Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


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 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

edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 77 of 190 (187612)
02-22-2005 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RandyB
02-22-2005 12:34 AM


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
You have not posted any such evidence. If you have, please explain. The Berthault 'experiment' is completly bogus. I have explained why, but you have very conveniently ignored it. Randy, when most of the sedimentary section is made of sediments of finer grain-size than sand and deposited in open waters, why would we model the entire sedimentary record with sand flowing down a flume? This is not a rhetorical question.
Not only the whole 14,000 foot sequence at Joggins, but also that of the Grand Canyon itself, ...
This requires currents (such as in the flume exercize of Brethault), that cannot deposit shales, to deposit the entire Palezoic section in a matter of days. And yet we see numerous shale units such as the Bright Angel and the Hermit along with limestones such as the Mauv, Temple Butte, Redwall and Kaibab to be deposited by Brethault's mechanism for sandstones.
And that is only the Paleozoic section, omitting the entire Precambrian, Mesozoic and Tertiary rock sequences, which also include numerous depositional environments which include swamps, fluvial and deserts. This is getting to be a very interesting flood? Add to this complexity, the presence of several unconfomities, one of which is a distinct angular unconformity and we are fast running out of the flood timeframe.
Here are a couple of websites regarding the Grand Canyon that I have found interesting over the years:
Origin of the Grand Canyon - Index Page
This one describes how the actual carving of the canyon probably occurred.
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/
This one is more of a geophysical look at the Grand Canyon area.
...was laid down -- and eroded quite rapidly, ...
I don't think you want to go here, Randy. How did these rocks not only become deposited, but also lithify so that a canyon could actually form? If the rocks were soft, as many YECs claim, then the walls of this canyon would be impossible to hold.
...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 ...
Yes there was a lot of water here. However, there was also dry land. How do you explain eolian sands and fluvial deposits in the middle of a global flood. Not to mention the terrestrial trace fossils? Check out the Coconino Sandstone section at this site along with descriptions of the tracks:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm
" . . . we should state clearly that the evidence for flooding is nonexistent. The protomammal tracks [in the Coconino - ed] are often found in association with with countless trackways of spiders, scorpions, and other desert arthropods that could not have been walking around underwater" (p. 69).
(Lockley et al. (1994). The Distribution of Sauropod Tracks and Trackmakers. Gaia, v. 10., December, and Lockley, M., and Hunt, A. (1996). Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States.)
...(almost certainly) a VERY short time period,...
Why? You do not make this clear. What evidence do you have that explicitly states very short periods of time as opposed to longer periods that most people accept? What will you use to convince us?
... and very likely eroding the whole Grand Canyon area as well (at the same time) as the Water rushed rapidly off of the Continent.
Where is the evidence for such a phenomenon? Do you have an analogy? Why are there meanders in the Colorado River channel if the waters 'rushed off'? Check out my first reference above.
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.
As I have said, repeatedly, this is not unrecognized by geologists. Some processes are rapid, some are slow. And individual bed can be deposited during a single storm. I really think you are disregarding my posts, please try reading them.
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).
Again, this is not outside of mainstream geology. I have seen trees tilted by mudflows and volcanic flows and still remain in position for the next event. Besides, this is excellent evidence for an in situ origin. Do you really think that a tree with its roots abraided away and settled into a soft sediment will stay upright when these rapidly developing currents and sand deposits occur? I don't think so.
The only logical explanation for this is that it was buried while it was floating in a partially upright (inclined) position.
No, it could be tilted from an in situ position. In fact, this is more likely.
This would only occur under extremely rapid sedimentation circumstances.
But remember, Brethault tells you that this happens under higher flow regimes. How does the tree settle much less become planted in the bottom of the river?
This is also what occurred with the 25 meter tree (that's 80 feet long) that was documented by Fairholm.
It is? You KNOW this? Were you there? Don't you think you are being a bit dogmatic here?
See Part 1 of my paper on Polystrate Fossils -- for a link with more details.
Sorry, been there, done that. Some of it several times. It makes no sense (as I have explained before, and you have apparently ignored before).
I shortened yet another long url to fix the page width. I know some of you have been here long enough to know about this issue. Please look in Peek to see how I fixed this. - The Queen
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-22-2005 21:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RandyB, posted 02-22-2005 12:34 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RandyB, posted 03-12-2005 10:04 PM edge has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 78 of 190 (187617)
02-22-2005 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by RandyB
02-22-2005 12:54 AM


Yep, again
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.
Interesting comment. How then, do you rationalize these statements from you website? Quoting Calder:
"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. "
Pray tell, then, just what an inland aquatic community is if it does not include rivers and lakes which both imply emergent land? Have you ever read anything about the Supai Group in the GC?
And from the Nova Scotia DNR website where you are arguing for rapid flooding:
"It is probable that rapid subsidence in the Cumberland Basin, with an abundant sediment supply, allowed sedimentation to be virtually continuous. Under these conditions, major hiatuses that would be represented by valley fills or mature paleosols would not be generated. Such a style of basinal filling through a thick succession is unusual, and forms an interesting contrast to the better known Exxon model."(highlights mine)
My first question is, "what is the source of abundant sediments"?
My second question is, "if this model is 'unusual' then why do you wish to indiscriminantly apply it to the entire Phanerozoic section of North America"? You NEED to explain this.
It seems to me that you have given a perfect mainstream explanation for the Joggins rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RandyB, posted 02-22-2005 12:54 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 6:00 PM edge has replied

Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 190 (187619)
02-22-2005 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by RandyB
02-22-2005 2:16 PM


hmmm
Could you elaborate on "ocean waters travelling east" and "ocean waters losing steam"?
The first point seems unsuported and the second sounds like hydrological sorting.
Thanks
ABB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by RandyB, posted 02-22-2005 2:16 PM RandyB has not 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

edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 81 of 190 (190274)
03-05-2005 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by RandyB
03-05-2005 7:16 PM


Re: Fossil Soils (Paleosols) at Joggins
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.
Oh sure. We see this all the time. The upper parts of logs being dry while floating on the ocean.... Especially in a violent flood, 'the big one' as you like to say. And burning, too. Sure.
By the way, what do you suppose happened to that ark when volcanic ash fell on it? I guess Noah was just lucky, eh?
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.
You're not really touting the 'floating forest' business are you?
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"...
And guess what... We see trees not firmly rooted in soil laying around in forests today! Did a flood deposit them also? And just how do you explain the soils, anyway?
... -- 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.
Randy, a brief logic class is in order. You are saying that because some logs in channel deposits are 'drift logs' that all logs are 'drift logs'? Sorry, it doesn't follow. We can find 'drift' logs along many rivers today with standing, in situ trees nearby. If drift logs are related to a flood, then... where's the flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RandyB, posted 03-05-2005 7:16 PM RandyB has not replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 82 of 190 (190471)
03-07-2005 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by RandyB
02-21-2005 10:22 AM


Re: Polystrate Fossils of Joggins
Dear Friends,
First, the Cultural Resource Management report documenting the modern 12-foot high polystrate tree found in buried by historic alluvium within the Atchafayala Basin south of Krotz Springs, Louisiana has been published. It is:
Godzinski, M., Smith, R., Maygarden, B., Landrum, E.,
Lorenzo, J., Yakubik, J.-K., and Weed, M. E. (2004)
Cultural Resources Investigations of Public Access Lands
in the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, Indian Bayou South
Project Area, St. Landry and St. Martin Parishes,
Louisiana. Report submitted by Earth Search, Inc., to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District,
New Orleans, Louisiana for delivery order no. 5., contract
no. DACW29-02-D-0005.
Second, the people at Evolution Education Wiki have permission to use any part of this post in their web pages pertaining to polystrate trees and link to it.
Anyway, it certainly has been a long time since I have been able to post. A lot has been written about polystrate trees while I have been away. Since it is impossible to cover it all, I will just have the hit the "high points", or "low points", as a person might judge them. :-) :-)
In message 52, Re: Bump for Bill, Randy wrote:
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)
"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."
It is true that John H. Calder is an expert in the geology of the Joggins, Nova Scotia, Fossil Cliffs. However, the 1998 reference to them by Randy B, despite being only 8 years old, is now somewhat dated because of intensive research and publications by paleobotanists, i.e. H. J. Falcon-Lang, and geologists, i.e. M. C. Rygel, M. R. Gibling, J. H. Calder (himself), and others. The comments, which Randy B. posted in his article, by Calder have been substantially changed by this research. Citations for a few of the publications, which resulted from this research, can found in: 1. "PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS" at:
http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/peerreviewedpubs.htm ;
2. M. C. Rygel’s Abstracts - http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/abstracts.htm ;
3. "CURRICULUM VITAE: Howard James Falcon-Lang" -
http://meguma.earthsciences.dal.ca/.../falcon-lang/HFLCV.htm ; and
4. http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/vft/ns/joggins/references_e.php .
