Paleosols

"I have asked you to look at this thread before. It appears that you cannot trouble yourself so here is the link:http://EvC Forum: Undecayed Lake-Bed Vegetation Remains -->EvC Forum: Undecayed Lake-Bed Vegetation RemainsIf you need an interpreter, let me know."
--I don't remember you ever giving me a link to this thread and in searching the html of this thread I can't find it either. Anyways, I never doubted that this can happen or that it does happen. What you need to do is apply this to the Eocene successive forests for it to mean anything. There are no remnants of partially decayed specimens of any kind in the formation as far as I know. With so many different environments, transportation and similar factors, we should see this. It just isn't as simple as dropping a couple leaves in a lake and observing what happens.------------------

"I guess I have to explain everything to you. There is no correlation between areas and levels in the orientation of the horizontal logs. This is not what one would expect if they were deposited from a global flood surge as you suggest. Remember TB's 'continentally correlated, rapid paleocurrents'?"
--Fritz reported dominant orientations for logs in Amethyst Mountain and Cache creek. Even still though. Orientations of horizontal logs in my setting is more due to the direction of the mud flow at the L.R. Formation.

quote:

---

"He also points out tree trunks deposited from mudflows in an upright position without discussing the fact that all of the pictures of these trunks are from cut trees. In other words they have virtually no rotational inertia at all and would naturally try to land with the heavy root ball down."
--No kidding?

​

You: You obviously don't understand the implications. Think about it.

---

--I guess I don't, please educate me."More like skeptical. Why can he not give us the details? I would guess because he has an agenda. "
--I don't have coffins work (nor do I know exactly what work of his you cite), but I do know that Coffin has an abundance of citations on the subject. In my Yuretich & Fritz articles, they cite him 4 times. Despite your skepticism, it is just your guess."Well then, he needs to talk to Coffin since there are what Coffin calls 'organic zones' or something like that. He also states that the organic zones are up to 20 cm thick...."
--I didn't give you a full description. Fritz comments on organic zones as well, though I don't recall him giving them a characteristic of "20 cm thickness"

quote:

---

From Fritz, 1980:
These well preserved organic remains are common along specific horizons, in places associated with roots of vertical stumps; it has been suggested that these should be called paleosols. However, no A, B, or C horizons can be distinguished, and the zones are very thin, are well laminated, have no decayed organic debris, and in places are draped over large boulders. Remains of vertical trees in the conglomerate facies normally have no organic zone or weathering profile associated with the roots. The organic zones probably do not represent soils but rather are plant litter deposited by sheet wash, possibly during intense rainstorms associated with volcanic activity.

---

--He discusses the organic zones more briefly in other areas of the article, but this would be the most relevant."So you are saying that don't have an explanation for the lack of bark mats? Nice two-step, TC. But yes, actually, I have a good possibility based on my experience with pyroclastic flows. But I want to hear your just-so story first."
--No, actually I'm saying that you need one, because I have antecedent abrasion, you don't."I am skipping much of your posts. They are simply more of the fantastic stuff that you have given us before. But, if I miss any questions, you can repeat them in shorter posts."
--Some of it may not have been relevant on both our parts and we ended up trailing off into things, so I'm glad they are gone(if they are brought up again, I guess I'll just end up quoting myself), though I would like responses from some segments of post #99:

quote:

---

--You've said that the presence of 'soils' extinguished the veracity of my model before, so how do they?

---

quote:

---

--How about you present something which is diagnostic evidence for yours and against mine or something?

---

--^I'd like to see this.

quote:

---

--[2] - Right, root systems which are generally dwarfed in comparison to what should be observed (even though we do find occasional larger root systems, but this doesn't put aside the fact that we don't see this for the majority of the in situ trees). Again--hence the root ball appearance.

​

And:

​

If they didn't have a root ball appearance, they would extend much further from the stump. You need to explain the root ball appearance for in situ trees.

---

quote:

---

--Which resource have you located?[of Coffin]

---

--[edit] - I'd also like a response to post #98.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-02-2003]

