Paleosols

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

"My guess would be that any of us could find it stated quite firmly that soils can't form in a single year in any of the (hundred?) textbooks on soil science that have been published in the last century or so. Most were likely written by people that actually studied soils."
--You would also know that the pedogenic process can vary greatly depending on environment and resources. There are many factors which can effect time distribution, and obviously the degree of pedogeny will effect required time. What I am looking for is a sufficiently detailed analysis of the specimen ridge formation and its paleosols, showing how long it did take them to form.
--We simply can't state that 'well everyone knows that it takes longer than a year for soils to form', or anything along that line here. We need to present the analysis here and give reason for such. This 'detailed' analysis only is required to be detailed where it deems relevant to finding time constraints.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-16-2002]

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

Exactly what I would expect.

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

"Actually, you have said that you can ignore our arguments."
--True, however I was speaking generally when I said:

quote:

---

--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.

---

--When I said, 'I have no reason to argue against this representation of the mainstream explanation as long as I am not forced to embrace their mechanisms.', I was speaking within the bubble of this topic. As I said in post #15: "When we reach our conclusions regarding it, we then can move on and apply it to a bigger picture.""To me this means that since you do not embrace mainstream mechanisms, then you can safely ignore them."
--Not really, this misrepresents my assertion. Its not a '...since I don't...' its an '...as long as I don't...'."Actually, you have presented this data earlier. Your own source said,[Snip]Is this satisfactory? If the trees, according to your own source, were buried in their original location, it must mean that they grew there. Or are you saying something else entirely?"
--Actually, it isn't necessarily my own source [http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/forests.htm], mark24 referenced it in his first post of the other related thread. This really isn't satisfactory. So much so that it would be questionable to call it 'data' as opposed to 'information'. I have other sources claiming things that would contradict this references conclusions, however do not contradict the included tid-bits of data. The information actually suggests that it is apparent that they grew in their initial location. I am arguing that these "Tall upright trees with unbroken trunks [and] narrow root systems" were translocated. I have not seen data which contradict this notion. What prevents my explanation from being feasible?"I am sorry, but it would seem to me that the onus is upon you to show that they HAVE developed in a few days. It is common knowledge that soils do not develop in such a short period."
--Well seing that your 'short period of time' is [again] a complete misrepresentation of what I supply as the time constraint, my first impression would to not disagree with you. I think it would be difficult to have soils develop in two or three days unless they also were transported organic profiles. But must we seriously play this silly game of 'I asked you first'. An abundance of your assertions are rendered conjector without their required support. Why should I do research which you have already carried out. Since you are making these assertions, you should have done this. Or maybe you could ask me a direct more direct 'since we find blank, how is it your explanation doesn't fall from its finding' question?"The reality is that some of these trees grew in place over a long period of time. Your own reference confirms this. There is no way to rationalize trees being transported or growing miraculously fast."
--Not really, this reference simply makes the interpreted notion that the trees grew in place and is apparent, not certain. Why is it my explanation successfully explains the observation which is used as its indicative support. Or doesn't it? And why doesn't/can't it.And:--As for the segment, 'There is no way to rationalize trees being transported or growing miraculously fast', you give no conclusive and directly addressed reason."If most soils take a long time to develop then it would be good evidence that the Specimen Ridge soils similarly took a long time to develop."
--Flawed logic, you have not addressed the characteristic pedogenic properties of the Specimen Ridge paleosols. You concured that time can be greatly variable by degree of pedology and environmental conditions. Speaking generally for soils isn't sufficient, you have to use the Specimen Ridge paleosols. The two quotes we have been citing are not sufficient data to extrapolate from, you must agree. Do you have access to more in-depth data, the source which the web-page cites also seems to further expand on the statements which would be extremely helpful. I have limited access to text references though. But if you think it is sufficient, you can attempt to deduce from such a devastatingly limited source."Not at all. It says quite clearly, the 'upper parts' of the trees are abraded."
--Your right, it does:

quote:

