Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)

I have personally looked into the fossil trees of Joggins, Nova Scotia and came to the conclusion that most likely NONE of the upright trees in all of this 14,000 feet of strata are in situ -- meaning that it seems quite likely that they were entombed in this strata as a result of a great flood, such as what we read about in the book of Genesis. For those who want to know more about why (or how) I came to this conclusion, go to Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age and click on the Polystrate Fossil Trees link.I also, while studying this, came across compelling evidence that this strata is quite young (probably less than 10,000 years old). This is because of the organic material that is still present in some of the fossilized logs and unfossilized shells.In addition, I came across very strong evidence that these deposits were not the result of "rivers" that overflowed their banks, but rather for marine influences.

To see the list of papers and books that I used to come to my conclusions simply click on the following links:Reference List: Addr.comPart One of my paper is at: Addr.comHere is Part Two:
Addr.comHere is a table of 12 Sequencial "Coal Groups" that were numbered by
Dawson -- with details given for each group.
Addr.comHere is another (much Shorter) "paper" I wrote on Evidences for a Worldwide Flood:
Addr.comHere is another short list of Quotes on this topic that I thought were
worth quoting: Addr.comHere is another short paper I wrote on Flood Legends -- with links to much larger (and more detailed) papers.
Addr.comNote also that additional Links on to other web pages with mucm more information are provided at the bottom of each of these papers -- with additional links in the text.See also the Link from my Homepage (below the drawing) for more on upright trees in Coal Seams. I will write more on this topic at a future date. Here is the exact Link, but the picture itself says a thousand words.
Addr.comRB.

No it was not "too hot" for me over a T-Web. My views, and how I came to them are elaborated on my web page -- along with lots of reasons as to how I arrived at my conclusions. However, if you do not happen to agree with my conclusions then you are free to believe what you wish and to publish your findings.I am not, however going to try to convince a skeptic that I am right and he (or she) is wrong. I would rather spend my time convincing others who are simply searching for the answers.And for your information, I have already spent 1.5 - 2 years of my spare time on an online debate forum such as this -- debating 7-10 skepticts -- and after many hundreds of posts and hundreds of hours trying to convince them that they had been deceived, I finally gave up. And now you want me to do the same thing with you.No Thanks.However, with that said, after reading over my paper, if you have any specific comments that you want to point out -- especially if you find anything that I say that is inaccurate, then please to contact me directly (via the email link that is accessable from my web page).God Bless You all.Sincerely,RandyB

I take it that you disagree with my conclusions.That's OK. I don't agree with everything I read either.I am curious though as to what you think about the
40 foot upright tree that I uncovered? The one that
Dawson and Lyell didn't want the public to know about?
The one that went through a coal seam?Or what did you think about the other upright tree that
is shown crossing a two foot thick coal seam? The one
that is pictured on my Home Page at Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age?Or what did you think of all those upright trees that
I show that don't have any roots attached? Or the ones
that Brown even admitted that didn't have roots attached:
the ones that Dawson chose to ignore in his books?Or what did you think about the other Tree that Dawson
did depict (from the Sydney area) from Brown's writings
-- (In Part Two of my paper) the one that was filled
with White sandstone, yet surrounded above and below with
sediments other than sandstone?Or what did you think of those Quotes that I have on my
page titled "More Flood Evidences" that tell us that there
must have been a Worldwide Flood?Or how about the evidence I give that goes against the
Flooding River scenario in favor of Marine influence one
where the ocean swept over the land? You did read that
part of my paper didn't you? It is in Part Two. I think
it is the Section titled: "Evidence for Marine Influences"
or something like that.Seriously Bill,You need to lighten up and maybe even (God Forbid) THANK ME
for looking a little deeper than what others have done. Perhaps it is just possible that the SAME OCEAN CURRENT THAT DEPOSITED THE MARINE SEDIMENTS IN THE COAL STRATA (also with Stigaria, and Lepidodendrons and Sigillaria) in Tennesee and Kentucky and Pensylvania was the same event that also deposted the strata in Nova Scotia??? Perhaps even the Grand Canyon as well.I also predict that in the next few years that there will be other
papers published that support the same conclusions that I have come to. In fact, it is my hope that Geology students will look into this again for themselves and even challenge their Professors (especially if it turns out -- as I strongly suspect -- that they are wrong).I also hope that is OK with you. Or is there only one conclusion that you will accept?Good day, and Bless you all for searching out the truth.Randy Berg

I take it that you didn't like my paper?Or my last message?Maybe if I were to agree with you then you would be happy?Would that make you happy?Don't you want people to come to their own conclusions?Oh, Now I see! You ONLY want people to come to YOUR conclusions?I suppose you also want me to believe that we "evolved" from life that began in a primordial slime pool?Happy Days are here again!

