Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 190 (187110)
02-21-2005 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by RandyB
02-21-2005 12:01 AM


Re: Watch the topic please
Sorry about my last Ref. #11 being incomplete. It is reposted in its entirety below:
Kelsey, Martin, and Denton, Harold, "Sandstone Dikes Near Rockwall, Texas," University of Texas Bulletin, No. 3201, 1932, pp. 138-148. See also Contributions to Geology, 1932. 216 pp.; This reference was obtained from Dr. Morris' book "The Young Earth, (ref. # 10 above), p. 111.
Cheers.
RB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by RandyB, posted 02-21-2005 12:01 AM RandyB has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 190 (187187)
02-21-2005 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Bill Birkeland
10-27-2004 12:06 AM


Re: Polystrate Fossils of Joggins
Re: The Longest Documented Upright Trees at Joggins:
Bill Stated: "Actually, another geologist, whom I know, has been looking into that in great detail and has inquired with the geologists, who have been studying the Joggins outcrop. In the 140-160 since Dawson (1855) wrote about the Joggins locality, none of the numerous geologists, including creationists, Coffin and Rupke, have found an upright trunk anywhere near 40 feet high. The highest one that has ever been observed by them was 5.7 meters (18.5 feet high)."
Bill: I don't mean to portray geologists as ignorant, but this information, along with the references, has been on my site now for the past 8 months -- and is available to any and all who care to inquire. But I will list the refs. again below -- along with more details for those who are interested.
1. The 25 foot upright tree was mentioned both by Lyell AND Dawson as
being both "erect" and/or "piercing the beds of sanstone." For it
was not only mentioned along with the 40 foot upright tree in
Lyell's book, but also by Dawson in his bed by bed review. For
all of those who care to verify this the references are:
22. Dawson, John W., 1855, Acadian Geology, p. 159; See also
Acadian Geology, 1868, p. 188. And Note how few details that
Dawson gives with regard to the 40 foot tree. Note also that
DOES NOT say that it was prostrate or a fallen over log.
23. Lyell, Sir Charles, "Life of Sir Charles Lyell," Vol. II, 1881,
p. 65. See also: Bell, W.A., 1912,"Joggins Carboniferous
Section of Nova Scotia", Can. Geol. Surv. Sum. Report; p. 328.
25. ***ibid. ref. 5, p. 26.***
5. Dawson, 1854, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, Vol. 10, p.26.
Regarding the Drifted Trunk deposits see pp. 4-27. This is
were Dawson gives a bed by bed review of the strata and (in
plain English) mentions a 25 foot erect tree. I can say that
because I looked it up myself.
But that's not all Bill, because Schuchert also mentions the 25 foot upright "log" at Joggins:
"Standing logs have been admired by all geologists since Richard Brown discovered them in 1929 and the drawings of them by Logan, Lyell, and Dawson have been repeated in most text-books of Geology. They are from all lengths up to 25 feet.
From: Pirsson and Schuchert, A Text-Book of Geology, Part II, by Charles Scuchert, p. 784, 1915. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York
So we have Two Geologists and one Lawyer, here who disagree with you and all of the "other geologists" with whom you have been speaking. And in this case, it appears that the Lawyer may have been the one closest to the truth, for he also linked the 25 foot tree to a 40 foot one -- (in the same sentence) with these words:
"...and some have been seen of 40 feet, piercing the beds of sandstone and terminating downwards in the same beds, usually coal.."23
I also give refererence to a 38 foot upright tree that was found in Enland. The ref is on my web page at Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age See "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia, Part 1
See also: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199702/0115.html
See also: Niklas, K.J. Predicting the height of fossil plant remains: An allometric approach to an old problem: American Journal of Botany 1994 vol. 81, pp 1235-1243; where I am told that there is reference to a 12 meter upright fossil tree. I do not have this myself and so I cannot assert with confidence that this is correct. Perhaps someone here would care to look it up and report on it.
Bill Continues:
(NOTE: According to informed sources, the report documenting this 12-foot high, 150-year old polystrate tree is in review and will available for purchase in about 3 months, more or less).
Or you can simply look up the refs that I have provided above -- Although I must admit that neither Dawson nor Lyell were very interested in giving us many details.
Note also that Rupke gives reference to a 25 meter upright tree (or on that was approx. 80 feet long).
Good Day,
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Bill Birkeland, posted 10-27-2004 12:06 AM Bill Birkeland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-07-2005 12:15 PM RandyB has replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 190 (187281)
02-21-2005 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by edge
02-21-2005 1:49 PM