---

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

---

--It says that the upper parts are 'severely abraded' and vaguely indicates that the lower parts are not in this 'severely abraded' condition. The question is, what is this condition? Perfect preservation, partial abrasion, or abrasion but not as severe as the upper parts? It does not say directly."Why then is it particularly clear that the shorter trees with poorly developed root systems are abraded, but say nothing of the like about the in situ trees?"
--I really couldn't know, I don't have the initial Yuretich source so I couldn't find what he says to expand on what the quote says. See above."I'm not sure how this supports your argument. I don't think anyone would mistake this tree for an in situ specimen. But where are the soils on these roots? Where are the rhizocretions?"
--In the image? Why would you look for rhizocretions? But I think I can hint at what you mean; rhizocretions, being preserved root systems, are unmistakable in the image. I'm sure that the tree in the image is pretty covered with soil at its roots. Why do I require that soils be attached to this specimen? Your second sentence is subjective."I have seen nothing other than your source which indicates very strongly that the trees are in place. I will look into it more, perhaps tomorrow."
--Considering my above comments, it is evident that I can't agree, if your next two posts address this, I'll compile my response then."I can only go by your reference. It says the the soil is well-differentiated."
--You mean mark's reference, and saying that the soils are 'suprisingly well differentiated' shouldn't be expected to be very ironclad. What stage of pedogenic evolution is seen and other related horizontation properties would be more tenable."Well, just read your own reference on this. The trees are clearly not transported."
--Oh please. How on earth can you make such a confident deduction right after asserting that 'I have seen nothing other than your source...'. Its not much of a source in the first place, I'm sure you know this. Its not exactly a source I would list for any formal analysis of paleosols or the Specimen Ridge formation."Well, you should get your story together. It's tough trying to make sense of your arguments if they change all the time. Besides, are you sure that the Specimen Ridge site is compatible, timewise, with the flood?"
--The fundamentals of flood mechanics in my experience is at a relative consensus. I find no problem in allowing it to be altered in the light of new information, do you? I would think most would feel quite appreciative to share and recieve such quality examination and analysis in regards to my age and scientific experience."Actually, your question makes no sense. There is one paleosol. What do you expect? "
--I simply find it extremely difficult to find that 1000Ma of erosion took place over the expanse of the paleosol. Or that this extensive period of time passed without a single deposition after the soil became a paleosol. All this while mountains of sediments piled near by, without orogenic influence."Me: It is further elaborated in his article that it is upper Cambrian.You: Exactly what I would expect."
--I find this hard to believe."I am glad that you know so well what should exist in the literature. I am not so sure about these things. What if it doesn't exist? Does that prove your point?"
--No, just another bit of information that could potentially falsify, support, or greatly modify a given hypothesis."I have no idea. I think the termite nests would be more in the soils. But just what is your point? Do you now deny the presence of vast continental scale sand deposits?"
--I think they would be too. My point is that that means termites don't necessarily be required to migrate those hundreds of miles to create nests, since they don't exist in these vast sheets. You previously argued that I needed to have them perform this migration.--The assertions in your post #19 are mostly addressed in this post.-------Post # 20------->"Before we get any further on this subject, perhaps a little clarification is in order. TC, on older threads, you have stated that the flood ended with the Cretaceous Period of mainstream reckoning. If that is so, why do you include the Specimen Ridge occurrence of petrified forests in with 9 to 12 surges of the flood? As far as I can tell, the Lamar River Formation is dated as Eocene and should be significantly younger than your global flooding event. So, has your estimate for the end of the flood changed?"
--Where did I indicate that I had moved to this? I remember that while discussing hoodoo's in another thread some time ago, I illustrated that I may be wavering on whether to move to a Cenozoic/Mesozoic flood boundary, though I never came to altering this concept.-------------------

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

--Your right, it does:

​

quote:

---

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

---

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

You: Exactly what I would expect."

​

--I find this hard to believe.

