Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I see what you mean. I did invert your ratio. Sorry.
--Simple mistake, no problem.
You mean like the good roots systems which are as they should be for in situ trees
--'Good root systems' maybe, but that is a subjective characteristic. The fact is that I can see no reason why they would be shaped the way they are without abrasion. As explained in post #226, the structure of the root systems of the rooted trees at speciment ridge should be considerably variable and diversified in accordance with the type of tree. However, the morphology of the root systems are all about the same, narrow, when in fact they should not be in an in situ growth model.
, and the fact that are soil horizons as there should be for insitu trees
--The exact pedogenic structure of the soils are unknown to me, as I do not have Amidon's thesis or good data on the 'soils' of specimen ridge or any other Yellowstone region. I admit, this is the only thing that may potentially be inconsistent with my model, but I don't have the data to come to any definite conclusion.
and fact that the is evidence of the lahars flowing around the in situ trees
--Not a problem, this is expected in my model. The trees were initially deposited, and the lahar was a subsequent event. These flow structures are not surprising.
and the fact that there is no evidence of current activity in sandstones around roots.
--Sure there is. There are abundant flame structures and ripple cross laminations around the roots of many of the trees. The tuffaceous sandstone is composed of 80 to 90% water-transported air-fall ash and 10 to 20% reworked detrital volcaniclastic material. Furthermore, they exhibit graded bedding. They are also the substrate in which the vertical trees are rooted and what you would interpreted as having grown in situ. In addition, the tuffaceous sandstones contain abundant well preserved pollen, leaves, needles, and some cones, as would be expected in my model where all of this detritus, the sediments, and the trees were deposited simultaneously.
It is possible to explain how the bark could have been carried away by the lahars
--Explain then.
and there is nothing at Specimen Ridge that requires an impossible scenario of a worldwide flood setting up 9 to 12 sets of forest just before each is buried by a lahar from a nearby volcano.
--I agree. In fact, if the whole world were flooded at the time, we would not see these fossil forests. Instead, I attribute it to successive regional surges during the catastrophe. At least 6 points completely complement the hypothesis and tend to disagree with an in situ growth model.
So what you are now saying is that the trees were brought in by a flood and set upright in a lake that then buried by the flood standing up and then a had a lahar sweep over them and then soild developed and then the process was repeated 9 to 12 times. How did that work on specimen ridge?
--I must emphasize the fact that the specimen ridge forests are not in layer cake fashion; most beds cannot be traced for more than ~100 meters laterally and most beds interfinger with others. lacustrine environments would be very regional, and would be small reservoirs of water left behind when surges abated--possibly being aided by daming via the conglomeratic mud flows.
--So basically a surge brought in the trees, some of which were deposited upright (along with plenty of other organic material and the tuffaceous sandstone). Then after the water abated, a subsequent lahar leveled proximal trees and with distance, more trees were able to remain upright. This process was repeated sporatically approximately 9-12 times.
Further in the pictures I have seen of the "floating log raft" on Spirit Lake shorter stumps were somewhat upright though at various angles and longer trees were mostly horizontal and whole think was quite a jumble.
--I think you understate the significance. Coffin took a survey of the trees at spirit lake and found that there were many trees that were upright, and furthermore, many that were at the spirit lake bottom:
Coffin, H.G., The yellowstone petrified "forests", Origins 24(1):2-44 (1997).
Figure 23. A small sample of the log raft on Spirit Lake. The upright trees in the foreground are lightly grounded in shallow water, whereas those in the background are floating free.
Figure 25. Floating tree trunks with tops protruding above the surface of Spirit Lake. In time they likely will sink upright and disappear into the depths if the water is sufficiently deep.
Some have argued that Spirit Lake is not a good analog for the Yellowstone Fossil Forests, because the large number of logs accumulating on the bottom of Spirit Lake is very different from the more scattered fossil logs and stumps in Yellowstone. However, one important difference between the two deposits is that Spirit Lake has not had adequate sediment input to bury the sinking logs and stumps. If the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption had been followed by a series of volcanic breccia flows into Spirit Lake, spaced long enough apart to bury successive sets of logs and stumps as they sank, it would likely have produced a deposit very similar to the Yellowstone Fossil Forests.