Dear Charles,Which references of mine did you not approve of?As far as me "selecting" certain quotes to prove my point: that is a common practice in this day and age. I also think your problem is not with my doing so, but rather with my conclusions.I also think I am right and therefore will NOT be changing anything with regard to my position. If you want to come over to my side, them I welcome you to do so.If you want to write a rebuttal to my paper then you are free to do so.Bill: IF the Geologists from the 1800's were wrong about Joggins,
then so are the Geologists from the 1900's. I also think that the older papers are better than the modern ones because, at least, at that time there was a debate going on as to how these trees were enombed -- as a subsequent discussion of the facts (including much better and more detailed drawings that what appears in modern papers). Today most geologist who write on this subject just "assume" that what they have been told to believe by their professors is correct, and act like the debate is over -- and that they can't be wrong.Also, the quotes that I give for the Worldwide flood were not from Velikovski. They are quoted below."Two American oceanographic vessels pulled from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico several long, slender cores of sediment. Included in them were the shells of tiny one-celled planktonic organisms called foraminifera. While living on the surface, these organisms lock into their shells a chemical record of the tempera-
ture and salinity of the water. When they reproduce, the shells are discarded and drop to the bottom. A cross-section of that bottom... carries a record of climates that may go back more than 100 million years. Every inch of core may represent as much as 1000 years of the earth's past."1"The cores were analyzed in two separate investigations, by esare Emiliani of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge University. Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity, providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico. Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600 years ago." 1 To Emiliani, all the questions and arguments are minor beside the single fact that a vast amount of fresh melt water poured into the Gulf of Mexico. 'We know this,' he says, 'because the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago... There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood 1."Emiliani's findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett and Shackleton, who concluded that there was a 'massive inpouring of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River system. At the time of maximum inpouring of this water, surface salinities were...reduced by about ten percent."1The Black Sea Speaks:"Science... has found evidence for a massive deluge that may ... have inspired Noah's tale. About 7,500 years ago, a flood poured ten cubic miles of water a day--130 times more than flows over Niagara Falls - from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea, abruptly turning the formerly freshwater lake into a brackish inland sea."2"In 1993, William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory dug up cores of sediment from the bottom of the Black sea. The cores showed that the sea's outer margins had once been dry land, indicating it had been two-thirds its present size. Furthermore, over the entire sea bottom was a thin, uniform layer of sediment that could only have been deposited during a flood. The researchers also found that within that layer saltwater mollusks appear, all from the Mediterranean and all dating
from around 7600 years ago." 2Could Worldwide Orderly = A Worldwide Flood?"Such a hypothesis would require assumption of a highly unlikely pattern of faunal migrations, where swarms of species of Manticoceras are followed, everywhere at the same distance and the same time interval, by swarms of species of Cheiloceras, the two waves preserving their separate identities on a staggered mass migration around the world ... without evolutionary changes and without ever becoming mixed...""It would be easy to repeat this investigation for almost every critical zone fossil or fauna throughout the geological column for hundreds, perhaps thousands of... cases. The conclusions would be the same. In the words of Jeletsky (1956) we would have to 'invoke a miracle', if, for example, we were to assume anything but world-wide contemporaneous deposition for each of the 55 ammonite zones of the Jurassic. Not all of them occur everywhere, but wherever two or more are found in superposition they occur in the same order. 3 Arkell (1957, p. L112) 4 summarized the picture of ... Mesozoic ammonoids as follows:'Evolution is above all very uneven. Certain periods were outstandingly productive of new and verile forms which often seem to have sprung into existence from nowhere... and to have become dominant almost simultaneously over a large part of the world... How such sudden multiple creations were brought about is a task for the future to determine.'" 3,41. Warshofsky, Fred, "Noah, The Flood, the Facts," Readers Digest,
Sept. 1977, pp.132-134.
2. Svitil, Kathy A., "Forty Days and Forty Nights, More or Less,"
Discover, Jan. 1999, p. 69. See also: "Is Noah story result of
Black Sea flood?" by John Noble Wilford, New York Times News
Service, San Diego Union--Tribune, Wed., Jan. 13, 1999, p. E-4.
3. Teichert, Curt, "Some Biostratigraphical Concepts," Bulletin of
the Geological Society of America, Vol. 69, Jan.1958, p.111.
4. Arkell, W. J.,1957, "Introduction to Mesozoic Ammonoidea,"
pp.81-129 in Moore, R. C., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology,
Part L: Geological Society of America and Univ. of Kansas Press,
490 pp. 727, Green Forest, AZ 72638, p.239Good Day to all.
Randy

In that case, then please don't ask me any more questions -- as I think I would be "wasting my time."Tschuss!