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 B wrote:
"Spirorbis are not freshwater creatures but rather Salt
Water, as are Echinoderms, and (almost certainly)
Naiadites as well."
In case of an extinct form of Spirorbis, Randy B., as does Coffin, ironically indulged in a extreme form of "Uniformitarism" as they both presumed that the present environmental tolerances of this extinct form of Spirorbis must be exactly the same as it modern counterparts. Of course, Spirorbis likely was not a freshwater creature. However, it is quite possible that the extinct form of Spirorbis found in the Joggins strata and in other Carboniferous coal measures was adapted to brackish environments, which would have been quite common in ancient coastal plains.
Randy B also overlooked the fact that so-called salt water can be found as both brackish and saline water **nonmarine** environments within modern deltas and coastal plains. For example, the maps of the Louisiana delta and chenier plain show large parts of Louisiana coastal plain occupied by brackish and salt water marshes, in which the species of Spirorbis found in the Joggins outcrops, very possibly would be quiet happy if it was alive today. In fact, "salt water" in the form of brackish and saline water environments occupy large areas of many modern coastal plains, including mangrove forests, which often live in saline environments along many coastlines. Just because an organism is adapted to salt water of some type fails completely, as Randy B. falsely implied, to mean that it lives in a marine environment of some type. All the occurrence of Spirorbis means is that specific types of Joggins forests grew brackish or saline water much like modern day mangrove forests. In fact, modern species of Spirorbis do live within modern mangrove forests along with many other marine animals.
For example, Feller and Sitnik (1996) stated:
Mangrove systems serve as habitat for many marine
organisms such as fish, crabs, oysters, and other
invertebrates and wildlife such as birds and reptiles.
As far as Naiadites is concerned, Randy B quoted Calder (1998) as stating
Duff & Walton (1973), who concluded that 'in the
light of European studies, curvirimula and Naiadites
could suggest a salinity nearer the "marine" rather
than the "fresh" end of the spectrum."
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. Rather, they argued that the Joggins sediments accumulated at times within an environment, i.e. brackish and saline, intermediate between freshwater and marine conditions. Again such environments are found within modern bays. estuaries, brackish and saline marshes, and mangrove forests found within modern coastal plains. 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.
Finally, Randy B neglected to inform his readers of the inconvenient fact that 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. This fact is important because the restricted occurrence of such so-called salt water fossils demonstrate the brackish and saline environments associated with these fossils existed for only very brief intervals during the accumulation of the strata exposed at Joggins, Nova Scotia. Such sloppy scholarship, as also practiced by Harold Coffin in his articles, falsely exaggerated the degree the brackish water, saline water, and marine environments were associated with the deposition of the sedimentary strata exposed at Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Reference
Archer, A.W., Calder, J. H., Gibling, M. R., Naylor, R. D.,
Reid, D. R., and Wightman, W. G. (1995) Invertebrate trace
fossils and agglutinated foraminifera as indicators of marine
influence within the classic Carboniferous section at Joggins,
Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Earth Science, vol. 32,
pp. 2027-2039.
Calder, J. H. (1998) The Carboniferous evolution of Nova
Scotia. In Blundell, D. J., and Scott, A. C., eds., pp.
261-302, Lyell: The Past is the Key to the Present. Geological
Society of London Special Publication no. 143.
Duff, P. McL. D., and Walton, E. K. (1973) Carboniferous
sediments at Joggins, Nova Scotia; Seventh International
Congress on Carboniferous Stratigraphy and Geology, Compte
Rendu, vol. 2, pp. 365-379.
Feller, I. C., and Sitnik, M., eds. (1996) Mangrove Ecology
Workshop Manual. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Randy B. wrote:
"Also some of the strata has been traced for 45 Km inland —
meaning such "rivers" would have had to be quite large."
What Randy B and other Young Earth creationists do not understand is that many strata actually consist of smaller discontinuous beds. Although continuous over a large area, a stratum actually consists of innumerable smaller beds, each representing a distinct depositional event, of much smaller extent. Good examples of this are the point bar deposits of rivers and streams, which appear to be single stratum of sand actually consist of vastly smaller, innumerable accretion beds, each of which represent a flooding event. Similarly, the lateral migration of depositional environments at the front of the lobe of a shelf edge delta or chenier plain can produce what would look like in outcrop as a single stratum of either sand, called a "sheet sand", or of other sediments as it builds seaward. The accumulation of sediments, as observed within modern coastal environments, can easily create a single stratum that can be traced for as much as 45 km (27.4 miles) as in case of the strata underlying the Louisiana Chenier Plain. Thus, a layer of the extent as described by Randy B neither is anomalous, inexplicable, nor necessarily created by a catastrophic event.
Also, in some cases, there areas within the flood, deltaic, and coastal plains where an uniform layer of sediment is actively accumulating over an area as wide as 45 km (27.5) miles. Within flood and coastal plains, the accumulation of overbank and tidal sediments from suspension and the accumulation of peat within floodbasins and marshes, can occur a large area forming a single layer of fine-grained or organic sediment. Also, the accumulation of a stratum of this type can occur periodically, as during either an annual flood or tidal cycle over a long period of time. Again, it is neither inexplicable nor anomalous to find a single layer / stratum covering an area over 45 km (27.4 miles) across. Thus, a catastrophic Noachian Flood is not needed to explain a widespread stratum.
Very detailed descriptions and interpretations of the various strata found at Joggin Cliffs can be found in the various publications mentioned in this article. General descriptions and discussion of how beds, like the one Randy B falsely claimed cannot be explained by conventional geologists are, in fact, explained in innumerable sedimentology textbook such as "principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy" by Sam Boggs.
Randy B. wrote:
But then there is the problem of the Missing Roots of
MANY of those upright plants and trees.
The problem with the so-called missing roots is that they are **not** missing. It seems if Earth Young creationists seem, to believe that if, like a mantra, repeating this falsehood enough times will make it true. The bankrupt nature of claims about "missing roots" is revealed by many of the numerous papers about the fossil forests Joggins published in the last five years. Citations for some of these papers can be found in papers about Joggin fossil trees listed at:
1. http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/peerreviewedpubs.htm ;
2. School of Earth Sciences | School of Earth Sciences | University of Bristol ;
3. http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/vft/ns/joggins/references_e.php ;
4. http://meguma.earthsciences.dal.ca/staff/gibling/gibling.htm and
2. http://meguma.earthsciences.dal.ca/.../falcon-lang/HFLCV.htm
(Note on his vitae that Dr. Falcon-Lang is a member of Christians in Science. The majority of these geologists are God fearing Christians, not the evil evolutionist materialists that some creationist propaganda slanders and defames them to be.)
One picture that refuted the claim that the Joggins polystrate trees lack any roots can be found in:
Falcon-Lang, H. J. (2004) Ice, coal and ancient rainforests.
Planet Earth (NERC News), Autumn edition, Pages 20-21
(National Environment Research Council, Swindon Great Britain)
and
Falcon-Lang, H. J., and Calder, J. H., (2004) UNESCO World
Heritage and the Joggins cliffs of Nova Scotia. Geology Today.
vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 140-144 (Figure 5, page 142)
Online images of polystrate trees with roots can be found in Standing lycopsid at:
http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/PICT0044.JPG , which is part of Photogallery 1: Joggins at:
http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/photogallery1.htm . In this picture, a person can see two of the roots, which Young Earth creationists claimed do not exist. One major reasons that Young Earth creationists, including certain creationist geologists, are held in such disrespect and disdain and sometimes regarded with great humor is that they are often incapable of correctly making even the most basic of observations such as being able to find roots in the field.
