different subjects.
Second, No. Neither Emiliani et al. (1975) nor Emiliani (1976) made any claim as to having any evidence of a global flood as proposed by Young Earth creationists. Both articles clearly argued that the meltwater flooding, which was detected in the sediments of the Gulf of Mexico, were restricted to the Mississippi River. What was argued is that the period of meltwater flooding, down the Mississippi River and from the Laurentide Ice Sheet, was part of a period of rapid melting of global ice sheets, caps, and glaciers that caused extremely rapid rise in global sea level. Emiliani et al. (1975) speculated that this period of fast global sea level rise caused the rapid flooding of inhabited Ice Age coastal plains all over the world, as recorded in flood myths from all over the world. Specifically, Emiliani et al. (1975) stated:
"This age coincides with that the Valders readvance;
because this readvance was accompanied by a rapid
rise in sea level, it was apparently a surge, which
brought ice to lower latitudes and caused rapid melting.
We postulate the ensuing flooding of lowlying coastal
areas, many of which were inhabited by man, gave rise
to the deluge stories common many traditions."
Although Emiliani et al. (1975) and Emiliani (1976) were wrong about the timing of the meltwater floods and periods of rapid sea level rise, it is now known that there were various times during the last 18,000 years in which sea level rose quite rapidly. During one of these periods of rapid sea level rise, dry land, which became the Persian Gulf, was flooded by rising sea level over the space of several hundred years. That certainly would have gotten the attention of the people living within what is now the Persian Gulf at that time as, at times, the shoreline moved landward at the rate of over a kilometer (1.6 miles) per year (Teller 2002, Teller et al. 2000).
Specifically, Teller et al. (2000) stated:
"From 12-6 ka, postglacial sea level rise forced people
living on the flat Gulf floor to rapidly migrate to higher
areas. Rates of this transgression at times exceeded
1 km per year, notably around 12-11.5 and 9.5-8.5
ka radiocarbon years."
>2) How could he jump from local evidence to the conclusion
>that the whole world was flooded ?
Neither article made any conclusions about a Noachian-type global flood. Both articles simply argued that the Ice Age coastal plains were, at one time, rapidly flooded by rapid sea level rise as a result of the rapid melting of Ice Age ice sheets and caps. From there, both articles speculated that this flooding of inhabited Ice Age coastal plains might have been the event recorded by "deluge stories common many traditions".
References Cited:
Emiliani, C., 1976, Glacial surges and flood legends. Science.
vol. 193, no. 4259, pp. 1270-1271.
Emiliani, C., Gartner, S., Lidz, B., Eldridge, K., Elvey, D. K.,
Huang, T. C., Stipp, J. J., and Swanson, M. F., 1975,
Paleoclimatological Anaylsis of Late Quaternary Cores from
the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Science. vol.189, no.4208,
pp. 1083-1088.
Teller J. T., Glennie, K. W., Lancaster, N., Singhvi,
A. K., 2000., Noah's flood and its impact on the Persian
Gulf region. Geological Society of America Abstracts
with Program. vol. 32, no. 7, p. 276.
http://rock.geosociety.org/...absindex/annual/2000/51194.htm
Teller, J.T., 2002, Outbursts from Lake Agassiz and their
possible impact on coastal environments. Environmental
Catastrophes and Recoveries in the Holocene August 29 --
September 2, 2002, Department of Geography & Earth
Sciences, Brunel University. Uxbridge, UK.
Emuparadise 2022
Emuparadise 2022
Best Regards,
Bill Birkeland
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 11-09-2004 02:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 11-09-2004 3:17 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by CK, posted 02-01-2005 8:25 PM Bill Birkeland has replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 51 of 190 (184431)
02-10-2005 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by CK
02-01-2005 8:25 PM


Re: Bump for Bill
Charles asked:
"Bill do you any problem with me reprinting your "nuclear
strike" on Randy S Berg's paper?"
I do not have problem with you reprinting my article on Randy S
Berg's paper. You have my permission to reprint it as long as
full credit is given.
It is back to finding oil and gas for me. Hopefully, I won't end
upon another Nigerian offshore rig again for a long, long, time.
If my paryers are answered, I never have to do it again.
Best Regards,
Bill
Houston, Texas
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 02-10-2005 15:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by CK, posted 02-01-2005 8:25 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RandyB, posted 02-18-2005 11:12 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 82 of 190 (190471)
03-07-2005 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by RandyB
02-21-2005 10:22 AM


Re: Polystrate Fossils of Joggins
Dear Friends,
First, the Cultural Resource Management report documenting the modern 12-foot high polystrate tree found in buried by historic alluvium within the Atchafayala Basin south of Krotz Springs, Louisiana has been published. It is:
Godzinski, M., Smith, R., Maygarden, B., Landrum, E.,
Lorenzo, J., Yakubik, J.-K., and Weed, M. E. (2004)
Cultural Resources Investigations of Public Access Lands
in the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, Indian Bayou South
Project Area, St. Landry and St. Martin Parishes,
Louisiana. Report submitted by Earth Search, Inc., to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District,
New Orleans, Louisiana for delivery order no. 5., contract
no. DACW29-02-D-0005.
Second, the people at Evolution Education Wiki have permission to use any part of this post in their web pages pertaining to polystrate trees and link to it.
Anyway, it certainly has been a long time since I have been able to post. A lot has been written about polystrate trees while I have been away. Since it is impossible to cover it all, I will just have the hit the "high points", or "low points", as a person might judge them. :-) :-)
In message 52, Re: Bump for Bill, Randy wrote:
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
"But as far as the so-called "River Floodplain" scenario
that supposedly laid down all that stata in Nova Scotia,
even the evolutionary scientists, such as John Calder,
agree that such a scenario cannot fully explain the facts
-- as I document in my paper."
It is true that John H. Calder is an expert in the geology of the Joggins, Nova Scotia, Fossil Cliffs. However, the 1998 reference to them by Randy B, despite being only 8 years old, is now somewhat dated because of intensive research and publications by paleobotanists, i.e. H. J. Falcon-Lang, and geologists, i.e. M. C. Rygel, M. R. Gibling, J. H. Calder (himself), and others. The comments, which Randy B. posted in his article, by Calder have been substantially changed by this research. Citations for a few of the publications, which resulted from this research, can found in: 1. "PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS" at:
http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/peerreviewedpubs.htm ;
2. M. C. Rygel’s Abstracts - http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/abstracts.htm ;
3. "CURRICULUM VITAE: Howard James Falcon-Lang" -
http://meguma.earthsciences.dal.ca/.../falcon-lang/HFLCV.htm ; and
4. http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/vft/ns/joggins/references_e.php .
Randy B misinterpreted Calder’s statements in that Calder is only disagreeing with interpretations, which argued that the strata exposed at Joggins, Nova Scotia consists **solely** of sediments which accumulated within a fluvial floodplain. What Calder argued is that **in addition to floodplain deposits**, the Joggins strata also accumulated within deltaic, estuarine, bay, and other coastal plain environments.
Randy B wrote:
"Spirorbis are not freshwater creatures but rather Salt
Water, as are Echinoderms, and (almost certainly)
Naiadites as well."
In case of an extinct form of Spirorbis, Randy B., as does Coffin, ironically indulged in a extreme form of "Uniformitarism" as they both presumed that the present environmental tolerances of this extinct form of Spirorbis must be exactly the same as it modern counterparts. Of course, Spirorbis likely was not a freshwater creature. However, it is quite possible that the extinct form of Spirorbis found in the Joggins strata and in other Carboniferous coal measures was adapted to brackish environments, which would have been quite common in ancient coastal plains.
Randy B also overlooked the fact that so-called salt water can be found as both brackish and saline water **nonmarine** environments within modern deltas and coastal plains. For example, the maps of the Louisiana delta and chenier plain show large parts of Louisiana coastal plain occupied by brackish and salt water marshes, in which the species of Spirorbis found in the Joggins outcrops, very possibly would be quiet happy if it was alive today. In fact, "salt water" in the form of brackish and saline water environments occupy large areas of many modern coastal plains, including mangrove forests, which often live in saline environments along many coastlines. Just because an organism is adapted to salt water of some type fails completely, as Randy B. falsely implied, to mean that it lives in a marine environment of some type. All the occurrence of Spirorbis means is that specific types of Joggins forests grew brackish or saline water much like modern day mangrove forests. In fact, modern species of Spirorbis do live within modern mangrove forests along with many other marine animals.
For example, Feller and Sitnik (1996) stated:
Mangrove systems serve as habitat for many marine
organisms such as fish, crabs, oysters, and other
invertebrates and wildlife such as birds and reptiles.
As far as Naiadites is concerned, Randy B quoted Calder (1998) as stating
Duff & Walton (1973), who concluded that 'in the
light of European studies, curvirimula and Naiadites
could suggest a salinity nearer the "marine" rather
than the "fresh" end of the spectrum."
As in the case of Spirorbis, neither Calder (1998) nor Duff and Walton (1973) argued that Naiadites inhabited marine environments as Randy B. falsely suggested. Rather, they argued that the Joggins sediments accumulated at times within an environment, i.e. brackish and saline, intermediate between freshwater and marine conditions. Again such environments are found within modern bays. estuaries, brackish and saline marshes, and mangrove forests found within modern coastal plains. Similarly, echinoderms are found associated with mangrove forests. As a result, finding so-called "salt water" fossils within ancient coastal plain deposits is neither anomalous nor requires a global flood to explain their presence. In addition, changes in sea level as the result of glacial - interglacial cycles alternatively flooded and exposed Carboniferous coastal plains as has happened during recent glacial - interglacial cycles.