If God said there was a global flood, then there WAS a global flood -- and there is also evidence of that: such as quoted below. Whether or not you choose to accept that evidence is up to you."Two American oceanographic vessels pulled from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico several long, slender cores of sediment. Included in them were the shells of tiny one-celled planktonic organisms called foraminifera. While living on the surface, these organisms lock into their shells a chemical record of the tempera-
ture and salinity of the water. When they reproduce, the shells are discarded and drop to the bottom. A cross-section of that bottom... carries a record of climates that may go back more than 100 million years. Every inch of core may represent as much as 1000 years of the earth's past."1"The cores were analyzed in two separate investigations, by esare Emiliani of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge University. Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity, providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico. Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600 years ago." 1 To Emiliani, all the questions and arguments are minor beside the single fact that a vast amount of fresh melt water poured into the Gulf of Mexico. 'We know this,' he says, 'because the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago... There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood 1."Emiliani's findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett and Shackleton, who concluded that there was a 'massive inpouring of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River system. At the time of maximum inpouring of this water, surface salinities were...reduced by about ten percent."1Could Worldwide Orderly = A Worldwide Flood?"Such a hypothesis would require assumption of a highly unlikely pattern of faunal migrations, where swarms of species of Manticoceras are followed, everywhere at the same distance and the same time interval, by swarms of species of Cheiloceras, the two waves preserving their separate identities on a staggered mass migration around the world ... without evolutionary changes and without ever becoming mixed...""It would be easy to repeat this investigation for almost every critical zone fossil or fauna throughout the geological column for hundreds, perhaps thousands of... cases. The conclusions would be the same. In the words of Jeletsky (1956) we would have to 'invoke a miracle', if, for example, we were to assume anything but world-wide contemporaneous deposition for each of the 55 ammonite zones of the Jurassic. Not all of them occur everywhere, but wherever two or more are found in superposition they occur in the same order. 3 Arkell (1957, p. L112) 4 summarized the picture of ... Mesozoic ammonoids as follows:'Evolution is above all very uneven. Certain periods were outstandingly productive of new and verile forms which often seem to have sprung into existence from nowhere... and to have become dominant almost simultaneously over a large part of the world... How such sudden multiple creations were brought about is a task for the future to determine.'" 3,41. Warshofsky, Fred, "Noah, The Flood, the Facts," Readers Digest,
Sept. 1977, pp.132-134.
3. Teichert, Curt, "Some Biostratigraphical Concepts," Bulletin of
the Geological Society of America, Vol. 69, Jan.1958, p.111.
4. Arkell, W. J.,1957, "Introduction to Mesozoic Ammonoidea,"
pp.81-129 in Moore, R. C., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology,
Part L: Geological Society of America and Univ. of Kansas Press,
490 pp. 727, Green Forest, AZ 72638, p.239