Another online photograph of roots of one of these polystrate trees can be found at:
http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/.../vft/ns/joggins/figure9_lrg.jpg, which is part of
http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/...ns/joggins/fossils_plants_e.php
Some of these fossil roots can be quite east to find, as shown on the above links or require careful examination of outcrops. In this case, if the trunk and roots rotted out inside before the polystrate tree was buried and the trunk and roots filled with sediments, the roots would be preserved as obvious casts. However, other roots are harder to find. If the hollow roots and trunks were not filled sandstone, the roots would be flattened and preserved as flattened carbonaceous compressions, which are not as obvious as the sandstone casts. In the latter case, just looking at the outcrop, it appears that roots are absent, however they can be found if a person carefully cleans the outcrop. This is the case of the century-old figures used by Randy B used to illustrate his paper and argue that polystrate trees lack roots. Conventional geologists and paleobotantists, including H. J. Falcon-Lang, M. C. Rygel, M. R. Gibling, and J. H. Calder, who have spent more time studying the Joggins strata then creationist geologists, i.e. Dr. Harold Coffin and Dr. N. A. Rupke, can each personally substantiate with absolute confidence the fact that Randy B is completely wrong about polystrate trees lacking their roots.
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."
Another reason that Young Earth creationists are held in such disrespect and disdain, and often regarded with great humor is that they cite resources that have been rendered obsolete and antiquated since their publication by subsequent research. That Randy B. recommends Dana's (1894) book only illustrates that a person has to ignore almost a century of research, except for the religiously correct papers of creationist geologists like Austin, Coffin, and Rupke, published over the last 110 years to argue his ideas.
++++ Randy B. wrote in Re: Bump for Bill 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)
"Also, The date of Dana's book does not nullify what he said."
That Dana’s wrote this about 110 years ago does matter. Although Randy B might not be aware of it, the information, data, knowledge about the Earth has increased (exploded) exponentially many times in the 110 years since Dana’s Manual on Geology was published. As a result, the ideas expressed in it can not help but be hopelessly out of date as the result of immense amount of new observations, new data, new ideas, and theories that have accumulated in the 110 years since its publication. Using Dana is the geological equivalent of a lawyer ignoring anything younger than the Dred Scott Decision in pleading a Civil Rights case.
++++ Randy B. wrote in Re: Watch the topic please" 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)
"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 Age
Part One of this paper is at:
The ‘Fossil Forests’ of Nova Scotia – How Old Are They Really? – Earth Age
The 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."
It should be noted that Dr. N. A. Rupke is a creationist geologist, although he does not expressed his conclusions about polystrate trees being created by a Noachian Flood in this article. As in case of another creationist geologist, Harold Coffin, I am not at all surprised that he is arguing the religiously correct idea in terms of a Noachian Flood, that these trees are allochthonous instead of being in situ.
"1. Preferred orientation of Stigmaria axes,"
As noted by Ferguson (1970), the preferred orientation of Stigmaria observed by Rupke (1970) corresponds to the preferred orientation of the cliffs forming the outcrops at Joggins, Nova Scotia. All the orientations of Rupke (1970) proved is that Stigmaria, which are oriented either parallel or cut by the cliff face at a shallow angle are easier to find than the Stigmaria, which are either perpendicular to or cut at an acute angle by the cliff face.
"2. Fragmentation of Stigmaria,"
There are two problems. First, given that Rupke (1970) was dealing with only one-dimensional outcrops, it is impossible to determine whether a piece exposed on a plane is attached to a tree buried inside the cliff or removed by erosion seaward of the cliff. In order to determine if an exposed Stigmaria was a fragment, he would had to follow each Stigmaria back into the cliff by excavating it until in ended, which he could not and did not do. Also, he would have had to somehow reconstructed the part of the Stigmaria that had been eroded away, which he could not and did not do. Whether a specific Stigmaria was a fragment or not, was nothing more guesswork on his part for the vast majority of Stigmaria he examined unless Dr. Rupke has X-Ray vision like Supermen.
The other problem is that in both deltaic and fluvial channels are constantly eroding and reworking parts of their plains. Given that both plains are heavily forested, rooted trees are always being eroded, briken up, transported downstream, and reworked within river and delta systems. As a result, it should expected that an abundance of fragments of Stigmaria will be normally found in either fluvial or deltaic sediments. Their presence in such sedimentary strata means nothing about whether the polystrate trees are either in situ or allochthonous.
"3. Filling of fragments with different sediment than that
which surrounds them,"
There is nothing about this finding that demonstrated that these roots have been transported.
"4. Evidence of rapid burial."
Again rapid burial occurs periodically within alluvial and deltaic plains. Rapid burial proved nothing about the Stigmaria being reworked or in place. Also, it is meaningless as proof of any type of catastrophic process having been involved in the deposition of sediment at the Joggins cliffs as rapid deposition can occur in fluvial, delatiac, and coastal environments.
..text deleted..
Randy B cited:
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.?"
Both of these papers are 118 and 125 years old. Again, using these references is like a lawyer ignoring anything younger than the Dred Scott Decision in pleading a Civil Rights case. Again, we have obsolete and antiquated research cited.
References
Ferguson, L. (1970) Sedimentary evidence for the allochthonous
origin of Stigmaria, Carboniferous, Nova Scotia. Geological
Society of America Bulletin. vol. 81, pp. 2531-2534.
Rupke, N. A. (1969) Sedimentary evidence for the allochthonous
origin of Stigmaria, Carboniferous, Nova Scotia. Geological
Society of America Bulletin. vol. 80, pp. 2109-2114.
++++ Randy B. also wrote in Re: Watch the topic please 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)
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 explanation? 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.
A tree filled sediment is quite heavy and certainly is not going to float upright anywhere within the water column. Being filled with sediment, they will certainly not float and rest on upright on their base. Instead, no matter how turbulent the water, all a sediment-filled trunk will do is roll along the bottom of whatever hypothetical water body it is in. If the polystrate trees had been filled with sediments, when buried, it would have been impossible for them to have been floating and then buried in an upright position argued by Harold Coffin in his papers. Also, any of these tree trunks would have been rapidly reduced to shredded wood with the consistency of coffee grounds as they were tumbled around on the bottom. Finally, if the sediment filling these trunks is unconsolidated and uncemented at the time, it certainly would have been quickly washed out of these trunks as they were being tumbled, rolled, and banged around on the bottom by a hypothetical Noachian Flood.
For an explanation of how the differing internal fills formed, the interested lurkers can look at excerpt from The Fossil Cliffs of Joggins by Laing Ferguson at: http://museum.gov.ns.ca/places/joggins/tree.htm
( http://museum.gov.ns.ca/places/joggins/joggins.htm )
Randy Stated:
Edge: Many of the 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.
The problem here is that in case of the missing soils, which Randy B. claims is NOT soils at all,
is that there exists an abundance of published evidence and data that clearly demonstrate that these soils, like the missing roots, are only missing in the minds of Young Earth creationists, who are continently blind to facts that contradicts their pet theories. The presence of numerous fossil soils within strata at the Joggins and other related outcrops is clearly documented in numerous published publications.
A few of these publications include:
1. Micromorphological Analysis of Selected Paleosols of Late
Craboniferous Coal-Bearing Rocks Exposed at Joggin, Nova
Scotia, Canada by M. G. Smith and I. P. Martin.
MICROMORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PALEOSOLS OF LATE CARBONIFEROUS COAL
Publications
2. Floodplain Deposits and Palesol profiles of the Late
Carboniferous Cumberland Basin, Joggins, Nova Scotia by
by M. G. Smith and I. P. Martin.
FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS AND PALEOSOL PROFILES OF THE LATE CARBONIFEROUS
3. Teniere, Paul (1998) Sedimentology, Facies Successions
and Cyclicity of a Section of the Joggins Formation, Joggins,
Nova Scotia. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
http://meguma.earthsciences.dal.ca/abstract/ab_th_98.htm
In part, the abstract of Teniere (1998) stated about fossil soils (paleosols) found in the polystrate tree-bearing strata of Joggin:
"Grey clay-rich mudstones classify as "seat earths" or
Gleysol paleosols and grey platy mudstones are
hydromorphic soils that experiences less vegetative activity.
Red mudstones are Vertisols formed under seasonal,
oxidizing conditions. Carbonaceous shales are clastic
swamp deposits and are associated with coals (Histosol)
formed in peat mires."
Some other references documenting fossil soils (paleosols) within the Joggins strata containing the polystrate trees found there are:
Smith, Mark G. (1995) Floodplain deposits, Paleosol profiles
and evidence of climatic change from the Late Carboniferous
Joggins Formation, Cumberland Basin, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Program with Abstracts - Geological Association of Canada;
Mineralogical Association of Canada; Canadian Geophysical
Union, Joint Annual Meeting. vol. 20, pp.99
Smith, Mark G. (1990) Floodplain and Paleosol profiles of
the Carboniferous Cumberland coal basin, Nova Scotia, Canada.
American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin. Vol. 74,
no. 8, pp.1310-1311.
