Fossilisation is rare, so ....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I know what Peter is getting at. he's trying to say that since fossilization is rare we shouldn't have so many fossils. The reason that isn't necessarily true is that in the flood model we do expect to get a lot of fossilization - it was rapidly buried by definition. In the gradualism case that isn't so but then they've got time on their side. So both groups have mechanism for fossil formation but IMO the flood model is far better and explains why we get fossil graveyards, fossils of animals giving birth, ofssils of animals devouring other animals and fossils of trees passing through hundreds of strata.

​

---

But no fossil trees at the bottom of the GC. Let me remind you, you have a video showing sinking trees, still rooted. Given that large fossil plants can't be considered rare, don't you find it odd that there are no tree fossils at the bottom of the GC? Don't you also find it odd that gymnosperms appear before angiosperms in the fossil record, yet both produce both small plants to large trees?But one thing ata a time.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark: the lower levels of the GC are marine. Not many trees expected there! I guess you're talking terrestial beds? Tell me about them.

​

---

Why are they marine? You have sinking trees! Surely you would get marine & terrestrial fossils mixed in, right at the bottom of the GC!You told me that you have a video of sinking trees, with root systems attached, & asserted this as an alternative explanation of successive layers of fossil forests, that contain rooted trees. However, those same sinking trees will be found all around the world at the bottom of the GC, alongside all the shelly fauna, I might add.Why is this not found?Another point is that this doesn't explain that the layers at specimen ridge show successive, COMPLETE layers of soil, separated by a conglomerate, not a jumbled mess of trees laying on top of each other with no conglomerate inbetween, which is what we would expect if your video were indicative of reality when these forests were "laid down". Also, in formations such as that found at specimen ridge, wouldn't hydrodynamic sorting put the rooted, sinking examples at the bottom, the sheared off trunks would float & be carried off around the world in the turbulent flood waters, meaning fossil forests such as this wouldn't occur AT ALL? This is a global catastrophism, not a local flood, & surely any volcanoes would be non-terrestrial at that time too?So,1. Why are there no trees at the bottom of the GC, if they sink.2. How does your video explain the nature of the layering at specimen ridge?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-20-2002]

TB,No comment on message 16?Mark

Edge/TB,I was at the Natural History museum (London), where there is a fossil protoceratops (i think), & velociraptor next to each other. The museum claimed this was the only known fossils of dinosaur combat.It may now be dated info, but I doubt the situations changed that much.That said, I'm not sure I would expect many meals to be taken whilst drowning was being avoided, non?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

Mark, all I can tell you is that we have a documented mechanism for creating 'generations' of fossilized forests. If you don't want to consider it possible becasue of 'the details' that's fine with me. I am not an expert on those details and I find the very rapid dismisals of creationist ideas (rather than OK - it could be possible) evidence of your biases.

​

If you guys can't even imagine soils being washed into a forest deposit then I think you (not necessarily you Mark) are obviously not willing to understand the other viewpoint. I have no problem with you pointing out miriad problems but if they were prefaced with 'it's not completely impossible but' it would lead to more sensible debate.

​

---

1/ I never prefaced anything with 'it's completely impossible', either You asked me to believe that sinking trees with root systems & soil attached explained rooted, in situ fossil trees. I merely pointed out an expected global prediction of such an occurrence re. Fossils in the GC. I don’t deny such a phenomena exists, just that it is insufficient to explain the evidence. It is up to your model to provide the answers. I shouldn't have to preface everything with "it's not completely impossible, but".2/ Your model lives & dies on the details.3/ Please present the documented mechanism for creating successive forests.4/ regarding bias, I am biased in favour of the theory that explains the most evidence, that is not contradicted elsewhere. I am concerned that creationist models will overlook those details. So, that documented mechanism please.Now, the soils.. http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/forests.htmYou are saying that the soils are transported & washed in.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 abrasionSo, two types of upright trees have been identified, short trunk, abraded examples indicative of transported uprights, & long trunk examples with root systems penetrating SOIL HORIZONS.The cretaceous McRea formation in New MexicoBucl and Mack (1995) describe large in situ trees in fluvial deposits of the McRae Formation. The McRae Formation in south-central New Mexico is about 420m thick, and consists of two members, the Jose Creek and the Hall Lake. The formation is of latest Cretaceous age, based upon the included dinosaur fauna. The formation is rich in paleosols (at least 26), many of which contain in situ tree trunks.
14 paleosols, from 45-150m thick, are recognized in the Jose Creek Member. These are classified as argillisols, http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agl/agll/prosoil/argic . These display well-developed soil horizonation (A-E-Bt-Bc-C), and soil structures such as blocky peds and clay cutans. Downward bifurcating, downward-tapering root traces are abundant, some of which are silicified (root petrifactions).
Several of these paleosols are blanketed by ash-fall tuffs burying tree stumps up to 1.7m! in diameter, with preerved large roots penetrating and cross-cutting the underlying palesol horizons (see fig. 5).
12 paleosols are recognized in the overlying Hall Lake Member, from 70-450cm thick. These are classified as calcisols, http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agl/agll/prosoil/calc.htm and vertic calcisols . Soil horizons and soil structures are well-developed, and at least one paleosol includes a "massive, well-indurated bed of pedogenic calcrete up to 4m thick," which indicates a very advanced stage of calcisol development. Calcisols are diagnostic of semi-arid environments.What are well defined soil horizons doing in a fossil forest if the soils were washed in?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

Most beds around the world are marine so statistically they will end up on the bottom more often. And catastrophic inundations of the land by sea will deposit the terrestial beds in one place and the rest is obviouly going to be marine until a deper surge comes. Hence alternate arine/non-marine beds.

​

And why should we get a 'jumbled mess of tees' in our model? Austin showed that the trees sink vertically and insert in mud and will stay vertical especially under catastrophic circumstances of non-stop deposition.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

---

So why do those trees move in the first place if they can remain rooted under catastrophic conditions of non-stop deposition? What you seem to be saying is that only trees that have been uprooted & then deposited elsewhere, can be held in place. If what you say is true, it seems reasonable that many trees are going to remain rooted in pre-flood soils, where are they? This phenomena should indicate a clear boundary between pre-flood, & flood deposits. Those pesky details again..You will get a jumbled mess of trees in your model because trees will not fall next to each other, they will fall on top of each other, overlapping etc. (as well as next to each other), meaning the complete layers seen at specimen ridge should not exist, as the rooted paleosols that came WITH the trees will penetrate the conglomerate layer.Also, as the surge abates, why are marine organisms not deposited on top of the terrestrial forests stuck in place. Surely those conglomerates would be full of dense shelly marine fauna?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.