Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Paleosols
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 165 (22289)
11-11-2002 6:52 PM


This is basically a followup of the 'Buddika on the Genesis Flood' thread and the paleosol problem posted mainly by mark24:
"9-12 SUCCESSIVE forest layers. The roots of the in situ trees are in fine grained tuffaceous sandstone & NOT the conglomerate that lays atop each horizon."
--I do not find this observation to be completely problematic. Of course my notion is nothing like, 'tree stumps can be transported, so all occurrences can be dismissed'. Yuretich argues that:
quote:
(3) The upper parts of some stumps and logs surrounded by conglomerates are severely abraded, but the lower parts contained within tuffaceous sandstones commonly have good root systems. This also suggests that mudflows moved over preexisting trees. (4)Thin sections show no evidence of extensive current activity in the tuffaceous sandstone in which the stumps are rooted. In contrast, most textural evidence indicates the existence of a soil around the roots (p. 161).
--As it pertains to #3, I believe since both columnar wood deposits lack in appendages & bark with the exception of root systems on the tufa inclusions that it is possible that all of the sets had been transported at one time or another. And in considering #4 I also see that the evidence can cope with a transportation of this set as well, latterly being rooted in soils. What other characteristics are attributable to the extant soils besides texture? From my readings a textural basis for distinguishing paleosols while it is possible they actually are, can fabricate in brief time spans(which of course are highly variable). Their direct succession as well as having a degree of pedogeny indicates a halt in sedimentation for a span of time between each diagenic & depositional event.
--Also, the occurrence of rhizocretions in a significant minority of paleosols, and other trace fossil examples of calcified pupal cases of insects, burrows & termite nests. Even coprolites occur in paleosols rightly indicating periods of halted sedimentation as well as there not being serious pedogenic/diagenic disturbances with the exception of turbations (bio, argilli, crystal, or aero [it is unlikely though completely possible that cyroturbations would at all frequently occur]). There is also the often happening of bioturbations such as uprooting haploidizations, but that's another story. I do not find it inconsistent with flood geology that insects would create a cocoon to metamorphose, an animal to create shelter, or termites to form nests in paleosols. Truly, the only hope for it being problematic would be if these occurred in fully diagenic sediments rather than pedogenic sediment.
--Thought I would finally assess this information before I forget the relevant text I've read.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-11-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 11-11-2002 11:57 PM TrueCreation has replied

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


Message 2 of 165 (22311)
11-11-2002 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
11-11-2002 6:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
This is basically a followup of the 'Buddika on the Genesis Flood' thread and the paleosol problem posted mainly by mark24:
"9-12 SUCCESSIVE forest layers. The roots of the in situ trees are in fine grained tuffaceous sandstone & NOT the conglomerate that lays atop each horizon."
--I do not find this observation to be completely problematic. Of course my notion is nothing like, 'tree stumps can be transported, so all occurrences can be dismissed'. Yuretich argues that:
[quote][i]
(3) The upper parts of some stumps and logs surrounded by conglomerates are severely abraded, but the lower parts contained within tuffaceous sandstones commonly have good root systems. This also suggests that mudflows moved over preexisting trees. (4)Thin sections show no evidence of extensive current activity in the tuffaceous sandstone in which the stumps are rooted. In contrast, most textural evidence indicates the existence of a soil around the roots (p. 161). [/quote]
[/i]
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, TC. This is exactly what we would expect from a number of local catastrophic and temporary innundations. The problem you should have is that there was time for trees to grow in between the events.
quote:
--As it pertains to #3, I believe since both columnar wood deposits lack in appendages & bark with the exception of root systems on the tufa inclusions that it is possible that all of the sets had been transported at one time or another.
What do you mean? You have just been given evidence that the trees were NOT transported. And 'one time or another?'
quote:
And in considering #4 I also see that the evidence can cope with a transportation of this set as well, latterly being rooted in soils. What other characteristics are attributable to the extant soils besides texture? From my readings a textural basis for distinguishing paleosols while it is possible they actually are, can fabricate in brief time spans(which of course are highly variable).
Yes, geologically short time spans. How long do you think that it would take for soils to develop AND for trees to grow in those soils? Your one-year flood is disappearing.
quote:
Their direct succession as well as having a degree of pedogeny indicates a halt in sedimentation for a span of time between each diagenic & depositional event.
Yes, a long time span for each.
quote:
--Also, the occurrence of rhizocretions in a significant minority of paleosols, and other trace fossil examples of calcified pupal cases of insects, burrows & termite nests. Even coprolites occur in paleosols rightly indicating periods of halted sedimentation as well as there not being serious pedogenic/diagenic disturbances with the exception of turbations (bio, argilli, crystal, or aero [it is unlikely though completely possible that cyroturbations would at all frequently occur]). There is also the often happening of bioturbations such as uprooting haploidizations, but that's another story. I do not find it inconsistent with flood geology that insects would create a cocoon to metamorphose, an animal to create shelter, or termites to form nests in paleosols. Truly, the only hope for it being problematic would be if these occurred in fully diagenic sediments rather than pedogenic sediment.
That's easy for you to say! Now how do you get all of these features in the few days between flood surges? And what the heck are 'diagenic sediments?'
quote:
--Thought I would finally assess this information before I forget the relevant text I've read.
I suggest that you keep reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 11-11-2002 6:52 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-12-2002 12:48 AM edge has not replied
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 11-12-2002 5:27 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 165 (22315)
11-12-2002 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by edge
11-11-2002 11:57 PM