In Message 98, and on 02-02-2003,
TrueCreation posted the following reply:Edge wrote:
"You have a wide variation in ecological niches, ...
Hunh? Where?Truecreation wrote:
"...including cool-temperate, warm-temperate,
tropical, and paratropical."Edge wrote:
"These were present at Specimen Ridge?"Truecreation replied in message 98:
"Yes, the fossil florae at the Lamar River
Formation indicate these environments."In this case, Young Earth creationists indulge
in a type of hyper-uniformitarian thinking that
conventional paleontologists and paleobontanists
have long since abandoned. Unlike Young Earth
creationists, paleobeontantists, paleontologists,
and geologists now understand that 1. over the
last 50 million years there have been changes in
the environmental preferences of trees and 2. the
climate of the Eocene was a period of "hot house"
climates that contrast sharply with modern "cold
house" climates.As a result, during the Eocene, vegetation
communities were less well defined and the
and lacked the separation of vegetation into the
current recognized modern communities, e.g. "warm-
temperate, tropical, and paratropical environments",
which did not exist at that time. At that time all of
the fossil plants found in the Lamar River Formation
and once assigned to to "warm-temperate, tropical,
and paratropical" environments co-existed in a single
tropical / paratropical semideciduous community
for which no modern analogue exists as discussed
by Wolfe (1985). The diversity of plant communities
and environments argued by Young Earth creationists
is a false diversity that was created by earlier
conventional paleobontanists, in the past, and
continued by Young Earth creationists, in the present,
using hyper-uniformitarian assumptions that neither
the global climate of the Earth has nor
environmental preferences of the plants found
as fossils in Lamar River Formation have changed
over time. Wolfe (1985) among many authors
has provided an abundance of evidence that both
have changed to the point that it rather nonsensical
to interpret the flora of the Lamar River Formation
in terms of modern communities in the way that
Young Earth creationists continue to do for the
Yellowstone Petrified Forest trees.Reference cited:Wolfe, J. A., 1985, Distribution of major vegetation
types during the Tertiary. In: E. T. Sundquist and
W. S. Broecker, eds., pp. 357-375, The Carbon Cycle
and Atmospheric CO2: Natural Variations Archean
to Present. Washington. Pp. 357--375.Another more recent reference:Wolfe, J. A., 1994, Tertiary climate changes
at middle latitudes of western North America.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology.
vol. 108, pp. 195-205.More information about Hothouse versus Icehouse
climate can be found in "ICE HOUSE or HOT HOUSE at:Climate History
Paleoclimate VRand3.4.2. Global Climate and Phytogeography
Global Climate and Phytogeography in the Early Mesozoic"The Eocene Greenhouse" by: David Pacchioli
(Research/Penn State, Vol. 14, no. 3
http://www.rps.psu.edu/sep93/eocene.htmlHuber, B. T. and MacLeod, K. G., and Wing, S. L.
eds., 2000, Warm Climates in Earth History.
Cambridge University Press.Within the Lamar River Formation, there are only
two main plant communities. They are a tropical
/ paratropical semideciduous community and a
mixed coniferous community. The latter, like the
tropical / paratropical semideciduous community
has **no modern** analogue although it does
represent cooler and wetter environment than
the tropical / paratropical semideciduous
community. Although it might be something like a
cool temperate community, it is unlike anything
that is seem today and can easily be explained
as occupying the higher, and thus cooler and
wetter slopes of various adjacent volcanoes, from
which, the sediments of the Lamar River Formation
were derived. Changes in climate might even lower
the elevation of boundary between these communities
where the mixed coniferous community could have
ocassionally migrated downslope into and briefly
occupied areas within which parts of the Lamar
River Formation was accumulating. Since
increasingly cooler and wetter climate zones and
vegetational communities are typically found as
a person moves upslope on volcanic mountains, the
presence of fossils of the mixed coniferous
community in the Lamar River Formation is nothing
anomalous.Web pages to look are:Life Zones and Altitudinal Zonation
http://www.radford.edu/...SES/GEOG235/lifezone/lifezone.htmlMERRIAM'S LIFE ZONES
http://www.runet.edu/...LASSES/GEOG235/lifezone/merriam.htmlFinal Note:Amidon (1997) illustrated a number of in place /
non-transported / in situ stumps, some
with trunks, using photographs and line drawings.
For example, pictures and line drawing of
**rooted** trees buried in place can be found in
the section on pages 63 to 83, which is titled
"Palesol Analysis", on of his thesis.Also, as the section title implies, in addition to
solid evidence of **Rooted** trees within the
Gallatin part of the Yellowstone petrified forest,
Amidon (1997) also provides solid proof of the
fact that these stumps are rooted in well-developed
paleosols. Amidon (1997) recognized these "fossil
soils on the presence of well-developed soil horizons,
well-developed soil structures on both microscope
and megascopic scale, and demostrated alteration
of clay and other minerals that can be best explained
by the long-term weathering of sediments within an
active soil associated with a stable subaerial,
terrestrially exposed surface.Also, Amibon (1997) measured the orientation of logs
in the Yellowstone Petrified Forests. His results
show that Coffin greatly understated and misjudged
the variability of the orientations of horizontal logs
that are found within the Lamar River Formation.
Looking at Amibon (1997), I would have to conclude
that Coffin did an very bad job of measuring a
representative sample of logs in the Lamar River
Formation and that Coffin's paleocurrent are very
likely almost useless in making any inference about
the origin of the Lamar River Formation. Judging
from Amibon (1997), I suspect that Coffin's Journal
of Paleontology paper, eventually with further
research, will be shown to be an example of how even
sloppy and inaccurate research is published in a
peer-review journal. At the least, Amibon (1997)
certainly proves that Coffin's tight cluster of paleocurrent directions for logs in the Lamar River Formation
simply doesn't exist except in the wishful thinking
of Young Earth creationists.Reference cited:Amidon, L. (1997) Paleoclimate study of Eocene
fossil woods and associated Paleosols from the
Gallatin Petrified Forest, Gallatin National
Forest, SW Montana. unpublished Master's thesis.
University of Montana. Missoula, MT 142 pp.Yours,Bill Birkeland
Houston, Texas

"The diversity of plant communities
and environments argued by Young Earth creationists
is a false diversity that was created by earlier
conventional paleobontanists, in the past, and
continued by Young Earth creationists, in the present,
using hyper-uniformitarian assumptions that neither
the global climate of the Earth has nor
environmental preferences of the plants found
as fossils in Lamar River Formation have changed
over time."
--I'm not sure what your trying to counter here. I never presented the existence of multiple paleobotanical ecologies as a problem. I suggested that with this wide variety of ecologies, decomposition should occur in one or all of them.
--Fritz and Yuretich argue in their papers that they don't believe that the presence of these multiple ecologies should be interpreted as having resulted from changing climatic tolerances for the plants since the Eocene."Within the Lamar River Formation, there are only
two main plant communities. They are a tropical
/ paratropical semideciduous community and a
mixed coniferous community. The latter, like the
tropical / paratropical semideciduous community
has **no modern** analogue although it does
represent cooler and wetter environment than
the tropical / paratropical semideciduous
community. Although it might be something like a
cool temperate community, it is unlike anything
that is seem today and can easily be explained
as occupying the higher, and thus cooler and
wetter slopes of various adjacent volcanoes, from
which, the sediments of the Lamar River Formation
were derived. Changes in climate might even lower
the elevation of boundary between these communities
where the mixed coniferous community could have
ocassionally migrated downslope into and briefly
occupied areas within which parts of the Lamar
River Formation was accumulating. Since
increasingly cooler and wetter climate zones and
vegetational communities are typically found as
a person moves upslope on volcanic mountains, the
presence of fossils of the mixed coniferous
community in the Lamar River Formation is nothing
anomalous."
--True."Also, as the section title implies, in addition to
solid evidence of **Rooted** trees within the
Gallatin part of the Yellowstone petrified forest,
Amidon (1997) also provides solid proof of the
fact that these stumps are rooted in well-developed
paleosols. Amidon (1997) recognized these "fossil
soils on the presence of well-developed soil horizons,
well-developed soil structures on both microscope
and megascopic scale, and demostrated alteration
of clay and other minerals that can be best explained
by the long-term weathering of sediments within an
active soil associated with a stable subaerial,
terrestrially exposed surface.Also, Amibon (1997) measured the orientation of logs
in the Yellowstone Petrified Forests. His results
show that Coffin greatly understated and misjudged
the variability of the orientations of horizontal logs
that are found within the Lamar River Formation.
Looking at Amibon (1997), I would have to conclude
that Coffin did an very bad job of measuring a
representative sample of logs in the Lamar River
Formation and that Coffin's paleocurrent are very
likely almost useless in making any inference about
the origin of the Lamar River Formation. Judging
from Amibon (1997), I suspect that Coffin's Journal
of Paleontology paper, eventually with further
research, will be shown to be an example of how even
sloppy and inaccurate research is published in a
peer-review journal. At the least, Amibon (1997)
certainly proves that Coffin's tight cluster of paleocurrent directions for logs in the Lamar River Formation
simply doesn't exist except in the wishful thinking
of Young Earth creationists."
--I don't have Coffin's work, so I couldn't comment on that, though his Origins Publication is available online and I've read some of it. He gives a wide variation for orientations in the horizontal trees, and doesn't seem to try and explain them away but admits that there is indeed a wide variation in orientations.
--I am interested in the Amidon (1997) paper. How do the Gallatin Paleosols/Successive fossil forests reflect that seen at the Lamar River Formation?--[Edit] - You wouldn't happen to be able to send me a copy of Amidon's research would you? I have limited access to my local university library, assuming they even have a copy. Thanks.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-02-2003]