RandyB wrote:"If God said there was a global flood, then there WAS a global
flood -- and there is also evidence of that: such as quoted
below. Whether or not you choose to accept that evidence is
up to you."Bill: Did God tell you this personally?If you mean by this: Did He speak audibly to me and tell me that the Worldwide Flood that is spoken of in Genesis really did occur, the answer is NO (He did not tell me this audibly); however, I do believe that it happened -- and that He has **personally** motivated me to check this out for myself to see if it is in fact true (and which I believe it is).Bill: Or is this just your **personal** interpretation of Genesis, which is just one of many interpretations held by various Christians?Randy: The only "interpretation" that makes any sense at all is that it really happened just the way it says in Genesis. This is also supported by Jesus, Himself -- who, by the way, claimed that He was also around when it happened (in His preincarnate being -- as God).See Micah 5:2; John 8:48-58; Exodus 3:13-15; Luke 17:26-27
The apostle Peter also must have read about the Flood, for Himself, 2000 years ago (most likely from Genesis) for he also spoke about it in 2 Peter 2:4-5.Bill: There is a wide range of opinion as to whether or not the story of the Noachian Flood is to be taken literally as written in the Bible.Randy: Actually, the Bible is quite clear as to what actually happened, and that every mountain on the whole earth was covered, and that all flesh on the earth was destroyed (inlcuding beasts and all mankind) except that which was on the Ark. But as Ariel Roth has noted, one does't even need to use to Bible to arrive at such a conclusion. His paper is at:Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...I have also written a short article on this at:Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood – Earth AgeHowever, the article at:
Flood Legends From Around the Worldis much more indepth and has many more links attached. I do, however, have a copy of the translation of the Gilgamesh account -- which I obtained at a local University Library -- and it does very closely resemble Genesis. Ariel discusses this in his paper above.Bill: snipRandyB quoted:...text deleted..."The cores were analyzed in two separate investigations, by Cesare
Emiliani of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the
University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge
University. Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity,
providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into
the Gulf of Mexico. Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of
the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600 years
ago." 1 To Emiliani, all the questions and arguments are minor
beside the single fact that a vast amount of fresh melt water
poured into the Gulf of Mexico. 'We know this,' he says, 'because
the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a
marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the
Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period
of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago... There was no
question that there was a flood and there is no question that
it was a universal flood 1.The reference to this is:"Warshofsky, Fred, "Noah, The Flood, the Facts," Readers Digest,
Sept. 1977, pp.132-134."This is a popular article, whose author grossly misinterpreted the findings of these scientists. If a person goes back to the original article, they find that the data shows that the flooding was restricted only the Mississippi River. There is simply no evidence that any "universal flood" was involved.Randy: Then why don't you quote the actual article to us???
Also, if this were so (that it only involved the Mississippi River), then why would Emiliani state that it had to be a Worldwide Flood?
My guess is that this is because Emiliani didn't take his core samples at the mouth of the Mississippi (as you suggest above), but rather far out in the Gulf of Mexico -- which is, the last time I checked, tied (in a big way) to the Oceans of the World.Bill: What Randt B doesn't realize in this case, is that the antiquated research cited by Warshofsky, Emiliani (1976), has been rendered obsolete in the 28 years since it was published. If a person looks at the latest research on the meltwater / freshwater events in the Gulf of Mexico, i.e. Aharon (2003), they would find that during the last 18,000 years, large floods of meltwater flowed down the Mississippi River and into the Gulf of Mexico at 13,400; 12,600; 11,900; 9,900; 9,700; and 9,100 BP.Randy: For a closer look at Carbon 14 dating, see
What About Carbon-14 Dating of “Old” Dinosaur Bones? – Earth Age
and the associated Links to other sites -- and which are also
listed below.Actually though, the Carbon 14 method does provide us with
very good evidence that the world is NOT millions of years
old -- as is attested to via the following links:http://worldbydesign.org/...h/c14dating/datingdinosaurs.html
Geological Conflict | Answers in Genesis
Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of God
Much-Inflated Carbon-14 Dates from Subfossil Trees | Answers in Genesis
http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i5f.htm
http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...son/datingmethods.htm
The Supposed Consistency of Evolution’s Long Ages | Answers in Genesis
How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.NetAnd Here is a summary of how the "scientific" "Dates" are often
"manipulated" soas to support the theory of evolution. I.E. The case of the KBS Tuff.Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's AgeSnipRandyB quoted:"Emiliani's findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett and
Shackleton, who concluded that there was a 'massive inpouring
of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi
River system. At the time of maximum inpouring of this water,
surface salinities were...reduced by about ten percent."1Bill: Again Kennett and Shackleton (1975) is research that was published 29 years ago, as Warshofsky's article was published 27 years ago. In that period of time, the record in the cores, from which the data came, was found to have been greatly distorted by slow sedimentation rates and bioturbation, which made the recognition of individual flood events and their accurate dating impossible. The same problem existed in case of the cores used by Emiliani (1976).References Cited:Kennett, J. P. and Shackleton, N. J., 1975, Laurentide ice sheet
meltwater recorded in the Gulf of Mexico. Science. vol. 188,
pp. 147-150.RandyB continued:Could Worldwide Orderly = A Worldwide Flood?"Such a hypothesis would require assumption of a highly unlikely
pattern of faunal migrations, where swarms of species of Manticoceras
are followed, everywhere at the same distance and the same time
interval, by swarms of species of Cheiloceras, the two waves
preserving their separate identities on a staggered mass migration
around the world ... without evolutionary changes and without ever
becoming mixed..."...rest of text deleted...rest of Text re-inserted:"It would be easy to repeat this investigation for almost every critical zone fossil or fauna throughout the geological column for hundreds, perhaps thousands of...cases. The conclusions would be the same. In the words of Jeletsky (1956) we would have to 'invoke a miracle', if, for example, we were to assume anything but world-wide contemporaneous deposition for each of the 55 ammonite zones of the Jurassic. Not all of them occur everywhere, but wherever two or more are found in superposition they occur in the same order. 3 Arkell (1957, p. L112)4 summarized the picture of... Mesozoic ammonoids as follows:'Evolution is above all very uneven. Certain periods were outstandingly productive of new and verile forms which often seem to have sprung into existence from nowhere... and to have become dominant almost simultaneously over a large part of the world... How such sudden multiple creations were brought about is a task for the future to determine.'" 3,43. Teichert, Curt, "Some Biostratigraphical Concepts," Bulletin of
the Geological Society of America, Vol. 69, Jan.1958, p.111.
4. Arkell, W. J.,1957, "Introduction to Mesozoic Ammonoidea,"
pp.81-129 in Moore, R. C., Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology, Part L: Geological Society of America and Univ. of
Kansas Press,490 pp. 727, Green Forest, AZ 72638, p.239Bill: In this argument, the author just shows how ill-informed he is of how interconnected the world's ocean are and how easily and quickly ocean currents transport pelagic organisms.Randy: And just happen to deposit them on every Continent -- always in the same order. But this is exactly what we have with regard to the supposed "river" deposits of Joggins. i.e. For some (strange) reason these same "rivers" just happened to deposit the same trees, with the same (normally) broken-off (and/or truncated) roots, and the same broken off and fragmented Stigmaria roots (which are also normally found with their rootlets broken off, and where we also find these broken-off rootlets deposited all by themselves -- usually in an upright state -- as opposed to being at all angles (as they were in life). And these same "river" deposists are also found, not just at Joggins, but also at Sidney (which is 150-200 miles to the North of Joggins), and also in Tennessee, and Kentucky, and Illinois, and Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. But even more strange is the fact that (coincidentally) Europe also "had" similar "rivers" that deposited similar Trees, with similar (usually) broken off and/or truncated roots), with similar Calamites and fragmented Stigmaria -- for this is what we also find in England and France and Germany.This is also why I wrote my paper on the Nova Scotia "Fossil Forests."SnipBest Regards,Bill BirkelandAnd Randy BergThis message has been re-edited by Randy Berg