Hey, Edge.
Where are there today, forests growing on top of multiple successions of (vertically petrified) forests?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 11-11-2002 11:57 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 11-12-2002 5:07 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 165 (22331)
11-12-2002 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tranquility Base
11-12-2002 12:48 AM


TB,
As far as I'm aware, there are no known examples of what you ask, unless Edge has anything to add. There ARE petrified forests in formation, however.
http://sts.gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/...antic/nova/ns_fundy/spring.htm
Bay of Fundy
Spring tide drowns the forest, Amherst Marsh, NS.
The process of rising sea level is clearly seen here where the highest tides of the year have reached far into the forest. Trees are killed at the salt water limit and become gradually buried in the marsh mud. Their stumps are used to date when the tide reached any given level. Here, the tide has risen about 1 metre in the last 1000 years and many early colonial artifacts from the early 1600's are found at 30-40 cm depth.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-12-2002 12:48 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-12-2002 5:43 PM mark24 has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 165 (22384)
11-12-2002 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by edge
11-11-2002 11:57 PM


"I'm not sure what you are getting at here, TC. This is exactly what we would expect from a number of local catastrophic and temporary innundations.[1] The problem you should have is that there was time for trees to grow in between the events.[2] "
--[1] - Right, though I find it interesting that your explanation for their deposition, the presented data is also what is expected to be found in my scenario.
--[2] - I have yet to see this as a deduction.
"What do you mean? You have just been given evidence that the trees were NOT transported.[1] And 'one time or another?'[2] "
--[1] - Yes I was. However, if the data shows that both tufa and conglomeratic logs are abraded and quantitatively without attached appendages this is [though not utterly] indicative of transport. That rhizocretions are commonly found attached to their bearer is not completely diagnostic that there was no translocation.
--[2] - I said 'one time or another' because their transportation would have preceded their deposition. I am arguing that both burials are initially originated from a relatively remote location.
"Yes, geologically short time spans. How long do you think that it would take for soils to develop AND for trees to grow in those soils? Your one-year flood is disappearing."
--See above for what I think about them growing in the same locus of inhumation. & as I said earlier:
quote:
From my readings a textural basis for distinguishing paleosols while it is possible they actually are, can fabricate in brief time spans(which of course are highly variable).
--When referring to a 'textural basis', it is usually an analysis involving disaggregation, point counting, or something of that likeness. A method of diagnosis available because of linear granulometric anisotropy. Granulometric pedoturbation can be a relatively swift organization, most especially when such size/concentration gradient trends are attributable to sedimentary and not directly pedogenic processes. Of course there is little data for any of us to extrapolate from.
"That's easy for you to say! Now how do you get all of these features in the few days between flood surges?[1] And what the heck are 'diagenic sediments?'[2]"
--[1] - does it take more than a few days for a mass of termites to create a nest, I have great doubt that these nests are on any severely significant scale. Does it take more than a few days for an animal to create a burrow? These burrows are not enormous.
--[2] - I meant to say diagenetic.
"I suggest that you keep reading."
--I would never assume that I have all the information I will require.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 11-11-2002 11:57 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by edge, posted 11-12-2002 11:31 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 10 by edge, posted 11-12-2002 11:45 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 165 (22386)
11-12-2002 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by mark24
11-12-2002 5:07 AM


Mark
The Bay of Fundy would be a great confernece location for ICC 2004.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 11-12-2002 5:07 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 11-12-2002 7:00 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 7 of 165 (22391)
11-12-2002 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tranquility Base
11-12-2002 5:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark
The Bay of Fundy would be a great confernece location for ICC 2004.

LOL, yeah, never thought of that
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-12-2002 5:43 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by TrueCreation, posted 11-12-2002 7:12 PM mark24 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 165 (22393)
11-12-2002 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mark24
11-12-2002 7:00 PM


"
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark
The Bay of Fundy would be a great confernece location for ICC 2004.
LOL, yeah, never thought of that "
--hehe, I thought there had to be something funny about that name, no better word than fundamentalist came to my mind
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 11-12-2002 7:00 PM mark24 has not replied