Tandon, S. k., and Gibling, M. R. (1994) Calcrete and coal
in late Carboniferous cyclothems of Nova Scotia, Canada:
climate and sea-level changes linked. Geology vol. 22,
pp. 755-758.
Davies, S. J. and Gibling, M. R. (2003) Architecture of
coastal and alluvial deposits in an extensional basin; the
Carboniferous Joggins Formation of Eastern Canada.
Sedimentology. Vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 415-439.
Gibling, M. R., Saunders, K. I., Tibert, N. E. and White,
J. A. (2004)Sequence sets, high-accommodation events and the
coal window in the Carboniferous Sydney Coalfield, Atlantic
Canada. In: Coal-bearing Strata: Sequence Stratigraphy,
Paleoclimate, and Tectonics, J. Pashin and R. Gastaldo, eds.,
pp. 169-198. AAPG Studies in Geology no. 51, American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
++++Randy Stated:
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, -- indicating that there was very little time
between the two.
The fact of the matter is that the strata exposed by the Joggins Fossil Cliffs and associated strata within the Cumberland Basin exhibit innumerable erosional contacts. These erosional contact ranges in scale from entrenched valleys resulting the incision of river systems during lowstands of sea level, to the erosional bases of individual river channels, and to small erosional features including types of vegetation-induced sedimentary structures which form around **in place** trees on flood plains. For example, Michael C. Rygel, who has already conducted and is continuing a far more detailed examination of strata, which contains the polystrate trees, than Sir Charles Lyell and Sir William Dawson combined, on a web page of his stated that he found that Over 120 channel-bodies are exposed at the type locality of the Joggins Formation. as noted at http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/research.htm . These channels and innumerable other erosional features also are clearly documented in the scientific literature for those people interested in learning about them. Just a **few** of these papers are:
Davies, S. J. and Gibling, M. R. (2003) Architecture of
coastal and alluvial deposits in an extensional basin; the
Carboniferous Joggins Formation of Eastern Canada.
Sedimentology. Vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 415-439
Rygel, M.C., and Gibling, M. R. (2003) Centroclinal cross
strata - origin, morphology, and implications for
understanding ancient terrestrial ecosystems: Geological
Society of America Abstracts with Programs, vol. 35, p. 25
http://gsa.confex.com/...3NE/finalprogram/abstract_50846.htm
Rygel, M. C., Gibling, M. R., and Calder, J. H. (2004)
Vegetation-induced sedimentary structures from fossil forests
in the Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation, Nova Scotia.
Sedimentology. vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 531-552. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3091.2004.00635.x
Just a moment...
Tandon, S. k., and Gibling, M. R. (1994) Calcrete and coal
in late Carboniferous cyclothems of Nova Scotia, Canada:
climate and sea-level changes linked. Geology vol. 22,
pp. 755-758.
Gibling, M. R., Saunders, K. I., Tibert, N. E. and White,
J. A. (2004)Sequence sets, high-accommodation events and the
coal window in the Carboniferous Sydney Coalfield, Atlantic
Canada. In: Coal-bearing Strata: Sequence Stratigraphy,
Paleoclimate, and Tectonics, J. Pashin and R. Gastaldo, eds.,
pp. 169-198. AAPG Studies in Geology no. 51, American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
It is quite clear from the innumerable documented erosional features, i.e. entrenched valleys, river channels, certain types of vegetation-induced sedimentary structures, that erosion often alternated with periods of deposition during the deposition of the strata exposed at the Joggins Cliffs and elsewhere in the Cumberland Basin of Nova Scotia.
To repeat what Randy B stated above:
-- indicating that there was very little time between the two.
This statement is completely refuted for many beds by the innumerable fossil soils (paleosols), which have been found in the strata exposed at Joggins as documented by references on such fossil soils given above. Depending on their degree of development, each of the fossil soils represent a significant period of time during which both no deposition of sediment occurred and the surface in which they developed was dry land. These fossil soils clearly demonstrate that at uncountable, multiple times throughout the deposition of the strata containing the polystrate trees, the accumulation of sediment stopped for significant periods of time during which the region was dry land. The repeated cessation of deposition under terrestrial conditions during the deposition of the strata at Joggins, Nova Scotia has completely refuted Randy B’s arguments.
The fact that these fossil soils, paleosols exist, despite Randy B’s constant denials, can be personally vouched for personally by conventional Earth scientists, including H. J. Falcon-Lang, M. C. Rygel, M. R. Gibling, and J. H. Calder (whom Randy B quotes in his article). These Earth scientists have studied the exposures at Joggins in vastly greater detail and for far greater time than William Logan, Sir Charles Lyell and Sir William Dawson combined. They certainly know more about the geology of the Joggins cliff then a lawyer, who has never spent a significant amount of time actually studying these cliffs and foolishly relies largely upon antiquated and obsolete research conducted and published over a century ago.
Randy B also stated:
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.
If a person looks at the folded shales, sandstones and coal, at Joggins, they will find fractures, joints, faulting, deformation of fossils, and many other features that could only have formed if the strata was lithified at the time of deformation. As in case of the roots on the polystrate trees, fossil soils (paleosols), and erosional surface, it appears that Randy B, as many Young Earth creationists, are deaf, dumb, and blind to any evidence, which happens to contradicts their religiously correct ideas. Again, any of the above Earth scientists, who have studied the Joggins section within the last decade, can personally attest to the fact that the claim that these sediments were folded while soft is scientifically bankrupt.
A related discussion is bent strata at:
http://EvC Forum: bent strata -->EvC Forum: bent strata
Randy B stated:
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.
As previously, discussed the truth of the matter is that the polystrate trees at Joggins do have roots. All the claims about polystrate trees lacking roots prove is how sloppy creationists geologists are in conducting their fieldwork and how incapable they are sometimes in correctly making basic and relatively simply field observations.
Randy B stated:
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.
That rapid burial resulting in the formation of polystrate trees can and does occur at specific locations within either deltaic, fluvial, or combination of these settings. A 12-foot high polystrate tree found buried in a natural levees of the Atchafayala River, Louisiana, refuted the above argument that only catastrophic processes, i.e. the Noachian Flood, can bury, preserve, and eventually create polystrate tree fossils. Historical records and maps along with numerous radiocarbon dates from these sediments demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that this polystrate tree was rapidly buried sometime during the last couple of hundred years along the Atchafalaya River just south of Krotz Springs, Louisiana. It is clear from this and other nearby upright trees found either completely or partially buried that the rapid burial resulting in the formation of polystrate trees can result from noncatastrophic processes within riverine setting. This occurs in an environment lacking the rapid subsidence, which occurred during the deposition of the Joggins strata. Again, this tree is described in:
Godzinski, M., Smith, R., Maygarden, B., Landrum, E.,
Lorenzo, J., Yakubik, J.-K., and Weed, M. E., 2004,
Cultural Resources Investigations of Public Access Lands
in the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, Indian Bayou South
Project Area, St. Landry and St. Martin Parishes,
Louisiana. Report submitted by Earth Search, Inc., to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District,
New Orleans, Louisiana for delivery order no. 5., contract
no. DACW29-02-D-0005.
Another report, which is in preparation, documents the age of the sediments enclosing this polystrate tree as being less than 200 years. This polystrate tree is much too young for it to have been created by Noah’s Flood.
Rany B. further wrote in Polystrate Fossils of Joggins Re: The Longest
Documented Upright Trees at Joggins 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)
Randy B stated:
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.
The 5.7 meter (18.5-foot) figure was given directly to a geologist friend by Dr. D. H. J. Falcon-Lang, who has studied the Joggins Fossil Cliffs in far greater detail and longer period of time than either Sir Charles Lyell or Sir William Dawson. He certainly knows more about the Joggins Fossil Cliffs than Young Earth creationists, who blindly make completely false claims about polystrate trees found there lacking roots and incredibly silly statements about there being no fossil soils (paleosols) within its strata. It is good that Randy B does not want to portray Dr. Falcon-Lang as being "ignorant" as in doing so a lot of geologists would regard such a statement and the person making it as being incredibly ignorant. :-) :-)
Randy B continued:
1. The 25 foot upright tree was mentioned both by Lyell AND Dawson as
being both "erect" and/or "piercing the beds of sandstone." 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.