The only "Nuclear Strike" that has taken place is the one that has demolished the theory evolution. That's because even in 100 Trillion years of Time, there is a still a ZERO chance of getting a self-replicating living cell going. It is comparable to an "ordered" bolt of Lightning striking a Silver mine and Somehow producing a Radio Transmitter that is translating Ordered Information. But then you would still need a radio to receive and decode (and then use) that information -- which is exactly what each living cell does today. The DNA being the "Transmitter -- transmitting the Information to the RNA messenger cell, which transmits (or literally transports) this Ordered information to the rhibosome -- which then decodes it and uses it to line up all 20 (left-handed only) amino acids in just the right order so as to make any and every protein that the cell needs to survive. And the process whereby the cell replicates itself it even more complex. In other words, in spite of what you were "told" in school, life could never have "evolved" apart from an intelligent Creator programming its DNA and putting it all together in a suitable environment to survive. And no amount of wishfill thinking is going to change this either.But as far as the so-called "River Floodplain" scenario that supposedly laid down all that stata in Nova Scotia, even the evolutionary scientists, such as John Calder, agree that such a scenario cannot fully explain the facts -- as I document in my paper. Spirorbis are not freshwater creatures but rather Salt Water, as are Echinoderms, and (almost certainly) Naiadites as well. Also some of the strata has been traced for 45 Km inland -- meaning such "rivers" would have had to be quite large. But then there is the problem of the Missing Roots of MANY of those upright plants and trees. In fact, anyone who looks at Dana's (1894) book ("Manual of Geology"...) can plainly see that the Oceans at various times COVERED almost all of North America. Such Flooding was anything but "local." Only the time, of separation was probably only a few weeks or months as opposed to "mythions of years." See pp. 443, 536, 633, and 735. This book can be ordered from Abebooks (AbeBooks | Shop for Books, Art & Collectibles) for as little as $10 + Shipping.Sincerely,
Randy Berg

If such materials were good enough for MacRae, then why not me.Also, The date of Dana's book does not nullify what he said.Translation: The Drawings he depicted still stand, and so does the Massive Flooding they depicted.RB