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

"But the other source said 'unquestionably in place.'"
--Yes they are unquestionably in place, though they are not unquestionably trees which originated in the soils. If the trees do, however, exhibit full root systems, I very likely would have to recant my whole argument. It is, however, expected that they generally exhibit narrow root systems."I really don't think you understand how a scientist uses 'apparently'. What this means is that all of the evidence suggests non-transport, but they would be willing to address evidence to the contrary if it ever came up."
--I don't think I am mistaken on how a scientist uses the word 'apparently'. The way you have attempted they use apparently, 'that all of the evidence suggests non-transport', doesn't seem to be coherent with the rest of the scientific literature. We certainly don't say 'this zircon apparently has an age of blank, or some such. All of the evidence points to it, so they see it as certain. The context the article used when using the word 'apparently' is simply in that they cannot be certain, but they are open to further analysis in the future. In mainstream science the sources deduction is just little bit more likely to be a faulty conclusion than other observations in science such as radioisotopic dating analysis."Now, where is that evidence? If we are going to pick over every use of the word apparently and give it some magnified meaning, perhaps we should go over creationist tracts on this subject.... oh, except those are quite certain, aren't they?"
--lol, no they are not at all. This is one reason why I rather steer clear of reading much material of my own kind, though I do respect a few YECist authors. I tend to just read the textbooks."The fact that there is no evidence presented to support it."
--If these 'narrow systems' are in fact such narrow root systems, that is one evidence. So we have evidence for it, though apparently none currently against it."Maybe this goes back to the absurd cyclothem argument. As I remember you and TB, or maybe just TB says that there were over a hundred surges covering vast areas, all in one year. That comes out to less than a week per surge."
--Sounds like something to look at following the conclusions of this thread. Though all I was saying is that your notion that I have one or two days to have an immature paleosol form is an incorrect strawman, and was getting a bit tedious with its continuous reference. depending on isotopic time constraints, I may have 3 or 4 weeks for each development. Though I would expect it to be somewhere in the vicinity of 1-2.5 weeks for each successive pedogeny."Okay, I will check into it. However, I don't feel that the data exists, since this is not a major issue with geologists. I think rather it is easier to say that since we know modern soils take a long time to develop, then it is likely that paleosols do also."
--You do that and tell me your results when you feel it does or doesn't exist. I would have to think that it must exist, it is an extremely popular formation and paleosols are are thought of very highly in geology and seeing these soils are successive and the fossil forest setting would be a major plus.
--I still maintain that it is unreasonable to say that since soils take a while to develop today that the specimen ridge soils should have, why should it be?"Tell me, seriously, how you get through life not knowing every detail of every event and phenomenon that you encounter. Do you never make interpretations or assumptions? You have to understand that we are not absolutists such as you."
--Me? An absolutist? Far, far from it, there is no reason to call me such. Of course all data in science is interpreted and is sometimes based on assumptions. You further say that 'To us there is nothing wrong with making an assumption as long as it is supported by some data'. I don't disagree with this, the problem is that the data that the article speaks of is not directly incorporated into the article, it is likely in the source they quote. They are only quoting the conclusions that the source made, not the data. We do need more than what the article provides."The articles in question have provided sufficient data in the fact that there are two versions of trees present. Some look transported, and others are different."
--But the latter part are the segments they provide, 'some look transported, and others different'. That the data which indicates 'the fact that there are two versions of the trees present', is not really presented, only a vague simplification of it."So, why do they not ALL look transported? Could it be that they are in place? How are you going to explain the two populations of trees? I would really like an answer to this."
--I am arguing that both populations of trees in the successions have indications of transport. The lower trees I actually agree on to a degree with mainstream conclusions. That they were not transported by mud flows and that these mud flows were the cause for burial. The lower trees were transported and set in situ, and latterly buried by conglomeratitic flows.
--The source quotes Yuretich in saying: 'The upper parts of some stumps and logs surrounded by conglomerates are severely abraded, but the lower parts contained within tuffaceous sandstones commonly have good root systems'. They say that the logs buried by the conglomeratic flows are severely abraded but then move on to say that the lower parts contained within the tuffaceous sandstones commonly have good root systems. This could easily imply that the lower parts also are abraded, however the appearance of 'good root systems' plays an integral part in suggesting 'that mudflows moved over preexisting trees'. Were the trees preexisting in situ? Yes. Did these preexisting trees initially develop in situ? Under my scenario, this is the negative."So, you are saying that these soils are different? Please document this. Besides, I am using the characteristics of the trees, in conjunction with the observation that modern soils take a long time to form. You are selectively examining the data."