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


Message 9 of 165 (22415)
11-12-2002 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by TrueCreation
11-12-2002 5:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I'm not sure what you are getting at here, TC. This is exactly what we would expect from a number of local catastrophic and temporary innundations.[1] The problem you should have is that there was time for trees to grow in between the events.[2] "
--[1] - Right, though I find it interesting that your explanation for their deposition, the presented data is also what is expected to be found in my scenario.
--[2] - I have yet to see this as a deduction.
Okay, how can I explain this?.... If you have mature trees with root systems, and other attendant fauna and flora, then they must have had time to grow. Each consecutive forest has been covered or partly covered by a debris flow, killing it. Then another layer of soil develops on top of the debris flow in which trees can take root. If each innundation is one of your surges, there for, they must have been many years apart. This does not match your scenario at all in which the surges are just days apart.
quote:
"What do you mean? You have just been given evidence that the trees were NOT transported.[1] And 'one time or another?'[2] "
--[1] - Yes I was. However, if the data shows that both tufa and conglomeratic logs are abraded and quantitatively without attached appendages this is [though not utterly] indicative of transport.
First of all, I don't think you mean 'tufa'. I seriously doubt that tufa deposits could form in a matter of days, expecially in a flood enivronment.
If abrasion and lack of 'appendages' (I think you mean 'branches') is not 'utterly indicative' of transport it is hardly convincing evidence for your scenario. Why not give us something that clinches it? I think you are grasping at straws.
In the mean time, what do you think a dead forest looks like? Check out the picture that Mark has provided. The branches are lost first. Imagine this picture after a debris flow. In fact, the lower parts of the trunks would probably be buried in fine grained sediments, and the tops sheared off and abraded by the debris flow itself. Now why do these trees show root systems but no branches? Your model must explain this.
quote:
That rhizocretions are commonly found attached to their bearer is not completely diagnostic that there was no translocation.
Again not completely diagnostic, but what makes the most sense? It is evidence that you cannot avoid. Take this in with other pieces of evidence an it becomes clear that the trees are basically in place.
quote:
--[2] - I said 'one time or another' because their transportation would have preceded their deposition. I am arguing that both burials are initially originated from a relatively remote location.
Then you should have said exactly that. Your prose is getting a bit heavy.
quote:
From my readings a textural basis for distinguishing paleosols while it is possible they actually are, can fabricate in brief time spans(which of course are highly variable).
You must be careful in going from 'can occur' to 'must always occur.' The latter is necessary for you model to be correct. In other words, if your soil takes a long time to produce just one time, then you are completely wrong. Then think about how long we believe that it takes soils to form today. What do you think the likelihood of all paleosols being formed in a matter of days?
quote:
"That's easy for you to say! Now how do you get all of these features in the few days between flood surges?[1] And what the heck are 'diagenic sediments?'[2]"
--[1] - does it take more than a few days for a mass of termites to create a nest, I have great doubt that these nests are on any severely significant scale.
I do not know, but I would assume that it takes some time to build up a population of termites that could start a colony. I know that they are prolific, but this would be ridiculous, especially since they would have to migrate across miles and miles of baren ground and would require plenty of wood or something to eat.
quote:
Does it take more than a few days for an animal to create a burrow? These burrows are not enormous.
Well considerding that they have been buried by the previous surge, it would seem unlikely that These creatures could mature and repopulate the new surface in just a few days.
Tell us honestly, TC, what makes the most sense? And why would the trees be tranported but not the soils around them?
And in reference to your earlier question, I have no direct evidence of current forests growing on top of older forests, but it would stand to reason that if we have a forested horizon eroding out of a hillside that one could easily have trees on the hill. From diagrams I have seen of the forests at Yellowstone, it would seem that there is an erosional surface above them all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 11-12-2002 5:27 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 11-13-2002 10:26 PM edge has replied

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


Message 10 of 165 (22418)
11-12-2002 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by TrueCreation
11-12-2002 5:27 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 11-12-2002 5:27 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 165 (22592)
11-13-2002 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by edge
11-12-2002 11:31 PM


