quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
No, we wouldn't see this, we would most certainly see full root systems, varnish, rhizocretions, or diagnostic root traces.
Ummm.... TC, I just explained to you that the 'full root systems' of a very large tree looked pretty much like a root-ball because most of the system is made of hair-like filaments that run through the upper foot or so of soil. I grew up in very heavily wooded forests and once you got deeper than a few inches in most spots, you could dig without hitting roots.
Ever, like, actually tried to uproot a tree? The root system does not look like an upside down version of the above ground part. Most root systems are very shallow and most trees do not produce hulking root systems beyond a few feet from the trunk.
quote:
Most especially with the bracing roots which are the ones which are usually missing from the in situ trees.
hmmmm.... I have seen 150 foot trees the day after they fell and this 'bracing root system' didn't exist. Some trees have this adaptation, but not all trees.
quote:
My thoughts on their being allochthonous hold up quite well.
Not really.
quote:
Not a powerful surge huh?
What?
quote:
It matters because you don't find it easy to believe.
Again... what?
quote:
You think that the surge would have toppled all them trees with ease.
Yes, I do. Massive global floods are like that.
quote:
Also, in the specific location of specimen ridge, this is an area where neither the flow nor the surge totally leveled the forests, though closer to the volcanic source the forests were pretty much completely flattened.
What? Volcanic sources for the flood? Are you making this up as you go?
quote:
Not necessarily, (depending on whether you consider ~200-500 years a sapling)
What species of tree grows to a couple of meters in two hundred years?
quote:
their tops are often owing to abrasion so they are considerably short.
Which in fact means that they were originally much taller, so you may want to reconsider using the short heights as a crutch when trying to make deposited trees stand upright. That is exactly what you do.
The trees are not very tall, a couple meters and many of them are just stumps. Either the regressing water was relatively tranquil or it occured while inundated. I am currently arguing for the former.
See. Taller trees are harder to balance.
quote:
Abrasion
Yes. I know that. How? How is a tree deposited and abraded in the time frame you have? Give details please.
quote:
I don't?
Correct.
quote:
How do you figure that?
You have to generate too many layers. This has been explained to you an embarrassing number of times. And you have to have water levels high enough to transport trees and stand them upright, then carry in enough sediment to keep them up. Then you must lop off the tops and start all over. How many layers are at specimen ridge? 25-50? In one year?
quote:
The eustatic level was likely already considerably inland in many locations.
You are forgetting tree tranport and erection. And... how do you figure it was 'likely'?
quote:
Why don't I have enough to 'give the illusion of a global flood',
The problem is larger THAT you must have enough to give the illusion of a global flood. The problem is with the consequences of that much water.
quote:
let alone your thoughts on planting a boat on top of a strato volcano.
Strato volcano? Did I say volcano? I said mountain. And did the Ark not come to rest on a mountain?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com