Finally, Randy B neglected to inform his readers of the inconvenient fact that various studies, i.e. Archer et al. (1995), demonstrated that the Spirorbis, Naiadites, and other brackish to saline water fossils are restricted to very thin stratigraphic intervals within the thousands of feet of strata comprising the Joggin strata. This fact is important because the restricted occurrence of such so-called salt water fossils demonstrate the brackish and saline environments associated with these fossils existed for only very brief intervals during the accumulation of the strata exposed at Joggins, Nova Scotia. Such sloppy scholarship, as also practiced by Harold Coffin in his articles, falsely exaggerated the degree the brackish water, saline water, and marine environments were associated with the deposition of the sedimentary strata exposed at Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Reference
Archer, A.W., Calder, J. H., Gibling, M. R., Naylor, R. D.,
Reid, D. R., and Wightman, W. G. (1995) Invertebrate trace
fossils and agglutinated foraminifera as indicators of marine
influence within the classic Carboniferous section at Joggins,
Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Earth Science, vol. 32,
pp. 2027-2039.
Calder, J. H. (1998) The Carboniferous evolution of Nova
Scotia. In Blundell, D. J., and Scott, A. C., eds., pp.
261-302, Lyell: The Past is the Key to the Present. Geological
Society of London Special Publication no. 143.
Duff, P. McL. D., and Walton, E. K. (1973) Carboniferous
sediments at Joggins, Nova Scotia; Seventh International
Congress on Carboniferous Stratigraphy and Geology, Compte
Rendu, vol. 2, pp. 365-379.
Feller, I. C., and Sitnik, M., eds. (1996) Mangrove Ecology
Workshop Manual. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Randy B. wrote:
"Also some of the strata has been traced for 45 Km inland —
meaning such "rivers" would have had to be quite large."
What Randy B and other Young Earth creationists do not understand is that many strata actually consist of smaller discontinuous beds. Although continuous over a large area, a stratum actually consists of innumerable smaller beds, each representing a distinct depositional event, of much smaller extent. Good examples of this are the point bar deposits of rivers and streams, which appear to be single stratum of sand actually consist of vastly smaller, innumerable accretion beds, each of which represent a flooding event. Similarly, the lateral migration of depositional environments at the front of the lobe of a shelf edge delta or chenier plain can produce what would look like in outcrop as a single stratum of either sand, called a "sheet sand", or of other sediments as it builds seaward. The accumulation of sediments, as observed within modern coastal environments, can easily create a single stratum that can be traced for as much as 45 km (27.4 miles) as in case of the strata underlying the Louisiana Chenier Plain. Thus, a layer of the extent as described by Randy B neither is anomalous, inexplicable, nor necessarily created by a catastrophic event.
Also, in some cases, there areas within the flood, deltaic, and coastal plains where an uniform layer of sediment is actively accumulating over an area as wide as 45 km (27.5) miles. Within flood and coastal plains, the accumulation of overbank and tidal sediments from suspension and the accumulation of peat within floodbasins and marshes, can occur a large area forming a single layer of fine-grained or organic sediment. Also, the accumulation of a stratum of this type can occur periodically, as during either an annual flood or tidal cycle over a long period of time. Again, it is neither inexplicable nor anomalous to find a single layer / stratum covering an area over 45 km (27.4 miles) across. Thus, a catastrophic Noachian Flood is not needed to explain a widespread stratum.
Very detailed descriptions and interpretations of the various strata found at Joggin Cliffs can be found in the various publications mentioned in this article. General descriptions and discussion of how beds, like the one Randy B falsely claimed cannot be explained by conventional geologists are, in fact, explained in innumerable sedimentology textbook such as "principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy" by Sam Boggs.
Randy B. wrote:
But then there is the problem of the Missing Roots of
MANY of those upright plants and trees.
The problem with the so-called missing roots is that they are **not** missing. It seems if Earth Young creationists seem, to believe that if, like a mantra, repeating this falsehood enough times will make it true. The bankrupt nature of claims about "missing roots" is revealed by many of the numerous papers about the fossil forests Joggins published in the last five years. Citations for some of these papers can be found in papers about Joggin fossil trees listed at:
1. http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/peerreviewedpubs.htm ;
2. School of Earth Sciences | School of Earth Sciences | University of Bristol ;
3. http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/vft/ns/joggins/references_e.php ;
4. http://meguma.earthsciences.dal.ca/staff/gibling/gibling.htm and
2. http://meguma.earthsciences.dal.ca/.../falcon-lang/HFLCV.htm
(Note on his vitae that Dr. Falcon-Lang is a member of Christians in Science. The majority of these geologists are God fearing Christians, not the evil evolutionist materialists that some creationist propaganda slanders and defames them to be.)
One picture that refuted the claim that the Joggins polystrate trees lack any roots can be found in:
Falcon-Lang, H. J. (2004) Ice, coal and ancient rainforests.
Planet Earth (NERC News), Autumn edition, Pages 20-21
(National Environment Research Council, Swindon Great Britain)
and
Falcon-Lang, H. J., and Calder, J. H., (2004) UNESCO World
Heritage and the Joggins cliffs of Nova Scotia. Geology Today.
vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 140-144 (Figure 5, page 142)
Online images of polystrate trees with roots can be found in Standing lycopsid at:
http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/PICT0044.JPG , which is part of Photogallery 1: Joggins at:
http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/photogallery1.htm . In this picture, a person can see two of the roots, which Young Earth creationists claimed do not exist. One major reasons that Young Earth creationists, including certain creationist geologists, are held in such disrespect and disdain and sometimes regarded with great humor is that they are often incapable of correctly making even the most basic of observations such as being able to find roots in the field.
Another online photograph of roots of one of these polystrate trees can be found at:
http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/.../vft/ns/joggins/figure9_lrg.jpg, which is part of
http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/...ns/joggins/fossils_plants_e.php
Some of these fossil roots can be quite east to find, as shown on the above links or require careful examination of outcrops. In this case, if the trunk and roots rotted out inside before the polystrate tree was buried and the trunk and roots filled with sediments, the roots would be preserved as obvious casts. However, other roots are harder to find. If the hollow roots and trunks were not filled sandstone, the roots would be flattened and preserved as flattened carbonaceous compressions, which are not as obvious as the sandstone casts. In the latter case, just looking at the outcrop, it appears that roots are absent, however they can be found if a person carefully cleans the outcrop. This is the case of the century-old figures used by Randy B used to illustrate his paper and argue that polystrate trees lack roots. Conventional geologists and paleobotantists, including H. J. Falcon-Lang, M. C. Rygel, M. R. Gibling, and J. H. Calder, who have spent more time studying the Joggins strata then creationist geologists, i.e. Dr. Harold Coffin and Dr. N. A. Rupke, can each personally substantiate with absolute confidence the fact that Randy B is completely wrong about polystrate trees lacking their roots.
In fact, anyone who looks at Dana's (1894) book
("Manual of Geology"...) can plainly see that the Oceans
at various times COVERED almost all of North America.
Such Flooding was anything but "local." Only the time,
of separation was probably only a few weeks or months as
opposed to "mythions of years." See pp. 443, 536, 633,
and 735. This book can be ordered from Abebooks
( AbeBooks | Shop for Books, Art & Collectibles ) for as little as $10 + Shipping."
Another reason that Young Earth creationists are held in such disrespect and disdain, and often regarded with great humor is that they cite resources that have been rendered obsolete and antiquated since their publication by subsequent research. That Randy B. recommends Dana's (1894) book only illustrates that a person has to ignore almost a century of research, except for the religiously correct papers of creationist geologists like Austin, Coffin, and Rupke, published over the last 110 years to argue his ideas.
++++ Randy B. wrote in Re: Bump for Bill at:
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
"Also, The date of Dana's book does not nullify what he said."
That Dana’s wrote this about 110 years ago does matter. Although Randy B might not be aware of it, the information, data, knowledge about the Earth has increased (exploded) exponentially many times in the 110 years since Dana’s Manual on Geology was published. As a result, the ideas expressed in it can not help but be hopelessly out of date as the result of immense amount of new observations, new data, new ideas, and theories that have accumulated in the 110 years since its publication. Using Dana is the geological equivalent of a lawyer ignoring anything younger than the Dred Scott Decision in pleading a Civil Rights case.
++++ Randy B. wrote in Re: Watch the topic please" at
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
"Perhaps this is a bit more to your liking:
It is excerpted from a paper at:
The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth Age
Part One of this paper is at:
The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth Age
The Fragmentation of Stigmaria:
While studying the Coal strata of Nova Scotia, Professor N. A. Rupke also
concluded that the strata that contains Stigmaria roots and upright trees is
not representative of in situ growth and burial but is of allochthonous
origin. 120 His conclusions were based on the the following:
1. Preferred orientation of Stigmaria axes,
2. Fragmentation of Stigmaria,
3. Filling of fragments with different sediment than that which surrounds them,
4. Evidence of rapid burial."
It should be noted that Dr. N. A. Rupke is a creationist geologist, although he does not expressed his conclusions about polystrate trees being created by a Noachian Flood in this article. As in case of another creationist geologist, Harold Coffin, I am not at all surprised that he is arguing the religiously correct idea in terms of a Noachian Flood, that these trees are allochthonous instead of being in situ.
"1. Preferred orientation of Stigmaria axes,"
As noted by Ferguson (1970), the preferred orientation of Stigmaria observed by Rupke (1970) corresponds to the preferred orientation of the cliffs forming the outcrops at Joggins, Nova Scotia. All the orientations of Rupke (1970) proved is that Stigmaria, which are oriented either parallel or cut by the cliff face at a shallow angle are easier to find than the Stigmaria, which are either perpendicular to or cut at an acute angle by the cliff face.