Re: Watch the topic please
Edge Said: "You and others may assert so all you wish, but there is other evidence that you choose to ignore."
Randy: You mean like you just ignored almost everything I said?
Edgea: "What if there are millions of such events separated by many years at a time?"
Randy: What if they were NOT separated by "years" but rather only minutes or hours? Since they could -- at the time of their formation -- virtually all be bent over and twisted like slices of swiss cheese, then it is also quite logical to conclude that they were NOT separated my much time at all. This is not rocket science.
Edge: "You have... brought the scientific integrity of your entire essay into serious question.
Randy: My paper is well documented, and makes a LOT more sense than the oft-repeated evolutionary "dogma" being forced upon the past 5 generations of geologists -- who are, just now (in recent times) beginning to see it for what it is: I.E. A bankrupt theory that is based more on fanciful imaginations and wild speculation than on hard facts. There is also a ZERO chance that life (or anything close to it) could have "evolved" without the AID and DIRECTION of a CREATOR /GOD.
Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age
Evolution Theory vs Creationism – How Old Is The Earth? – Earth Age
How Simple Can Life Be? | Answers in Genesis
Page not found – Earth Age
Page not found – Earth Age
Page not found – Earth Age
Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood – Earth Age:
Sedimentation Experiments: Is Extrapolation Appropriate? Reply From Video Creator - Part 2 | Answers in Genesis
http://www.creationtruth.com/Bookstore/Video/V-022.htm
www.icr.org/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen...
Page not found – Creation In The Crossfire
Good Day,
Randy
shortened url length to fix page width - The Queen
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-21-2005 20:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by edge, posted 02-21-2005 1:49 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by edge, posted 02-21-2005 9:29 PM RandyB has replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 190 (187393)
02-22-2005 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by edge
02-21-2005 9:29 PM


Re: Watch the topic please
Edge: Well, then, show that they ARE only separated by seconds or minutes. Something that tells us this would be called 'evidence.' I'm sure you've heard of it.
Just order either of the videos that I posted links to and you can see it with your own eyes -- how different stata layers can be formed (and have been demonstrated to form) spontaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: Ah, so that's why you have this vendetta against geology.
RB: No vendetta against geology, just against slanting it in order to "prove" something that CANNOT be true -- i.e. evolutionary fairytales.
Edge: I never would have guessed. Kind of slipping off topic, however.
RB: You mean providing Solid proof that Evolution Cannot be true?
Edge:What particular dogma are you talking about by the way?
RB: The "dogma" that the upright trees are "in situ" and that the coals were formed over "mythions of years." And the "dogma" that Radiometric Dating "proves" that the Earth is "bythions of years old."
Good Day,
RB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by edge, posted 02-21-2005 9:29 PM edge has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 190 (187404)
02-22-2005 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by edge
02-21-2005 10:54 PM