In Message 108 on 02-02-2003 04,
Truecreation stated:"Well then, he needs to talk to Coffin since there
are what Coffin calls 'organic zones' or something
like that. He also states that the organic zones
are up to 20 cm thick...." --I didn't give you a
full description. Fritz comments on organic zones
as well, though I don't recall him giving them a
characteristic of "20 cm thickness"In my opinion, the discussion of the organic zone is
a complete waste of time. I concluded this because,
at this time, the current position of conventional geologists
and pedologists who have studied the Lamar River
Formation, starting with Fritz in his 1980 dissertation
and ending with Amidon (1997), agree with Coffin
(1979, 1997) that the organic zones are: 1. not part of
any paleosol and 2. largely consist of water-rafted debris.Conventional geologists, at one time did argued that
the organic horizons are the O Horizons of fossil
soils. However, that is no longer the case. Thus,
arguments about whether they are paleosols or not
are now meaningless as far as current discussion of
the origins of the petrified forests found in the Lamar
River Formation are concerned.The paleosols that Retallack (1981) discussed and
illustrated in color by Retallack (1997), **are not
at all** associated with any of the "organic zones".
Rather they are layers of sediments characterized by
1. the horizonation found in soils, 2. the presence of
megascopic and microscopic features and textures
that are only found in soils and produced by soil
development, and 3. the actual alteration of the
sediment by in place weathering.References cited are:Coffin, H. G., 1979, The organic levels of the
Yellowstone Petrified National Forest. Origins.
vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 71-82.Coffin, H. G., 1997, The Yellowstone Petrified
"Forests" Origins. vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 2-44.Retallack, G. J., 1981, Comment on 'Reinterpretation
of Depositional Environment of the Yellowstone
"Fossil Forests"'. Geology. vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 52-53.Retallack, G. J., 1985, Laboratory Exercises in
Paleopedology. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.Retallack, G. J., 1997, A Colour Guide to Paleosols.
Chichester, United KingdomSuch paleosols are discussed by Amidon (1997).
For example, he stated:"Fossil tree V15 and associated palesol (Figure 26a)
are located approximately 80 m stratigraphically
above other units examined in detail. V15 consists
predominately of an extensive root system penetrating
a moderately well differentiated paleosol (Figure 26b).
The uppermost exposed layer is an olive gray Bt
horizon (B horizon with clay accumulate) consisting
of a massive, well indurated siltstone. The Bt horizon
is underlain by a Bq horizon (B horizon with quartz
accumulate) consisting of a greenish gray blocky
siltstone encased in a crystalline matrix which
grades to a brown, granular fine sandstone. The
lowermost C horizon exposed in this section is
composed of slightly modified parent material. Strata
associated with V15 are interpreted to be paleosol
formed in situ as a result of prolonged weathering."Amidon (1997) also, reported the presence of clay
formed by the weathering volcanic sediment associated
with this paleosol.The fact of the matter is that Bt and Bq horizons
form only by the weathering of loose sediment. It is
impossible for the deposition of sediment to create
a sequence of soil horizons, identifiable by their
microscopic and megascopic characters, like those
noted by Amidon (1997) and illustrated by Retallack
(1985, 1997).This is significant because the Gallatin petrified forests
are not only identical to the Specimen Ridge petrified
forests but have been by geological mapping to be
shown to be part of the Lamar River Formation and
are approximately the same age as the Specimen
Ridge petrified forests. It is impossible to argue that
they have different origins as they are identical in
physical characteristics, stratigraphic position, and
wood taphonomy. They occur a few miles north of the
Specimen Ridge petrified forest.References cited:Amidon, L. (1997) Paleoclimate study of Eocene
fossil woods and associated Paleosols from the
Gallatin Petrified Forest, Gallatin National
Forest, SW Montana. unpublished Master's thesis.
University of Montana. Missoula, MT 142 pp.Retallack, G. J., 1985, Laboratory Exercises in
Paleopedology. University of Oregon, Eugene,
Oregon.http://www.uoregon.edu/...i/retall/Paleoclasses/geol435.htmlRetallack, G. J., 1997, A Colour Guide to Paleosols.
Chichester, United KingdomSome web pages of interest:"SOILSCAPES OF THE PAST - This set of published
reconstructions of ancient landscapes and their
soils provide an overview of the evolution of
soils and landscapes through geological time" at:http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~dogsci/retall/soils.html"SCIENTIFIC DIAGRAMS - Much science can be conveyed
in diagrams: here are a few that capture the nature
of my research. Click on the image for greater detailhttp://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~dogsci/retall/figs.htmlBasics in soils:Lecture 4, Soil Morphology
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/...qp-p/courses/env320/lec4/Lec4.htmlBill Birkeland
Houston, Texas

quote:

---

"Well then, he needs to talk to Coffin since there
are what Coffin calls 'organic zones' or something
like that. He also states that the organic zones
are up to 20 cm thick...."

