Interesting. I thought you would say Appalachian.
So, zircon age would only be part of the supporting data in your work, right?
If so, what else are you planning to look? Field relationship on contacts?
Zircon age is largely supporting data, yes, though it is a largely geochemical project. I'll be doing some mapping, but the primary focus of my thesis is determining the source material for a set of dikes.
snip...... Interestingly, the polystrate plants here are
giant hollow reeds, not trees. The Lycopods and the Calamites are the polystrate plants.
There are trees here, from the class called
Cordaitales. While also numerous, essentially
none are polystrate. In four years of personal studies, Ian Juby has only documented one polystrate cordaitales stump, which was exceptionally small and cut through approximately 15 inches of sediments.
It is the
weaker, hollow reeds which have remained standing.
snip.......... The polystrate position of the giant reeds is a mystery to both uniformitarians and catastrophists. Clearly they are not buried in situ, yet why would they remain upright during burial, whilst the trees themselves remained prostrate?
Joggins, Nova Scotia - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
It would be interesting, if your link was correct. However, Lycopods aren't hollow reeds, and the Calamites are described in scholarly articles as "adpressed," or flattened, not upright. Furthermore, these same articles say that there are numerous examples of Cordaites trees preserved upright.
Here's the article, linked from Dropbox since you normally wouldn't be able to access it from home without a membership:
Falcon-Lang et al., 2006, Journal of the Geologic Society
that one lone broken root is not very convincing evidence for an in situ plant
where's the rest of the root ball?
where's the top?
where are the branches?
where's the bark? maybe this plant didn't have bark ...but trees do and tree bark is rather rare on petrified wood
looks like it was transported n tumbled and then deposited here - just like most petrified wood around the world looks
most petrified wood is from large to very large to humungous trees
hmmm - what breaks off branches and bark and tree tops and tears off root balls and then transports huge tree trunks?
lots of water would
1. The presence of
any root is pretty convincing evidence for it being in situ. Roots are normally pretty fragile and are easily rotted and/or squished. Plus, you're not thinking in 3D. All you're seeing is one surface. There's the half of the cliff that's been eroded away, as well as whatever might be still buried behind.
2, 3, 4. Flattened, eroded away, not readily apparent in the photo, still buried in the cliff face, broken off before it was buried (in the case of the branches). There are a number of possibilities.
5. You're contradicting yourself. You ask where the bark is, then say that bark is rare in petrified wood...Also, your buddy Juby has given examples of bark himself.
6. Subjective opinion. I disagree. It doesn't look like it's moved much at all.
7. Time, erosion, a local flood, again, many possibilities.
see the pictures at this link for inverted stumps at Joggins Cliffs - interesting situation if this is an
in situ deposit
Welcome to Ian Juby's Home Page
The only inverted stump he shows is questionable. Even Juby says that he hasn't verified that there are roots at the top - it just looks like it. Furthermore, no one has discounted the possibility of a local flood occurring at some point along this ancient coastline.
At any rate, a flood in one location does not imply a global flood. We see local, and even regional, floods all the time today.