Perhaps this is a bit more to your liking:It is excerpted from a paper at:
The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth AgePart One of this paper is at:
The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth AgeThe Fragmentation of Stigmaria:
While studying the Coal strata of Nova Scotia, Professor N. A. Rupke also concluded that the strata that contains Stigmaria roots and upright trees is not representative of in situ growth and burial but is of allochthonous origin. 120 His conclusions were based on the the following:1. Preferred orientation of Stigmaria axes,
2. Fragmentation of Stigmaria,
3. Filling of fragments with different sediment than that which
surrounds them,
4. Evidence of rapid burial.With regard to these roots Rupke stated that:
"In most cases, it was quite difficult to trace a Stigmaria specimen over its entire length through the enveloping rock, especially when it was cropping out in cross section. Nevertheless, for a good many specimens, it could be established that they were but fragments, that is, no longer connected with a tree stem and quite often with the finer end broken off." 120Rupke also noted that :
"beds with upright trees often contain Stigmaria, sometimes spread through the entire thickness of the bed." 120
When challenged by Ferguson, 121 Rupke responded by providing more details. For example, Ferguson suggested that the Stigmaria fragments in question were perhaps still connected with trees (that were) hidden in the cliff, or that the trees had eroded away. To this Rupke gave the following response:"1. ... For a few specimens it was possible to trace both ends into the rock, since they were sub-parallel to the cliff face and slightly bent so that only their outward bend was exposed. Both ends were found to terminate abruptly, without any connection with a tree.
2. The stigmarian beds on Cape Breton Island are traversed by several upright trees that start at the bottom of the beds. The Stigmaria specimens occur throughout the entire thickness of the beds, although for the greater part in the upper half. Nowhere was an upright tree found that starts in the upper half of the beds or somewhere else within them. In case the Stigmaria specimens are still connected with trees, one should find some evidence that trees do begin at some level within the stigmarian beds. Moreover, most of the upright trees that are actually seen in the cliff face stand on an underclay, a coal seam or a carbonaceous layer. If the Stigmaria specimens are still in
situ and thus representative of a succession of forests, one should find carbonaceous layers or some other indication of soils within the stigmarian beds. Evidence for this, however, is absent; on the contrary, well developed and completely undisturbed cross-bedded units can be seen in many places in these beds.Consequently, the contention that it is fragments of Stigmaria that are dealt with and not in situ occurrences seems beyond doubt." 122Other authorities have made similar remarks. For example, in the only book ever published on the subject of Stigmaria, Williamson said:"Having so many proofs that some of the examples of Stigmaria discovered in the fireclay or seat-bed are the downward extentions of Sigillaria and Lepidodendroid trees, it surely can no longer be doubted that the fragments of this identical Stigmaria ficoides with which that clay is so constantly filled must also be portions of similar roots. Such fragments, both of roots and rootlets, are extremely abundant. Indeed it is rare to find a fireclay in which such is not the case, but how these roots have so often become disturbed and broken up is a question not easily answered." 123 -- p. 12
Williamson makes no attempt to answer it either. He does, however, provide references to other authorities who also noticed this. For example, in his Conclusion he states that:"The fact thatlargequantities of fragments have been found in localities unassociated with any Lepidodendron or Sigillarian stems has led some geologists to 'consider Stigmaria as originally representing floating stems becoming roots under peculiar circumstances.' "124
"... and Lesquereux cites Schimper's authority for the fact that a deposit in the Vosges is filled with a prodigious quantity of fragments of Stigmaria... (and)...abundant remains or trunks of Knorria and Lepidodendron" 124 ( pp. 43-44)
Lesquereux's own observations were very similar and are rendered below:"Fragments of Stigmaria, trunks, branches and leaves, are generally found embedded in every kind of compound, clay, shales, sandstone, coal, even limestone, in carboniferous strata ... They are always in large proportion, far above that of any other remains of coal plants ..." 125"All the geologists who have examined the distribution of the carboniferous measures and the composition of the strata have remarked the predominance of Stigmaria in the clay deposits which constitute the bottom of the coal beds. As the remains of Stigmaria are always found in that peculiar kind of clay and also in the intervening silicious beds generally called clay partings, without any fragments of Sigillaria, it has been supposed that these clay materials were merely a kind of soft mould where the Sigillaria began their life by the germination of seeds and there expanded their roots, while their trunks growing up did contribute by their woody matter the essential composition formed above clay beds. This opinion has an appearance of truth indeed. But how to explain the fact that beds of fireclay twenty to thirty feet in thickness are mostly composed of Stigmaria, or filled from the base to the top with remains of these plants, stems and leaves, without a fragment of Sigillaria ever found amongst them and without any coal above? Roots cannot live independently of trunks or of aerial plants..." 125"Large surfaces of rocks ... are seen in Pennsylvania entirely covered with stems and branches of Stigmaria. The stems, very long, nearly the same size in their whole length, rarely forking, crossing one upon another in all directions, cover the rocks with their leaves still attached to them in their original disposition of right angle. They have evidently the same position and distribution as during their growth, and there, over the whole exposed surface of the rocks, an
acre or more, nothing is seen, either in any modification of the size of the stems or in their direction, which might indicate the rooting process or the axis of a trunk. 125"As seen from their fragments, the Stigmaria stems are not exactly cylindrical ... The pith is thus exposed naked on the under side of the stems, and the leaves come out from the sides and upper surfaces only... This conformation shows that the stems of Stigmaria were floating or expanding at the surface of soft muddy lakes, and independent of the growth of trees. 125References:
121. Ferguson, Laing, 1970, Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., Vol. 81, pp.
2531-2534.
122. Rupke, N. A., 1970, Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., Vol. 81, pp.
2535-2538.
123. Williamson, C. W., 1887, "A Monograph on the Morphology and
Histology of Stigmaria ficoides," p.12., London
Palaeontograhical Society.
124. ibid. ref. 123, pp. 40-44.
125. Lesquereux, Leo, 1880, "Description of the Coal Flora of the
Carboniferous Formation in Pennsylvania and Throughout the
United States," Vol. 1, pp. 510-513.EOM,RandyB