The problem is that neither John W. Dawson nor Charles Lyell observed the 40-foot high polystrate tree when they worked together in measuring the section at Joggins. At that time, Lyell shared his data on Joggins with Dawson. This data included a verbal report made by Dr. Abraham Gesner, which included the 40-foot high polystrate tree, to Lyell in 1842 on his previous visit to Joggins. Although reported in both Dawson (1854) and Dawson (1855), Dawson did not actually see this polystrate tree. He only repeated a third-hand report, which was given to Lyell by Dr. Abraham Gesner 10 years earlier, of the 40-foot high polystrate tree. Lyell, like Dawson, also neither saw nor measured the 40-foot high polystrate tree as that observation was given to him by Gesner. The tallest polystrate tree, which Lyell personally observed was 25 feet tall. As a result, 40-foot high polystrate trees mentioned in Dawson (1854) and Dawson (1855) actually are not separate independent observations by Dawson, but are the same third-hand report of what Dr. Abraham Gesner allegedly saw and reported to Lyell and Lyell recorded in his field notes in 1842. The measured sections described by Dawson (1854) and Dawson (1855) were compiled from (1.) direct observations by John W. Dawson in 1852; (2.) direct observations by Charles Lyell made in 1852 while working with Dawson (3.) observations made by Charles Lyell in 1842; and (4.) information Gesner gave to Lyell in 1842 and collected even years earlier than 1842. That Gesner is the source of 40-foot high polystrate tree is clearly documented in Lyell's Field Notebook no. 103, which contains his 1842 Joggins notes.
That Dawson and Lyell worked together and shared data in 1852 is well known as discussed in:
Rygel, M. C., and Shipley, B. H. (2004) Such a section as
never was put together before: Logan, Dawson, Lyell, and
mid-nineteenth-century measurements of the Joggins section:
Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs.
vol. 36, p. 244.
http://gsa.confex.com/...4AM/finalprogram/abstract_77055.htm
Dawson (1868) has the same problem as Dawson (1854) and (1855). Dawson (1868) is simply a revision of Dawson (1854). As far as the Joggins cliffs is concerned, it includes the same set of data and observations as both Dawson (1854) and Dawson (1855). 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.
In case of Lyell (1881), it contains nothing in the way of additional research by Lyell on the Joggins cliffs as he only visited Joggins in 1842 and again in 1852 with Dawson. Again, the report of 40-foot high polystrate trees in this book is only repeating what Gesner told Lyell in 1842. Again, it is meaningless that Lyell (1881), Dawson (1854, 1855, 1868) all mention the 40-foot high polystrate trees as this observation came from the same source, what Dr. Abraham Gesner told Lyell in 1842. If there had been errors in Gesner's original observations, they would have been repeated, without any question in all of these publications because they are all based on the same set of observations. This is like arguing that story about George Washington and the cherry tree is true because it is repeated in numerous books and articles about the life of Washington. Essentially, Randy B's arguments for the validity of the 40-foot high polystrate tree rests entirely on Randy B's faith in the infallibility of Dr. Abraham Gesner.
The information from Lyell (1881) and Dawson (1854, 1855, 1868) about the 40-foot polystrate tree is all second-hand and third-hand accounts. This observation lacks any published primary documentation by Gesner, the person who allegedly saw this 40-foot tree, to verify the existence of this polystrate tree. Any drawings of this tree were not drawn from the outcrop. Rather they are only reconstructions made from the few details, which Gesner gave Lyell back in 1842.
I find it quite curious that neither John W. Dawson, Charles Lyell, Charles Logan, H. J. Falcon-Lang, M. C. Rygel, M. R. Gibling, J. H. Calder, nor any of the other innumerable geologists and paleobotantists, who have visited the outcrops at Joggins, Nova Scotia have personally seen a 40-ft high polystrate tree. His personal field notebooks demonstrate beyond any doubt that the tallest polystrate tree, which Lyell personally observed was only 25 feet high. Lyell made this observation on his visit to Joggins in 1842. This is close enough to maximum height of 18-19 feet reported by other geologists that report height has some credibility.
Randy B continued:
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"
I suspect that this is not a direct observation of the height of the polystrate trees at Joggins by Charles Schuchert. Given that this is a textbook, I suspect that he is merely repeating the observations published in the literature about the 25-foot high polystrate, Lyell documented in his field notes. If Charles Schuchert did not directly observed the 25-foot tall polystrate tree, his book is useless as confirmation of what Lyell saw in 1842. Charles Schuchert is simply repeating what someone else had previously written years before, not his personal observations of Joggins polystrate tree heights. However, it is interesting that Charles Schuchert says up to 25 feet. instead of up to 40 feet. I have to wonder if he found the reports of 40-foot high polystrate trees so lacking in direct, credible evidence that he decided not include them in his textbook.
Randy B continued:
"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"
The Lawyer has nothing but useless hearsay because, as discussed above neither him nor his two geologists, John W. Dawson, nor Charles Lyell, personally saw the 40-foot high tree, which was reported by Dawson (1854, 1855, 1868) and Lyell (1881). That neither geologist saw the 40-foot high polystrate tree is clearly documented in Lyell's personal field notebooks for 1842 and 1852. The report of a 40-foot high polystrate tree by Dawson (1854, 1855, 1868) is a third-hand account, by way of Lyell, of what Dr. Abraham Gesner reportedly found and a second-hand account in Lyell (1881) from the same information that Dr. Abraham Gesner gave Lyell in 1842. As far as I found, Gesner never documented his 40-foot high polystrate tree in any fashion. As a result, there apparently is not any first-hand documentation for the 40-foot high polystrate tree by the person, who actually saw it. Only the 25-foot high polystrate tree is documented in Lyell's personal field notes by the person, who directly seen and measured it.
Apparently, Dawson did not see any 25-foot high polystrate trees. Rather, he incorporated Lyell’s report of this polystrate tree into his descriptions. Thus, in case of the 25-foot high tree, Randy B has only one person, who directly saw it. The reports of the 25-foot high tree in Dawson (1854, 1855, 1868) are all second-hand accounts of what Lyell told Dawson in 1852 he saw. Given that polystrate trees as high as 18-19 feet high have been documented in modern times, a 25 foot high seems to be plausible.
However, there is nothing at all anomalous about polystrate trees as tall as 18-19 feet, even 25 feet being found at rare intervals within the Joggins section. Recent research by J. W. F. Waldron and M. C. Waldron has shown that in addition to accumulating within an actively subsiding pull-apart basin, the Joggin region experienced added subsidence as less dense evaporite deposits were squished out from beneath heavier sediments accumulating on top of them. As a result, the Joggins region periodically experienced very rapid subsidence rates, which allowed for the rapid accumulation of sediments within the Joggins region.
A new web page with excellent information is Cumberland Basin at:
http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/vft/ns/joggins/cumberland_e.php
A lot of questions will be answered about the formation of polystrate trees of the Joggins Cliffs by two publications, which are currently in press. They are:
Rygel, M. C., Davies, S. D., and Gibling, M. R. (in press)
Chapter 4: Geological setting and paleoenvironments of the
Joggins Formation: in Falcon-Lang, H.J., Gibling, M.R.,
and Calder, J.H., eds., Late Carboniferous Ecosystems of
Joggins, Nova Scotia: London, The Paleontological Society
Guidebook Series.
Waldron, J. W. F, and Rygel, M. C. (in press) Role of
evaporite withdrawal in the preservation of a unique
coal-age succession: Joggins section, Nova Scotia: Geology.
Randy noted:
I also give refererence to a 38 foot upright tree that was
found in England. 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
This is a well-documented polystrate tree. It was found in an area of England, in which the strata within it occurs is cut by well-developed syndepsoitional faults, called growth faults. These faults formed as parts of the delta slid seaward as large landslides at the same time that sediment accumulation occurred within the delta. The periodic movement of large blocks of the delta along these faults could easily have caused subsidence within the delta plain adjacent to the head scarp of the faults of 30 to 50 feet and readily explain the rapid subsidence and burial of that polystrate tree.
Randy B noted:
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.
I looked this up. The only thing, which I found in Niklas (1994), was a reference to a 114-foot long (35 meter) long Lepidodendron specimen from near Bolton, Lancashire. Next to nothing is said as to its orientation when it was found. However, the manner in which it was fossilized, as a flattened compression, suggested that it was lying on it side when found. More about this fossil is given in Thomas and Watson (1976).
References
Niklas, K. J. (1994) Predicting the height of fossil plant
remains: An allometric approach to an old problem:
American Journal of Botany. vol. 81, no. 9, pp 1235-1243
Thomas, B. A. and Watson (1976) a rediscovered 114-foot
Lepidodendron from Bolton, Lancashire. Geology Journal.
vol. 11, pp. 15-20.
Randy continued:
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."