Edge: Fourth, as I have presented to Randy, there is NOTHING in geology that is against rapid processes, including some sedimentary ones.
RB: That should be "including virtually ALL sedimentary ones" -- as the best evidence seems to indicate that Not only the whole 14,000 foot sequence at Joggins, but also that of the Grand Canyon itself, was laid down -- and eroded quite rapidly, just as the WHOLE (as least) 30 mile wide Valley at Monument Valley (North East of the Grand Canyon) was as well - leaving behing the large sandstone pillars, as Monuments to the MASSIVE Amount of water that poured through that area in a (almost certainly) a VERY short time period, and very likely eroding the whole Grand Canyon area as well (at the same time) as the Water rushed rapidly off of the Continent.
Edge: Cross-bedding is KNOWN to occur rapidly. The question, as indicated above, is how long does it take to deposit the Navajo Sandstone, not one of its cross-laminations.
I point out a 7 foot thick layer of homogeneous sandstone (i.e. one "layer" that is 7 feet thick) in my paper on the Nova Scotia "Fossil Forests" -- in which a 15 foot upright tree is seen crossing this layer -- thus indicating that the layer was (very likely) deposted rapidly (in my opinion less than a day). Otherwise, if it were over many year, or even months, it would be laminated. And the fact that an upright tree is crossing it tells us that it definitely wasn't deposited over long period of time.
I also have (in my possession) a drawing of a (as I seem to recall) 48 (or thereabouts) foot inclined tree that was found to cross (diagonally) about ten different lamina (each from about 1-3 feet in thickness). The only logical explanation for this is that it was buried while it was floating in a partially upright (inclined) position. This would only occur under extremely rapid sedimentation circumstances. This is also what occurred with the 25 meter tree (that's 80 feet long) that was documented by Fairholm. See Part 1 of my paper on Polystrate Fossils -- for a link with more details.
RB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by edge, posted 02-21-2005 10:54 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by edge, posted 02-22-2005 9:55 PM RandyB has replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 190 (187407)
02-22-2005 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Arkansas Banana Boy
02-22-2005 12:28 AM


Re: yep edge
Banana: The similarities are telling though, and ignoring information of the quality of Bill B is to be expected. Holding on to the 'river formation' argument of the Joggins fossils when it has been explained that the area is prone to fresh/brackish/salt water cycling of environments seems to be glaring.
Randy: I'm sorry to inform you but the "River formation" argument simply doesn't hold water. According to Calder (who is one of the most knowledgable geologists on this area) -- the Strata at Joggins was deposited continously. In other words, as the ground was subducting, the layers were continually being added. This also, along with the "glaring" missing root problem, and Fragmented Stigmaria Problem, leave very little, if any, time or evidence for the growth of "in situ" trees. Below are a few more links that you may or may not have already checked out.
Also, I am sorry to inform you (and Bill) but Rivers simply DON"T deposit continous Strata over 45 km wide areas -- at least not ANY rivers that we have today on plantet Earth. See previous post, or my Fossil Forest paper.
See also:
Page not found – Earth Age
Page not found – Earth Age
See also: Extensive Roots Systems Or Root Systems Extensively Missing ? at:
The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth Age
Check out Some of the "local" floods from the past: "local" as in almost all of North America, -- if you haven't already: See Link Below:
Page not found – Earth Age
In His Service,
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 02-22-2005 12:28 AM Arkansas Banana Boy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 02-22-2005 3:03 AM RandyB has replied
 Message 75 by Jazzns, posted 02-22-2005 12:32 PM RandyB has not replied
 Message 78 by edge, posted 02-22-2005 10:22 PM RandyB has replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 190 (187518)
02-22-2005 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Arkansas Banana Boy
02-22-2005 3:03 AM


Re: some rebuttal
Banana: A quick perusal of message 21 by Bill talks about 'rhythms' of layers that alternate between brackish water deposits and costal plains,with periodic subductive episodes that cause the alternations. Continuous deposition doesn't seem inconsistent here.
Randy: Although I have not researched this in much detail (yet), but I am virtually certain that in and around many of the coals of Kentucky and Tennessee and Ohio and Pennsylvania, etc. you will find alternating beds of both freshwater and marine creatures. And these coals also, by the way, have the same upright trees of the same types, with the same types of ferns, and the same broken up and fragmented Stigmaria roots. So, I think it is fair to say that both the Carboniferous Coals of the US were formed in the same way as those of Nova Scotia, execpt that the Ocean waters were traveling East, and "ran out of steam" -- meaning that many of the marine creatures were buried before they reached Nova Scotia.
Good Day,
PS: I will be taking a break from this forum for a while, as I have other things to attend to. I also do not know anything about evaporites, so I will leave that question (that was also posed on this forum) to someone else.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 02-22-2005 3:03 AM Arkansas Banana Boy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 02-22-2005 10:28 PM RandyB has not replied
 Message 95 by Jazzns, posted 03-10-2005 7:56 PM RandyB has replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 190 (190244)
03-05-2005 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Bill Birkeland
01-27-2004 10:43 AM