​

--I didn't give you a
full description. Fritz comments on organic zones
as well, though I don't recall him giving them a
characteristic of "20 cm thickness"

​

BB: In my opinion, the discussion of the organic zone is
a complete waste of time.

---

Agreed. Somehow, in this discussion, the 'paleosols' have taken on a life of their own. I have seen organic 'zones' a number of times in mapping volcaniclastics, but cannot say that they make much sense.

quote:

---

I concluded this because,
at this time, the current position of conventional geologists
and pedologists who have studied the Lamar River
Formation, starting with Fritz in his 1980 dissertation
and ending with Amidon (1997), agree with Coffin
(1979, 1997) that the organic zones are: 1. not part of
any paleosol and 2. largely consist of water-rafted debris.

​

Conventional geologists, at one time did argued that
the organic horizons are the O Horizons of fossil
soils. However, that is no longer the case. Thus,
arguments about whether they are paleosols or not
are now meaningless as far as current discussion of
the origins of the petrified forests found in the Lamar
River Formation are concerned.

---

From the photographs given by Coffin here, I would agree. There are probably no soils involved, but the growth of trees is not precluded.Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...

quote:

---

"Fossil tree V15 and associated palesol (Figure 26a)
are located approximately 80 m stratigraphically
above other units examined in detail. V15 consists
predominately of an extensive root system penetrating
a moderately well differentiated paleosol (Figure 26b).

---

An extensive root system? That isn't what we have heard from Coffin and others. I feel like I am getting snapshots of a much larger scene here.

quote:

---

The uppermost exposed layer is an olive gray Bt
horizon (B horizon with clay accumulate) consisting
of a massive, well indurated siltstone. The Bt horizon
is underlain by a Bq horizon (B horizon with quartz
accumulate) consisting of a greenish gray blocky
siltstone encased in a crystalline matrix which
grades to a brown, granular fine sandstone. The
lowermost C horizon exposed in this section is
composed of slightly modified parent material. Strata
associated with V15 are interpreted to be paleosol
formed in situ as a result of prolonged weathering."

---

So, in some places there are documentable soils in the Gallatin Forest.

quote:

---

Amidon (1997) also, reported the presence of clay
formed by the weathering volcanic sediment associated
with this paleosol.

---

I believe this is something that Coffin denied in the Specimen Ridge sites.Thanks, once again, for your expertise.

"An extensive root system? That isn't what we have heard from Coffin and others. I feel like I am getting snapshots of a much larger scene here."
--I don't think Coffin did his work on the Gallatin location?------------------

quote:

---

"I guess I have to explain everything to you. There is no correlation between areas and levels in the orientation of the horizontal logs. This is not what one would expect if they were deposited from a global flood surge as you suggest. Remember TB's 'continentally correlated, rapid paleocurrents'?"

​

--Fritz reported dominant orientations for logs in Amethyst Mountain and Cache creek. Even still though. Orientations of horizontal logs in my setting is more due to the direction of the mud flow at the L.R. Formation.

---

I was referring to the deposition of logs by flood surges as per your scenario. If the paleocurrents are so consistent as TB (and you?) contend, why are the log orientations so divergent?

quote:

---

"More like skeptical. Why can he not give us the details? I would guess because he has an agenda. "

​

--I don't have coffins work (nor do I know exactly what work of his you cite), but I do know that Coffin has an abundance of citations on the subject. In my Yuretich & Fritz articles, they cite him 4 times. Despite your skepticism, it is just your guess.

---

See my response to Bill B. It is not a blind guess. It is an educated guess. Coffin is subtlely trying to advance an agenda of flood deposition of the trees (excuse me, that's a 'global flood' just so you aren't confused). Heck, even I can figure that out.

quote:

---

--You've said that the presence of 'soils' extinguished the veracity of my model before, so how do they?

---

Actually, your story is so convoluted, I'm not so sure. However, if there was time for soils to develop, your one year (global) flood is in serious trouble.

quote:

---

--How about you present something which is diagnostic evidence for yours and against mine or something?

---

The presence of documented paleosoils in the Gallatins and the presence of trees in growth position. These militate against a flood surge model such as you have proposed. You model cannot accomodate these items.

quote:

---

--[2] - Right, root systems which are generally dwarfed in comparison to what should be observed (even though we do find occasional larger root systems, but this doesn't put aside the fact that we don't see this for the majority of the in situ trees). Again--hence the root ball appearance.

---

All I an say is read some of the descriptions, including Amidon, and then explain the divergence of opinions to us.

quote:

---

--Which resource have you located?[of Coffin]

---

See my response to BB.

quote:

---

--[edit] - I'd also like a response to post #98.

---

I'll look it up. Is it still relevant in light of new information presented here?

quote:

---

"An extensive root system? That isn't what we have heard from Coffin and others. I feel like I am getting snapshots of a much larger scene here."

​

--I don't think Coffin did his work on the Gallatin location?

---

Check out BB's last post. He makes a convincing argument for them being virtually the same deposit, or at least an identical setting.

"I was referring to the deposition of logs by flood surges as per your scenario. If the paleocurrents are so consistent as TB (and you?) contend, why are the log orientations so divergent?"
--Because their orientations are may have very little to do with the direction of water flow, but of the conglomeratic flow. Especially for those which are entirely encased in conglomerate.

quote:

---

Orientations of horizontal logs in my setting is more due to the direction of the mud flow at the L.R. Formation.