The reason that neither Dawson nor Lyell provided any details is because they lacked these details. Neither of them actually observed the 40-foot polystrate tree themselves. All that they had was a very vague report about the 40-foot high polystrate tree that Dr. Abraham Gesner gave Lyell in 1842 about it. This evidence by the use by Dawson of the passive voice in and some have been seen of 40 feet, piercing to indicate he was reporting something he did personally not observe. It is revealing that in the 163 years since Dr. Abraham Gesner reported this polystrate tree, nobody has documented a tree of similar height having been found in the Joggins outcrops. From what I have found, neither, H. J. Falcon-Lang, M. C. Rygel, M. R. Gibling, nor J. H. Calder have reported seeing any polystrate trees even approaching this size despite having spent far more time studying the Joggins outcrops than Gesner, Dawson and Lyell combined. Given that the same sequence of strata is exposed at Joggin as when Gesner studied it, except for being eroded back, if 40 foot high polystrate trees do exist there, additional examples should have been found by now.
Randy noted:
Note also that Rupke gives reference to a 25 meter
upright tree (or on that was approx. 80 feet long).
Rupke (1966) mentioned a 25 meter long (80 foot tree). However, according to Rupke (1966), the tree was not upright. Rather it was found leaning at angle of 40 degrees. It is curious that the two references, which Rupke (1966) provided for this specimen, are both creationists tracts, of which the primary citation was published in 1857, about 148 years ago.
Reference
Rupke, N. A. (1966) A Study of Cataclysmic Sedimentation
Creation Research Soc. Quarterly. vol. 3, p. 21.
I have to wonder if this is the same the 25 meter tree (that's 80 feet long) that Randy B. claimed was documented by Fairholm, which Randy B mentioned in another post. I am having problems finding the exact citation to which Fairholm referred.
A couple of related references worth reading are:
Gastaldo, R. A. (1984) A case against pelagochthony: the
untenability of Carboniferous arborescent Lycopod-dominated
floating mats. In Walker, K.R., ed., The Evolution-Creation
Controversy, Perspectives on Religion, Philosophy, Science
and Education, The Paleontological Society Special
Publication no.1, pp. 97-116.
Gastaldo, R. A. (1999) Debates on Autochthonous and
Allochthonous Origin of Coal: Empirical Science versus
the Diluvialists. In Manger, W.L., ed., The Evolution-
Creation Controversy II: Perspectives on Science, Religion,
and Geological Education, The Paleontological Society
Papers , vol. 5, pp. 135-167.
Best Regards,
Bill
Houston, Texas
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-07-2005 19:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RandyB, posted 02-21-2005 10:22 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 12:35 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 85 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 12:57 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 91 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 6:08 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 92 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 6:34 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 93 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 6:51 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 94 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 7:15 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 105 by RandyB, posted 03-13-2005 3:34 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 115 by RandyB, posted 03-14-2005 8:51 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 83 of 190 (190865)
03-10-2005 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by RandyB
03-05-2005 7:16 PM


Re: Fossil Soils (Paleosols) at Joggins
Randy B. wrote:
In Reply to Message 5 by Bill Birkeland, Randy b. wrote:
"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."
Why do I get the feeling that Randy is quite confused about his creationist "models" of polystrate tree formation? :-) :-) :-)
There are two major creationist explanations for the formation of polystrate trees. The first is the Kunze / Scheven and Austin "Floating Mat" model and the Harold Coffin "Spirit Lake" model. The second, the "Spirit Lake" model is discussed and illustrated by Coffin and Brown (1982). The point of confusion here is that the "Floating Mat" and "Floating Log Mat" models are actually different creationist models. The latter model, the "Floating Log Mat" model, is a less refined version of Coffin’s "Spirit Lake" model.
It makes a big difference, because the supporters of the the Kunze / Scheven and Austin "Floating Mat" model argue that the polystrate trees are part of a large floating mat held together by the **roots system** of the polystrate trees. An essential part of this model is that before becoming fossils the trees had their roots attached and their roots held the floating mat together. This creationist model argued that once the mat became grounded on soft mud, the base of the mats, including roots, sunk into to the soft mud. As a result, the tree roots remained intact and attached to the trees and provide only the illusion of having grown into the mud. Then, the grounded mat was rapidly buried intact to create polystrate trees. This was what Kunze / Scheven and Austin argued. This is all summarized in Gastaldo (1984, 1991). The basic principles of the "Floating Mat" model is illustrated in Figure 6 of Gastaldo (1984).
In contrast, the "Spirit Lake" model, i.e. Coffin (1983) and Coffin and Brown (1982), argues that polystrate trees were a normal trees, not associated with floating mats. According to Coffin’s ideas, these trees were eroded from their original position with their original roots being torn off of them in the process by the Noachian Flood. The "Spirit Lake" model argued that the trees eventually became waterlogged and eventually sank such they rested on the bottom in a vertical position. Then, the model proposed that they were rapidly buried in this position by turbidites (Coffin 1983, Coffin and Brown 1982).
In terms of whether or not fossil polystrate trees have roots or not, these are mutually exclusive creationist models. If a person invokes the Kunze / Scheven and Austin "Floating Mat" model as an explanation, then a person is agreeing that polystrate trees have intact roots, which is a basic premise of this model. If a person claims that polystrate trees lack roots, they have to invoke the "Spirit Lake" model of Coffin (1983) in order to explain such polystrate trees. As proposed by creationists, it makes absolutely no sense at all to argue that Kunze / Scheven and Austin "Floating Mat" model created fossil polystrate trees that lack roots.
Gastaldo (1984, 1991) presents a detailed analysis of the Kunze / Scheven and Austin "Floating Mat" model from the point of view of a conventional geologist / paleobotanist, who has spent his life studying the taphonomy of polystrate trees and other fossil plants found associated with coal beds. He also has published several papers illustrating the presence of roots on the polystrate trees found in the Carboniferous coal beds of the Black Warrior Basin of Alabama. Having seen examined some outcrops in strips mines myself in this region, I can personally attest to the fact that the polystrate trees in the Carboniferous strata do have roots. Anyone, who cannot see the roots on the Alabama polystrate trees have to be completely deaf, dumb, and blind because the roots are there and quite obvious.
References:
Coffin, H. (1983) Mount St. Helens and Spirit Lake. Origins. vol. 10, no. 1,
pp. 9-17 Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...
Coffin, H., and Brown, R. H. (1982) Origin by Design. Review and Herald
Publishing Company.
Gastaldo, R. A. (1984) A case against pelagochthony: the untenability of
Carboniferous arborescent Lycopod-dominated floating mats. In Walker,
K. R., ed., The Evolution-Creation Controversy, Perspectives on Religion,
Philosophy, Science and Education, The Paleontological Society Special
Publication no.1, pp. 97-116.
Gastaldo, R. A. (1999) Debates on Autochthonous and Allochthonous Origin
of Coal: Empirical Science versus the Diluvialists. In Manger, W.L., ed., The
Evolution-Creation Controversy II: Perspectives on Science, Religion, and
Geological Education, The Paleontological Society Papers , vol. 5,
pp. 135-167.
Randy B continued:
"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"
Again, Randy B. has his creationist models for the formation of polystrate trees confused. In the Kunze / Scheven and Austin "Floating Mat" model, both Young or Old Earth creationists agree with conventional geologists that the root system of fossil polystrate trees remain intact. In case of citation number "86", Austin (1986) "Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism", Steven Austin is not discussing the "Floating Mat" model of Otto Kunze’s 1884 as published in his article titled "Die vorweltliche Entwicklung der Erdkruste und der Pflanzen". Rather, the "Floating Log Mat" model that Austin (1986) described is a less refined version of Harold Coffins "Spirit Lake" model. This is not surprising, given that Austin (1986) discussed Spirit Lake in this article. The "Floating Mat" model and Austin (1986)’s "Floating Log Mat" model are two very different concepts that creationists have proposed to explain polytstrate trees.
The major problem is that all of the observations quoted by Randy B above from Dawson is typical of any fluvial — deltaic system. Essentially, the trees, which roll or tumble along the bottom or float as rafts of driftwood will grind against each other and rub their bark off and create specimens as seen in the Joggins outcrops. Leaves will be transported suspended in the water and not grind against each other and other material and many will survive transport reasonable intact relative to the trunks. There is nothing anomalous here, which requires transport by a Noachian Flood. It is all basic plant taphonomy within a fluvial system.