"Okay, how can I explain this?.... If you have mature trees with root systems, and other attendant fauna and flora, then they must have had time to grow. Each consecutive forest has been covered or partly covered by a debris flow, killing it. Then another layer of soil develops on top of the debris flow in which trees can take root."
--Not necessarily true, you say they 'must' have had time to grow, however it has not been determined that that is what happened without question. I have no reason to argue against this representation of the mainstream explanation as long as I am not forced to embrace their mechanisms.
"If each innundation is one of your surges, there for, they must have been many years apart. This does not match your scenario at all in which the surges are just days apart."
--Years apart? How is it possible that you might come to deduce this conclusion? Almost every geologic event which would have caused such a surge is compacted in the most part to a years time span. You cannot tell me no such surges have taken place even in geologic time. Besides, Flood mechanics usually have much more 'magnified' geologic effects than uniformitarian.
"First of all, I don't think you mean 'tufa'. I seriously doubt that tufa deposits could form in a matter of days, expecially in a flood enivronment."
--I don't mean tufa as tuff volcanic deposits, not lacustrine or phreatic tufa.
"If abrasion and lack of 'appendages' (I think you mean 'branches') is not 'utterly indicative' of transport it is hardly convincing evidence for your scenario. Why not give us something that clinches it? I think you are grasping at straws."
--No, I am grabbing at meat. You are also taking my wording to an fallacied extreme. The reason I said '...are abraded and quantitatively without attached appendages this is [though not utterly] indicative of transport' is because it simply is not. Not in my scenario, not in your scenario, not in any. It is indicative of transport though not 'absolute' if that is more understandable. Either way I word it, it is synonymous.
--Yes, by appendages I mean 'branches'. I was referring to trees and an appendage is an attachment added or protruding from another body of greater size or importance.
"In the mean time, what do you think a dead forest looks like? Check out the picture that Mark has provided. The branches are lost first. Imagine this picture after a debris flow. In fact, the lower parts of the trunks would probably be buried in fine grained sediments, and the tops sheared off and abraded by the debris flow itself."
--The process of tree aging given relatively long periods of time will give the same effect that transport will give. So why is it that if your scenario explains this observation, that mine is then incorrect? It doesn't work that way because it is interrupted by the fact that mine, as far as this discussion goes, does also.
"Now why do these trees show root systems but no branches? Your model must explain this."
--Root systems are more elastic and tree limbs are protrude perpendicular to the tree itself, so it is likely that limbs would be the more likely candidate for abrasive action. I would suspect that the rhizocretions are not going to be without abrasive induction. We may find that these fossil root systems are not as full as would be if they were undisturbed and developing in situ the soil.
"Then you should have said exactly that. Your prose is getting a bit heavy."
--It is usually the case where it takes more than a post or two to make it adequately clarified.
"You must be careful in going from 'can occur' to 'must always occur.' The latter is necessary for you model to be correct. In other words, if your soil takes a long time to produce just one time, then you are completely wrong. Then think about how long we believe that it takes soils to form today. What do you think the likelihood of all paleosols being formed in a matter of days?"
--I didn't say 'must always occur' and won't because it would then be a fallacious statement. I did however say that it is highly variable. In mainstream studies the usual consensus is that paleosols can take anywhere from 10 to 10,000 years to form, depending on the environment. Though paleosols often have little characteristical indication for a pedogenic diagnosis. I gave my tid bit on Granulometric pedoturbation which is a mechanism which would produce a 'texture'. Texture is also the only supplied indication provided in the source by which they confirmed pedogeny. I also didn't say that they formed in a matter of days. We have at least a year for all paleosols.
--What does the data say on geochronology and the age of these strata and more importantly, the above & below stratum. Joe Meert gave a good example of a relatively mature paleosol in his article here:
Paleosols
quote:
The paleosol is developed on a granite dated to 1473 Ma and underneath the upper Cambrian-age Lamotte sandstone5
-- ~1000Ma is an extraordinarily vast geologic gap in time. And Proterozoic rock is pre-flood, very interesting when you think about it.
"I do not know, but I would assume that it takes some time to build up a population of termites that could start a colony. I know that they are prolific, but this would be ridiculous, especially since they would have to migrate across miles and miles of baren ground and would require plenty of wood or something to eat."
--Termites don't have to find a man made house to go and infest on. Nor does it require a tree directly though it is apparently a termite delicacy. I don't require that termites build up in population after local extinction. We don't find remnants of termite colonies in paleosols all too often. In between surges they would have migrated to other areas, some of which would have been across this plane.
"Well considerding that they have been buried by the previous surge, it would seem unlikely that These creatures could mature and repopulate the new surface in just a few days."
--See above.
"Tell us honestly, TC, what makes the most sense?"
--Its a difficult question to answer, not because I see the scale, but because I can't directly see this being balanced out. That is to say, it is a subjective call, and deducing which one does in fact make the most sense is under the heavy influence of interpretation. Though it is safe to say that if such a distinction between possible diagnoses is so tremulous, they both will make sense in and of themselves. Of course their application on a more macro boundary of geologic study and in this case, flood geology, could be used as the basis for inferring its merit. However, if it is found that my explanation for their origins is feasible, it stands to indicate that it is not problematic for my model in which it is incorporated.
"And why would the trees be tranported but not the soils around them?"
--Who said the soils around them weren't transported? Though its not like much would remain attached during abrasive episodes.
"And in reference to your earlier question, I have no direct evidence of current forests growing on top of older forests, but it would stand to reason that if we have a forested horizon eroding out of a hillside that one could easily have trees on the hill. From diagrams I have seen of the forests at Yellowstone, it would seem that there is an erosional surface above them all."
--I believe this may have been TB's inquiry.
------------------ From post #10 ---->
"Why does it not tell us that the lower parts of the stumps are also abraded? To me, it seems there is a distinction between 'lower parts' and roots. I am under the impression that the lower parts, in at least some cases are NOT abraded."
--You may have something here. When I had read it earlier I don't think I looked at in this context. This may be important for use in modifying the format by which they were burried. This seems similar to what you stated in your last post here:
quote:
In fact, the lower parts of the trunks would probably be buried in fine grained sediments, and the tops sheared off and abraded by the debris flow itself.
--I see no reason why this would be effective in arguing against the depositional event in my setting, though is very effective in modifying the geologic & hydrolic proceedure.
"Also, why are the soils not completely removed from the root systems? Have you ever seen a tree root system that has been uprooted and transported by rapidly rushing waters as you and TB have described them? I have seen trees tranported very short distances and the soils are completely stripped off the roots. This is a very violent process."
--I fail to see how this applies to the translocation and deposition of these trees. Yes their original location may have undergone a great erosional period. So their original soils would have had the bioturbation. their deposition in situ the soils in the Specimen Ridge vicinity would not have been a catastrophic process.
"Further more, why are they called 'stumps' and not 'logs?' This intrigues me because it is a common feature in petrified forests that I have seen. We usually don't see the tops of the trees even when they are standing upright."
--Right, this is significant in your scenario, mine does not inquire directly on ageing to account for the way we find them in the sediments.
"By the way are we going to get back to Mount St. Helens on this topic? I always love that analogy."
--If it is called for. Interesting, in my experience evo's usually hate to dance with creationists around anything to do with Mt. St. Helens.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by edge, posted 11-12-2002 11:31 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by edge, posted 11-14-2002 12:57 AM TrueCreation has replied