"2. Fragmentation of Stigmaria,"
There are two problems. First, given that Rupke (1970) was dealing with only one-dimensional outcrops, it is impossible to determine whether a piece exposed on a plane is attached to a tree buried inside the cliff or removed by erosion seaward of the cliff. In order to determine if an exposed Stigmaria was a fragment, he would had to follow each Stigmaria back into the cliff by excavating it until in ended, which he could not and did not do. Also, he would have had to somehow reconstructed the part of the Stigmaria that had been eroded away, which he could not and did not do. Whether a specific Stigmaria was a fragment or not, was nothing more guesswork on his part for the vast majority of Stigmaria he examined unless Dr. Rupke has X-Ray vision like Supermen.
The other problem is that in both deltaic and fluvial channels are constantly eroding and reworking parts of their plains. Given that both plains are heavily forested, rooted trees are always being eroded, briken up, transported downstream, and reworked within river and delta systems. As a result, it should expected that an abundance of fragments of Stigmaria will be normally found in either fluvial or deltaic sediments. Their presence in such sedimentary strata means nothing about whether the polystrate trees are either in situ or allochthonous.
"3. Filling of fragments with different sediment than that
which surrounds them,"
There is nothing about this finding that demonstrated that these roots have been transported.
"4. Evidence of rapid burial."
Again rapid burial occurs periodically within alluvial and deltaic plains. Rapid burial proved nothing about the Stigmaria being reworked or in place. Also, it is meaningless as proof of any type of catastrophic process having been involved in the deposition of sediment at the Joggins cliffs as rapid deposition can occur in fluvial, delatiac, and coastal environments.
..text deleted..
Randy B cited:
123. Williamson, C. W., 1887, "A Monograph on the Morphology and
Histology of Stigmaria ficoides," p.12., London Palaeontograhical Society.
124. ibid. ref. 123, pp. 40-44.
125. Lesquereux, Leo, 1880, "Description of the Coal Flora of the
Carboniferous Formation in Pennsylvania and Throughout the
United States," Vol. 1, pp. 510-513.?"
Both of these papers are 118 and 125 years old. Again, using these references is like a lawyer ignoring anything younger than the Dred Scott Decision in pleading a Civil Rights case. Again, we have obsolete and antiquated research cited.
References
Ferguson, L. (1970) Sedimentary evidence for the allochthonous
origin of Stigmaria, Carboniferous, Nova Scotia. Geological
Society of America Bulletin. vol. 81, pp. 2531-2534.
Rupke, N. A. (1969) Sedimentary evidence for the allochthonous
origin of Stigmaria, Carboniferous, Nova Scotia. Geological
Society of America Bulletin. vol. 80, pp. 2109-2114.
++++ Randy B. also wrote in Re: Watch the topic please at:
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
Randy: The fact that many upright trees in this strata have
different bedding than that which surrounds them suggests
that they were transported before burial.
Edge: No explanation? Why would this indicate transport?
To me it just indicates s different mode of sedimentation.
Randy: It indicates transport precisely because NONE of
the surrounding sediments are the same as that of the
interior. Therefore, the tree must have been transported.
A tree filled sediment is quite heavy and certainly is not going to float upright anywhere within the water column. Being filled with sediment, they will certainly not float and rest on upright on their base. Instead, no matter how turbulent the water, all a sediment-filled trunk will do is roll along the bottom of whatever hypothetical water body it is in. If the polystrate trees had been filled with sediments, when buried, it would have been impossible for them to have been floating and then buried in an upright position argued by Harold Coffin in his papers. Also, any of these tree trunks would have been rapidly reduced to shredded wood with the consistency of coffee grounds as they were tumbled around on the bottom. Finally, if the sediment filling these trunks is unconsolidated and uncemented at the time, it certainly would have been quickly washed out of these trunks as they were being tumbled, rolled, and banged around on the bottom by a hypothetical Noachian Flood.
For an explanation of how the differing internal fills formed, the interested lurkers can look at excerpt from The Fossil Cliffs of Joggins by Laing Ferguson at: http://museum.gov.ns.ca/places/joggins/tree.htm
( http://museum.gov.ns.ca/places/joggins/joggins.htm )
Randy Stated:
Edge: Many of the that these trees grew in were not well
developed and often indistinguishable from sediments to the
casual observer.
Randy: That's because there (almost certainly) were
NOT soils at all.
The problem here is that in case of the missing soils, which Randy B. claims is NOT soils at all,
is that there exists an abundance of published evidence and data that clearly demonstrate that these soils, like the missing roots, are only missing in the minds of Young Earth creationists, who are continently blind to facts that contradicts their pet theories. The presence of numerous fossil soils within strata at the Joggins and other related outcrops is clearly documented in numerous published publications.
A few of these publications include:
1. Micromorphological Analysis of Selected Paleosols of Late
Craboniferous Coal-Bearing Rocks Exposed at Joggin, Nova
Scotia, Canada by M. G. Smith and I. P. Martin.
MICROMORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PALEOSOLS OF LATE CARBONIFEROUS COAL
Publications
2. Floodplain Deposits and Palesol profiles of the Late
Carboniferous Cumberland Basin, Joggins, Nova Scotia by
by M. G. Smith and I. P. Martin.
FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS AND PALEOSOL PROFILES OF THE LATE CARBONIFEROUS
3. Teniere, Paul (1998) Sedimentology, Facies Successions
and Cyclicity of a Section of the Joggins Formation, Joggins,
Nova Scotia. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
http://meguma.earthsciences.dal.ca/abstract/ab_th_98.htm
In part, the abstract of Teniere (1998) stated about fossil soils (paleosols) found in the polystrate tree-bearing strata of Joggin:
"Grey clay-rich mudstones classify as "seat earths" or
Gleysol paleosols and grey platy mudstones are
hydromorphic soils that experiences less vegetative activity.
Red mudstones are Vertisols formed under seasonal,
oxidizing conditions. Carbonaceous shales are clastic
swamp deposits and are associated with coals (Histosol)
formed in peat mires."
Some other references documenting fossil soils (paleosols) within the Joggins strata containing the polystrate trees found there are:
Smith, Mark G. (1995) Floodplain deposits, Paleosol profiles
and evidence of climatic change from the Late Carboniferous
Joggins Formation, Cumberland Basin, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Program with Abstracts - Geological Association of Canada;
Mineralogical Association of Canada; Canadian Geophysical
Union, Joint Annual Meeting. vol. 20, pp.99
Smith, Mark G. (1990) Floodplain and Paleosol profiles of
the Carboniferous Cumberland coal basin, Nova Scotia, Canada.
American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin. Vol. 74,
no. 8, pp.1310-1311.
Tandon, S. k., and Gibling, M. R. (1994) Calcrete and coal
in late Carboniferous cyclothems of Nova Scotia, Canada:
climate and sea-level changes linked. Geology vol. 22,
pp. 755-758.
Davies, S. J. and Gibling, M. R. (2003) Architecture of
coastal and alluvial deposits in an extensional basin; the
Carboniferous Joggins Formation of Eastern Canada.
Sedimentology. Vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 415-439.
Gibling, M. R., Saunders, K. I., Tibert, N. E. and White,
J. A. (2004)Sequence sets, high-accommodation events and the
coal window in the Carboniferous Sydney Coalfield, Atlantic
Canada. In: Coal-bearing Strata: Sequence Stratigraphy,
Paleoclimate, and Tectonics, J. Pashin and R. Gastaldo, eds.,
pp. 169-198. AAPG Studies in Geology no. 51, American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
++++Randy Stated:
Edge: No problem, Randy. Many beds are deposited abruptly
in the geological record. We have know this for probably
hundreds of years. How did you miss that?
Randy: Yes, and Many of these "abruptly deposited beds"
exibit NO EVIDENCE of Erosion, but rather horizontally
"sharp" contacts, -- indicating that there was very little time
between the two.
The fact of the matter is that the strata exposed by the Joggins Fossil Cliffs and associated strata within the Cumberland Basin exhibit innumerable erosional contacts. These erosional contact ranges in scale from entrenched valleys resulting the incision of river systems during lowstands of sea level, to the erosional bases of individual river channels, and to small erosional features including types of vegetation-induced sedimentary structures which form around **in place** trees on flood plains. For example, Michael C. Rygel, who has already conducted and is continuing a far more detailed examination of strata, which contains the polystrate trees, than Sir Charles Lyell and Sir William Dawson combined, on a web page of his stated that he found that Over 120 channel-bodies are exposed at the type locality of the Joggins Formation. as noted at http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/research.htm . These channels and innumerable other erosional features also are clearly documented in the scientific literature for those people interested in learning about them. Just a **few** of these papers are:
Davies, S. J. and Gibling, M. R. (2003) Architecture of
coastal and alluvial deposits in an extensional basin; the
Carboniferous Joggins Formation of Eastern Canada.
Sedimentology. Vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 415-439
Rygel, M.C., and Gibling, M. R. (2003) Centroclinal cross
strata - origin, morphology, and implications for
understanding ancient terrestrial ecosystems: Geological
Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 35, p. 25
http://gsa.confex.com/...3NE/finalprogram/abstract_50846.htm
Rygel, M. C., Gibling, M. R., and Calder, J. H. (2004)
Vegetation-induced sedimentary structures from fossil forests
in the Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation, Nova Scotia.
Sedimentology. vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 531-552. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3091.2004.00635.x
Just a moment...
Tandon, S. k., and Gibling, M. R. (1994) Calcrete and coal
in late Carboniferous cyclothems of Nova Scotia, Canada:
climate and sea-level changes linked. Geology vol. 22,
pp. 755-758.
Gibling, M. R., Saunders, K. I., Tibert, N. E. and White,
J. A. (2004)Sequence sets, high-accommodation events and the
coal window in the Carboniferous Sydney Coalfield, Atlantic
Canada. In: Coal-bearing Strata: Sequence Stratigraphy,
Paleoclimate, and Tectonics, J. Pashin and R. Gastaldo, eds.,
pp. 169-198. AAPG Studies in Geology no. 51, American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
It is quite clear from the innumerable documented erosional features, i.e. entrenched valleys, river channels, certain types of vegetation-induced sedimentary structures, that erosion often alternated with periods of deposition during the deposition of the strata exposed at the Joggins Cliffs and elsewhere in the Cumberland Basin of Nova Scotia.