This doesn't jive with 80% of the trees standing up in some places on specimen ridge and it being the taller trees that are upright.
--sure it does.
You have been telling us that you can't model a worldwide flood in a bathtub. What makes you think you can model it in a lake?
--The difference is that the bathtub is no the world. We can model regional events in a 'bathtub' sort of context because we don't have varying extremes with environmental conditions. I am not modeling a 'worldwide flood' here, I am modeling a minute strictly regional component of it.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Last edited by TrueCreation; 15th November 2003 at 04:34 PM.
Among your pictures I see a total of maybe 6 upright trees. Somehow you forgot to show us the huge mass of totally horizontal trees in the log rafts on Spirit Lake. I'll look for some pics later.
Again I ask how does a lake trap trees on a ridge? You also need this complex scenario to repeated 9 to 12 times. How is that the flood set up 9 to 12 successive forests and that there just happened to be lahar flows after each forest was set up? Oh and didn't you say something about air born ash? Of course this all has to happpen after the flood has deposited all the underlying sediments as well. Did you ever hear of Occam's Razor?
--'Good root systems' maybe, but that is a subjective characteristic. The fact is that I can see no reason why they would be shaped the way they are without abrasion. As explained in post #226, the structure of the root systems of the rooted trees at speciment ridge should be considerably variable and diversified in accordance with the type of tree. However, the morphology of the root systems are all about the same, narrow, when in fact they should not be in an in situ growth model.
This is sheer speculation of the weakest kind. What is your evidnece that the style of root system should be diverse in a local environment?
--The exact pedogenic structure of the soils are unknown to me, as I do not have Amidon's thesis or good data on the 'soils' of specimen ridge or any other Yellowstone region. I admit, this is the only thing that may potentially be inconsistent with my model, but I don't have the data to come to any definite conclusion.
This is exactly why I would expect you to have checked Amidon's work before re-presenting your model here. You have had plenty of time, but I'm beginning to think you don't want to know any contradictory information.
--Not a problem, this is expected in my model. The trees were initially deposited, and the lahar was a subsequent event. These flow structures are not surprising.
So the firmly rooted trees could be transported by a mud flow but subsequently, without well developed root systems, they could withstand the next mudflow. Sorry, but this is not a very convincing argument.
--Sure there is. There are abundant flame structures and ripple cross laminations around the roots of many of the trees.
Not so. The sands are not found deposited around the roots.
The tuffaceous sandstone is composed of 80 to 90% water-transported air-fall ash and 10 to 20% reworked detrital volcaniclastic material. Furthermore, they exhibit graded bedding. They are also the substrate in which the vertical trees are rooted and what you would interpreted as having grown in situ. In addition, the tuffaceous sandstones contain abundant well preserved pollen, leaves, needles, and some cones, as would be expected in my model where all of this detritus, the sediments, and the trees were deposited simultaneously.
So these trees had the same hydrodynamic properties as tuffaceous sands! And they remained upright even though the water was moving? LOL! Another good one, Chris.
--Explain (the transport of bark, etc. away from the tree deposits) then.
This has been done.
--I must emphasize the fact that the specimen ridge forests are not in layer cake fashion; most beds cannot be traced for more than ~100 meters laterally and most beds interfinger with others.
So, even though a tree level is stratigraphically above another, you think they were deposited at the same time? The lateral extent of the beds has virtually nothing to do with it, Chris.
lacustrine environments would be very regional, and would be small reservoirs of water left behind when surges abated--possibly being aided by daming via the conglomeratic mud flows.
I think you have said this before and been trounced. Mudflows do not make very good dams.
--So basically a surge brought in the trees, some of which were deposited upright (along with plenty of other organic material and the tuffaceous sandstone). Then after the water abated, a subsequent lahar leveled proximal trees and with distance, more trees were able to remain upright. This process was repeated sporatically approximately 9-12 times.
So the process DID leave forests standing! Thank you once again, Chris.
--I think you understate the significance. Coffin took a survey of the trees at spirit lake and found that there were many trees that were upright, and furthermore, many that were at the spirit lake bottom:
Coffin, H.G., The yellowstone petrified "forests", Origins 24(1):2-44 (1997).