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


Message 12 of 165 (22622)
11-14-2002 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by TrueCreation
11-13-2002 10:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Not necessarily true, you say they 'must' have had time to grow, however it has not been determined that that is what happened without question.
This would be the normal interpretation of root systems, etc. If you insist on denying the mainstream interpretation you should show where it is wrong.
quote:
I have no reason to argue against this representation of the mainstream explanation as long as I am not forced to embrace their mechanisms.
Oh, that's convenient for you.
quote:
--Years apart? How is it possible that you might come to deduce this conclusion? Almost every geologic event which would have caused such a surge is compacted in the most part to a years time span.
You have not shown this. How do you grow entire forests in less than a year. Where did your transported forests come from? How do they survive the violent surges with root systems and rhizocretions intact? Through hundreds of surges, no less...
quote:
You cannot tell me no such surges have taken place even in geologic time. Besides, Flood mechanics usually have much more 'magnified' geologic effects than uniformitarian.
That is exactly what I am telling you. There are no such surges occurring on a frequency of hundreds per year, that somehow flooded the entire earth. [/quote]
--No, I am grabbing at meat. You are also taking my wording to an fallacied extreme. [/quote]
Yes, there is a reason for that. It is to show you the limits of your scenario.
quote:
The reason I said '...are abraded and quantitatively without attached appendages this is [though not utterly] indicative of transport' is because it simply is not. Not in my scenario, not in your scenario, not in any.
Corrrect, but you are the one who is saying that it is.
quote:
It is indicative of transport though not 'absolute' if that is more understandable. Either way I word it, it is synonymous.
Then this is not very good evidence to support your point.
quote:
--The process of tree aging given relatively long periods of time will give the same effect that transport will give.
NOt at all. I would expect a transported tree to carry little if any soil.
quote:
So why is it that if your scenario explains this observation, that mine is then incorrect? It doesn't work that way because it is interrupted by the fact that mine, as far as this discussion goes, does also.
Because it keeps the root system intact. Not to mention all of the other evidence such as burrows, nests, etc.
quote:
--Root systems are more elastic and tree limbs are protrude perpendicular to the tree itself, so it is likely that limbs would be the more likely candidate for abrasive action. I would suspect that the rhizocretions are not going to be without abrasive induction. We may find that these fossil root systems are not as full as would be if they were undisturbed and developing in situ the soil.
May! Could'a. Might'a.
quote:
"You must be careful in going from 'can occur' to 'must always occur.' The latter is necessary for you model to be correct. In other words, if your soil takes a long time to produce just one time, then you are completely wrong. Then think about how long we believe that it takes soils to form today. What do you think the likelihood of all paleosols being formed in a matter of days?"
--I didn't say 'must always occur' and won't because it would then be a fallacious statement.
So then, if one of the soil layers took a hundred years to form, then your model is out the window.
quote:
I did however say that it is highly variable. In mainstream studies the usual consensus is that paleosols can take anywhere from 10 to 10,000 years to form, depending on the environment.
Yep, hardly fits a one-year model, does it?
Though paleosols often have little characteristical indication for a pedogenic diagnosis. I gave my tid bit on Granulometric pedoturbation which is a mechanism which would produce a 'texture'. Texture is also the only supplied indication provided in the source by which they confirmed pedogeny. I also didn't say that they formed in a matter of days. We have at least a year for all paleosols.[/quote]
But you have over a hundred paleosols!
quote:
--What does the data say on geochronology and the age of these strata and more importantly, the above & below stratum. Joe Meert gave a good example of a relatively mature paleosol in his article here:
Paleosols
quote:
The paleosol is developed on a granite dated to 1473 Ma and underneath the upper Cambrian-age Lamotte sandstone5
-- ~1000Ma is an extraordinarily vast geologic gap in time. And Proterozoic rock is pre-flood, very interesting when you think about it.
The problem is that you only see the LAST soil to develop. The rest are likely eroded away.
quote:
"I do not know, but I would assume that it takes some time to build up a population of termites that could start a colony. I know that they are prolific, but this would be ridiculous, especially since they would have to migrate across miles and miles of baren ground and would require plenty of wood or something to eat."
--Termites don't have to find a man made house to go and infest on.
No, but they do like some kind of woody material. How did they find this on top of a flood surge deposit and repopulated an inundated region hundreds of miles wide in only a matter of days?
quote:
Nor does it require a tree directly though it is apparently a termite delicacy. I don't require that termites build up in population after local extinction. We don't find remnants of termite colonies in paleosols all too often. In between surges they would have migrated to other areas, some of which would have been across this plane.
Remember, we are dealing with 'vast' formations. And you have only days.
quote:
"Tell us honestly, TC, what makes the most sense?"
--Its a difficult question to answer, not because I see the scale, but because I can't directly see this being balanced out. That is to say, it is a subjective call, and deducing which one does in fact make the most sense is under the heavy influence of interpretation. Though it is safe to say that if such a distinction between possible diagnoses is so tremulous, they both will make sense in and of themselves. Of course their application on a more macro boundary of geologic study and in this case, flood geology, could be used as the basis for inferring its merit. However, if it is found that my explanation for their origins is feasible, it stands to indicate that it is not problematic for my model in which it is incorporated.
You have been given several reasons why your scenario is NOT feasible.
quote:
"And in reference to your earlier question, I have no direct evidence of current forests growing on top of older forests, but it would stand to reason that if we have a forested horizon eroding out of a hillside that one could easily have trees on the hill. From diagrams I have seen of the forests at Yellowstone, it would seem that there is an erosional surface above them all."
--I believe this may have been TB's inquiry.
Probably, I have so little time these days that I am quite rushed lately.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 11-13-2002 10:26 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 11-15-2002 6:12 PM edge has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 165 (22892)
11-15-2002 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by edge
11-14-2002 12:57 AM