To repeat what Randy B stated above:
-- indicating that there was very little time between the two.
This statement is completely refuted for many beds by the innumerable fossil soils (paleosols), which have been found in the strata exposed at Joggins as documented by references on such fossil soils given above. Depending on their degree of development, each of the fossil soils represent a significant period of time during which both no deposition of sediment occurred and the surface in which they developed was dry land. These fossil soils clearly demonstrate that at uncountable, multiple times throughout the deposition of the strata containing the polystrate trees, the accumulation of sediment stopped for significant periods of time during which the region was dry land. The repeated cessation of deposition under terrestrial conditions during the deposition of the strata at Joggins, Nova Scotia has completely refuted Randy B’s arguments.
The fact that these fossil soils, paleosols exist, despite Randy B’s constant denials, can be personally vouched for personally by conventional Earth scientists, including H. J. Falcon-Lang, M. C. Rygel, M. R. Gibling, and J. H. Calder (whom Randy B quotes in his article). These Earth scientists have studied the exposures at Joggins in vastly greater detail and for far greater time than William Logan, Sir Charles Lyell and Sir William Dawson combined. They certainly know more about the geology of the Joggins cliff then a lawyer, who has never spent a significant amount of time actually studying these cliffs and foolishly relies largely upon antiquated and obsolete research conducted and published over a century ago.
Randy B also stated:
This is also evident from the Many layers that were Bent
as a single unit -- thus indicating that NONE of them had
become hardened at the time when they were warped. We
also see this with coal seams -- where the strata both above
and below are bent into all types of curves -- before the
sediments had time to become hard.
If a person looks at the folded shales, sandstones and coal, at Joggins, they will find fractures, joints, faulting, deformation of fossils, and many other features that could only have formed if the strata was lithified at the time of deformation. As in case of the roots on the polystrate trees, fossil soils (paleosols), and erosional surface, it appears that Randy B, as many Young Earth creationists, are deaf, dumb, and blind to any evidence, which happens to contradicts their religiously correct ideas. Again, any of the above Earth scientists, who have studied the Joggins section within the last decade, can personally attest to the fact that the claim that these sediments were folded while soft is scientifically bankrupt.
A related discussion is bent strata at:
http://EvC Forum: bent strata -->EvC Forum: bent strata
Randy B stated:
Edge: what does rapid burial have to do with transport?
Randy: The two go together like peas in a pod. The fact
that so many of the trees are missing their roots is clear
evedence that they were uprooted.
As previously, discussed the truth of the matter is that the polystrate trees at Joggins do have roots. All the claims about polystrate trees lacking roots prove is how sloppy creationists geologists are in conducting their fieldwork and how incapable they are sometimes in correctly making basic and relatively simply field observations.
Randy B stated:
The fact that they were preserved in the first place is a clear
indication that they were buried rapidly -- as trees in the forest
normally are NOT preseved after they die, simply because
in order to be preserved they need to either become Petrified
while standing upright (in a mineral lake), or due to becoming
buried.
That rapid burial resulting in the formation of polystrate trees can and does occur at specific locations within either deltaic, fluvial, or combination of these settings. A 12-foot high polystrate tree found buried in a natural levees of the Atchafayala River, Louisiana, refuted the above argument that only catastrophic processes, i.e. the Noachian Flood, can bury, preserve, and eventually create polystrate tree fossils. Historical records and maps along with numerous radiocarbon dates from these sediments demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that this polystrate tree was rapidly buried sometime during the last couple of hundred years along the Atchafalaya River just south of Krotz Springs, Louisiana. It is clear from this and other nearby upright trees found either completely or partially buried that the rapid burial resulting in the formation of polystrate trees can result from noncatastrophic processes within riverine setting. This occurs in an environment lacking the rapid subsidence, which occurred during the deposition of the Joggins strata. Again, this tree is described in:
Godzinski, M., Smith, R., Maygarden, B., Landrum, E.,
Lorenzo, J., Yakubik, J.-K., and Weed, M. E., 2004,
Cultural Resources Investigations of Public Access Lands
in the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, Indian Bayou South
Project Area, St. Landry and St. Martin Parishes,
Louisiana. Report submitted by Earth Search, Inc., to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District,
New Orleans, Louisiana for delivery order no. 5., contract
no. DACW29-02-D-0005.
Another report, which is in preparation, documents the age of the sediments enclosing this polystrate tree as being less than 200 years. This polystrate tree is much too young for it to have been created by Noah’s Flood.
Rany B. further wrote in Polystrate Fossils of Joggins Re: The Longest
Documented Upright Trees at Joggins at:
http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
Randy B stated:
Bill Stated: "Actually, another geologist, whom I know,
has been looking into that in great detail and has inquired
with the geologists, who have been studying the Joggins
outcrop. In the 140-160 since Dawson (1855) wrote
about the Joggins locality, none of the numerous geologists,
including creationists, Coffin and Rupke, have found an
upright trunk anywhere near 40 feet high. The highest
one that has ever been observed by them was 5.7 meters
(18.5 feet high)."
Bill: I don't mean to portray geologists as ignorant, but
this information, along with the references, has been on
my site now for the past 8 months -- and is available to
any and all who care to inquire. But I will list the refs.
again below -- along with more details for those who are
interested.
The 5.7 meter (18.5-foot) figure was given directly to a geologist friend by Dr. D. H. J. Falcon-Lang, who has studied the Joggins Fossil Cliffs in far greater detail and longer period of time than either Sir Charles Lyell or Sir William Dawson. He certainly knows more about the Joggins Fossil Cliffs than Young Earth creationists, who blindly make completely false claims about polystrate trees found there lacking roots and incredibly silly statements about there being no fossil soils (paleosols) within its strata. It is good that Randy B does not want to portray Dr. Falcon-Lang as being "ignorant" as in doing so a lot of geologists would regard such a statement and the person making it as being incredibly ignorant. :-) :-)
Randy B continued:
1. The 25 foot upright tree was mentioned both by Lyell AND Dawson as
being both "erect" and/or "piercing the beds of sandstone." For it
was not only mentioned along with the 40 foot upright tree in
Lyell's book, but also by Dawson in his bed by bed review. For
all of those who care to verify this the references are:
22. Dawson, John W., 1855, Acadian Geology, p. 159; See also
Acadian Geology, 1868, p. 188. And Note how few details that
Dawson gives with regard to the 40 foot tree. Note also that
DOES NOT say that it was prostrate or a fallen over log.
23. Lyell, Sir Charles, "Life of Sir Charles Lyell," Vol. II, 1881,
p. 65. See also: Bell, W.A., 1912,"Joggins Carboniferous
Section of Nova Scotia", Can. Geol. Surv. Sum. Report; p. 328.
25. ***ibid. ref. 5, p. 26.***
5. Dawson, 1854, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, Vol. 10, p.26.
Regarding the Drifted Trunk deposits see pp. 4-27. This is
were Dawson gives a bed by bed review of the strata and (in
plain English) mentions a 25 foot erect tree. I can say that
because I looked it up myself.
The problem is that neither John W. Dawson nor Charles Lyell observed the 40-foot high polystrate tree when they worked together in measuring the section at Joggins. At that time, Lyell shared his data on Joggins with Dawson. This data included a verbal report made by Dr. Abraham Gesner, which included the 40-foot high polystrate tree, to Lyell in 1842 on his previous visit to Joggins. Although reported in both Dawson (1854) and Dawson (1855), Dawson did not actually see this polystrate tree. He only repeated a third-hand report, which was given to Lyell by Dr. Abraham Gesner 10 years earlier, of the 40-foot high polystrate tree. Lyell, like Dawson, also neither saw nor measured the 40-foot high polystrate tree as that observation was given to him by Gesner. The tallest polystrate tree, which Lyell personally observed was 25 feet tall. As a result, 40-foot high polystrate trees mentioned in Dawson (1854) and Dawson (1855) actually are not separate independent observations by Dawson, but are the same third-hand report of what Dr. Abraham Gesner allegedly saw and reported to Lyell and Lyell recorded in his field notes in 1842. The measured sections described by Dawson (1854) and Dawson (1855) were compiled from (1.) direct observations by John W. Dawson in 1852; (2.) direct observations by Charles Lyell made in 1852 while working with Dawson (3.) observations made by Charles Lyell in 1842; and (4.) information Gesner gave to Lyell in 1842 and collected even years earlier than 1842. That Gesner is the source of 40-foot high polystrate tree is clearly documented in Lyell's Field Notebook no. 103, which contains his 1842 Joggins notes.
That Dawson and Lyell worked together and shared data in 1852 is well known as discussed in:
Rygel, M. C., and Shipley, B. H. (2004) Such a section as
never was put together before: Logan, Dawson, Lyell, and
mid-nineteenth-century measurements of the Joggins section:
Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs.
vol. 36, p. 244.
http://gsa.confex.com/...4AM/finalprogram/abstract_77055.htm
Dawson (1868) has the same problem as Dawson (1854) and (1855). Dawson (1868) is simply a revision of Dawson (1854). As far as the Joggins cliffs is concerned, it includes the same set of data and observations as both Dawson (1854) and Dawson (1855). This set consisted of a mixture of research and data that was shared by Lyell with Dawson. In terms of Joggins, Dawson mainly revised the measured section published in Dawson (1955) to include measurements and descriptions made by William Edmond Logan in 1843 of the Joggins outcrops. The 40-foot high polystrate tree reported in Dawson (1868) and the other books or papers ultimately came from the same source, Dr. Abraham Gesner. Any error in the original information given by Dr. Abraham Gesner to Lyell would simply be repeated in all of these publications.
