Tranquility Base,
If I can back up a bit, Joe made some important points re. paleosols that were passed over. It seems to me that fossil forests & paleosols represent a direct falsification of the biblical flood. Since paleosols can’t form under flood conditions, & ROOTED (in said paleosols) trees certainly can’t grow in formations that creationists tell us are flood deposits.
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/forests.htm
1. Eocene Fossil Forests in Yellowstone National Park
The Lamar River Formation in Yellowstone Park contains the best known example of a "fossil forest." Here we find multiple levels of in situ trees. The upright trees at Specimen Ridge are rooted in fine-grained tuffaceous sandstone and encased in conglomeratic mudflows. The grain size of the conglomerate decreases away from the location of the volcanic source areas, the East and West Absaroka belts. Also, the ratio of upright, in situ trees to horizontal trees increases away from the Eocene volcanic source areas - the eruptions and mud flows flattened whole forests proximal to the source, while many trees are preserved in growth position in more distal locations, such as at Specimen Ridge. Although it is unclear how many successive forest layers are present in the Lamar River Formation, estimates range from 9-12 for Specimen Ridge. Some of the levels have very wide and old trees trunks.
Tall upright trees with unbroken trunks. narrow root systems, and intact roots penetrating the substrate were apparently preserved were they grew. Unlike the tall in situ trees, many upright stumps have short trunks and roots broken prior to burial in a conglomerate with no organic zone, weathering profile, or color change. The bark of these trees is rarely preserved, owing to abrasion.
Tree stumps are not rooted in conglomerates, but rather in underlying fine-grained tuffaceous sandstones. (2) Some of the conglomerates have flow structures that show that they buried in-place trees. (3) The upper parts of some stumps and logs surrounded by conglomerates are severely abraded, but the lower parts contained within tuffaceous sandstones commonly have good root systems. This also suggests that mudflows moved over preexisting trees. (4) Thin sections show no evidence of extensive current activity in the tuffaceous sandstone in which the stumps are rooted. In contrast, most textural evidence indicates the existence of a soil around the roots (p. 161).
Specimens were collected of material surrounding the roots of vertical tree stumps at each of the 8 forest levels examined . . . Thin sections of 12 of these rtocks give no indication of significant current activity at any of the stump levels. Most of the sandstones consist of poorly sorted, angular volcanic rock fragments in a groundmass of small, broken crystals of plagioclase . . . Neither the rock fragments nor plagioclase grains show preferred orientation or imbrication, characteristics that would a current-dominated depositional system. All but two of the samples from the root zones [however] exhibit a 'swirly' texture in thin section, which is characteristic of the disturbed upper part of a soil zone (p. 161).
There are more examples at the web site quoted.
http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/geology.html
"Another case of superpositioned fossils is found at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone Park, where a nearby volcano buried 27 forests one atop the other. After an eruption buried the first forest and the exposed parts of the trees rotted away, a new forest grew. Then this forest suffered the same fate and the cycle repeated. According to Flood Geology's timetable, all 27 generations of forest had to have grown within a single year. Instead, scientists estimate that this entire formation took over 20,000 years to form (the MINIMUM time required since the oldest trees of each layer were about 500 years old and it takes about 200 years for igneous rock to become soil). Flood Geology tries to claim that all these trees washed up here and were buried where they had beached. But beached trees all lie on their sides and many of these are standing upright. Also, uprooted trees have incomplete root systems and the upright trunks here all have complete root systems, indicating that they had been buried where they grew. Furthermore, the ground level of the forest floor can be determined for each layer. Flood geologist Harry Coffin has claimed that tree rings within a given
fossil forest layer do not cross correlate. For one thing, this implies variance in rainfall thus refuting the creationist claim that there was no rain before the Flood (minor point). However, if all these trees had supposedly died within the same year, then they should ALL cross correlate THROUGHOUT THE FORMATION."
I think it is reasonable to assume that fossilised trees with root systems in place (to a greater or lesser degree), are rooted in SOIL. Meaning paleosols exist, contrary to the flood model.
A single pre-holocene petrified forest with rooted trees in paleosols (by definition) represents a falsification of the biblical flood. Multiple layers of fossil forest that estimates put at 20,000 years (MINIMUM) to form, also represent the same to YEC timelines.
Also, if I can refer you back to post 8, all large transported trees & stumps are supposed to be found in the upper flood deposits, not alongside rooted examples (that can't float). So why are transported, unrooted tree stumps found in late permian, early triassic rocks (earlier?)?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-16-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-16-2002]
™ Version 4.2