Re: Fossil Soils (Paleosols) at Joggins
Bill Birkeland wrote: The papers by Falcon-Lang (1999, 2000, 2001)... provide clear evidence of many of the Joggins polystrate trees had been charred by forest fires before being buried and the presence of abundant of charcoal within fossil soils that formed the former forest floor. A person needs to ask Dr, Morris how forest fires could char the Joggin trees while they are being washed around and later buried by a Noachian Flood.
Randy Responds: This answer is made much easier in light of the "Floating Forest" and "Floating Log Mat" models already proposed by Kunze / Scheven and Austin.
Here are a few excerpts from my paper in this regard.
Regarding these deposits Dawson tells us that:
"...D. Acadianum, is found abundantly at... Joggins in the condition of drifted trunks imbedded in the sandstone of the lower part of the Coal-formation and the upper part of the Millstone-grit series."
In addition Dawson informs us that:
"From the abundance of coniferous trees in the sandstones above and below the coal, and their comparative absence in the coal and coal- shales, it may be inferred that these trees belonged rather to the uplands than to the coal swamps; and the great durability and small specific gravity of coniferous wood would allow it to be drifted, either by rivers or ocean currents, to very great distances." 83
And that such trees:
"...are most abundant in those parts of the section where the swamp conditions of the coal measures begin to disappear and where drifted plants predominate... The prevalence of coniferous trees as drift-wood
in the sandstones, above and below the Coal-measures, is probably ... attributed to their capability of floating for a long time without becoming water-soaked and sinking.84
Leaves Present but Bark Missing: The conifers of Joggins are often found as "decorticated and prostrate trunks." 85In other words, they are missing their bark. In fact, of all the Corditalean trees at Joggins that were examined by Scott et al., none were found with their "periderm" (i.e. bark) intact. 86 This was in spite of the fact that fossil leaves were also found in the same deposits in which these trees occur.86 Austin proposed that decortication could occur as a result of trees (in the form of log mats) rubbing against each other as they were transported by turbulent waters.87, 88
Moving on to the subject of aqueous growth:
"... almost all Coniferous trees in the Joggins strata are found in the form of fossil logs buried in drifted Channel Deposits. 100 With the exception of leaves and (perhaps) bark, their remains are not found in the coals themselves -- except for small pieces found in coal balls. Dawson here takes aim at those who had previously proposed that Sigillaria and Lepidodendrons were aquatic (i.e. that they grew in water). This view was first proposed by Brongniart, 101 and was later espoused by Binney. 102 More recently, Scheven 103 has proposed that such trees were not only aquatic, but comprised what he terms "Floating Forests." Scheven later discovered that he was not the first to propose such a view; for Kunze104 had done so over 100 years prior. Such a view would allow for much larger forest areas than are currently available on the Continents alone. However, since no Sigillarias or Lepidodendrons exist today (other than as fossils), we may never know for certain whether or not this was the case.
References: are at: Page not found – Earth Age
See also:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...ocs/cen_v18n1_forests.asp
Wieland, Carl, "Forests that grew on water," Creation, Vol. 18, No.1, Dec.95-Feb.96,pp. 20-24. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/forests.asp
Kunze, Otto, 1884, Die vorweltliche Entwicklung der Erdkruste und der Pflanzen. Phytogeogenesis.
86 Scott, A. C. and Falcon-Lang, H. J., 2000, "Upland ecology of some Late Carboniferous corditalean trees from Nova Scotia and England," Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Vol. 156, pp. 228-230.
87. Austin, Steve, 1986, "Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism," ICR Impact Article 175.
88. Morris, John D., The Young Earth, 1994, p. 103.
100. ibid. ref. 86, pp. 225-234.
101. Darwin, Charles. More Letters Of Charles Darwin -- Volume 2, LETTER 555. TO J.D. HOOKER; May 22, 1860.
102. More Letters Of Charles Darwin -- Volume 2, Letters 552, 553, and 555 TO J.D. HOOKER; May 1846, June 2nd, 1847, and May 22nd, 1860.
This may also be found online at:
ftp://ibiblio.org/...ocs/books/gutenberg/etext01/2mlcd10.txt
Or go to: http://promo.net/cgi-promo/pg/t9.cgi and search for Charles Darwin.
See also: Binney, E. W., 1844,The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Phil. Mag., Vol. XXIV, p. 173.
And: Binney, E. W., 1848, On the Origin of Coal, Mem. Literary and Philosophical. Soc. of Manchester; AKA : Mem. of the Manch. Lit. and Phil. Soc.; Vol. VIII, pp. 148-193 ?
103. http://www.answersingenesis.org/...ocs/cen_v18n1_forests.asp
See also: Wieland, Carl, "Forests that grew on water," Creation, Vol. 18, No.1, Dec. 1995-Feb. 96, pp. 20-24.
104. Kunze, Otto, 1884, Die vorweltliche Entwicklung der Erdkruste und der Pflanzen. Phytogeogenesis.
Now how it was that they caught on fire if they were floating on the surface of the Ocean: The answer is that just because there were floating on ths surface of the ocean in the form of huge log mats, does not mean that they would be immune to volcanic ash reiging down on them and causing their upper (dry) portions to burn. However, they may also have been burned before they were uprooted, or before such "Floating Forests" (if this was indeed the case) were broken up. The fact that they were burnt (if this was indeed the case) in no way proves that they were growing upon the spots where they were buried -- meaing that burnt trees can be uprooted just as eaasly (if not more so) than "unburnt" ones.
Bill Continues: Also, these papers document clear examples of polystrate trees being firmly rooted in unmistakable fossil soils (paleosols) and soundly refute ...that these trees were washed in and buried by a Noachian... Flood.
Randy: Believe what you wish Bill, but my paper also documents "clear examples" of Polystrates that were very likely NOT "rooted" in any sort of "unmitakable fossil soil"... -- as is evident by the drawings themselves. And the very fact that Dawson (briefly) discusses various portions of the Joggins strata contain "drift logs" is further evidence that (very likely) NONE of these trees were in their original positions of growth.
Yours,
Randy Berg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Bill Birkeland, posted 01-27-2004 10:43 AM Bill Birkeland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by edge, posted 03-05-2005 11:07 PM RandyB has not replied
 Message 83 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-10-2005 12:31 AM RandyB has replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 190 (190940)
03-10-2005 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Bill Birkeland
03-07-2005 12:15 PM