Unfortunately, for Randy B, Falcon-Lang and Bashforth (2004) recently found a 10-km-diameter outlier of alluvial conglomerates that accumulated as alluvial aprons at the base of the uplands, which Dawson, above, hypothesized as the source of the cordaitalean trees, which Dawson called "coniferous trees". Falcon-Lang and Bashforth (2004) found and documented "several hundred calcareously permineralized stumps, trunks, and branches" that "represents the remains of shallowly rooted cordaitalean trees that were 48.5 m high when mature". The preservation of these trees, with bark, roots, rootlets, and so forth, is so good that it is impossible that they have been transported any long distance. From studying these specimens, they concluded:
"The paleogeographic setting together with plant taphonomic inferences
strongly indicate that these giant trees were transported from nearby
upland alluvial plains and deposited in an elevated intermontane basin.
This interpretation is supported by analysis of rootstock morphology,
which implies tree growth in thin soils consistent with an alluvial
gravel substrate."
Basically, Falcon-Lang and Bashford (2004) presented some very convincing evidence that Dawson was correct when he inferred that the the cordaitalean trees ("coniferous trees") found in the outcrops at Joggins came from upland forests upstream / upriver of the Joggins outcrops, in which Dawson found the,
Reference
Falcon-Lang, H J, and Bashforth, A. (2004) Pennsylvanian uplands were
forested by giant cordaitalean trees. Geology. vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 417 — 420.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/...tent/abstract/32/5/417
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/vol32/issue5/
References Cited by Randy B:
"References: are at: Page not found – Earth Age
See also:
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Wieland, Carl, "Forests that grew on water," Creation, Vol. 18, No.1,
Dec.95-Feb.96,pp. 20-24. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
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."
Randy B stated:
"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."
The last sentence is pure nonsense. As discussed and illustrated in detail by Gastaldo (1984, 1991), Coffin (1983), and Coffin and Brown (1982), conventional and creationist models about how polystrate trees were created invoke very different processes. Such differences in the formational processes proposed for each creationist and conventional model result in very different products, in addition to the fossil polystrate trees created, in terms of the layering, physical composition, and internal structure and features of the sedimentary beds enclosing them. These predicted differences are great enough that it is possible to on the basis of the physical evidence to determine for certain what indeed "was the case". Gastaldo (1984, 1991) discusses in great detail how this can be done.
References:
Gastaldo, R. A. (1984) A case against pelagochthony: the untenability of
Carboniferous arborescent Lycopod-dominated floating mats. In Walker,
K. R., ed., The Evolution-Creation Controversy, Perspectives on Religion,
Philosophy, Science and Education, The Paleontological Society Special
Publication no.1, pp. 97-116.
Gastaldo, R. A. (1999) Debates on Autochthonous and Allochthonous Origin
of Coal: Empirical Science versus the Diluvialists. In Manger, W.L., ed., The
Evolution-Creation Controversy II: Perspectives on Science, Religion, and
Geological Education, The Paleontological Society Papers , vol. 5,
pp. 135-167.
References Cited by Randy B
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. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
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."
Randy B. pontificated:
"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."
There are all sorts of problems. One is that volcanic ash cools off within extremely short distances of the volcano from it comes. It is impossible for volcanic ash to start fires as suggested above. Even if the trees were right on the flanks of the volcano, typically it would be impossible for volcanic ash to start them on fire. Only a pyroclastic flow, which leaves very distinct deposits, might do it and they are restricted to the immediate vicinity of the volcano from which they came. Nowhere in the Joggins outcrop and region is there any evidence of pyroclastic flows or any other volcanic activity that could start such fires. Also, Randy B does not understand is that charred wood is very brittle and would have been completely broken quite quickly had it been transported any distance. Therefore, it is impossible that they were burnt elsewhere and washed into the Joggins area while being banged around in a tangled mass of driftwood. Randy B. lacks either a plausible mechanism or a shred of how these fires started during his Noachian Flood, especially while it is raining for 40 days and nights.
Randy B. further pontificated:
"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"...
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". These publications include:
1. Micromorphological Analysis of Selected Paleosols of Late
Carboniferous Coal-Bearing Rocks Exposed at Joggin, Nova Scotia, Canada
by M. G. Smith and I. P. Martin.
MICROMORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PALEOSOLS OF LATE CARBONIFEROUS COAL
Publications
2. Floodplain Deposits and Palesol profiles of the Late Carboniferous
Cumberland Basin, Joggins, Nova Scotia by M. G. Smith and I. P. Martin.
FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS AND PALEOSOL PROFILES OF THE LATE CARBONIFEROUS
3. Teniere, Paul (1998) Sedimentology, Facies Successions and Cyclicity
of a Section of the Joggins Formation, Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Unpublished M.S. thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
http://meguma.earthsciences.dal.ca/abstract/ab_th_98.htm
In part, the abstract of Teniere (1998) stated about fossil soils (paleosols) found in the polystrate tree-bearing strata of Joggin:
"Grey clay-rich mudstones classify as "seat earths" or Gleysol paleosols
and grey platy mudstones are hydromorphic soils that experiences less
vegetative activity. Red mudstones are Vertisols formed under seasonal,
oxidizing conditions. Carbonaceous shales are clastic swamp deposits and
are associated with coals (Histosol) formed in peat mires."
Some other references documenting fossil soils (paleosols) within the Joggins strata containing the polystrate trees found there are:
Smith, Mark G. (1995) Floodplain deposits, Paleosol profiles and evidence
of climatic change from the Late Carboniferous Joggins Formation,
Cumberland Basin, Nova Scotia, Canada. Program with Abstracts —
Geological Association of Canada; Mineralogical Association of Canada;
Canadian Geophysical Union, Joint Annual Meeting. vol. 20, pp.99
Smith, Mark G. (1990) Floodplain and Paleosol profiles of the
Carboniferous Cumberland coal basin, Nova Scotia, Canada. American
Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin. Vol. 74, no. 8,
pp.1310-1311.
Tandon, S. k., and Gibling, M. R. (1994) Calcrete and coal in late
Carboniferous cyclothems of Nova Scotia, Canada: climate and
sea-level changes linked. Geology vol. 22, pp. 755-758.
Davies, S. J. and Gibling, M. R. (2003) Architecture of coastal and
alluvial deposits in an extensional basin; the Carboniferous Joggins
Formation of Eastern Canada. Sedimentology. Vol. 50, no. 3,
pp. 415-439.
Gibling, M. R., Saunders, K. I., Tibert, N. E. and White, J. A. (2004)
Sequence sets, high-accommodation events and the coal window in the
Carboniferous Sydney Coalfield, Atlantic Canada. In: Coal-bearing Strata:
Sequence Stratigraphy, Paleoclimate, and Tectonics, J. Pashin and R.
Gastaldo, eds., pp. 169-198. AAPG Studies in Geology no. 51, American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Pictures that refute the claim that the Joggins’ polystrate trees lack any roots can be found in:
Falcon-Lang, H. J. (2004) Ice, coal and ancient rainforests. Planet Earth
(NERC News), Autumn edition, Pages 20-21 (National Environment
Research Council, Swindon Great Britain)
and
Falcon-Lang, H. J., and Calder, J. H., (2004) UNESCO World Heritage and
the Joggins cliffs of Nova Scotia. Geology Today. vol. 20, no. 4,
pp. 140-144 (Figure 5, page 142)
Online images of polystrate trees with roots can be found in "Standing lycopsid" at:
http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/PICT0044.JPG , which is part of "Photogallery 1: Joggins" at: http://myweb.dal.ca/mrygel/photogallery1.htm .
In this picture, a person can see two of the roots, which Young Earth creationists claimed do not exist. One major reasons that Young Earth creationists, including certain creationist geologists, are held in such disrespect and disdain and sometimes regarded with great humor is that they are often incapable of correctly making even the most basic of observations such as being able to observe such roots in the field.
Another online photograph of roots of one of these polystrate trees can be found at:
http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/.../vft/ns/joggins/figure9_lrg.jpg, which is part of
http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/...ns/joggins/fossils_plants_e.php
And finally Randy pontificated:
"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."
The presence of "drift logs" in the outcrops within the Joggins, Nova Scotia, cliffs miserably fails to prove any proof that "NONE of these trees were in their original positions of growth" as falsely claimed by Randy B.. He seems to be unaware of the documented fact that "drift logs" are a common part of modern fluvial and deltaic plains all over the world and often are quite commonly preserved within the sediments that accumulate within these environments. Before they were controlled with levees, revetments, and dams and cleared of immense amounts of "drift logs" and other woody debris for flood control and navigation, many modern rivers and streams often carried larges amounts of "drift logs" and other woody debris down their courses. Eventually, large amounts of the "drift logs" and other woody debris were carried downstream into their deltaic plain and even offshore. Huge amounts of the "drift logs" and other woody debris were commonly deposited and buried in the fine-grained floodplain sediments and coarse channel sands of these rivers. In some cases, woody material, which made it as far as the deltas, ended up being buried within the delta plains.