Randy: The fact that many upright trees in this strata have different bedding than that which surrounds them suggests that they were transported before burial.Edge: No explanataion? Why would this indicate transport? To me it just indicates s different mode of sedimentation.Randy: It indicates transport precisely because NONE of the surrounding sediments are the same as that of the interior. Therefore, the tree must have been transported. I discuss exactly how this could (and likely did) occur in my paper at:
Addr.comSee the section on "Horizontal Shear"---------------------------------------------------------------------Randy: It also appears (from the drawings above) that these two trees do not have attached roots-- again suggesting that they are not in situ.Edge: Only if you ignore any possible mechanism for detachement. I can think of a couple.Randy: I do not ignore any possible means of detachment, but rather show drawings of how this could occur. However, it would also naturally occur, when a tree it "uprooted" due to a water catastrophe -- where the tree is knocked over, and its roots left in the ground.But why don't you also share your views as to how you think this could occur.---------------------------------------------------------------------Randy: Note also that Lyell's stump has its base directly over a bed of shale, as opposed to coal.Edge: Meaning exactly what?Randy: If you were to read my paper on the "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia, in Part One I go into this in some detail. I also quote Lyell's assertion that most of the trees at Joggins are "rooted in coal" -- which, from the available evidence, appears to NOT be the case.See Below excerpt from my paper:So, is it coal, or is it shale?
Since other writers have commented on this, lets consider what they had to say as well. For example,
Duff and Walton quote Lyell as follows:"...most of the trees terminated downwards in seams of coal."' And that: "Some few were only based in clay and shale; none of them, except Calamites, were in sandstone." 66Duff and Walton, themselves, observed that:"...each specimen... was rooted in mudstone." 66Calder says that:Virtually all Lepidodendrid trees... are rooted in coal beds, however thin." 67However, Coffin said that the upright:"Petrified stumps starting from a coal surface almost never send roots into the coal, but spread them out onto, or just above the coal." 68Coffin also noted that:"Only a small number of vertical trees arise from coal. The majority originate in shale or sandstone, which exhibit no change in texture or organic content." 68Therefore there appears to be a discrepancy. Lyell says that "most" of the upright trees are terminated in coal. Calder says that the "Lepidodendrid" trees are always rooted in coal. Bell said that "most" of the Sigillaria trees had their bases "directly over a thin coaly or carbonaceous seam," yet in the next sentence that: "all of the erect Sigillaria had their basal terminations in shales." Duff and Walton said that all of the upright trees they examined were "rooted in mudstone," while Coffin said that "only a small number of vertical trees arise from coal," and, those that do "almost never send their roots into the coal."So which of these assessments, if any, is more accurate? One possible solution is to examine one of Mr. Brown's drawings of the Sydney strata -- strata that has been said to be very similar to that at Joggins. From this drawing it appears that most of the upright trees near Sydney have their bases in shale.(Drawing available at Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age )Of the 19 trees in the drawing above, only three are resting upon a seam of coal, the other 16 have their bases either in shale or (in one case) resting upon clay.* Note also the two trees on the far right; although they possess both roots and rootlets, they appear to terminate above the coal.From the available data, it appears to this writer that many (if not most) of the upright trees in both the Joggins and Sydney strata do not terminate in coal but rather in shale or mudstone. Even if a majority of upright trees in the Nova Scotia strata do terminate in coal -- something that (at east from the published literature) appears doubtful, to assert that a thin seam of coal (almost always) caused the underlying roots to vanish without a trace seems questionable at best. However, there are other reasons to question such a scenario. This will become more evident when we discuss trees that traverse coal seams. At lease one such tree from the Sydney strata had (truncated) roots that did cross a seam of "coal mixed with shale"; however, its roots did not appear to be offset.Such a finding suggests that this seam never was a (thick) layer of peat, for if it was then the root-portion below the coal should be offset from that above it. The author has also found instances of upright tree stumps that were completely enclosed within and /or protruding through coal seams several feet thick.The fact that well preserved leaves and other fragile fossils are found in many of the coals and their shale roofs is suggestive of rapid burial. The fact that the "soil" beneath them was able to preserve multitudes of (individual) rootlets suggests that the larger basal roots are missing because the trees were uprooted prior to deposition in the strata.Consider the words of Dawson, himself, regarding the ability of the Joggins soils to preserve roots:We may also observe that, admitting the Stigmaria to be roots of trees, there are five distinct forest soils; without any remains of trees, except their roots; and we shall find that throughout the (Carboniferous) section that the forest soils are much more frequently preserved than the forests themselves.69Such an account is a glaring contradiction to his earlier statement (ref. 62) that the "former" (trees) are less likely to be preserved than the "latter" (roots) -- especially when considering that so many of these upright trees do not show any traces of roots.See also: Extensive Roots or Roots Extensively Missing------------------------------------------------------------------Edge: Many of the soils that these trees grew in were not well developed and often indistinguishable from sediments to the casual observer.Randy: That's because there (almost certainly) were NOT soils at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------Edge: No problem, Randy. Many beds are deposited abruptly in the geological record. We have know this for probably hundreds of years. How did you miss that?Randy: Yes, and Many of these "abruptly deposited beds" exibit NO EVIDENCE of Erosion, but rather horizontally "sharp" contacts, -- inducating that there was very little time between the two. This is also evident from the Many layers that were Bent as a single unit -- thus indicating that NONE of them had become hardened at the time when they were warped. We also see this with coal seams -- where the strata both above and below are bent into all types of curves -- before the sediments had time to become hard.------------------------------------------------------------------Edge: what does rapid burial have to do with transport?Randy: The two go together like peas in a pod. The fact that so many of the trees are missing their roots is clear evedence that they were uprooted. The fact that they were preserved in the first place is a clear indication that they were buried rapidly -- as trees in the forest normally are NOT preseved after they die, simply because in order to be preserved they need to either become Petrified while standing upright (in a mineral lake), or due to becoming buried.For example, the 100's of thousand (if not millions) of Buffalo carcasses that once lay on the Great Plains were easily visible to those who traveled across country by train during the 1800's. However, the gradually (over a period of about 40 years) became less and less noticeable, and eventually all rotted away into dust, so that today there is NO TRACE at all that they were ever slaughtered, except from History Books.By the way, in case anyone is interested. I seem to have found a few drawings of some of those "local" incursions by the sea. See Link below.Cheers.
RBAddr.com