Re: Polystrate Fossils of Joggins
Bill Birkeland stated that: "As in the case of Spirorbis, neither Calder (1998) nor Duff and Walton (1973) argued that Naiadites inhabited marine environments as Randy B. falsely suggested...."
Randy: Bill, To the contrary, based on ordinary logic, I correctly stated that whatever evironment the Spirorbis tube-worms inhabited was the SAME exact type of environement that the Naiadites inhabited. This is because the Spirorbis were not merely found attached to the Naiadites -- as could occur during a flood where they were both swept into the same location -- but were found to be GROWING around them (i.e. the Spirobis tubeworms were imbedded into the shells of the Naiadites -- meaning that the Naiadite shells had actually grown around them, indicating that they both inhabited the same environments. And since there are no known (similar) living species of freshwater Spirorbis, and since Dawson himself adimtted that the Spirorbis shells at Joggins were of the exact same type that are presently found in the sea -- attached to sea weeds -- it actually makes sense that this was the case with these (Spirorbis) fossils at well.
Bill continues: "... Similarly, echinoderms are found associated with mangrove forests. As a result, finding so-called "salt water" fossils within ancient coastal plain deposits is neither anomalous nor requires a global flood to explain their presence. In addition, changes in sea level as the result of glacial - interglacial cycles alternatively flooded and exposed Carboniferous coastal plains as has happened during recent glacial - interglacial cycles.
Randy: A quick perusal of the drawings posted at:
The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth Age
and The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth Age
make it clear that Some (if not the great majority) of the upright trees and tree sections at Joggins do not possess attached roots, and yet were buried upright -- not in "so called" "Channel" deposits but in horizontally deposited / sheet-like layers (as would be expected during massive flooding). This fact alone suggests very strongly that few (if any) of the upright trees in this strata were buried in their places of growth. Mr Brown also readily admitted that many such trees he observed were "missing" their roots -- something that (to my knowledge) NONE of the modern authors which you are so impressed with seem to have done. See also:
Page not found – Earth Age and
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/polystrate.shtml
Bill continues: "Finally, Randy B neglected to inform his readers of ... various studies, i.e. Archer et al. (1995), demonstrated that the Spirorbis, Naiadites, and other brackish to saline water fossils are restricted to very thin stratigraphic intervals within the thousands of feet of strata comprising the Joggin strata."
Randy: I discuss this in my paper, and I seem to recall that such salt-water fossils were found in no less than 15 different coal groups -- thus suggesting (if not confirming) that LARGE secions of this strata were the result of ocean deposited sediments. Whether they are were can (and likely will) be depated until the cows come home, and yet, based on what we know about the complexity and inner workings of the cell, there is literally NO WAY that such order could ever arise by chance (even after "so called" millions or billions of years.
See Evolution Theory vs Creationism – How Old Is The Earth? – Earth Age for more on this topic.
Randy B.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-07-2005 12:15 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 190 (190941)
03-10-2005 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Bill Birkeland
03-07-2005 12:15 PM