In case of Lyell (1881), it contains nothing in the way of additional research by Lyell on the Joggins cliffs as he only visited Joggins in 1842 and again in 1852 with Dawson. Again, the report of 40-foot high polystrate trees in this book is only repeating what Gesner told Lyell in 1842. Again, it is meaningless that Lyell (1881), Dawson (1854, 1855, 1868) all mention the 40-foot high polystrate trees as this observation came from the same source, what Dr. Abraham Gesner told Lyell in 1842. If there had been errors in Gesner's original observations, they would have been repeated, without any question in all of these publications because they are all based on the same set of observations. This is like arguing that story about George Washington and the cherry tree is true because it is repeated in numerous books and articles about the life of Washington. Essentially, Randy B's arguments for the validity of the 40-foot high polystrate tree rests entirely on Randy B's faith in the infallibility of Dr. Abraham Gesner.
The information from Lyell (1881) and Dawson (1854, 1855, 1868) about the 40-foot polystrate tree is all second-hand and third-hand accounts. This observation lacks any published primary documentation by Gesner, the person who allegedly saw this 40-foot tree, to verify the existence of this polystrate tree. Any drawings of this tree were not drawn from the outcrop. Rather they are only reconstructions made from the few details, which Gesner gave Lyell back in 1842.
I find it quite curious that neither John W. Dawson, Charles Lyell, Charles Logan, H. J. Falcon-Lang, M. C. Rygel, M. R. Gibling, J. H. Calder, nor any of the other innumerable geologists and paleobotantists, who have visited the outcrops at Joggins, Nova Scotia have personally seen a 40-ft high polystrate tree. His personal field notebooks demonstrate beyond any doubt that the tallest polystrate tree, which Lyell personally observed was only 25 feet high. Lyell made this observation on his visit to Joggins in 1842. This is close enough to maximum height of 18-19 feet reported by other geologists that report height has some credibility.
Randy B continued:
But that's not all Bill, because Schuchert also mentions the
25 foot upright "log" at Joggins:
"Standing logs have been admired by all geologists since
Richard Brown discovered them in 1929 and the drawings of
them by Logan, Lyell, and Dawson have been repeated in most
text-books of Geology. They are from all lengths up to 25 feet.
From: Pirsson and Schuchert, A Text-Book of Geology, Part II,
by Charles Scuchert, p. 784, 1915. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York"
I suspect that this is not a direct observation of the height of the polystrate trees at Joggins by Charles Schuchert. Given that this is a textbook, I suspect that he is merely repeating the observations published in the literature about the 25-foot high polystrate, Lyell documented in his field notes. If Charles Schuchert did not directly observed the 25-foot tall polystrate tree, his book is useless as confirmation of what Lyell saw in 1842. Charles Schuchert is simply repeating what someone else had previously written years before, not his personal observations of Joggins polystrate tree heights. However, it is interesting that Charles Schuchert says up to 25 feet. instead of up to 40 feet. I have to wonder if he found the reports of 40-foot high polystrate trees so lacking in direct, credible evidence that he decided not include them in his textbook.
Randy B continued:
"So we have Two Geologists and one Lawyer, here who
disagree with you and all of the "other geologists" with
whom you have been speaking. And in this case, it appears
that the Lawyer may have been the one closest to the truth,
for he also linked the 25 foot tree to a 40 foot one --
(in the same sentence) with these words:
"...and some have been seen of 40 feet, piercing the beds
of sandstone and terminating downwards in the same beds,
usually coal.."23"
The Lawyer has nothing but useless hearsay because, as discussed above neither him nor his two geologists, John W. Dawson, nor Charles Lyell, personally saw the 40-foot high tree, which was reported by Dawson (1854, 1855, 1868) and Lyell (1881). That neither geologist saw the 40-foot high polystrate tree is clearly documented in Lyell's personal field notebooks for 1842 and 1852. The report of a 40-foot high polystrate tree by Dawson (1854, 1855, 1868) is a third-hand account, by way of Lyell, of what Dr. Abraham Gesner reportedly found and a second-hand account in Lyell (1881) from the same information that Dr. Abraham Gesner gave Lyell in 1842. As far as I found, Gesner never documented his 40-foot high polystrate tree in any fashion. As a result, there apparently is not any first-hand documentation for the 40-foot high polystrate tree by the person, who actually saw it. Only the 25-foot high polystrate tree is documented in Lyell's personal field notes by the person, who directly seen and measured it.
Apparently, Dawson did not see any 25-foot high polystrate trees. Rather, he incorporated Lyell’s report of this polystrate tree into his descriptions. Thus, in case of the 25-foot high tree, Randy B has only one person, who directly saw it. The reports of the 25-foot high tree in Dawson (1854, 1855, 1868) are all second-hand accounts of what Lyell told Dawson in 1852 he saw. Given that polystrate trees as high as 18-19 feet high have been documented in modern times, a 25 foot high seems to be plausible.
However, there is nothing at all anomalous about polystrate trees as tall as 18-19 feet, even 25 feet being found at rare intervals within the Joggins section. Recent research by J. W. F. Waldron and M. C. Waldron has shown that in addition to accumulating within an actively subsiding pull-apart basin, the Joggin region experienced added subsidence as less dense evaporite deposits were squished out from beneath heavier sediments accumulating on top of them. As a result, the Joggins region periodically experienced very rapid subsidence rates, which allowed for the rapid accumulation of sediments within the Joggins region.
A new web page with excellent information is Cumberland Basin at:
http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/vft/ns/joggins/cumberland_e.php
A lot of questions will be answered about the formation of polystrate trees of the Joggins Cliffs by two publications, which are currently in press. They are:
Rygel, M. C., Davies, S. D., and Gibling, M. R. (in press)
Chapter 4: Geological setting and paleoenvironments of the
Joggins Formation: in Falcon-Lang, H.J., Gibling, M.R.,
and Calder, J.H., eds., Late Carboniferous Ecosystems of
Joggins, Nova Scotia: London, The Paleontological Society
Guidebook Series.
Waldron, J. W. F, and Rygel, M. C. (in press) Role of
evaporite withdrawal in the preservation of a unique
coal-age succession: Joggins section, Nova Scotia: Geology.
Randy noted:
I also give refererence to a 38 foot upright tree that was
found in England. The ref is on my web page at
Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age See "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia, Part 1
See also: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199702/0115.html
This is a well-documented polystrate tree. It was found in an area of England, in which the strata within it occurs is cut by well-developed syndepsoitional faults, called growth faults. These faults formed as parts of the delta slid seaward as large landslides at the same time that sediment accumulation occurred within the delta. The periodic movement of large blocks of the delta along these faults could easily have caused subsidence within the delta plain adjacent to the head scarp of the faults of 30 to 50 feet and readily explain the rapid subsidence and burial of that polystrate tree.
Randy B noted:
See also: Niklas, K.J. Predicting the height of fossil plant
remains: An allometric approach to an old problem:
American Journal of Botany 1994 vol. 81, pp 1235-1243;
where I am told that there is reference to a 12 meter upright
fossil tree. I do not have this myself and so I cannot assert
with confidence that this is correct. Perhaps someone here
would care to look it up and report on it.
I looked this up. The only thing, which I found in Niklas (1994), was a reference to a 114-foot long (35 meter) long Lepidodendron specimen from near Bolton, Lancashire. Next to nothing is said as to its orientation when it was found. However, the manner in which it was fossilized, as a flattened compression, suggested that it was lying on it side when found. More about this fossil is given in Thomas and Watson (1976).
References
Niklas, K. J. (1994) Predicting the height of fossil plant
remains: An allometric approach to an old problem:
American Journal of Botany. vol. 81, no. 9, pp 1235-1243
Thomas, B. A. and Watson (1976) a rediscovered 114-foot
Lepidodendron from Bolton, Lancashire. Geology Journal.
vol. 11, pp. 15-20.
Randy continued:
Bill Continues:
(NOTE: According to informed sources, the report documenting this
12-foot high, 150-year old polystrate tree is in review and will available
for purchase in about 3 months, more or less).
"Or you can simply look up the refs that I have provided
above -- Although I must admit that neither Dawson nor
Lyell were very interested in giving us many details."
The reason that neither Dawson nor Lyell provided any details is because they lacked these details. Neither of them actually observed the 40-foot polystrate tree themselves. All that they had was a very vague report about the 40-foot high polystrate tree that Dr. Abraham Gesner gave Lyell in 1842 about it. This evidence by the use by Dawson of the passive voice in and some have been seen of 40 feet, piercing to indicate he was reporting something he did personally not observe. It is revealing that in the 163 years since Dr. Abraham Gesner reported this polystrate tree, nobody has documented a tree of similar height having been found in the Joggins outcrops. From what I have found, neither, H. J. Falcon-Lang, M. C. Rygel, M. R. Gibling, nor J. H. Calder have reported seeing any polystrate trees even approaching this size despite having spent far more time studying the Joggins outcrops than Gesner, Dawson and Lyell combined. Given that the same sequence of strata is exposed at Joggin as when Gesner studied it, except for being eroded back, if 40 foot high polystrate trees do exist there, additional examples should have been found by now.
Randy noted:
Note also that Rupke gives reference to a 25 meter
upright tree (or on that was approx. 80 feet long).
Rupke (1966) mentioned a 25 meter long (80 foot tree). However, according to Rupke (1966), the tree was not upright. Rather it was found leaning at angle of 40 degrees. It is curious that the two references, which Rupke (1966) provided for this specimen, are both creationists tracts, of which the primary citation was published in 1857, about 148 years ago.
Reference
Rupke, N. A. (1966) A Study of Cataclysmic Sedimentation
Creation Research Soc. Quarterly. vol. 3, p. 21.