--Of course I'm not selectively examining the data. These are successive paleosols, fossil forests and such. I am taking into account the characteristics of the whole formation. These soils, yes, may be very different. If they are in an early stage of pedogenic development, it would not difficult to assert that they did in fact form in a couple weeks time."You mean other than the fact that they come from people who have actually worked on them?"
--While sure we could take this into consideration, but an argument is no where near conclusive if is based on a tactic of argument from authority. Just because those who worked on interpreting the soils were professionals, doesn't mean we should conclude it as fact by that sole reason. I do agree, however, they shouldn't be ignored."Why have you suddenly dropped the idea that some trees do not show abrasion, etc.?"
--It doesn't say that some trees do not show abrasion. And if there are, are they the rare samples or is this a general representation?"Wouldn't the combination of facts that there are well developed soils and some trees standing upright with little abrasion best explained by the fact that they are in situ? You need to look at all of the facts, not just at one feature at a time."
--Of course I will do this. The source doesn't say that there are well developed soils, it says that there is a developed horizontation[to what degree or stage of horizontation that is is anyone's guess]. It also says that the trees standing upright have severe abrasion explained in the mainstream as resulting from a flow. The lower parts I would expect to have abrasion, though not near as severe as the upper parts. I would also expect that there be almost vestige root systems in comparison to what should be expected if the roots were undisturbed and turned into rhizocretions without the effects of transport."Why didn't they just come out and say that, then? Come on, TC, you are reaching here. Even if they are 'somewhat' abraded, why the difference? You need to explain this."
--I explained this while addressing the quote in an above comment. They didn't just come out and say it because it is not necessarily required to make the same conclusion they have made. [The quote is apparently from the sources conclusion not the data it extrapolated from so they wouldn't have to reiterate it for the conclusion to be the same]"It doesn't really matter. The lower parts are different from the upper parts. Why is that? Perhaps the trees tipped on end and floated along with their stumps in the air? You need to explain this."
--This is also explained in an above comment regarding the deposition of the conglomeratic flows."Why is that? Is this part of the evolutionist conspiracy?"
--No, because the various methods of horizontation and the the pedogenic development of similar boundaries is such a widely vague reference time constraints could range by anywhere from 3 to 6 magnitudes considering the many depositional mechanisms for different pedogenic characteristics."Apparently this is a more advanced pedogenic stage than the author expected. This is data."
--No, that's a conclusion from data, not data itself. My suggestion is a much more tenable requisite to extrapolate from."That was not its intent. As I have said, I doubt that most geologists see this as a burning issue. Probably part of the evolutionist conspiracy."
--No, not part of the evolutionist conspiracy, you can leave that at Hovind's door. I don't know if its a 'burning issue', though many of the observations in the specimen ridge formation such as paleosols, fossil forests and how they correlate should be in extensively high regard for geologists."Again, this makes no sense. How long do you think undisturbed soils of the high plains have been around? How do you expec them to be different from a soil that's been around for twice as long?"
--I doubt they've been around for a billion years. Most of the high plains, if mind serves me right are probably Cenozoic and their soils? Probably Quarternary."How do you expec them to be different from a soil that's been around for twice as long?"
--Extremely different, the soil was not subject to erosion and apparently developed over the course of a billion years! Don't you find that a bit surprising? I would put this into question for mainstream research."No, it's easy. The paleosoil was arrested in development and preserved by the first sediments burying it. Those sediments happened to be Cambrian. If the soil was much older and did not continue to develop, it would have been eroded away. "
--But its a soil that developed over the course of a billion years. Don't you find it difficult even to imagin that this formation never let up?"But, TC, those sheets have been buried by new sediments, probably thousands of feet thick with each surge? Not only that, but those sediments must have been water-saturated. How do you propose that termites survive this event. After all, the flood was DESIGNED to KILL all those animals."
--Not strictly, insects and this type of fauna for the most part weren't entirely killed off. The existence of paleosols should imply a gap in sedimentation during the flood event. Termites aren't slow critters, I'd give them anywhere from a couple weeks to a month or two [depending on the isotopic and paleopedogenic data] to do these types of migrations. In the areas where they did survive, they would latterly move to the new locations some of which would happen to be above the sediments of the last surge.
--What I recently have thought up as a potential mechanism would be to transport large quantities of termites via the surge abating by vegetation or inside logs. Many wouldn't survive this mechanism, but whose to say that those who abated with the flood waters were subject to certain extinction of the totality of the population?"It was just a question clarifying your position. When you keep presenting a moving target, it gets a bit disorienting."
--I must admit that it likely is a bit disorienting and almost tedious attempting to follow the quickly evolving consensus. All I can really do is ask that we bear with me on that.------------------

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

A POPULAR formation? What ARE you talking about?