Re: Polystrate Fossils of Joggins
Bill Birkeland stated: "This set consisted of a mixture of research and data that was shared by Lyell with Dawson. In terms of Joggins, Dawson mainly revised the measured section published in Dawson (1955) to include measurements and descriptions made by William Edmond Logan in 1843 of the Joggins outcrops. The 40-foot high polystrate tree reported in Dawson (1868) and the other books or papers ultimately came from the same source, Dr. Abraham Gesner. Any error in the original information given by Dr. Abraham Gesner to Lyell would simply be repeated in all of these publications."
Randy: This is VERY doubtful Bill. I can say this because Dawsons bed by bed account of the strata are NOT the same measurements as those made my Logan. Therefore, it is HIGHLY doubtfull that Dawson used Logans measurements (in place of his own). Dawson also goes into MORE DETAIL than Logan does with regard to the fossils that are contained in these beds -- thus also indicating that he DID NOT get his data from Logan, but rather from his own measurements and documentation. What Dawson did get "take" from Logan was his numbering scheme for the Coal Groups. Also, the reason why Dawsons measurements were NOT the same as Logans is simply because He made his measurements several years later than Logan, and because each year, the cliffs are eroded, and because the layers are constantly varying in their thicknesses -- in their horizontally deposited layers.
But I do commend you on your gathering of the data with regard to the 40 foot fossil uprigtht tree at Joggins -- and I suppose I should update my paper to reflect what you have found ASAP. Don't hold your breath though, but I will try to get around to this in the next week or so. I also commend you on your recently updated assessment with regard to the 25 foot upright fossil that I also give reference to.
Cheers,
Randy B.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-07-2005 12:15 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 1:16 PM RandyB has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 190 (190944)
03-10-2005 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by RandyB
03-10-2005 12:57 PM


Re: Polystrate Fossils of Joggins
Rather than re-write my paper at this time I have decided to simply post two links that are within the text -- to this document:
Page not found – Earth Age
-- I which I added the following:
Note: According to Post # 82 at: http://EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) -->EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
Bill Birkeland claims that neither Dawson nor Lyell had first-hand knowledge of the 40 foot upright tree at Joggins, but rather that they obtained this information from Dr. Abraham Gesner -- who also visited this section, and published a book about his findings (in 1836).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 12:57 PM RandyB has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 190 (190946)
03-10-2005 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Bill Birkeland
03-10-2005 12:31 AM


