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

I have some questions:1) DID Emiliani claim to have evidence for a global flood ?2) How could he jump from local evidence to the conclusion that the whole world was flooded ?

>I have some questions:
>1) DID Emiliani claim to have evidence for a global flood ?First, in interpreting both articles, a person needs to understand that the submergence of coastal plains around the world by a 120 meter rise in sea level, discussed in part by Emiliani et al. (1975) and Emiliani (1976), and the Noachian-type global flood of Young Earth creationists are two completely different subjects.Second, No. Neither Emiliani et al. (1975) nor Emiliani (1976) made any claim as to having any evidence of a global flood as proposed by Young Earth creationists. Both articles clearly argued that the meltwater flooding, which was detected in the sediments of the Gulf of Mexico, were restricted to the Mississippi River. What was argued is that the period of meltwater flooding, down the Mississippi River and from the Laurentide Ice Sheet, was part of a period of rapid melting of global ice sheets, caps, and glaciers that caused extremely rapid rise in global sea level. Emiliani et al. (1975) speculated that this period of fast global sea level rise caused the rapid flooding of inhabited Ice Age coastal plains all over the world, as recorded in flood myths from all over the world. Specifically, Emiliani et al. (1975) stated:"This age coincides with that the Valders readvance;
because this readvance was accompanied by a rapid
rise in sea level, it was apparently a surge, which
brought ice to lower latitudes and caused rapid melting.
We postulate the ensuing flooding of lowlying coastal
areas, many of which were inhabited by man, gave rise
to the deluge stories common many traditions."Although Emiliani et al. (1975) and Emiliani (1976) were wrong about the timing of the meltwater floods and periods of rapid sea level rise, it is now known that there were various times during the last 18,000 years in which sea level rose quite rapidly. During one of these periods of rapid sea level rise, dry land, which became the Persian Gulf, was flooded by rising sea level over the space of several hundred years. That certainly would have gotten the attention of the people living within what is now the Persian Gulf at that time as, at times, the shoreline moved landward at the rate of over a kilometer (1.6 miles) per year (Teller 2002, Teller et al. 2000).Specifically, Teller et al. (2000) stated:"From 12-6 ka, postglacial sea level rise forced people
living on the flat Gulf floor to rapidly migrate to higher
areas. Rates of this transgression at times exceeded
1 km per year, notably around 12-11.5 and 9.5-8.5
ka radiocarbon years.">2) How could he jump from local evidence to the conclusion
>that the whole world was flooded ?Neither article made any conclusions about a Noachian-type global flood. Both articles simply argued that the Ice Age coastal plains were, at one time, rapidly flooded by rapid sea level rise as a result of the rapid melting of Ice Age ice sheets and caps. From there, both articles speculated that this flooding of inhabited Ice Age coastal plains might have been the event recorded by "deluge stories common many traditions".References Cited:Emiliani, C., 1976, Glacial surges and flood legends. Science.
vol. 193, no. 4259, pp. 1270-1271.Emiliani, C., Gartner, S., Lidz, B., Eldridge, K., Elvey, D. K.,
Huang, T. C., Stipp, J. J., and Swanson, M. F., 1975,
Paleoclimatological Anaylsis of Late Quaternary Cores from
the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Science. vol.189, no.4208,
pp. 1083-1088.Teller J. T., Glennie, K. W., Lancaster, N., Singhvi,
A. K., 2000., Noah's flood and its impact on the Persian
Gulf region. Geological Society of America Abstracts
with Program. vol. 32, no. 7, p. 276.
http://rock.geosociety.org/...absindex/annual/2000/51194.htmTeller, J.T., 2002, Outbursts from Lake Agassiz and their
possible impact on coastal environments. Environmental
Catastrophes and Recoveries in the Holocene August 29 --
September 2, 2002, Department of Geography & Earth
Sciences, Brunel University. Uxbridge, UK.
Emuparadise 2022
Emuparadise 2022Best Regards,Bill BirkelandThis message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 11-09-2004 02:00 PM

quote:

---

From there, both articles speculated that this flooding of inhabited Ice Age coastal plains might have been the event recorded by "deluge stories common many traditions".

---

Thus, there was no global flood. Just locally experienced floods that become part of the local tradition.