---

"See my response to Bill B. It is not a blind guess. It is an educated guess. Coffin is subtlely trying to advance an agenda of flood deposition of the trees (excuse me, that's a 'global flood' just so you aren't confused). Heck, even I can figure that out."
--It may not be a blind guess and could be an 'educated guess' as you say it, though I don't know how you come to the conclusion or even a confident speculation from just reading one paper of his. Do I admit that it is possible he is just trying to 'advance his agenda'? Sure, but I don't know."Actually, your story is so convoluted, I'm not so sure.^[1] However, if there was time for soils to develop, your one year (global) flood is in serious trouble.^[2]"
--[1] - Please explain one aspect where my 'story' is so convoluted.
--[2] - Not necessarily, but yes, if I don't have enough time to produce that seen in supposed "paleosols", I have a problem. This just isn't seen in the Lamar River Formation."The presence of documented paleosoils in the Gallatins and the presence of trees in growth position. These militate against a flood surge model such as you have proposed. You model cannot accomodate these items."
--This was the same argument you gave in regards to specimen ridge earlier, and has turned to insignificance. I have no documented source for the Gallaten fossil forests so I, nor you, could discuss this yet. Until Bill Birkeland would be able to either tell me where I could get a copy of his citation or have him give me a copy somehow, I couldn't comment on that seen in Gallatin."All I an say is read some of the descriptions, including Amidon, and then explain the divergence of opinions to us."
--Apparently Amidon studied that seen in the Gallatin fossil forests, and no matter what is seen at the Gallatin forests it does not plead for your case in regards to that seen in the Lamar River formation locations I have been discussing."--Which resource have you located?[of Coffin]You: See my response to BB."
--Then I see where some of your misunderstandings may have came from, his 1997 origins article isn't one of his more relevant field studies such as:Coffin, H., 1976, Orientations of trees in the Yellowstone petrified forests: Journal of Paleontology, v.50 p. 539-5431979, The organic levels of the Yellowstone petrified forests: Origins, v. 6 p. 71-821979, The Yellowstone petrified forests: Sectrum, v. 9, p. 42-43.1983, Mount St. Helens and Spirit Lake: Origins, v. 10, p. 9-17."I'll look it up. Is it still relevant in light of new information presented here?"
--It is until and unless you find that there is no requirement for in situ growth of those trees seen in the Lamar River Formation and Specimen Ridge fossil "forests".-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-08-2003]

quote:

---

--Because their orientations are may have very little to do with the direction of water flow, but of the conglomeratic flow. Especially for those which are entirely encased in conglomerate.

---

Okay, I'd agree with that in the absence of actual data.

quote:

---

"See my response to Bill B. It is not a blind guess. It is an educated guess. Coffin is subtlely trying to advance an agenda of flood deposition of the trees (excuse me, that's a 'global flood' just so you aren't confused). Heck, even I can figure that out."

​

--It may not be a blind guess and could be an 'educated guess' as you say it, though I don't know how you come to the conclusion or even a confident speculation from just reading one paper of his.

---

Do you really think I don't know any creationists?

quote:

---

"Actually, your story is so convoluted, I'm not so sure.[1] However, if there was time for soils to develop, your one year (global) flood is in serious trouble.[2]"
--[1] - Please explain one aspect where my 'story' is so convoluted.

---

Okay, so we've got these trees floating on a flood surge and somehow they sink into the floodwaters and deposit themselves in an upright position. They are undisturbed because the ebb surge is blocked by a lake-forming dam of debris flow. Oh, yeah, the bark and plant litter also sinks at the same time. Then lacustrine sedimentation fills in around the trees to hold them upright so when the flood waters finally ebb the trees remain upright. After that, we have another debris flow to cut off the tops of the upright trees and redeposit them as horizontal logs miraculously at the same level as the upright trees.The we do this again.Twenty-six times in the same place.In one year.Oh, and according to TB (I think) this is all done with marine waters.And the ebbing flood surge that cannot overcome a mudflow dam, but travels at fantastic speeds across the earth....And never mind the stupendous rates of sedimentation necessary to form the lacustrine deposits to support the trees (sediments that are barely present anyway)...Are you getting the idea yet? I'm sure if we fit this in with some of your other timetables, such as the cyclothems of the Paleozoic, it would get even more interesting (and convoluted)...

quote:

---

--[2] - Not necessarily, but yes, if I don't have enough time to produce that seen in supposed "paleosols", I have a problem. This just isn't seen in the Lamar River Formation.

---

Oh well, just a little detail, eh?

quote:

---

"The presence of documented paleosoils in the Gallatins and the presence of trees in growth position. These militate against a flood surge model such as you have proposed. You model cannot accomodate these items."

​

--This was the same argument you gave in regards to specimen ridge earlier, and has turned to insignificance. I have no documented source for the Gallaten fossil forests so I, nor you, could discuss this yet. Until Bill Birkeland would be able to either tell me where I could get a copy of his citation or have him give me a copy somehow, I couldn't comment on that seen in Gallatin.

---

You have been given a direct quote in which horizonation (not 'horizontation' as you originally posted) was described along with a classic soil description. Just another thing to ignore, I suppose.

quote:

---

"All I an say is read some of the descriptions, including Amidon, and then explain the divergence of opinions to us."

​

--Apparently Amidon studied that seen in the Gallatin fossil forests, and no matter what is seen at the Gallatin forests it does not plead for your case in regards to that seen in the Lamar River formation locations I have been discussing.

---

Okay, we can just ignore Bill's point on this. That is very convenient for you, of course.

quote:

---

--Then I see where some of your misunderstandings may have came from, his 1997 origins article isn't one of his more relevant field studies such as:

​

(references snipped)

---

Okay, so explain how these are different.

quote:

---

"I'll look it up. Is it still relevant in light of new information presented here?"

​

--It is until and unless you find that there is no requirement for in situ growth of those trees seen in the Lamar River Formation and Specimen Ridge fossil "forests".

---

As yet, I have no reason to doubt that there were in situ forests at Specimen Ridge. At least certainly not by any arguments you have made.