"This would be the normal interpretation of root systems, etc. If you insist on denying the mainstream interpretation you should show where it is wrong."
--I have far from denied that the mainstream interpretation is credible. My explanation may be favored by the evidence just as yours. Though as I said before this isn't going to prove anything on a broader scale than what we argue.
"Oh, that's convenient for you."
--Does that mean there a problem with my statement?
"You have not shown this. How do you grow entire forests in less than a year. Where did your transported forests come from?"
--I'm not growing forests in less than a year. Please stop asserting this until you can at least begin by showing me why these specific paleosols took an inadequate period of time to reach their pedogenic condition, you have made no effort to illustrate this to any degree as of yet.
"How do they survive the violent surges with root systems and rhizocretions intact? Through hundreds of surges, no less..."
--Well there probably were no rhizocretions to be preserved, rhizocretions are permineralized or mineral-encrusted roots, not the root systems themselves. These roots I am sure, show signs of abrasion. Can you show me that these paleosols still obtain in situ fully intact roots systems? Given the data presented already, there seems to be no room for appeals to erosion.
"That is exactly what I am telling you. There are no such surges occurring on a frequency of hundreds per year, that somehow flooded the entire earth."
--We can discuss this later, until then, lets assume, for the sake of discussion, the frame work of flood geology, that Cambrian+ sediments are flood sediments.
"Yes, there is a reason for that. It is to show you the limits of your scenario."
--Are you telling me that there can be scientifically beneficial product by purposeful misinterpretation of my text? This is what you are saying and I must say, as I understand, it sounds rediculous.
"Corrrect, but you are the one who is saying that it is."
--Nothing, not the slightest bit, of this likeness. I have not claimed any scientific theory large or small is absolute.
"Then this is not very good evidence to support your point."
--I surely hope I am misunderstanding what you are trying to allege, because if not, this is horrible scientific logic. You are trying to tell me that untill I show that my scenario is not only theoretically correct, but absolute, that it is hog-wash.
"NOt at all. I would expect a transported tree to carry little if any soil."
--I think you have misinterpreted what the article states. These trees are penetrating incipient soils, you may have had the impression that soils only encrusted around the roots. Or maybe it is me that is misinterpreting? See:
quote:
Retallack also commented on Fritz's (1980) paper, stating that "there are at least some cases of petrified tree stumps unquestionably in place," with roots penetrating incipient soils horizons that, "compared to previous accounts, are suprisingly well differentiated" (p. 52). In his reply to Retallack, Fritz (1981, p. 54) again stated:
Tall upright trees with unbroken trunks. narrow root systems, and intact roots penetrating the substrate were apparently preserved were they grew. Unlike the tall in situ trees, many upright stumps have short trunks and roots broken prior to burial in a conglomerate with no organic zone, weathering profile, or color change. The bark of these trees is rarely preserved, owing to abrasion
And:
quote:
Thin sections show no evidence of extensive current activity in the tuffaceous sandstone in which the stumps are rooted. In contrast, most textural evidence indicates the existence of a soil around the roots (p. 161).
--If your interpretation is correct, however, I find it extremely difficult to reason that the soils just happened to only be preserved around roots. You may have created your own problem at which even if considering occums razor, translocation seems to be the most likely candidate.
"Because it keeps the root system intact. Not to mention all of the other evidence such as burrows, nests, etc. "
--This is not sufficient, see my input on your assertions regarding preservation of root systems and explain to me what I have asked you above. One liner responses are fine if they adequately address the problem, though if your not willing to do your part sufficiently, I don't know what to say.
"May! Could'a. Might'a. "
--Easy for you to say, now show me that it is not so. You should know more about this than me, your the geologist.
"So then, if one of the soil layers took a hundred years to form, then your model is out the window."
--Yes, now can you show me that they did take hundreds of years to form. If you can't your would seem to be contradicting yourself in that this is also a 'could'a. Might'a!'.
"Yep, hardly fits a one-year model, does it?"
--Yeah well the one-year model isn't mainstream is it?
"But you have over a hundred paleosols!"
--In succession? Where? I must have been overmedicated to think it was shown to be 9-12, eh?
"The problem is that you only see the LAST soil to develop. The rest are likely eroded away."
--I only see the last soil to develop? What do you mean? And, 'the rest are likely eroded away' is this another 'could'a, might'a' notion, feel free to support that it was erosion if you'd like. Though the more relevant thing to present is this simple information for the specimen ridge formation. Again, your the geologist, you should have access to this information with relative ease, or do you simply lack the interest? If so you really don't, I'm not forcing you to continue this discussion.
"No, but they do like some kind of woody material. How did they find this on top of a flood surge deposit and repopulated an inundated region hundreds of miles wide in only a matter of days? "
--Termites will feed on much more than 'some kind of woody material', including humus, and cannibalism. And how will they repopulate inundated areas? By what method did you find the 'hundreds of miles' extrapolation?
"You have been given several reasons why your scenario is NOT feasible."
--And I have refuted them individually.
"Probably, I have so little time these days that I am quite rushed lately."
--If posting in this thread seems to take more time than you'd like, I don't require that you respond to my posts with speed, but with quality. So if you'd like, you can respond to my posts a little bit at a time in Word or some other program and then submit your post when you are finished if that helps.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by edge, posted 11-14-2002 12:57 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by edge, posted 11-15-2002 10:09 PM TrueCreation has replied