Re: Fossil Soils (Paleosols) at Joggins
More on the aquatic nature of Sigillaria and the commonly fragmented nature of their (stigmaria) roots.
At: The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth Age is posted the following assessment by Lesquereux:
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 cannotlive 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. 125
Lesquereux goes on to propose a new theory regarding the peculiar aquatic nature of Stigmaria roots. It is summarized below:
"At the present epoch some kinds of plants inhabiting the swamps have floating stems. Their mode of vegetation is similar to that of Stigmaria. Expanding their loose stems on or below the surface of the water, they gradually fill the ditches by their interlacing branches, and do not bear any flowering stems as long as they remain immersed..." 125
"These plants present an illustration of the mode of growth and nature of Stigmaria. The stems could grow independent for a onsiderable length of time as floating and sterile, or bear erect flowering stems or trunks when the ground was solid enough to support trees." 125"
The process of transformation of floating sterile stems passing into trunks bearing roots in not easily explainable. We see, however,... the same phenomenon reproduced on a number of semi-aquatic plants of the present time the Lycopods--the mosses especially. 125
Whether Lesquereux was correct in his assessment is uncertain. However one thing does seem to be certain with regard to Stigmaria roots: namely that they are very commonly found as fragments that were buried while floating in prostrate, oblique and upright positions -- as opposed to in their original positions of growth.
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.
Randy B.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-10-2005 12:31 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 190 (190960)
03-10-2005 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Bill Birkeland
03-10-2005 12:31 AM


Re: Fossil Soils (Paleosols) at Joggins
Bill Birkeland stated: "...Also, these papers document clear examples of polystrate trees being firmly rooted in unmistakable fossil soils (paleosols) and soundly refute ...that these trees were washed in and buried by a Noachian... Flood.
Randy: Believe what you wish Bill, but my paper also documents "clear
examples" of Polystrates that were very likely NOT "rooted" in any sort of "unmitakable fossil soil"...
Bill: Again, Randy B shows himself rather ill-informed of what has been published in the scientific literature. As far as the fossils soils go, there are numerous papers that describe "unmitakable fossil soils..."
Randy: Here is some more information with regard to Coal Groups 1-12 (at Joggins) -- and the "so-called" fossil "soils" that are below (some) of them.
Quoting from Appendix A at:
Page not found – Earth Age
"Notes: Not all of the above beds qualify as "underclays", for many of them do not underlie a seam of coal or carbonaceous material, but rather are surrounded by shale or sandstone. Also, according to Logan (who also measured this section), few if any, are composed of clay.
Of the 24 coals, coaly shales, and carbonaceous shales that Dawson records in this section, only 19 have anything that remotely resembles a "soil/underclay" beneath them. Only one of these is listed in the table above since it was the only one Dawson said was an ancient soil; however, he said it contained Poacite (leaves) rather than Stigmaria.
In this regard, Logan also lists at least two coals in this section that do not have "underclays" (with roots and/or rootlets) beneath them. Duff and Walton 1 also list three coals in the Joggins Formation that do not have an underclay(seat-earth) beneath them.
The bituminous limestone of coal group 2 is not mentioned by Logan. It also is not mentioned by Dawson in his (1868) sequel of Acadian Geology; however, it is in the 1855 edition and in his 1853 paper. It not only has rootlets of Stigmaria, but also shells of Modiola, Cypris (later called Cythere, and today known as Ostracodes). We are also told that an erect tree is "rooted" in it.
Comments:
From the table above there are 26 beds that contain only rootlets. In addition, there are 3 "underclays" with no roots at all, and 5 that have roots or stools (i.e. large roots) but no (mention of) rootlets. If we include the 4 (other) beds beneath coals that were not claimed (by Dawson) to be underclays, then we have a total of 38 out of 44 beds with either no roots at all, or which contain only roots or rootlets. Only 5 beds are listed that contain both roots and rootlets; none are said to contain "roots with rootlets", or "roots with attached rootlets". One of the five is said to have roots and rootlets of erect stumps, so it is probable that such rootlets were attached; however, this shale is immediately above a coal rather than below one.
Therefore, out of 44 possible soils, only 3 contain both roots and rootlets that are also situated beneath a coal. When we take into account Dawson's eagerness to prove that the coals were formed in place, it is fairly safe to say that if any of these "soils" contained roots with attached rootlets, he would have eagerly said so. However, since he didn't, then to say that such beds represent in situ growth of multiple "forests" is highly questionable."
References:
1. Duff, P. McL. D., and Walton, E. K., 1973, "Carboniferous Sediments
at Joggins, Nova Scotia," In:
Septieme Congres International de Stratigraphie et de Geologie du
Carbonifere; Compte Rendu; 7; 2, pp. 355-379, See p. 367, Fig. 2.
Table 1: Different "soil"- "underclays" in the Joggins Division 4 coals: Source: Logan, 1843-1845; republished in 1908.
Table 2: Different "soil"--"underclays" in the Joggins Division 4 coals: Source: Dawson; 1853-4, Q. J. Geol. Soc. Lon. V. 10, pp. 3-6; and Dawson, 1855, Acadian Geology, pp. 129-135.
See also Dawson, 1868, Acadian Geology, pp. 162-167.
Table 3. Different Types of Underclay at Joggins: according to Logan and Dawson; Dawson's contributions are italicized and in Red.
After Logan, 1843 (pub. 1845); Division 4 Coals, Coal Groups 1-12; And Dawson, 1853, Q. J. Geol. Soc. Lon., V. 10, pp. 3-6; Dawson, 1855, Acadian Geology, pp. 129-135 (Rom. Num. XXVII--XIX), these contributions are in red italics. See also: Dawson, 1868, Acadian Geology, pp. 162-167.
PS: Tables Not Included.
Hope this Helps:
Oh, and have a Good Day!
Randy B.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-10-2005 12:31 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 190 (190978)
03-10-2005 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by edge
02-22-2005 10:22 PM