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

Then why did he not say so?

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

Yes. In their upper parts.

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

Well, we just continue to disappoint you.

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

You do not make any sense at all here.

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

"TC, I don't know how much clearer the author can be. You may quibble over what in situ or 'in-place' means, but that will not change the normal geological usage of the word which indicates that the trees are in their original growth position. If you wish to question every definition in the glossary of geological terms we are obviously going to get nowhere. To anyone with a modicum of geological training the statement is very clear."
--But the fact of the matter is that in situ does not only mean in its original position, it is also often used in geology as a location of deposition. The reference is of poor quality as a source for extrapolation, you can't argue against this."Basically, your post consists of a bunch of rationalization and bending of facts and observations to fit your preconcieved notions of a flood. You go out on so many intellectual excursions that you are no longer in contact with your home planet. "
--I haven't bent any facts presented in the specimen ridge link. I have, however, pointed out its extreme lack in relevant detail. You cannot make a conclusion from another conclusion, you have to make conclusions from given data, very little of which is illustrated in the source."Me: ... We certainly don't say 'this zircon apparently has an age of blank, or some such.You: This is utter nonsense. We talk about apparent ages all the time. I don't have a clue where you are getting your ideas."
--I can back up my assertions. This is not utter nonsense. Why do you think they call radioisotopic dating an "absolute" dating method? When they give their dates they give it an approximation such as 4.5Ga 0.05Ga and say that it 'is' this age, they don't say 'well apparently the rock says that its this old'."Me: ... The context the article used when using the word 'apparently' is simply in that they cannot be certain, but they are open to further analysis in the future.You: ... which is exactly my point.Face it, the author states quite clearly that some logs are transported and others are not. That is his opinion based on experience and observations. Now, if you have such experience and have observed the trees at Specimen Ridge, please let us know, but dont just rationalize that 'well he didn't say the lower parts of the trees weren't abraded.' "
--But its a conclusion that the author drew from the data. How are we going to have any idea the merit of any conclusion without knowing the data? Sure you can just have faith or 'hope' that he's right because he's experienced but if scientists thought in this manor about others work 'current' science would be credulous we might as well consider it botched. The fact of the matter is, you don't have any idea of what the condition of the lower parts abrasion is. For all we know the lower parts could be chomped away with the exception of a short radial sliver, why not blame it on beavers or termites and leave it at that? Sure this is an exaduration and a reasonable deduction could be made regarding their condition. But that reasonable deduction could vary by just enough to deem the scenario for deposition negative or positive, even if it varies only by the littlest bit which would indicate it otherwise. Accepting the text credulously is basically going out on a limb, if you want to do that to yourself you can but I think I'll stay back until further notice."Again, this does not make sense. You have a one-year flood. You have over a hundred cyclothems in the Pennsylvanian System alone. That adds up to only days between surges. YOu have not explained this except to make assertions that there are suddenly less surges in a geological age that you previously said was post-flood. I'm afraid that I cannot continue to take you seriously until you make yourself clearer."
--What do you mean? I have yet to even attempted to explain cyclothems? My comment was addressing the 9-12 successions of fossil forests as we have been discussing and has been the topic. Cyclothems are another deal."A POPULAR formation? What ARE you talking about?"
--It is a formation which I find is referenced often when various geology and sedimentology texts discuss fossil forests and sometimes paleosols."Hunh? By exactly whom? I hate to rain on your parade, but this is not exactly a burning issue with anyone but creationists."
--Not in the least. I really have yet to see what any YEC's viewpoint would be on any paleosol at all. The conclusions section of; Developments in Sedimentology - Diagenesis, III; pg. 614Verbatim:

quote:

---

There are many paleosols which exhibit complex, polyphase histories, and as such provide unique store-houses of information if their histories can be deciphered. Arguably, no other sedimentological phenomena can provide so much, and such diverse, data as paleosols.