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


Message 14 of 165 (22898)
11-15-2002 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by TrueCreation
11-15-2002 6:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"This would be the normal interpretation of root systems, etc. If you insist on denying the mainstream interpretation you should show where it is wrong."
--I have far from denied that the mainstream interpretation is credible. My explanation may be favored by the evidence just as yours.
Only if one wishes to use fringe type premises to come up with the predetermined global flood.
quote:
"Oh, that's convenient for you."
--Does that mean there a problem with my statement?
Well, it sure makes it easier for you if you can just ignore our arguments.
quote:
"You have not shown this. How do you grow entire forests in less than a year. Where did your transported forests come from?"
--I'm not growing forests in less than a year. Please stop asserting this until you can at least begin by showing me why these specific paleosols took an inadequate period of time to reach their pedogenic condition, you have made no effort to illustrate this to any degree as of yet.
That is because you are the one trying to overturn a well-established theory. You must convince others that you are correct. Several here have pointed out that according to established mainstream principles used to intrepret the data, you need to grow trees. Such is the only logical explanation of several data sets. If those conclusions or principles are wrong, then you should show us where they are incorrect.
quote:
"How do they survive the violent surges with root systems and rhizocretions intact? Through hundreds of surges, no less..."
--Well there probably were no rhizocretions to be preserved, rhizocretions are permineralized or mineral-encrusted roots, not the root systems themselves. These roots I am sure, show signs of abrasion.
Then you need to have some kind of evidence to support you. But, your own reference specifically excludes the root systems and the lower parts of the trees from the 'abraded' description. Why do you think that is? Why do they not say the entire tree is abraded?
quote:
Can you show me that these paleosols still obtain in situ fully intact roots systems? Given the data presented already, there seems to be no room for appeals to erosion.
I do not have the data. Perhaps someone else here does. I do however have some confidence in the observations of professional geologists. I also have cored some of the Mesa Verde coals which have organic debris that can best be explained as roots.
quote:
"That is exactly what I am telling you. There are no such surges occurring on a frequency of hundreds per year, that somehow flooded the entire earth."
--We can discuss this later, until then, lets assume, for the sake of discussion, the frame work of flood geology, that Cambrian+ sediments are flood sediments.
There is however no evidence to make this assumption. I am not sure why I would want to do so.
quote:
"Yes, there is a reason for that. It is to show you the limits of your scenario."
--Are you telling me that there can be scientifically beneficial product by purposeful misinterpretation of my text? This is what you are saying and I must say, as I understand, it sounds rediculous.
Umm, no. I'm saying that your scenario does not match reality.
quote:
"Then this is not very good evidence to support your point."
--I surely hope I am misunderstanding what you are trying to allege, because if not, this is horrible scientific logic. You are trying to tell me that untill I show that my scenario is not only theoretically correct, but absolute, that it is hog-wash.
Not at all. I am not the absolutist here. If you want evidence to support your point it can't be so-so evidence that 'supports both sides.' Come on! Knock our socks of with some blockbuster data!
quote:
"NOt at all. I would expect a transported tree to carry little if any soil."
--I think you have misinterpreted what the article states. These trees are penetrating incipient soils, you may have had the impression that soils only encrusted around the roots. Or maybe it is me that is misinterpreting?
Well, I don't really see how a tree that has been abraded and limbed then fortuitously deposited in an upright position could penetrate anything.
quote:
See:
quote:
Retallack also commented on Fritz's (1980) paper, stating that "there are at least some cases of petrified tree stumps unquestionably in place," with roots penetrating incipient soils horizons that, "compared to previous accounts, are suprisingly well differentiated" (p. 52). In his reply to Retallack, Fritz (1981, p. 54) again stated:
Tall upright trees with unbroken trunks. narrow root systems, and intact roots penetrating the substrate were apparently preserved were they grew. Unlike the tall in situ trees, many upright stumps have short trunks and roots broken prior to burial in a conglomerate with no organic zone, weathering profile, or color change. The bark of these trees is rarely preserved, owing to abrasion

Two things. First I'm not sure what an incipient soil is. Does this mean the trees grew in soils without a developed profile? This does not bother me. The trees had to grow anyway and they certainly did not do so in a few days. Second, it seems that there are two types of trees, those that are tall and in situ and others that are short and abraded with little root systems. Why are they not ALL abraded with limited root systems?
Now, your scenario seems to ignore the first set of data. Why do you focus only on the short, abraded trees?
quote:
And:
quote:
Thin sections show no evidence of extensive current activity in the tuffaceous sandstone in which the stumps are rooted. In contrast, most textural evidence indicates the existence of a soil around the roots (p. 161).

Good. Now we are getting somewhere. This is not an incipient soil, and the trees apparently grew in it.
quote:
--If your interpretation is correct, however, I find it extremely difficult to reason that the soils just happened to only be preserved around roots.
That's not what the article says.
quote:
You may have created your own problem at which even if considering occums razor, translocation seems to be the most likely candidate.
Please explain how you come up with this conclusion from the quotes you just cited. So, the trees are tall, in situ, penetrating surprisingly well-differentiated soils; and yet you maintain that they are transported.
quote:
"Because it keeps the root system intact. Not to mention all of the other evidence such as burrows, nests, etc. "
--This is not sufficient, see my input on your assertions regarding preservation of root systems and explain to me what I have asked you above. One liner responses are fine if they adequately address the problem, though if your not willing to do your part sufficiently, I don't know what to say.
quote:
"May! Could'a. Might'a. "
--Easy for you to say, now show me that it is not so. You should know more about this than me, your the geologist.
You have given plenty of evidence supporting my position above.
quote:
"So then, if one of the soil layers took a hundred years to form, then your model is out the window."
--Yes, now can you show me that they did take hundreds of years to form. If you can't your would seem to be contradicting yourself in that this is also a 'could'a. Might'a!'.
Except that we know that soil profiles do take long periods of time to develop today. There are no soils, incipient or otherwise that form in a matter of two or three days.
quote:
"Yep, hardly fits a one-year model, does it?"
--Yeah well the one-year model isn't mainstream is it?
No. And there is a reason for that. And your point is?
quote:
"But you have over a hundred paleosols!"
--In succession? Where? I must have been overmedicated to think it was shown to be 9-12, eh?
I thought you and TB had hundreds of surges that resulted in hundreds of cyclothems. Has that story now changed?
quote:
"The problem is that you only see the LAST soil to develop. The rest are likely eroded away."
--I only see the last soil to develop? What do you mean? And, 'the rest are likely eroded away' is this another 'could'a, might'a' notion, feel free to support that it was erosion if you'd like.
NOt sure what you are saying here. How many soil horizons are there at your house? Soil usually forms continuously and is often eroded away. We know this empirically.
quote:
Though the more relevant thing to present is this simple information for the specimen ridge formation. Again, your the geologist, you should have access to this information with relative ease, or do you simply lack the interest? If so you really don't, I'm not forcing you to continue this discussion.
This doesn't make sense. The Specimen Ridge information is widely available to anyone. Why should I present it again.
"No, but they do like some kind of woody material. How did they find this on top of a flood surge deposit and repopulated an inundated region hundreds of miles wide in only a matter of days? "
--Termites will feed on much more than 'some kind of woody material', including humus, and cannibalism. And how will they repopulate inundated areas? By what method did you find the 'hundreds of miles' extrapolation?
Well, TB was the one who referenced 'vast' sheets of sandstone up to half a continent in area. I am only using your side's information.
quote:
"You have been given several reasons why your scenario is NOT feasible."
--And I have refuted them individually.
Not at all. You have said that your information is not conclusive. That is hardly a refutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 11-15-2002 6:12 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by TrueCreation, posted 11-16-2002 8:23 PM edge has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 165 (22953)
11-16-2002 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by edge
11-15-2002 10:09 PM