Re: Yep, again
Edge said: Pray tell, then, just what an inland aquatic community is if it does not include rivers and lakes which both imply emergent land?
Let's go back and read Calder's quote: "Apart from the marine fauna of the Visean, virtually all other aquatic fauna of the Carboniferous in Nova Scotia historically have been described as nonmarine, which... is a too restrictive generalization. The term 'nonmarine' fails to describe the spectrum from marine to inland aquatic ommunities. "
I believe Calder is here pointing out that the "river floodplain" scenario, that has been touted over and over again for the past 150 year -- and that it was only from "freshwater" sources -- (with regard to the Joggins Strata) is FALSE because there are marine aquatic creatures that are found there in some of the rocks. I suppose, by term "inland aquatic communities" he is (here) simply trying not to totally throw out the Old "river floodplain scenario" but simple to modify it to include (occasional) flooding by the Sea. I simply think that virtually All of these sediments were the result of such flooding by the Sea -- and that they also buried very similar upright fossil trees and fragmented roots, etc. in the coal strata of Tennessee, and Kentucky, and West Virginia, and Ohio, and Illinois, and Pennsylvania (am I forgetting something???). Only in these areas there is more evidence of marine fossils (i.e. more different types) that alternate and are even mixed in with non-marine fossils. Hopefully someday someone will publish something on this if it hasn't been done already.
Cheers,
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by edge, posted 02-22-2005 10:22 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by edge, posted 03-10-2005 9:25 PM RandyB has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 190 (190980)
03-10-2005 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Bill Birkeland
03-07-2005 12:15 PM


Re: Polystrate Fossils of Joggins
Bill Birkeland said: "Randy B misinterpreted Calder’s statements in that Calder is only disagreeing with interpretations, which argued that the strata exposed at Joggins, Nova Scotia consists **solely** of sediments which accumulated within a fluvial floodplain. What Calder argued is that **in addition to floodplain deposits**, the Joggins strata also accumulated within deltaic, estuarine, bay, and other coastal plain environments."
Randy: Read my last post Bill -- which I posted BEFORE reading your accusation of my "misinterpretation of Calder's statements"...
I have NEVER asserted that John Calder agreed with all of my conclusions, or my beliefs that most likely ALL of the Joggins and Sidney strata was laid down, not only at the same time -- over a VERY SHORT period -- as a result of a Worldwide Flood.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-07-2005 12:15 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024