"Okay, I'd agree with that in the absence of actual data."
--Well you don't have to take my word for it, just to get the "actual data", because its what I am quoting verbatim."Do you really think I don't know any creationists? "
--I don't know what that is supposed to mean."Okay, so we've got these trees floating on a flood surge and somehow they sink into the floodwaters and deposit themselves in an upright position. They are undisturbed because the ebb surge is blocked by a lake-forming dam of debris flow. Oh, yeah, the bark and plant litter also sinks at the same time.
--I didn't say anything about 'sinking' for the trees, but yes, much of the plant litter mats 'sank'."Then lacustrine sedimentation fills in around the trees to hold them upright so when the flood waters finally ebb the trees remain upright. After that, we have another debris flow to cut off the tops of the upright trees and redeposit them as horizontal logs miraculously at the same level as the upright trees."
--How would this be 'miraculous'? According to this model, its definite that they would be deposited in the conglomeratic deposits above the sandstone."The we do this again.Twenty-six times in the same place."
--I've explained how the stratigraphy of the Lamar Ridge Formation are is not in layered cake fashion, so this is a bit of a straw-man."Oh, and according to TB (I think) this is all done with marine waters. "
--Thats because TB hasn't read the literature."And the ebbing flood surge that cannot overcome a mudflow dam, but travels at fantastic speeds across the earth...."
--It was a surge, not a tsunami..."And never mind the stupendous rates of sedimentation necessary to form the lacustrine deposits to support the trees (sediments that are barely present anyway)...
--So which one is it? It isn't just lacustrine sediments in the tuffaceous sandstone."Are you getting the idea yet? I'm sure if we fit this in with some of your other timetables, such as the cyclothems of the Paleozoic, it would get even more interesting (and convoluted)..."
--I think you are starting to get it. But the only thing you've presented in this whole segment is your incredulity, you need to give me objective inconsistencies, not your incredulity."You have been given a direct quote in which horizonation (not 'horizontation' as you originally posted) was described along with a classic soil description. Just another thing to ignore, I suppose."
--No, I never said I would ignore it, only that it isn't of great significance until I can get the field studies. And what is this about horizontation? Either Bill made a typo, or its a simple variation in the pedogenic literature."--Apparently Amidon studied that seen in the Gallatin fossil forests, and no matter what is seen at the Gallatin forests it does not plead for your case in regards to that seen in the Lamar River formation locations I have been discussing.You: Okay, we can just ignore Bill's point on this. That is very convenient for you, of course."
--This isn't what I said. Even if Gallatin fossil forests has something different, this doesn't plead for your case against in situ deposition for the Lamar Ridge Formation. Which you still have to address."Okay, so explain how these are different."
--You earlier made speculation regarding Coffin and his descriptions of the organic zones, the horizontation of specimen ridge, etc. You've stated that 'he overlooks a lot of other details', though most of those details are in his other works."As yet, I have no reason to doubt that there were in situ forests at Specimen Ridge. At least certainly not by any arguments you have made."
--So you've come to a conclusion regarding the root systems of the Lamar Ridge Formation? Please reproduce them here please.
Thanks
-------------------

quote:

---

"Okay, I'd agree with that in the absence of actual data."

​

--Well you don't have to take my word for it, just to get the "actual data", because its what I am quoting verbatim.

---

What I mean is that in the absence of any contradictory evidence, I fully accept this.

quote:

---

"Do you really think I don't know any creationists? "

​

--I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

---

It means I KNOW that creationists ALWAYS have an agenda of 'proving' their point. Sometimes they are relatively subtle as Coffin was in the cited paper, but agenda are always there.

quote:

---

"Okay, so we've got these trees floating on a flood surge and somehow they sink into the floodwaters and deposit themselves in an upright position. They are undisturbed because the ebb surge is blocked by a lake-forming dam of debris flow. Oh, yeah, the bark and plant litter also sinks at the same time.

​

--I didn't say anything about 'sinking' for the trees, but yes, much of the plant litter mats 'sank'.

---

Well, I think you were the one who referred us to Spirit Lake.

quote:

---

"Then lacustrine sedimentation fills in around the trees to hold them upright so when the flood waters finally ebb the trees remain upright. After that, we have another debris flow to cut off the tops of the upright trees and redeposit them as horizontal logs miraculously at the same level as the upright trees."

​

--How would this be 'miraculous'? According to this model, its definite that they would be deposited in the conglomeratic deposits above the sandstone.

---

Well, good, then you can show this.

quote:

---

"The we do this again.

​

Twenty-six times in the same place."

​

--I've explained how the stratigraphy of the Lamar Ridge Formation are is not in layered cake fashion, so this is a bit of a straw-man.

---

Then you haven't explained yourself. How do we get in-place forests on top of in-place forests?

quote:

---

"Oh, and according to TB (I think) this is all done with marine waters. "

​

--Thats because TB hasn't read the literature.

---

Well, he seemed pretty self-assured.

quote:

---

"And the ebbing flood surge that cannot overcome a mudflow dam, but travels at fantastic speeds across the earth...."

​

--It was a surge, not a tsunami...

---

Oh, I guess it was TB who had the rapid currents. Hey, you know what some creationists would say if two evolutionists disagree on various points, don't you?

quote:

---

"And never mind the stupendous rates of sedimentation necessary to form the lacustrine deposits to support the trees (sediments that are barely present anyway)...

​

--So which one is it? It isn't just lacustrine sediments in the tuffaceous sandstone.

---

Okay, then, where are the ash fall tuffs that supported the trees. I do not see them in Coffin's photos.

quote:

---

"Are you getting the idea yet? I'm sure if we fit this in with some of your other timetables, such as the cyclothems of the Paleozoic, it would get even more interesting (and convoluted)..."

​

--I think you are starting to get it. But the only thing you've presented in this whole segment is your incredulity, you need to give me objective inconsistencies, not your incredulity.

---

No. I do not see the types of volcaniclastic deposits that you call upon in your model. Especially not in 26 (or whatever) consecutive deposits. I also see soil development in identical deposits of the same age nearby. I also hear about well-developed root systems from several sources. I do not see submarine(?) mudflow dams, though they could be there, I suppose. And I do not see geological environments turning over like this in the modern world. But most of all, I do not see how this just-so story could be interpreted to support a global flood. Not having been to the site puts me at something of a disadvantage, but I think I am fairly capable of interpreting the literature and photographs.

quote:

---

"You have been given a direct quote in which horizonation (not 'horizontation' as you originally posted) was described along with a classic soil description. Just another thing to ignore, I suppose."

​

--No, I never said I would ignore it, only that it isn't of great significance until I can get the field studies.

---

Oh, it is significant all right. It directly refutes most of your statements. You might just say that it is presently unknown to you, but certainly not insignificant.

quote:

---

And what is this about horizontation? Either Bill made a typo, or its a simple variation in the pedogenic literature.