Let me get this straight. You are using Spirit Lake as an analog? I thought you rejected this earlier.
Figure 23. A small sample of the log raft on Spirit Lake. The upright trees in the foreground are lightly grounded in shallow water, whereas those in the background are floating free.
And are these trees still upright, Chris?
Figure 25. Floating tree trunks with tops protruding above the surface of Spirit Lake. In time they likely will sink upright and disappear into the depths if the water is sufficiently deep.
And stay upright forever? Show us.
Please clarify for us. Is Spirit Lake a model for Specimen Ridge or not?
--Well unless you find the absence of virtually any organic matter I don't think the point of my criticism is well substantiated.
I'm not sure where you get this. Most of the papers I have read on this, including Coffin, talk at great length about 'organic levels' or 'soil levels'. Your statement appears decidedly false.
There is zero documented traces of bark in any of the specimen ridge sections, your going to need a lot more than this simple extrapolation from the modern Oregon analog.
First of all, I'm not sure that this is a critical point that one might document. But there is ample organic debris. You have ignored this fact. Furthermore, there is no problem with differential transport of the bark down-gradient with the mudflow. That bark could be miles away, no problem.
Last edited by edgeo; 15th November 2003 at 07:37 PM.
--I mean decay that has been documented...certainly it is worth documentation.
Perhaps not. Certainly, the researchers never dreamed that some YEC would, someday in the future, attack their conclusions based on such an argument. Oh yeah, I forgot, Yuretich and others are probably incompetent.
Also, as I explained, none of the trees at specimen ridge exhibit substantial (or much any at all) biodecay which would be expected given the scenario implied by the in situ growth model of Yuretich, Fritz, Retellack, et al. which you and edgeo seem to support.
Again, perhaps not. Trees, especially those that are quickly buried by a (possibly hot) volcaniclastic flow, may not show any decay at all. On the other hand, I have seen standing dead trees with utterly no root system at all because the roots HAVE decayed away.
--No I didn't, I said that in order for your assertion that, "the big mystery that mainstream geology cannot explain about island arcs has disappeared" to be correct, we must discount the role of volatiles in melting. See my post 217. Also I said that most of the melting that occurs takes place in fertile mantle wedge rock. This is expected since it is of higher temperature anyways.
But who HAS discounted the effect of volatiles? It would seem to me that, by your statement, anyone denying that there is a big mystery must have ignored this effect.
--What? Are you implying that I think that the mainstream model ignores the fact that oceanic crust is involved in melting? Schubert et al. show that oceanic crust plays an integral part in the process of melting. This is not inconsistent with the observation that island arc magmas are composed primarily of fertile mantle rock originating in the mantle wedge.
You asserted that the fact the thick oceanic lithosphere is not significantly melted means that there is not enough heat to result in island arc volcanism. The point here is that Schubert never said that melting of the oceanic lithosphere was important for island arc volcanism. He simply said that the slab is not significantly melted. A fact, by the way, that has been known for a long time.
--No. You read me out of context.
Then tell us who actually discounted the effects of volatiles in the generation of island arc magmas. Did I? I seriously doubt it since that is one of the major differences between MORBs and magmatic arcs.
--Explain the transport of bark, etc. away from the tree desposits) then.
This has been done.
--LOL! Um.. No you never did explain this in any way shape or form. Please give me a viable explanation for where the bark went. If you are so confident in your continual itteration that you have, then quote yourself, but I can guarentee you, there is nothing behind you except for poor wishful reasoning on this issue. I will be very surprized to be shown that it is otherwise.
--I will respond to the rest of your posts latter. But I will suggest that you go back and read some of my recent posts because you seem to be confused yet again on the sequence of events occuring in my model.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Last edited by TrueCreation; 15th November 2003 at 08:59 PM.
--LOL! Um.. No you never did explain this in any way shape or form. Please give me a viable explanation for where the bark went. If you are so confident in your continual itteration that you have, then quote yourself, but I can guarentee you, there is nothing behind you except for poor wishful reasoning on this issue. I will be very surprized to be shown that it is otherwise.
Very simply, in an in situ scenario, the trees by definition remaind in place and the branches, etc. were removed. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.
Linear Mode