​

Paleosols can also be radically altered during shallow burial in zones of active shallow phreatic diagenesis. this setting has been neglected by sedimentologists sudying the geological record and forms a transition zone and the soil results in similar products, especially in the case of duricrusts.

​

Pedogenesis should be seen as an integral aspect of terrestrial sediment's post-depositional history, and not as some quirk of nature. To ignore pedogenesis, and likewise shallow phreatic alteration, when reconstructing diagenic histories, is to omit the phase of most rapid change that a sediment undergoes during its post-depositional history.

---

--A very good percentage of the above book discusses the influence of paleosols."Umm, maybe because that is what our data says??? Soils take longer than a few days to form? I know that you do not agree with uniformitarianism, but it has worked now for centuries."
--And exactly how much data did you compile to come to that conclusion? Practically nothing of significance. I would greatly emphasize that there is a lot more to pedogenesis than 'well it looks surprisingly differentiated'. But I'm sure you already know that."Just as I was saying, you require absolute certainty. You will ALWAYS need more data."
--Edge, all I am saying is that your going to need a load of more data than, 'it looks surprisingly differentiated'.."It is quite clear that the author interprets (oops, I'm sorry, absolutists don't accept interpretations, oh well...) some trees to be transported and others not transported. I'm not sure what alternatives you would like to bring up. "
--What they provide is a vague simplification of the data, for some odd reason you seem to think this is not the case though. All scientific theories and hypothesis are conjured by interpretation of data. The problem here is, we only have a minute amount of that data from which they have extrapolated from. I have given my alternatives and they are coherent with the data the article illustrates, though their merit is of course effected by the data they omit in the quoted conclusions."Then why do they not have abrasion due to transport and why are they rooted in well-developed soil? Why do you have to go through such machinations? Well, obviously to create some story to fit your preconceived ideas."
--But they do have abrasion? Severe abrasion in the upper parts due to the conglomeratic flows. They are rooted in soils (And no the source doesn't say it is a well developed one, a developed horizontation does not directly equal a mature soil, we also again don't know how developed they are, only that it is more than the author expected. There are stages to soil development pedality) because of the way they were deposited, the soils formed after the previous conglomeratic flow for the succession.
--I am not creating a story to fit my pre-conceived ideas. I'm creating a story that fits the data."Yes, they appear untransported. (Oops another non-absoutist statement that must be wrong.)"
--No they don't seem to. They don't seem to have undisturbed rhizocretions they look more like the image I supplied to you earlier. You haven't data to support that assertion, only the hope that the author of the article presented all the information which is relevant. And just to let you know, he hasn't."Then why did he not say so? "
--Because unless they were chomped on by beavers, it isn't relevant to make the same conclusion he's made. And I'm sure that he elaborates on this point in the initial reference, though for the writer of the online article, it never seemed to cross his mind that it would be."Then you first need to document that soil profiles can develop in a few weeks time. Then you have to convince us that you actually have a lower number of surges."
--I've suggested that the horizontation may be granulometric, if it is it is not a directly pedogenic development. Another possibility is that a mineral could have leached into the conglomerate while submerged which would cause a horizontation due to a differentiation in degree of cementation. So far, I don't have any other pedological property to account for in the paleosols formation. Of course these are just 'coulda been's', but that's all I can give you in deriving from the article. But if we leave it at that both of my settings work perfectly.
--And what do you mean by 'convince us that you actually have a lower number of surges'? I only need 9-12, if this is a comment derived from your assertion above about cyclothems, I think it is settled. Unless I've missed something?"Horizontation? I think you mean well-developed profile. This unfortunately does not happen over night."
--I never claimed it happens over night and this isn't my setting. And no, I am not mistaken when I said 'horizontation', that is the developmental characteristic they are addressing when saying that it had a [subjectively rationed] developed profile. Of course earlier in the article they said they are incipient soils, so I really don't know what the initial source is trying to say."Well, then you do have some expertise in this field. You've been sandbagging, TC."
--I'm not sandbagging, I am however, claiming that the one who wrote the article didn't give all the relevant information and precious little data."Then why did they mention abrasion on the upper parts of the trees? Sorry, TC, but this is not how geology is done. If something is left out of the description, then it wasn't there."
--They mentioned abrasion in the upper parts of the trees because that was relevant to explaining that there were conglomeratic flows. True this isn't how geology is done, no question there. But when illustrating conclusions, you don't have to reiterate everything they said in the previous sections of whatever he quoted."TC, all soils are subject to erosion. In fact, they are partly due to erosion. "
--That isn't relevant, the erosion that plays a part in pedogenesis is underlying erosion. I'm talking about erosion of the soil itself. The erosion your talking about is feeding its maturation."You do not make any sense at all here. "
--Imagine the soil you have out in your back yard. Come back a billion years later, is it not difficult to imagine that it would still be there as well as there being void evidence of subsequent sedimentation? This is what Meerts paleosol indicates. The paleosol itself is a billion years older than the sediment lying directly above it."More and more fantastic all the time! And aren't we getting just a bit extra-biblical here? A flood that does not kill off all terrestrial creatures and flood surges with soil development in between? You reach well beyond your grasp."
--No, I used to argue this profusely back in the day when I first got into this forum and did so for quite a while. Scripture does not require vegetation or insects and other like bugs be wiped out by the flood.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-24-2002]