---

Horizonation makes more sense, since soils develop A, B, etc. 'horizons.' Horisontation makes little sense in this discussion, but it did throw me for a long time...

quote:

---

"--Apparently Amidon studied that seen in the Gallatin fossil forests, and no matter what is seen at the Gallatin forests it does not plead for your case in regards to that seen in the Lamar River formation locations I have been discussing.

​

You: Okay, we can just ignore Bill's point on this. That is very convenient for you, of course."

​

--This isn't what I said. Even if Gallatin fossil forests has something different, this doesn't plead for your case against in situ deposition for the Lamar Ridge Formation. Which you still have to address.

---

Please read for comprehension. Bill made the argument that the two locations are practically adjacent, they are of the same age and they exhibit the same fossil features. The Formations may correlate exactly. If you are saying he is wrong that is fine, but come out and say it.

quote:

---

"Okay, so explain how these are different."

​

--You earlier made speculation regarding Coffin and his descriptions of the organic zones, the horizontation of specimen ridge, etc. You've stated that 'he overlooks a lot of other details', though most of those details are in his other works.

---

Like the fact that all of his vertical tree trunks on the mud flow happen to be sawn trunks? Does he point this out? Does he show who most trees transported by mudflows end up laying flat?

quote:

---

"As yet, I have no reason to doubt that there were in situ forests at Specimen Ridge. At least certainly not by any arguments you have made."

​

--So you've come to a conclusion regarding the root systems of the Lamar Ridge Formation? Please reproduce them here please.

---

Yes. From the descriptions that Coffin glossed over, and the evidence posed by Amidon (from Bill), I conclude that there likely were locally well-developed soil profiles with in situ trees with well-developed root systems growing in them. Anomalies in this situation are related to the proximal volcanic depositional environment.

"What I mean is that in the absence of any contradictory evidence, I fully accept this."
--Ok."It means I KNOW that creationists ALWAYS have an agenda of 'proving' their point. Sometimes they are relatively subtle as Coffin was in the cited paper, but agenda are always there. "
--*Sniff Sniff*.. I smell prejudice."Well, I think you were the one who referred us to Spirit Lake."
--No, Spirit Lake wasn't referenced in our discourse regarding Paleosols (mainly in this thread) until Post #63, interestingly by TB. I don't think I made reference or any sort of appeal to that seen at Spirit Lake in this thread even once."Well, good, then you can show this."
--Well lets see, you've got some tuffaceous sandstone with a few trees which were deposited in situ. Then we have a conglomeratic flow plowing through this setting. What we get is the conglomeratic flow above the sandstone and trees getting abraded, broken, and uprooted by this flow (depending on the location in the L. R. Formation). Simple superposition."Then you haven't explained yourself. How do we get in-place forests on top of in-place forests?"
--I explained this in post #98:

quote:

---

My model consists of a surge which transports trees and plant litter to the location. Mud flows, previously existing or during its transpire made a dam so a temporary lake would be formed. While the trees were in the lake, those which were upright would become rooted in the sediments below from deposition of tuffaceous sandstones and ash fall. During which time, evidence of the lacustrine environment would be seen in the sandstones and larger deposits of lacustrine mudstones. Subsequent conglomeratic flows would spread across the formation, flattening many trees proximal the vents(all, with the exception of a few small intervals in the Specimen Ridge section, fossilized horizontal logs are most abundant and make up 60% - 100% of the total). Any questions?

---

"Oh, I guess it was TB who had the rapid currents. Hey, you know what some creationists would say if two evolutionists disagree on various points, don't you?"
--Yes I do know, this is one of the biggest problems with today's Young Earth Creationists. A good example being gradual evolution & punc Equ. I don't think I tackle such disputes the way most of my fellow YEC's might."Okay, then, where are the ash fall tuffs that supported the trees. I do not see them in Coffin's photos."
--Coffin goes over some of this in the stratigraphy section of his 1997 origins paper."No. I do not see the types of volcaniclastic deposits that you call upon in your model. Especially not in 26 (or whatever) consecutive deposits."
--What are these volcaniclastic deposits that "I call upon in my model" which I don't have and need[according to you]?"I also see soil development in identical deposits of the same age nearby."
--Your going to have to explain the problem here, I thought we already went over this, the "paleosols" in the Lamar Ridge formation, arent paleosols and were deposited as is[in my model]."I also hear about well-developed root systems from several sources."
--We've gone over the insignificance of the phrase 'well developed' here plenty of times. In accordance with the works of Fritz & Yuretich(and Coffin, which you have) which I have been citing, as well as personal conversation with Yuretich, you have short root systems with a root ball appearance. These short root systems are in situ the tuffaceous sandstone and the supposed 'paleosols'. This is something which you require for explanation, not me."I do not see submarine(?) mudflow dams, though they could be there, I suppose."
--Yuretich [1984] has a model which is similar to mine when it comes to the buildup of a temporary lacustrine environment in response to the mud flows. The main difference here is that in his case, the fluvial network was dammed by these flows. Mine is still similar, though the source of the water was due to a local rise in sea level."And I do not see geological environments turning over like this in the modern world."
--We might, I don't recall any reference to one. Even so, if your speculation were true, neither one of our models could be considered plausible."But most of all, I do not see how this just-so story could be interpreted to support a global flood."
--Initially I actually never attempted to try and make it diagnostic evidence for a global flood, but I've found that it is pretty good evidence. It is supportive because it requires successive surges which could only occur in a global flood scenario. Since they seem to have all been transported before their in situ deposition, this supports my model for them being transported by successive surges."Oh, it is significant all right. It directly refutes most of your statements. You might just say that it is presently unknown to you, but certainly not insignificant."
--It is insignificant until we can actually view this data. I am not saying that the data itself isn't insignificant. True, if the Gallatin fossil forests hold characteristics which I cannot explain, my hypothesis isn't going to hold up as well as it would without it. I just can't verify this until I get a hold of the information. Apparently it is an 'unpublished thesis' so it would be more difficult to get ahold of it. I still want Bill to give me a hand there if he can."Horizonation makes more sense, since soils develop A, B, etc. 'horizons.' Horisontation makes little sense in this discussion, but it did throw me for a long time..."
--I used 'horizontation' as opposed to 'horizonation' because that is how it was used in my resources from Rettallack (Soils of the Past, 2002) and the text I read, Diagenesis III which I quoted once or twice early in this thread."Please read for comprehension. Bill made the argument that the two locations are practically adjacent, they are of the same age and they exhibit the same fossil features. The Formations may correlate exactly. If you are saying he is wrong that is fine, but come out and say it. "
--No I am not saying he is wrong. What I am saying is that that doesn't effect the question for whether the root systems of the Lamar Ridge section are indicative of transport antecedent the in situ deposition (as opposed to in place growth)."Like the fact that all of his vertical tree trunks on the mud flow happen to be sawn trunks? Does he point this out? Does he show who most trees transported by mudflows end up laying flat?"
--I only have one of his articles and that is the one which you have. I wouldn't be able to argue much on this without them."Yes. From the descriptions that Coffin glossed over, and the evidence posed by Amidon (from Bill), I conclude that there likely were locally well-developed soil profiles with in situ trees with well-developed root systems growing in them. Anomalies in this situation are related to the proximal volcanic depositional environment.
"
--Funny. You haven't even read Amidon. And I'm not just talking about that seen in Gallatin, I'm talking about those root systems seen in the Lamar Ridge formation.
--So, were those trees in the Lamar Ridge formation deposited in situ? Or did they grow in situ If they grew there, please explain the short root systems. If you concur they were deposited there, I applaud, and we can then conclude that those successive forests seen in the Specimen Ridge, Amethyst Mountain, Mount Norris, Mount Hornaday and Cache Creek Lamar formations could plausibly have been deposited in the model which I have proposed. Then we can move on to another subject (eg. Gallatin).------------------