I have to wonder if this is the same the 25 meter tree (that's 80 feet long) that Randy B. claimed was documented by Fairholm, which Randy B mentioned in another post. I am having problems finding the exact citation to which Fairholm referred.
A couple of related references worth reading are:
Gastaldo, R. A. (1984) A case against pelagochthony: the
untenability of Carboniferous arborescent Lycopod-dominated
floating mats. In Walker, K.R., ed., The Evolution-Creation
Controversy, Perspectives on Religion, Philosophy, Science
and Education, The Paleontological Society Special
Publication no.1, pp. 97-116.
Gastaldo, R. A. (1999) Debates on Autochthonous and
Allochthonous Origin of Coal: Empirical Science versus
the Diluvialists. In Manger, W.L., ed., The Evolution-
Creation Controversy II: Perspectives on Science, Religion,
and Geological Education, The Paleontological Society
Papers , vol. 5, pp. 135-167.
Best Regards,
Bill
Houston, Texas
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-07-2005 19:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RandyB, posted 02-21-2005 10:22 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 12:35 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 85 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 12:57 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 91 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 6:08 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 92 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 6:34 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 93 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 6:51 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 94 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 7:15 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 105 by RandyB, posted 03-13-2005 3:34 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 115 by RandyB, posted 03-14-2005 8:51 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 83 of 190 (190865)
03-10-2005 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by RandyB
03-05-2005 7:16 PM


Re: Fossil Soils (Paleosols) at Joggins
Randy B. wrote:
In Reply to Message 5 by Bill Birkeland, Randy b. wrote:
"Re: Fossil Soils (Paleosols) at Joggins
Bill Birkeland wrote: The papers by Falcon-Lang (1999, 2000, 2001)...
provide clear evidence of many of the Joggins polystrate trees had been
charred by forest fires before being buried and the presence of abundant of
charcoal within fossil soils that formed the former forest floor. A person
needs to ask Dr, Morris how forest fires could char the Joggin trees while
they are being washed around and later buried by a Noachian Flood.
Randy Responds: This answer is made much easier in light of the "Floating
Forest" and "Floating Log Mat" models already proposed by Kunze /
Scheven and Austin."
Why do I get the feeling that Randy is quite confused about his creationist "models" of polystrate tree formation? :-) :-) :-)
There are two major creationist explanations for the formation of polystrate trees. The first is the Kunze / Scheven and Austin "Floating Mat" model and the Harold Coffin "Spirit Lake" model. The second, the "Spirit Lake" model is discussed and illustrated by Coffin and Brown (1982). The point of confusion here is that the "Floating Mat" and "Floating Log Mat" models are actually different creationist models. The latter model, the "Floating Log Mat" model, is a less refined version of Coffin’s "Spirit Lake" model.
It makes a big difference, because the supporters of the the Kunze / Scheven and Austin "Floating Mat" model argue that the polystrate trees are part of a large floating mat held together by the **roots system** of the polystrate trees. An essential part of this model is that before becoming fossils the trees had their roots attached and their roots held the floating mat together. This creationist model argued that once the mat became grounded on soft mud, the base of the mats, including roots, sunk into to the soft mud. As a result, the tree roots remained intact and attached to the trees and provide only the illusion of having grown into the mud. Then, the grounded mat was rapidly buried intact to create polystrate trees. This was what Kunze / Scheven and Austin argued. This is all summarized in Gastaldo (1984, 1991). The basic principles of the "Floating Mat" model is illustrated in Figure 6 of Gastaldo (1984).
In contrast, the "Spirit Lake" model, i.e. Coffin (1983) and Coffin and Brown (1982), argues that polystrate trees were a normal trees, not associated with floating mats. According to Coffin’s ideas, these trees were eroded from their original position with their original roots being torn off of them in the process by the Noachian Flood. The "Spirit Lake" model argued that the trees eventually became waterlogged and eventually sank such they rested on the bottom in a vertical position. Then, the model proposed that they were rapidly buried in this position by turbidites (Coffin 1983, Coffin and Brown 1982).
In terms of whether or not fossil polystrate trees have roots or not, these are mutually exclusive creationist models. If a person invokes the Kunze / Scheven and Austin "Floating Mat" model as an explanation, then a person is agreeing that polystrate trees have intact roots, which is a basic premise of this model. If a person claims that polystrate trees lack roots, they have to invoke the "Spirit Lake" model of Coffin (1983) in order to explain such polystrate trees. As proposed by creationists, it makes absolutely no sense at all to argue that Kunze / Scheven and Austin "Floating Mat" model created fossil polystrate trees that lack roots.
Gastaldo (1984, 1991) presents a detailed analysis of the Kunze / Scheven and Austin "Floating Mat" model from the point of view of a conventional geologist / paleobotanist, who has spent his life studying the taphonomy of polystrate trees and other fossil plants found associated with coal beds. He also has published several papers illustrating the presence of roots on the polystrate trees found in the Carboniferous coal beds of the Black Warrior Basin of Alabama. Having seen examined some outcrops in strips mines myself in this region, I can personally attest to the fact that the polystrate trees in the Carboniferous strata do have roots. Anyone, who cannot see the roots on the Alabama polystrate trees have to be completely deaf, dumb, and blind because the roots are there and quite obvious.
References:
Coffin, H. (1983) Mount St. Helens and Spirit Lake. Origins. vol. 10, no. 1,
pp. 9-17 Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...
Coffin, H., and Brown, R. H. (1982) Origin by Design. Review and Herald
Publishing Company.
Gastaldo, R. A. (1984) A case against pelagochthony: the untenability of
Carboniferous arborescent Lycopod-dominated floating mats. In Walker,
K. R., ed., The Evolution-Creation Controversy, Perspectives on Religion,
Philosophy, Science and Education, The Paleontological Society Special
Publication no.1, pp. 97-116.
Gastaldo, R. A. (1999) Debates on Autochthonous and Allochthonous Origin
of Coal: Empirical Science versus the Diluvialists. In Manger, W.L., ed., The
Evolution-Creation Controversy II: Perspectives on Science, Religion, and
Geological Education, The Paleontological Society Papers , vol. 5,
pp. 135-167.
Randy B continued:
"Here are a few excerpts from my paper in this regard.
Regarding these deposits Dawson tells us that:
"...D. Acadianum, is found abundantly at... Joggins in the condition of
drifted trunks imbedded in the sandstone of the lower part of the Coal-
formation and the upper part of the Millstone-grit series."
In addition Dawson informs us that:
"From the abundance of coniferous trees in the sandstones above and below
the coal, and their comparative absence in the coal and coal- shales, it may
be inferred that these trees belonged rather to the uplands than to the coal
swamps; and the great durability and small specific gravity of coniferous
wood would allow it to be drifted, either by rivers or ocean currents, to
very great distances." 83
And that such trees:
"...are most abundant in those parts of the section where the swamp
conditions of the coal measures begin to disappear and where drifted
plants predominate... The prevalence of coniferous trees as drift-wood
in the sandstones, above and below the Coal-measures, is probably ...
attributed to their capability of floating for a long time without
becoming water-soaked and sinking.84
Leaves Present but Bark Missing: The conifers of Joggins are often
found as "decorticated and prostrate trunks." 85In other words, they
are missing their bark. In fact, of all the Corditalean trees at Joggins
that were examined by Scott et al., none were found with their
"periderm" (i.e. bark) intact. 86 This was in spite of the fact that
fossil leaves were also found in the same deposits in which these
trees occur.86 Austin proposed that decortication could occur as a
result of trees (in the form of log mats) rubbing against each other as
they were transported by turbulent waters.87, 88"
Again, Randy B. has his creationist models for the formation of polystrate trees confused. In the Kunze / Scheven and Austin "Floating Mat" model, both Young or Old Earth creationists agree with conventional geologists that the root system of fossil polystrate trees remain intact. In case of citation number "86", Austin (1986) "Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism", Steven Austin is not discussing the "Floating Mat" model of Otto Kunze’s 1884 as published in his article titled "Die vorweltliche Entwicklung der Erdkruste und der Pflanzen". Rather, the "Floating Log Mat" model that Austin (1986) described is a less refined version of Harold Coffins "Spirit Lake" model. This is not surprising, given that Austin (1986) discussed Spirit Lake in this article. The "Floating Mat" model and Austin (1986)’s "Floating Log Mat" model are two very different concepts that creationists have proposed to explain polytstrate trees.
The major problem is that all of the observations quoted by Randy B above from Dawson is typical of any fluvial — deltaic system. Essentially, the trees, which roll or tumble along the bottom or float as rafts of driftwood will grind against each other and rub their bark off and create specimens as seen in the Joggins outcrops. Leaves will be transported suspended in the water and not grind against each other and other material and many will survive transport reasonable intact relative to the trunks. There is nothing anomalous here, which requires transport by a Noachian Flood. It is all basic plant taphonomy within a fluvial system.
Unfortunately, for Randy B, Falcon-Lang and Bashforth (2004) recently found a 10-km-diameter outlier of alluvial conglomerates that accumulated as alluvial aprons at the base of the uplands, which Dawson, above, hypothesized as the source of the cordaitalean trees, which Dawson called "coniferous trees". Falcon-Lang and Bashforth (2004) found and documented "several hundred calcareously permineralized stumps, trunks, and branches" that "represents the remains of shallowly rooted cordaitalean trees that were 48.5 m high when mature". The preservation of these trees, with bark, roots, rootlets, and so forth, is so good that it is impossible that they have been transported any long distance. From studying these specimens, they concluded:
"The paleogeographic setting together with plant taphonomic inferences
strongly indicate that these giant trees were transported from nearby
upland alluvial plains and deposited in an elevated intermontane basin.
This interpretation is supported by analysis of rootstock morphology,
which implies tree growth in thin soils consistent with an alluvial
gravel substrate."
