glaciers and the flood

hahaha! Im rolling!

Couldn't do without dessert I see..Or was that the main course?

quote:

---

For me, I do not know which pic I am looking MORE at.

---

I think you are looking at all of them.. at the same time.. upside-down.. with colors inverted.This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-27-2005 16:05 AM

quote:

---

Greg is without question, one of the world's leading authority on the subject of paleosols. I suggest you read his book "Soils of the Past". You can purchase the book at Amazon

---

--I second this suggestion. Very good.

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

They are reinterpreting the data as presented by Meert's written description of the outcrop and supported by Meert's photo. If the supposed "paleosol" had any of the real features of a soil, such as the A,B,C and R horizions required for there to be soil, Meert would have noted them and he would have pointed them out in the photo. He didn't and they arn't in the photo.

---

--Horizons are not the only diagnostic feature of soils or paleosols. In fact, paleosols may seem massive and featureless at a first approximation (hence a problem with the photo). Paleosols can be identified in the field or in the laboratory through studies of horizons as well as from root traces and soil structure. For the purposes of this discussion we can downplay the significance of root traces in the identification of paleosols because it could be argued that small root traces are indeed in situ, albeit still incipient relative to the timing of catastrophic geology, and that larger root structures are allochthonous (not formed in place, transported).For all we know or can delineate, the paleosol under question in the photo in Meert's essay could be cumulic, thereby indicating very little if any noticable horizonation, void of vertical gradation or diffuse horizon contacts.

quote:

---

Without such field indications the true complexity of a paleosol may not become apparent until petrographic or chemical studies reveal discontinuities.[retallack, 2001]

---

The photo resolution is hardly adequate to identify structural features found in paleosols. And sometimes the soil microfabric must be analyzed to distringuish sedimentary rocks from paleosols.Anyway, Meert stated that he did not determine the pedogenetic origin of the layer in the photograph, but was identified by Steve Hasiotis.This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-25-2005 17:41 AM

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

quote:

---

Frankly, I believe that they are hard to recognize simply because they are not paleosols.

---

Or because of well understood soil-forming and alteration processes in pedology and paleopedology..

quote:

---

I believe that a cataclysmic interpretation can be found for all the interpreted paleosols especially in light of tsunami deposition.

---

--Well, that is the hope and indeed an ultimate requirement for catastrophic geology. Also, I strongly disagree with deposition via a (developed) tsunami--at least for most paleosols I have studied. There is simply far too much energy in tsunami's.You may be interested in reading through some of the discussion in the thread Paleosols, long and tedious, however I stand by my general argument that allocthonous deposition of the paleosols and forests is a good explanation of the data. Like evolutionary theory, however, the mechanism (of deposition) is debatable.

quote:

---

I did not mean to imply at paleosols should have ALL the horizions found in soils, although it may have sounded like it. Since a soil is defined by means of horizions, then a paleosol should have at least one horizion. Since your did not mention any such horizion in the formation, and one certainly did not appear in the photo, then classifying it as a paleosol is certainly ambiguous and perhaps arbitrary. It appears to be simply an unsorted conglomerate.

---

--I explained in my previous post why just staring at the photo is inadequate. Furthermore, a soil does not require visible horizon development, also briefly explained in my previous post.

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.