It's no good. I just can't stay out of this any longer.
I have been reading this thread through and attempting to follow all of the arguments.
This last post just confuses me.
I understood that you were arguing for a global flood, so why is it that when I read your quotes that they seem to argue against it.Before I go any further, I just want to say that I am not a geologist and have no real knowledge of any of these events or research papers. I am just going on what I have read in this thread.Here are my questions/comments. I don't know anything about the time period but I do know a little about micro fossils like foraminifera so assuming that the evidence was correctly recorded and analyzed, I have no reason to doubt these findings. However, when I read this passage, I was immediately struck by the fact that this time scale agrees pretty well with the end of the last ice age when the retreat of the glaciers across North America could be expected to dump vast quantities of fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico. Lower salinity? Sure there would be. It is completely predictable.You then go on to say Hang on a minute! Didn't I just say that?
How does this point to a global flood?
This is the retreat of the glaciers at the end of the ice age.
I don't get the connection.Later you write Did it? OK I'll take your word for it because as I said before, I have no direct knowledge of this either way.The one thing that strikes me as strange here though is that during a global flood, wouldn't the black see have filled up with fresh water from the rain on the huge land masses surrounding it instead of a sudden inrush of salt water from the mediterainean, which should have been able to drain into the Atlantic a lot more easily. OK then. Let's say that these findings are true (and again I have no reason or evidence to dispute them)
So the Mediterainanian did apparently flood into the black sea which had apparently been at a much lower level previously. Even the timing is convenient (but incidentally doesn't agree with the Gulf of Mexico findings).
Why did it do so?
How could a global flood possibly have made it happen unless it rained only in the Med'?
Isn't it more likely that the Med' is still the same level today that it has always been (or is there evidence to say that it too has risen?) which is at present almost the same as the Black Sea?
For the flood scenario to be true then wouldn't the land all around the Black Sea have had to suddenly drop in level to precipitate the inpouring? Is there evidence of this? Just filling up the Med' couldn't have done it as the two were presumably level before and still are after.I would propose that a more likely scenario is that the Black Sea could have been at a lower level intitially and physically separated by some means from the Med' Glacier perhaps? Did they come that far south? I think they did but I'm not sure. Anyway, let's just follow this hypothesis a little further. Lets say that 7500 years ago, a glacier or some other kind of land bridge, that previously separated the two Seas, receded/eroded enough to let the Med' flow into the Black Sea. Wouldn't that explain these findings a lot more easily than a "Global" flood which given the lay of the land in Eastern Europe would have been far more likely to flow water in the oposite direction?Again, you appear to be arguing against the floodI can't really comment on the last few quotes as I don't
1) see the relevence. What the heck do Ammonites have to do with the flood?
2) understand what is actually being suggested there. Are you saying that the fact that these Ammonites are found in a specific (chronological?) order all over the place that this is evidenc for a flood.I just don't get it. Which side are you on?PY

Bill do you any problem with me reprinting your "nuclear strike" on Randy S Berg's paper?http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Randy_S._Berg(I - or anyone who wants to help! still need to work on the formatting over there!)This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01 February 2005 20:30 AM

Charles asked:"Bill do you any problem with me reprinting your "nuclear
strike" on Randy S Berg's paper?"I do not have problem with you reprinting my article on Randy S
Berg's paper. You have my permission to reprint it as long as
full credit is given.It is back to finding oil and gas for me. Hopefully, I won't end
upon another Nigerian offshore rig again for a long, long, time.
If my paryers are answered, I never have to do it again.Best Regards,Bill
Houston, TexasThis message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 02-10-2005 15:21 AM

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

Since the first paragraph here is utterly off topic please do NOT respond to that part of this post.

LMAO That's great - your response is to point us to a book from 1894.Let us know when you reach the 20th century!

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

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

Seems like more of the same, Randy.

quote:

---

The fact that many upright trees in this strata have different bedding than that which surrounds them suggests that they were transported before burial.

---

No explanataion? Why would this indicate transport? To me it just indicates s different mode of sedimentation.

quote:

---

It also appears (from the drawings above) that these two trees do not have attached roots-- again suggesting that they are not in situ.

---

Only if you ignore any possible mechanism for detachement. I can think of a couple.

quote:

---

Note also that Lyell's stump has its base directly over a bed of shale, as opposed to coal.

---

Meaning exactly what?

quote:

---

At first glance, the tree in fig. 2 does appear to be (buried) in growth position, since it has both roots and rootlets attached. Closer inspection reveals that it is probably not in (its original) growth position. For example, the "dark slaty gritty shale" (f in Fig. 1) surrounding the roots appears to extend half-way up the two trees on the left. This suggests that it may not be an ancient soil but rather simply the type of strata (i.e. layered mud) that entombed these trees.

---

Not very convincing, Randy. Many of the soils that these trees grew in were not well developed and often indistinguishable from sediments to the casual observer.

quote:

---

Note also that the "slaty gritty shale" (h) above it buried not only the stumps, but also (what appears to be) their (flattened) tops as well. This suggests that their burial may have been quite rapid.

---

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?Anyway, what does rapid burial have to do with transport? After all, you guys keep telling us how brachipods are buried in life position... Why should this be any different?

quote:

---

In other words, the sediment inside this tree is different than that which surrounds it. Even more significant is the fact that none of the sediments above the tree consist of greyish white sandstone. This is evident from the list of strata types given above (next to Fig. 2). This strongly suggests that this tree is not in its original position of growth, but rather has (also) been uprooted and transported to this location where it sank to the bottom and was buried in two beds of shale and a thin layer of clay. Some may say that since it was filled with sandstone then it could not have been transported -- because it would have been too heavy. However, if we look closely at Fig. 1, we can see what appear to be the tops of these trees still intact and attached. This is significant and may explain how such a heavy tree could have been transported by strong currents (see Part 1: Horizontal Shear).

---

And you guys talk about evolutionists having fanciful stories! Somehow, I don't see how your model wouldn't work as well or even better for an in situ tree...

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

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

This is getting silly. So where is the problem? Lyell says 'most of the trees.' To me that indicates that some are rooted elsewhere. That does not explain the issue. In fact, I'd say it is a better model for in situ trees... And many of the trees we see growing today are not rooted in soils at all. Again, what's the problem? Of course not. We are talking about deposition not erosion. Soft sediment deformation is not a problem either. Happens all the time. So, you are making two points then. I see. Interesting though that archeologists can find them in the soil.

quote:

---

By the way, in case anyone is interested. I seem to have found a few drawings of some of those "local" incursions by the sea. See Link below.

---

Ah, a reference from 1894! Very timely. Interesting scale also, at which to see local incursion, that is.