Basically, Falcon-Lang and Bashford (2004) presented some very convincing evidence that Dawson was correct when he inferred that the the cordaitalean trees ("coniferous trees") found in the outcrops at Joggins came from upland forests upstream / upriver of the Joggins outcrops, in which Dawson found the,
Reference
Falcon-Lang, H J, and Bashforth, A. (2004) Pennsylvanian uplands were
forested by giant cordaitalean trees. Geology. vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 417 — 420.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/...tent/abstract/32/5/417
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/vol32/issue5/
References Cited by Randy B:
"References: are at: Page not found – Earth Age
See also:
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Wieland, Carl, "Forests that grew on water," Creation, Vol. 18, No.1,
Dec.95-Feb.96,pp. 20-24. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Kunze, Otto, 1884, Die vorweltliche Entwicklung der Erdkruste und der
Pflanzen. Phytogeogenesis.
86 Scott, A. C. and Falcon-Lang, H. J., 2000, "Upland ecology of some
Late Carboniferous corditalean trees from Nova Scotia and England,"
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Vol. 156,
pp. 228-230.
87. Austin, Steve, 1986, "Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism,"
ICR Impact Article 175.
88. Morris, John D., The Young Earth, 1994, p. 103."
Randy B stated:
"Moving on to the subject of aqueous growth:
"... almost all Coniferous trees in the Joggins strata are found in the
form of fossil logs buried in drifted Channel Deposits. 100 With the
exception of leaves and (perhaps) bark, their remains are not found
in the coals themselves -- except for small pieces found in coal balls.
Dawson here takes aim at those who had previously proposed that
Sigillaria and Lepidodendrons were aquatic (i.e. that they grew in
water). This view was first proposed by Brongniart, 101 and was
later espoused by Binney. 102 More recently, Scheven 103 has
proposed that such trees were not only aquatic, but comprised what
he terms "Floating Forests." Scheven later discovered that he was
not the first to propose such a view; for Kunze104 had done so over
100 years prior. Such a view would allow for much larger forest
areas than are currently available on the Continents alone. However,
since no Sigillarias or Lepidodendrons exist today (other than as
fossils), we may never know for certain whether or not this was the
case."
The last sentence is pure nonsense. As discussed and illustrated in detail by Gastaldo (1984, 1991), Coffin (1983), and Coffin and Brown (1982), conventional and creationist models about how polystrate trees were created invoke very different processes. Such differences in the formational processes proposed for each creationist and conventional model result in very different products, in addition to the fossil polystrate trees created, in terms of the layering, physical composition, and internal structure and features of the sedimentary beds enclosing them. These predicted differences are great enough that it is possible to on the basis of the physical evidence to determine for certain what indeed "was the case". Gastaldo (1984, 1991) discusses in great detail how this can be done.
References:
Gastaldo, R. A. (1984) A case against pelagochthony: the untenability of
Carboniferous arborescent Lycopod-dominated floating mats. In Walker,
K. R., ed., The Evolution-Creation Controversy, Perspectives on Religion,
Philosophy, Science and Education, The Paleontological Society Special
Publication no.1, pp. 97-116.
Gastaldo, R. A. (1999) Debates on Autochthonous and Allochthonous Origin
of Coal: Empirical Science versus the Diluvialists. In Manger, W.L., ed., The
Evolution-Creation Controversy II: Perspectives on Science, Religion, and
Geological Education, The Paleontological Society Papers , vol. 5,
pp. 135-167.
References Cited by Randy B
100. ibid. ref. 86, pp. 225-234.
101. Darwin, Charles. More Letters Of Charles Darwin —
Volume 2, LETTER 555. TO J.D. HOOKER; May 22, 1860.
102. More Letters Of Charles Darwin -- Volume 2, Letters
552, 553, and 555 TO J.D. HOOKER; May 1846, June 2nd,
1847, and May 22nd, 1860. This may also be found online at:
ftp://ibiblio.org/...ocs/books/gutenberg/etext01/2mlcd10.txt
Or go to: http://promo.net/cgi-promo/pg/t9.cgi and search for
Charles Darwin.
See also: Binney, E. W., 1844,The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin
Phil. Mag., Vol. XXIV, p. 173. And: Binney, E. W., 1848, "On the
Origin of Coal," Mem. Literary and Philosophical. Soc. of
Manchester; AKA : Mem. of the Manch. Lit. and Phil. Soc.;
Vol. VIII, pp. 148-193 ?
103. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
See also: Wieland, Carl, "Forests that grew on water," Creation,
Vol. 18, No.1, Dec. 1995-Feb. 96, pp. 20-24.
104. Kunze, Otto, 1884, Die vorweltliche Entwicklung der
Erdkruste und der Pflanzen. Phytogeogenesis."
Randy B. pontificated:
"Now how it was that they caught on fire if they were floating on the
surface of the Ocean: The answer is that just because there were
floating on ths surface of the ocean in the form of huge log mats, does
not mean that they would be immune to volcanic ash reiging down on
them and causing their upper (dry) portions to burn. However, they
may also have been burned before they were uprooted, or before such
"Floating Forests" (if this was indeed the case) were broken up. The
fact that they were burnt (if this was indeed the case) in no way proves
that they were growing upon the spots where they were buried —
meaing that burnt trees can be uprooted just as eaasly (if not more so)
than "unburnt" ones."
There are all sorts of problems. One is that volcanic ash cools off within extremely short distances of the volcano from it comes. It is impossible for volcanic ash to start fires as suggested above. Even if the trees were right on the flanks of the volcano, typically it would be impossible for volcanic ash to start them on fire. Only a pyroclastic flow, which leaves very distinct deposits, might do it and they are restricted to the immediate vicinity of the volcano from which they came. Nowhere in the Joggins outcrop and region is there any evidence of pyroclastic flows or any other volcanic activity that could start such fires. Also, Randy B does not understand is that charred wood is very brittle and would have been completely broken quite quickly had it been transported any distance. Therefore, it is impossible that they were burnt elsewhere and washed into the Joggins area while being banged around in a tangled mass of driftwood. Randy B. lacks either a plausible mechanism or a shred of how these fires started during his Noachian Flood, especially while it is raining for 40 days and nights.
Randy B. further pontificated:
"Bill Continues: Also, these papers document clear examples of polystrate
trees being firmly rooted in unmistakable fossil soils (paleosols) and
soundly refute ...that these trees were washed in and buried by a Noachian...
Flood.
Randy: Believe what you wish Bill, but my paper also documents "clear
examples" of Polystrates that were very likely NOT "rooted" in any sort
of "unmitakable fossil soil"...
Again, Randy B shows himself rather ill-informed of what has been published in the scientific literature. As far as the fossils soils go, there are numerous papers that describe "unmitakable fossil soils". These publications include:
1. Micromorphological Analysis of Selected Paleosols of Late
Carboniferous Coal-Bearing Rocks Exposed at Joggin, Nova Scotia, Canada
by M. G. Smith and I. P. Martin.
MICROMORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PALEOSOLS OF LATE CARBONIFEROUS COAL
Publications
2. Floodplain Deposits and Palesol profiles of the Late Carboniferous
Cumberland Basin, Joggins, Nova Scotia by M. G. Smith and I. P. Martin.
FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS AND PALEOSOL PROFILES OF THE LATE CARBONIFEROUS
3. Teniere, Paul (1998) Sedimentology, Facies Successions and Cyclicity
of a Section of the Joggins Formation, Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Unpublished M.S. thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
http://meguma.earthsciences.dal.ca/abstract/ab_th_98.htm
In part, the abstract of Teniere (1998) stated about fossil soils (paleosols) found in the polystrate tree-bearing strata of Joggin:
"Grey clay-rich mudstones classify as "seat earths" or Gleysol paleosols
and grey platy mudstones are hydromorphic soils that experiences less
vegetative activity. Red mudstones are Vertisols formed under seasonal,
oxidizing conditions. Carbonaceous shales are clastic swamp deposits and
are associated with coals (Histosol) formed in peat mires."
Some other references documenting fossil soils (paleosols) within the Joggins strata containing the polystrate trees found there are:
Smith, Mark G. (1995) Floodplain deposits, Paleosol profiles and evidence
of climatic change from the Late Carboniferous Joggins Formation,
Cumberland Basin, Nova Scotia, Canada. Program with Abstracts —
Geological Association of Canada; Mineralogical Association of Canada;
Canadian Geophysical Union, Joint Annual Meeting. vol. 20, pp.99
Smith, Mark G. (1990) Floodplain and Paleosol profiles of the
Carboniferous Cumberland coal basin, Nova Scotia, Canada. American
Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin. Vol. 74, no. 8,
pp.1310-1311.
Tandon, S. k., and Gibling, M. R. (1994) Calcrete and coal in late
Carboniferous cyclothems of Nova Scotia, Canada: climate and
sea-level changes linked. Geology vol. 22, pp. 755-758.
Davies, S. J. and Gibling, M. R. (2003) Architecture of coastal and
alluvial deposits in an extensional basin; the Carboniferous Joggins
Formation of Eastern Canada. Sedimentology. Vol. 50, no. 3,
pp. 415-439.
Gibling, M. R., Saunders, K. I., Tibert, N. E. and White, J. A. (2004)
Sequence sets, high-accommodation events and the coal window in the
Carboniferous Sydney Coalfield, Atlantic Canada. In: Coal-bearing Strata:
Sequence Stratigraphy, Paleoclimate, and Tectonics, J. Pashin and R.