As discussed and documented by Triska (1984) and Montgomery et al. (1984), the construction of levees, revetments, and dams on and removal by snagging operations of immense amounts of "drift logs" and other woody debris from the channels of modern rivers has reduced the immense amount of drift logs" and other woody debris carried by rivers and streams. The construction of levees and revetments has prevented the shifting of river channels, which normally pull huge amounts of "drift logs" and other woody debris into a river. The levees have also prevented annual and major floods from carrying "drift logs" and other woody debris out of a river into the backswamp, where they become buried, as has happened constantly in the past. Dams constantly trap "drift logs" and other woody debris that normally would have floated downstream. Thus, the current state of modern rivers fails to provide any indication of the amount of "drift logs" and other woody debris carried and deposited by modern rivers in past up to historic times.
A documented example of the immense amounts of "drift logs" and other woody debris that a river system can carry and can accumulate within it is the "Great Raft" that blocked the Red River of Louisiana. Concerning the "Great Raft" Robinson et al. (2004) stated:
"No one has been able to determine when the Great Raft first began
forming, but the existence of a raft in the river supposedly is recounted
in "early Indian legends" (Humphreys 1971). Veatch (1906) estimated
that the raft had been present since the late 1400s, under the assumption
that it started well south of Alexandria in Bayou Boeuf and moved
upstream, causing the diversion of the river through Moncla Gap. It is
certain, however, that the raft was observed by the French explorer
Bienville in 1700 (Russ 1975). The raft first was described by Dunbar
(1804) and thereafter by several writers in the early 19th century.
Based on historic accounts and numerous photographs (Humphreys 1971),
it is apparent that the individual raft segments were tangled masses of
cottonwood, ash, elm, cypress, and cedar with some oak and pine from the
river bluffs. The woody debris was intertwined with vines, branches, and
saplings, forming an impenetrable barrier to navigation (Figure 14). Since
raft segments persisted for decades or more, considerable quantities of fine
sediment became incorporated into the mass, willows sprouted, and some
logs put down roots and anchored the raft to the river bottom (McCall
1988).
In 1820, the southern end of the raft was observed to be at Natchitoches
(McCall 1988). Its length upstream from that point has been variously
reported to have been 160 km (100 mi) by the U.S. Army Engineer
District, Vicksburg (n.d.); 224 km (140 mi) by Russ (1975) and Guardia
(1933); 256 km (160 mi) by Veatch (1906); and 320 km (200 mi) by
McCall (1988). At that time, the northern end was in the vicinity of
Shreveport, but later moved upstream to about 8 km (5 mi) south of the
Arkansas-Louisiana state line. In a sense, the raft was like a living, moving
organism that slowly made its way upstream. The downstream end or foot
of the raft was the relatively oldest part, and as the debris decayed, pieces
would be lifted and dislodged and would float downstream (Guardia 1933).
Concurrently, new materials would be added to the head of the raft.
Occasionally about 8 km (5 mi) of new log jam could be added as a result
of a single freshet (a sudden rise in stage caused by heavy upstream
precipitation). Guardia (1933) estimated that the raft had a net upstream
movement of about 1.3 km (0.8 mi) per year between 1820 and 1872 while
others have estimated it at 1.6 km (1.0 mi) per year (U.S. Army Engineer
District, Vicksburg, n.d.)."
Some web pages about the "Great Raft" are:
1. "The Great Raft" (has a picture of a large mass of "drift logs".
The Caddo Map Tool, Environment - The Great Raft
http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/...aphics/greatraft-lg.jpg
2. "The Great Red River Raft"
The Great Red River Raft
In this web page it is stated:
"In June of 1806 an expedition attempted to navigate the Red River. One
of the members of the expedition recorded in his journal "The first raft
is not more than 40 yards through. It consists of the trunks of large
trees, lying in all directions, and damming up the river for its whole
width, from the bottom, to about three feet higher than the surface of
the water. ""
3. "Navigation along the Red River"
http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/...ton_waterway/background.htm
The example of the "Great Raft" demonstrates that contrary to what Randy B falsely presumed above, that historic rivers and streams often contained and transported large quantities of "drift logs" and other woody debris. This material can accumulate not only in the floodplain, but also their channels. As a result, the presence of large amounts of "drift logs" and other woody debris within the strata at Joggins, Nova Scotia is meaningless as evidence that the polystrate trees found in the Joggins strata are **not** in place as "drift logs" are often typical of river floodplains. Neither a Noachian Flood nor any other catastrophic events are needed to explain the presence of "drift logs" in the Joggins strata.
In addition, Robinson et al. (2004) demonstrated how wood can be preserved by burial within the waterlogged sediments of river floodplains and channels. They document an entire wooden steamboat, which has been preserved for almost 140 years. (This wooden shipwreck is only 10 years younger than the research that Dawson did on the Joggins, Nova Scotia, cliffs.) There are many other shipwrecks, like the Kentucky, preserved in this manner within the major North American rivers. Like the shipwrecks, the preservation of large amounts of natural wood is quite common in water-saturated Holocene and Pleistocene fluvial deposits
References:
Dunbar, W. (1804) The exploration of the Red, Black, and the Washita
rivers. In: Documents Relating to the Purchase and Exploration of
Louisiana. Part 2, Houghton, Mifflin, and Co., New York.
Guardia, J. E. (1933) Some results of the log jam in the Red River.
Bulletin of the Geographical Society of Philadelphia. vol. 31, no. 3,
pp.103-114.
Humphreys, H. (1971) Photographic views of Red River Raft, 1873.
Louisiana History. vol. 12, pp. 101-108.
McCall, E. (1988) The attack on the Great Raft. In: Invention and
Technology, Winter edition, pp. 10-16.
Montgomery, D. R., Collins, B. R., Buffington, J. M., and Abbe, T. B.
(2003) Geomorphic Effects of Wood in Rivers. Stan V. Gregory, Kathryn
L. Boyer, and Angela M. Gurnell, eds., pp. 1-27, American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
http://riverhistory.ess.washington.edu/pubs/WoodinRivers.pdf
Robinson, D. S., Adams, M. A., Adam, I., Kan, B.A., and Williams, M. A.
(2004) Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Investigations of the
Shipwreck Kentucky (Site 16BO358) as Eagle Bend, Pool 5, Red River
Waterway, Bossier, Parish. Report prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin
and Associates, Frederick, Maryland for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Vicksburg District, Vicksburg, Mississippi for Contract No. DACW38-96-
D-0006, Delivery Order 0001 and 0002.
http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/offices/pp/Projects/J_Bennett_Johnston_Waterway/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
(Caution, this file is large. It is a 117.5 MB)
(Also, there is a link to Robinson et al. (2004) on the "Navigation along the Red River" web page at:
http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/...ton_waterway/background.htm
Russ, D. P. (1975) The Quaternary Geomorphology of the Lower Red
River Valley, Louisiana. Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University, College Station.
Triska, Frank J. (1984) Role of wood debris in modifying channel
geomorphology and riparian areas of a large lowland river under pristine
conditions; a historical case study. Verhandlungen - Internationale
Vereinigung fuer Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie. vol. 22,
no. 3, pp. 1876-1892
For a another point of view, a person can go to:
Polystrate Fossils by Greg Neyman (2005) Answers In Creation
http://www.answersincreation.org/polystrate.htm
Joggins Fossil Cliffs by Greg Neyman (2005) Answers In Creation
http://www.answersincreation.org/joggins.htm
The Floating Forest Theory Sinks by Greg Neyman (2005)
http://www.answersincreation.org/floating.htm
Yours,
Bill
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-10-2005 00:44 AM
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-10-2005 01:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RandyB, posted 03-05-2005 7:16 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 1:37 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 89 by RandyB, posted 03-10-2005 2:51 PM Bill Birkeland has not 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

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 88 of 190 (190949)
03-10-2005 1:43 PM


Topic title modified
I have just added the "(mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)" part to the title. This seems to be the main theme of the discussion, even at the beginning of the topic.
As a side note, I suspect that Bill Birkeland has already received AT LEAST 3 "Post of the Month" nominations for messages in this topic, with considerable overlap in the content of the various messages.
I would recommend to Bill that he contact admin@ about submitting a compilation of his thoughts on the "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" to the "Columnist's Corner" forum.
Please take any discussion of the content of this message to the "General discussion of moderation procedures" topic, link below.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024