This thread is beginning to waver. I am going to reduce the load by narrowing my response to be more direct and addressing what is relevant to the discussion. If there is something I may have missed or you would like me to respond to something specific please quote yourself or reiterate.
--You seem to think I like to ignore your arguments, this is not the case. I am just staying within the topic of paleosols and specimen ridge, when we reach our conclusions regarding it, we then can move on and apply it to a bigger picture. This has not happened yet.
--You have asserted that I must grow trees because 'Such is the only logical explanation of several data sets'. I have not seen this data. Could you present it here, seeing that you have already drawn conclusions from the research you can do this.
--Simply asserting that soils don't form in a one or two days doesn't cut it. Not to mention it is a complete misrepresentation. What I want you to expand on are your notions that the specimen ridge paleosols can't form in less than a year, and that these trees most certainly were not translocated and have resided there since they began growth. You have made these assertions, with such a degree of confidence you should be able to support them, it is required.
--Why does not my scenario 'match reality'? You are asking me for data, however, you have continually made assertions without supporting them with data. I can't do your part too.
"Two things. First I'm not sure what an incipient soil is. Does this mean the trees grew in soils without a developed profile? This does not bother me. [1]The trees had to grow anyway and they certainly did not do so in a few days. Second, it seems that there are two types of trees, those that are tall and in situ and others that are short and abraded with little root systems. Why are they not ALL abraded with limited root systems?[2]"
--[1] - This seems to retract your argument that the soils could not form. If it doesn't, then see above and answer my request regarding your past related assertions. [Edit] - You later in your response state, 'Except that we know that soil profiles do take long periods of time to develop today'. And as I've stated earlier, this doesn't cut it. Show me that the specimen ridge paleosols did take long periods of time incompatible with my time constraints.
--[2] - The source is extremely vague regarding whether they all are abraded or not. It simply does not consider whether they are or not in the ones which are supposedly 'in situ'. I have read some literature and have not come across data which suggests that there is even a sufficient minority of adequately intact root systems. While they have their small roots in many cases, their larger roots do not penetrate long distances. I found something interesting here:
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that... - The roots section

Figure 18. A tree torn out of the ground by the eruption of Mount St. Helens. Note that the large roots are broken while the small rootlets are largely intact.
--This is the preserved quality in specimen ridge I have seen as it pertains to rhizocretions. There should exist much more intact preserved root systems in those which you decline to attribute to transport. Is there?
"Good. Now we are getting somewhere. This is not an incipient soil, and the trees apparently grew in it. "
--How do you know? We need detailed elaboration on this point, it is of the utmost relevance.
"Please explain how you come up with this conclusion from the quotes you just cited. So, the trees are tall, in situ, penetrating surprisingly well-differentiated soils; and yet you maintain that they are transported. "
--Because they show evidence of transport. Refute my above assertions.
"I thought you and TB had hundreds of surges that resulted in hundreds of cyclothems. Has that story now changed? "
--I have not researched cyclothems yet and so wouldn't know how they would effect the specimen ridge formation. If you'd like, we may discuss them following the conclusions of this thread and find out if it does.
"NOt sure what you are saying here. How many soil horizons are there at your house? Soil usually forms continuously and is often eroded away. We know this empirically."
--You are telling me that 1000Ma passed before sediments would be preserved in Meerts paleosol example:
[Click the link to see, I don't want to avert traffic and use up Meerts bandwidth if it is not required]
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.gif
quote:
Figure 1: Paleosol located between the 1470 Ma Butler Hill Granite and
the Cambrian Lamotte Sandstone. Photo taken by author in Missouri along State Highway 67
--[Note] - It is further elaborated in his article that it is upper Cambrian.
"This doesn't make sense. The Specimen Ridge information is widely available to anyone. Why should I present it again. "
--The information which I referenced Meert for is an example. Dates for the former and latter deposited sediments including the successions themselves. This information I cannot find but should be relatively easy for you if it exists.
"Well, TB was the one who referenced 'vast' sheets of sandstone up to half a continent in area. I am only using your side's information."
--There are termite burrows in these sheets of sandstone you speak of?
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-16-2002]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-16-2002]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-16-2002]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by edge, posted 11-15-2002 10:09 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by edge, posted 11-16-2002 11:39 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024