Gastaldo, eds., pp. 169-198. AAPG Studies in Geology no. 51, American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Pictures that refute the claim that the Joggins’ polystrate trees lack any roots can be found in:
Falcon-Lang, H. J. (2004) Ice, coal and ancient rainforests. Planet Earth
(NERC News), Autumn edition, Pages 20-21 (National Environment
Research Council, Swindon Great Britain)
and
Falcon-Lang, H. J., and Calder, J. H., (2004) UNESCO World Heritage and
the Joggins cliffs of Nova Scotia. Geology Today. vol. 20, no. 4,
pp. 140-144 (Figure 5, page 142)
Online images of polystrate trees with roots can be found in "Standing lycopsid" at:
http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/PICT0044.JPG , which is part of "Photogallery 1: Joggins" at: http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/photogallery1.htm .
In this picture, a person can see two of the roots, which Young Earth creationists claimed do not exist. One major reasons that Young Earth creationists, including certain creationist geologists, are held in such disrespect and disdain and sometimes regarded with great humor is that they are often incapable of correctly making even the most basic of observations such as being able to observe such roots in the field.
Another online photograph of roots of one of these polystrate trees can be found at:
http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/.../vft/ns/joggins/figure9_lrg.jpg, which is part of
http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/...ns/joggins/fossils_plants_e.php
And finally Randy pontificated:
"And the very fact that Dawson (briefly) discusses various portions of
the Joggins strata contain "drift logs" is further evidence that (very
likely) NONE of these trees were in their original positions of growth."
The presence of "drift logs" in the outcrops within the Joggins, Nova Scotia, cliffs miserably fails to prove any proof that "NONE of these trees were in their original positions of growth" as falsely claimed by Randy B.. He seems to be unaware of the documented fact that "drift logs" are a common part of modern fluvial and deltaic plains all over the world and often are quite commonly preserved within the sediments that accumulate within these environments. Before they were controlled with levees, revetments, and dams and cleared of immense amounts of "drift logs" and other woody debris for flood control and navigation, many modern rivers and streams often carried larges amounts of "drift logs" and other woody debris down their courses. Eventually, large amounts of the "drift logs" and other woody debris were carried downstream into their deltaic plain and even offshore. Huge amounts of the "drift logs" and other woody debris were commonly deposited and buried in the fine-grained floodplain sediments and coarse channel sands of these rivers. In some cases, woody material, which made it as far as the deltas, ended up being buried within the delta plains.
As discussed and documented by Triska (1984) and Montgomery et al. (1984), the construction of levees, revetments, and dams on and removal by snagging operations of immense amounts of "drift logs" and other woody debris from the channels of modern rivers has reduced the immense amount of drift logs" and other woody debris carried by rivers and streams. The construction of levees and revetments has prevented the shifting of river channels, which normally pull huge amounts of "drift logs" and other woody debris into a river. The levees have also prevented annual and major floods from carrying "drift logs" and other woody debris out of a river into the backswamp, where they become buried, as has happened constantly in the past. Dams constantly trap "drift logs" and other woody debris that normally would have floated downstream. Thus, the current state of modern rivers fails to provide any indication of the amount of "drift logs" and other woody debris carried and deposited by modern rivers in past up to historic times.
A documented example of the immense amounts of "drift logs" and other woody debris that a river system can carry and can accumulate within it is the "Great Raft" that blocked the Red River of Louisiana. Concerning the "Great Raft" Robinson et al. (2004) stated:
"No one has been able to determine when the Great Raft first began
forming, but the existence of a raft in the river supposedly is recounted
in "early Indian legends" (Humphreys 1971). Veatch (1906) estimated
that the raft had been present since the late 1400s, under the assumption
that it started well south of Alexandria in Bayou Boeuf and moved
upstream, causing the diversion of the river through Moncla Gap. It is
certain, however, that the raft was observed by the French explorer
Bienville in 1700 (Russ 1975). The raft first was described by Dunbar
(1804) and thereafter by several writers in the early 19th century.
Based on historic accounts and numerous photographs (Humphreys 1971),
it is apparent that the individual raft segments were tangled masses of
cottonwood, ash, elm, cypress, and cedar with some oak and pine from the
river bluffs. The woody debris was intertwined with vines, branches, and
saplings, forming an impenetrable barrier to navigation (Figure 14). Since
raft segments persisted for decades or more, considerable quantities of fine
sediment became incorporated into the mass, willows sprouted, and some
logs put down roots and anchored the raft to the river bottom (McCall
1988).
In 1820, the southern end of the raft was observed to be at Natchitoches
(McCall 1988). Its length upstream from that point has been variously
reported to have been 160 km (100 mi) by the U.S. Army Engineer
District, Vicksburg (n.d.); 224 km (140 mi) by Russ (1975) and Guardia
(1933); 256 km (160 mi) by Veatch (1906); and 320 km (200 mi) by
McCall (1988). At that time, the northern end was in the vicinity of
Shreveport, but later moved upstream to about 8 km (5 mi) south of the
Arkansas-Louisiana state line. In a sense, the raft was like a living, moving
organism that slowly made its way upstream. The downstream end or foot
of the raft was the relatively oldest part, and as the debris decayed, pieces
would be lifted and dislodged and would float downstream (Guardia 1933).
Concurrently, new materials would be added to the head of the raft.
Occasionally about 8 km (5 mi) of new log jam could be added as a result
of a single freshet (a sudden rise in stage caused by heavy upstream
precipitation). Guardia (1933) estimated that the raft had a net upstream
movement of about 1.3 km (0.8 mi) per year between 1820 and 1872 while
others have estimated it at 1.6 km (1.0 mi) per year (U.S. Army Engineer
District, Vicksburg, n.d.)."
Some web pages about the "Great Raft" are:
1. "The Great Raft" (has a picture of a large mass of "drift logs".
The Caddo Map Tool, Environment - The Great Raft
http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/...aphics/greatraft-lg.jpg
2. "The Great Red River Raft"
The Great Red River Raft
In this web page it is stated:
"In June of 1806 an expedition attempted to navigate the Red River. One
of the members of the expedition recorded in his journal "The first raft
is not more than 40 yards through. It consists of the trunks of large
trees, lying in all directions, and damming up the river for its whole
width, from the bottom, to about three feet higher than the surface of
the water. ""
3. "Navigation along the Red River"
http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/...ton_waterway/background.htm
The example of the "Great Raft" demonstrates that contrary to what Randy B falsely presumed above, that historic rivers and streams often contained and transported large quantities of "drift logs" and other woody debris. This material can accumulate not only in the floodplain, but also their channels. As a result, the presence of large amounts of "drift logs" and other woody debris within the strata at Joggins, Nova Scotia is meaningless as evidence that the polystrate trees found in the Joggins strata are **not** in place as "drift logs" are often typical of river floodplains. Neither a Noachian Flood nor any other catastrophic events are needed to explain the presence of "drift logs" in the Joggins strata.
In addition, Robinson et al. (2004) demonstrated how wood can be preserved by burial within the waterlogged sediments of river floodplains and channels. They document an entire wooden steamboat, which has been preserved for almost 140 years. (This wooden shipwreck is only 10 years younger than the research that Dawson did on the Joggins, Nova Scotia, cliffs.) There are many other shipwrecks, like the Kentucky, preserved in this manner within the major North American rivers. Like the shipwrecks, the preservation of large amounts of natural wood is quite common in water-saturated Holocene and Pleistocene fluvial deposits
References:
Dunbar, W. (1804) The exploration of the Red, Black, and the Washita
rivers. In: Documents Relating to the Purchase and Exploration of
Louisiana. Part 2, Houghton, Mifflin, and Co., New York.
Guardia, J. E. (1933) Some results of the log jam in the Red River.
Bulletin of the Geographical Society of Philadelphia. vol. 31, no. 3,
pp.103-114.
Humphreys, H. (1971) Photographic views of Red River Raft, 1873.
Louisiana History. vol. 12, pp. 101-108.
McCall, E. (1988) The attack on the Great Raft. In: Invention and
Technology, Winter edition, pp. 10-16.
Montgomery, D. R., Collins, B. R., Buffington, J. M., and Abbe, T. B.
(2003) Geomorphic Effects of Wood in Rivers. Stan V. Gregory, Kathryn
L. Boyer, and Angela M. Gurnell, eds., pp. 1-27, American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
http://riverhistory.ess.washington.edu/pubs/WoodinRivers.pdf
Robinson, D. S., Adams, M. A., Adam, I., Kan, B.A., and Williams, M. A.
(2004) Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Investigations of the
Shipwreck Kentucky (Site 16BO358) as Eagle Bend, Pool 5, Red River
Waterway, Bossier, Parish. Report prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin
and Associates, Frederick, Maryland for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Vicksburg District, Vicksburg, Mississippi for Contract No. DACW38-96-
D-0006, Delivery Order 0001 and 0002.
http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/offices/pp/Projects/J_Bennett_Johnston_Waterway/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
(Caution, this file is large. It is a 117.5 MB)
(Also, there is a link to Robinson et al. (2004) on the "Navigation along the Red River" web page at:
http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/...ton_waterway/background.htm
Russ, D. P. (1975) The Quaternary Geomorphology of the Lower Red
River Valley, Louisiana. Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University, College Station.
Triska, Frank J. (1984) Role of wood debris in modifying channel
geomorphology and riparian areas of a large lowland river under pristine
conditions; a historical case study. Verhandlungen - Internationale
Vereinigung fuer Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie. vol. 22,
no. 3, pp. 1876-1892
For a another point of view, a person can go to:
Polystrate Fossils by Greg Neyman (2005) Answers In Creation
http://www.answersincreation.org/polystrate.htm
Joggins Fossil Cliffs by Greg Neyman (2005) Answers In Creation
http://www.answersincreation.org/joggins.htm
The Floating Forest Theory Sinks by Greg Neyman (2005)
http://www.answersincreation.org/floating.htm
Yours,
Bill
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-10-2005 00:44 AM
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-10-2005 01:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RandyB, posted 03-05-2005 7:16 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 1:37 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 89 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 2:51 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024