Here are the refs for my last postRefs:
66. ibid. ref. 44, p. 370. Note: A reference for Lyell's quote is
provided in their paper.
67. Calder, John H., File Not Found | novascotia.ca
68. Coffin, Harrold, Origin by Design, 1983, Review and Herald
Publishing Assn., Hagerstown, MD 21740, pp.120-121.
69. ibid. ref. 4, p. 186.4. Dawson, John W., 1868, Acadian Geology, 2nd ed. Macmillan & Co.,
London, pp. 151-178.
44. Helder, Margaret, 1992, "At Joggins: Look What The Sea Uncovered,"
Creation Science Dialogue, Vol. 19, No. 3, p.5. Helder also
provides the following reference: Gibling, M.R., 1987, "A Classic
Carboniferous Section: Joggins, N.S. Geological Society America
Centennial Field Guide, NE Section," 5(88): p. 411.62. ibid. ref. 5, p. 30
5. Dawson, 1854, Quart.Jour.Geol.Soc.London, Vol.10, p.26. Regarding
the Drifted Trunk deposits see pp. 4-27.Note: refs are out of order here.

Edge: That does not explain the issue. In fact, I'd say it is a better model for in situ trees...Randy: Sorry but if the trees were in situ (or buried in the place where they grew), then the sediments around, and/or above the tree should be the SAME as those inside of it. But since they are both different than the sediments that are inside the trees, then this indicates the the different sediments in the tree (along with the tree itself) must have come from somewhere else -- meaning that the trees must have been "Transported" to this location.--------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: And many of the trees we see growing today are not rooted in soils at all. Again, what's the problem?Randy: No problem for the Drift Theory, but MAJOR Problem for the In Situ hypothesis because Missing Roots indicate Transported Trees. Also, large Trees are usually rooted in some type of soil. Also, many of the underclays display Fragmentation of Stigmaria Roots -- indicating that the roots themselves have also been transported.---------------------------------------------------------------------Edge: Of course not. We are talking about deposition not erosion.Randy: Yes but if the two contacts were separated by thousands or Millions of years, then we should see evidence of this in the form of Erosion between the layers. I.E. a Jagged contact as opposed to a flat one -- as we in fact do see in about 95% of the strata today.-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: Soft sediment deformation is not a problem either. Happens all the time.Randy: It happened so much in the past precicely because the strata were (virtually) all deposited withing a One year time frame -- as a result of a worldwide flood. But would never happen if the two layers were separted by (say) 80 Million years. See Below excerpt from:Is the Continental Drift Theory Real? – Earth AgeClastic Dikes: According to Roth, "a clastic dike is a cross cutting body of sedimentary material which has been intruded into a foreign rock mass." 9"These dikes... (may) penetrate horizontal sedimentary strata (or) they may occur... in igneous and metamorphic rocks. The process of formation of a clastic dike is analogous to wet sand oozing up between ones toes, but on a much larger scale." 9Clastic dikes present a problem to the "millions of years" mindset of evolutionary thinking in that "millions of years" older sediments are found intruding up into overlying younger ones while still in a plastic state. This presents a profound and puzzling question:What took these older sediments so long to become hard?One would think that 80--400million years would be more than enough time to turn massive sand-laden sediments into sandstone, 9,10,11 yet these were still in a wet and plastic state when an earth movement caused them to be forced up into "younger" sediments. Such things place serious strain on the evolutionary method of "dating" rock formations. They also provide us with very strong evidence that massive amounts of sediments were laid down rapidly, and suggest that the Earth isn't very old at all.Refs:
9. Roth, A., 1977, "Clastic dikes," Origins, vol. 4, pp. 53-55.
Quoted from "Catastrophes in Earth History," Austin, Steven A.
Ph.D. (Geology), Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA
92021, 1984, pp. 123-124
10. Morris, John D., Ph.D. (geology), The Young Earth, 1994, Creation
Life Publishers, Inc., pp. 109-112.
11. Kelsey, Martin, and Denton, Harold, "Sandstone Dikes Near ockwall,
Texas," University of Texas Bulletin, No. 3201, 1932, pp.Hope that helps,
Randy