Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

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


Message 28 of 165 (24121)
11-24-2002 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coragyps
11-24-2002 7:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Coragyps:
quote:
Scripture does not require vegetation or insects and other like bugs be wiped out by the flood.
I would be interested in your story on how any vegetation other than those few plants that tolerate salt water managed to not be wiped out by the Flood. Start with olive trees, wheat, and grapes.

Hi TC,
Will you look at that? We've already started to analyze this, but you walked away. Your last post was on June 8th to which I responded the next day, and that post has remained unanswered all this time. Glad we can finally get back to it.
EvC Forum: Question about this so called World Wide Flood.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 11-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coragyps, posted 11-24-2002 7:09 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 165 (28164)
12-30-2002 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Coragyps
12-30-2002 10:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Coragyps:
quote:
Other than that, you are fine.
Except I still want to see how to transport those "materials" with the trees, which trees have 80% of their mass above the rootline (according to TC), and get the trees to stand up in the "materials" when the water subsides. The whole scenario makes my head hurt.

Ok. Since we are making a wish list...
I want to know....
1) How these trees are not killed during the uprooting process. I have transplanted small trees and not killing them is tough. I have seen very large trees that have been uprooted by wind and notice that there is a surprisingly small hole in the ground. The one I am thinking of was a elm(?) maybe 200 feet tall. It fell and left a hole about six feet across and two feet deep. Obviously, the root system that once occupied this hole didn't support the whole tree, so where are the other roots? Still in the ground. Millions upon millions of little filaments that couldn't survive being ripped up.
2) How does a flood not topple the tree on the way out? Water packs a lot of punch. I'd think that retreating waters taller than the tree itself ( global flood, remember ) would have enough power to push it right back over, especially since its shredded root system is set in fresh thin mud at best.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Coragyps, posted 12-30-2002 10:52 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by edge, posted 12-30-2002 11:29 PM John has replied
 Message 85 by TrueCreation, posted 01-06-2003 5:55 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 165 (28168)
12-30-2002 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by edge
12-30-2002 11:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
quote:
Originally posted by John:
2) How does a flood not topple the tree on the way out? Water packs a lot of punch. I'd think that retreating waters taller than the tree itself ( global flood, remember ) would have enough power to push it right back over, especially since its shredded root system is set in fresh thin mud at best.
Remember, these are the same type of receding waters that cut the Grand Canyon in soft sediment...

Maybe these heavier-than-water trees were originally -- meaning after redeposition -- covered in miles of sediment so that when the flood waters receded the trees were UN-covered?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by edge, posted 12-30-2002 11:29 PM edge has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 165 (28534)
01-06-2003 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by TrueCreation
01-06-2003 5:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"1) How these trees are not killed during the uprooting process."
--Who said they didn't die?

Actually, I wasn't sure.
quote:
"and notice that there is a surprisingly small hole in the ground."
--Thats correct! And along with it comes a about that much of root appendages. This is basically what we see in the specimen ridge in situ trees. Hence, their root ball appearence.

Yes, hence the root ball appearance, but think about it. This is what you'd see anyway, whether the tree had been transported or not. Because outside of that dense section the roots become tiny little delicate filaments and are easily and rapidly decomposed. The point is not necessarily that you are wrong, but that the argument you use in this case is faulty. Different scenarios will produce the same result. You cannot therefore use the presence of that result as an argument for one of the disputed theories.
quote:
It did topple many trees over, but this was likely mostly due to the latter congomeratic flows.
Ok? Hundred foot high surges couldn't knock down the trees but mudflows did? Hard to believe and why does it matter?
quote:
The trees are not very tall, a couple meters and many of them are just stumps.
A couple of meters? So we have sapplings?
How do you account for the stumps?
quote:
Either the regressing water was relatively tranquil or it occured while inundated. I am currently arguing for the former.
Tranquil regressing walls of water? You don't have time. To have tranqil surges you need to surge SLOWLY and you need multiple surges big enough to give the illusion of a global flood ( and plant a boat on top of a mountain ) within a year
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by TrueCreation, posted 01-06-2003 5:55 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by TrueCreation, posted 01-06-2003 8:44 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 165 (28780)
01-10-2003 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by TrueCreation
01-06-2003 8:44 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by TrueCreation, posted 01-06-2003 8:44 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by TrueCreation, posted 02-01-2003 4:09 PM John 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