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.

"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."
--If this turns into a big topic for discussion it would be appropriate to create another thread for it, but until it does of course.
--Increased precipitation would in turn produce haloclinic seas, which would concentrate salinity contents towards higher depths. [Haliocenic seas, that is, a halocline would be produced, (though more profoundly at higher latitudes) which is the depth at which the salinity changes rapidly; it forms the boundary between the two layers.] That's been my theory on saline contents since I joined the forum. And like just about every other, didn't inquire on other creationists thinking, even though latter curiosity led me to see they have a similar hypothesis.-------------------

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]

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

"Sure I can. TC, there are the terms 'in situ' and 'in-place,' and then there is 'transported'. They are different. If someone thinks a tree has been transported, they would not say either of the former. I don't quite see what your problem is with this."
--Well actually I was addressing it because I was using the words simply as 'in place' in my comments, not just the Yuretich quotes. in situ can and is used differentially in geologic literature, though I am not quibbling over the question of whether he may have meant to use it in the context that they were in their place of origin and matured there."Yuretich has gone out of his way to explain the difference between the two types of trees and made it abundantly clear that some trees are NOT transported. If you cannot understand this, it will just be the beginning of your problems in reading mainstream science. "
--Hey very well may have! I don't doubt this, what I am arguing is that the 'link' source is entirely poor in its information and data content, I can't say this regarding the text Yuretich wrote as I have not seen it. The only thing which seems to be illustrated in the link source is the conclusions Yuretich exclaimed. And I rightly say this is insufficient for us to accurately extrapolate from. I'm going to see if the text isn't in the USF library close-by, I'm returning or renewing my textbooks on diagenesis very soon so maybe I'll get to look around."My impression is that you so want them to be transported that your desire has literally altered the meaning of the passages that you have read. As I have noted earlier, the human mind can rationalize literally anything. This is a good example."
--this wasn't the scenario."Why not just take the easy, literal interpreation rather than go through the mental gymnastics to alter the meaning of the passages? Why all the 'might have meants' and 'should have saids?' Just read the articles."
--I've read that article so many times my stomach is beginning to turn. It illustrates so little information, and vaguely so, that 'could have been's' are all you can make unless you credulously adopt his words and blindly go out on that limb. The article is no different than one of those AiG ones with the exception of its opposing bias."Very well, if you wish I will try to contact Yuretich and see what he actually meant."
--If this is possible, go for it, though rather than addressing the misconception present in this post, why not ask for elaborations on the Articles content? Or of course we could just go get the Yuretich source.--[Edit] - My hypotheses have potential falsification, but are not falsified by the objective segments of text and presented data in the article.-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-25-2002]