quote:

---

"It means I KNOW that creationists ALWAYS have an agenda of 'proving' their point. Sometimes they are relatively subtle as Coffin was in the cited paper, but agenda are always there. "

​

--*Sniff Sniff*.. I smell prejudice.

---

Have you redefined prejudice to be always negative? I rather think of it as critical analysis. [quote]"Well, I think you were the one who referred us to Spirit Lake."--No, Spirit Lake wasn't referenced in our discourse regarding Paleosols (mainly in this thread) until Post #63, interestingly by TB. I don't think I made reference or any sort of appeal to that seen at Spirit Lake in this thread even once.[quote] Well, then you need to elaborate how the trees were deposited in an upright position. I thought the Spirit Lake model was a panacea for creationists.

quote:

---

"Well, good, then you can show this."

​

--Well lets see, you've got some tuffaceous sandstone with a few trees which were deposited in situ.

---

Please point these out in some photos, such as Coffin's.

quote:

---

"Then you haven't explained yourself. How do we get in-place forests on top of in-place forests?"

​

--I explained this in post #98:

---

This did not explain it. The question is how you plant numerous forsts on top of each other.

quote:

---

"Oh, I guess it was TB who had the rapid currents. Hey, you know what some creationists would say if two evolutionists disagree on various points, don't you?"

​

--Yes I do know, this is one of the biggest problems with today's Young Earth Creationists. A good example being gradual evolution & punc Equ. I don't think I tackle such disputes the way most of my fellow YEC's might.

---

You show uncommon insight here. Now show us the same insight as to formation of numerous superimposed forests by sequential lakes formed by fortuitous mudflows.

quote:

---

"Okay, then, where are the ash fall tuffs that supported the trees. I do not see them in Coffin's photos."

​

--Coffin goes over some of this in the stratigraphy section of his 1997 origins paper.

---

Are there photographs? It seems that each upright tree should be primarily encased in ash fall material.

quote:

---

"No. I do not see the types of volcaniclastic deposits that you call upon in your model. Especially not in 26 (or whatever) consecutive deposits."

​

--What are these volcaniclastic deposits that "I call upon in my model" which I don't have and need[according to you]?

---

Mudflows. And you are the one who suggested them to form lakes.

quote:

---

"I also see soil development in identical deposits of the same age nearby."

​

--Your going to have to explain the problem here, I thought we already went over this, the "paleosols" in the Lamar Ridge formation, arent paleosols and were deposited as is[in my model].

---

No, it is just that the soils are better preserved in the Gallatins. Probably this is a function of poorly developed entisols and better developed soils farther north.

quote:

---

"I also hear about well-developed root systems from several sources."

​

--We've gone over the insignificance of the phrase 'well developed' here plenty of times. In accordance with the works of Fritz & Yuretich(and Coffin, which you have) which I have been citing, as well as personal conversation with Yuretich, you have short root systems with a root ball appearance. These short root systems are in situ the tuffaceous sandstone and the supposed 'paleosols'. This is something which you require for explanation, not me.

---

No, you have to explain why they are called 'well-developed' but refuse to acknowledge the fact.

quote:

---

"I do not see submarine(?) mudflow dams, though they could be there, I suppose."

​

--Yuretich [1984] has a model which is similar to mine when it comes to the buildup of a temporary lacustrine environment in response to the mud flows. The main difference here is that in his case, the fluvial network was dammed by these flows. Mine is still similar, though the source of the water was due to a local rise in sea level.

---

Everyone has that model these days. The point is that noone has it damming a flood surge for which there is no evidence in the first place. Tell us which deposits at Specimen Ridge are the flood deposits. You have left out this little detail.

quote:

---

"And I do not see geological environments turning over like this in the modern world."

​

--We might, I don't recall any reference to one. Even so, if your speculation were true, neither one of our models could be considered plausible.

---

Twenty some (or more) times?

quote:

---

"But most of all, I do not see how this just-so story could be interpreted to support a global flood."

​

--Initially I actually never attempted to try and make it diagnostic evidence for a global flood, but I've found that it is pretty good evidence. It is supportive because it requires successive surges which could only occur in a global flood scenario. Since they seem to have all been transported before their in situ deposition, this supports my model for them being transported by successive surges.

---

I trust we will never hear the old "circular reasoning" argument from you.Maybe more later. However, I don't see you helping yourself here.