At 11:10 PM 1/21/00 -0600, Bill Payne wrote:
>Hi Glenn,
>
>Looks like you're digging your own grave. :-)
>
>If you reply, why don't we move to the evolution reflector to continue?
I am through with the evolution reflector. It has none of the really good
Christian thinkers on it having degenerated into a mini-talk.origins.
>
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 05:45:53 +0000 glenn morton <mortongr@flash.net>
>writes:
>
>>Here is what is wrong with that idea. First such trees are evidence
>>of
>>rapid deposition, but this can be accomplished without a global flood.
>>In
>>1993 the Mississippi River flooded and dumped up to 6 feet of sand on
>>the
>>forests and farm fields of the Midwest. This had the effect of
>>killing
>>millions of trees, whose trunks now are polystrate tree trunks. They
>>are
>>firmly rooted in the pre-1993 sediments and their trunks extend
>>through the
>>next layer. If there had been a 1994 flood, the trees, still standing
>>but
>>dead at that time, would then extend through many layers of strata.
>>So, in
>>the year 10,000 AD the 1993 trees will be used by future young-earth
>>creationists to argue that this is evidence of a global flood--yet we
>>know
>>differently.
>
>>Secondly, the assumption that trees can't stand for millennia without
>>rotting is fallacious under certain circumstances. Waterlogged wood
>>will
>>last millennia. There are forests offshore England today that were
>>inundated by the rise in sealevel after the ice age. Those tree
>>trunks
>>still stand.
>
>OK. You've said that polystrate trees are evidence of rapid deposition,
>and that rising water inundating a forest will bury the forest in growth
>position. I agree with both points. But, you fail to mention to Wendy
>that your modern analog does not support the geologic patterns we see in
>the field.
>
>In the case of coal seams, which in your model were swamps (ie. areas
>with _standing_ trees) buried by sediments, polystrate trees originating
>in the coal and extending into the overlying sediment are virtually
>non-existent.
First off, you have the most amazing ability to turn every discussion into
one about coal. There is a bigger world out there than merely coal--I mean,
there are other things in the world that have no relation to coal. You
should look at them sometime.
But to your assertion that there are almost no trees coming out of coal it
is simply not true. In fact, Bill, I find the assertion laughable. You
don't even understand the strata which Rupke and Coffin used to formulate
the polystrate tree argument. The classic place of polystrate trees, the
place that both Harold Coffin and Nicolaas Rupke developed the entire
argument about polystrate trees is the Joggins section of Canada-- A COAL
FIELD IN WHICH THE POLYSTRATE TREES COME UP OUT OF THE COAL SEAMS. Harold
Coffin states:
"Coal is mined along the Bay of Fundy and in other Upper Carboniferous
deposits of Nova Scotia. Petrified trees arise from the upper surfaces of
some of the coal seams or are distributed in the strata between seams."
Harold G. Coffin, "Research on the Classic Joggins Pe;trified Trees,"
Creation Research Society Quarterly 6(1969):1:35-44 in Speak to the Earth
pp. 60-85.
I have pointed this out to you before but you ignore it. And as before, you
will forget it in a few months repeating the same argument. A. T. Cross, in
the article James Mahaffey referred both of us to states:
"The presence of petrified wood in associated strata has already been
discussed. One interesting condition which was not mentioned is the
occurrence of vertical petrified logs in position in the coal. In the
fossil forest of Shade Creek, Lodi Township, Athens County, Ohio, several
silicified trunks of the tree fern, Psaronius, have been found still in
place in the coal with their bases embedded in the coal . and their tops
extending above the coal. In that area the coal is very thin and canneloid
in places which might be evidence, of it being an open water accumulation.
Thus the stumps might have drifted around in the open swamp with the heavy
butt-end down and have eventually become waterlogged and sunken into the
muck. Perhaps they were heavy enough, in relation to the then
unconsolidated, "to-be-canneloid coal", muck to have pushed nearly to the
bottom. But there are some good evidences for the contrary interpretation.
"One of the best reasons to believe they were buried in situ is
that they extended from the body of the thin coal upward, at least I as
much as three feet, into the overlying silty shale and shaly sandstone.
Figure 30 shows the site of one such stem in one of the branches of Shade
Creek. In this picture the eminent paleobotanist from India, the late
Prof. Birbal Sahni, who was visiting the locality with Prof. Hoskins and
me, is shown pointing to the former position I of the vertical stump. At
that time Prof. Sahni also interpreted this and two other stumps as being
in situ. In Figure 31 the depression formed by the tree-fern trunk in the
coal is to be seen accentuated by the elliptical puddle of water at the
left of the hammer. Some foreign rock debris is lying in the depression.
The normal cleat pattern is disrupted locally here by this stump and
accessory cleat features radiate in all directions from it, as seen more
clearly in Figure 32. The normal face cleat is nearly parallel with the
handle of the hammer in Figure 32 and can be seen in the lower left hand
corner of Figure 31. It is also exposed perpendicular to the camera lens
where the coal is broken away in Figure 30, in the lower center of the
picture. The interruption of the overlying strata is plainly visible in
front of Prof. Sahni's hammer and, in fact, the hammer head itself
coincides with the position of the edge of the stump toward Prof. Sahni. A
petrified trunk, essentially similar to the one which came from this
position, is shown in Figure 29, with Prof. Hoskins holding a 14 inch long
hammer across the lower part as a scale. There are two other such
occurrences known from this vicinity, one of which was excavated by Prof.
Arthur H. Blickle, Prof. Hoskins and me, in 1939, about twenty yards
upstream and the other which occurred about 25 yards downstream." A. T.
Cross, "The Geology of Pittsburgh Coal," Second Conference on the Origin
and Constitution of Coal, Crystal Cliffs, Nova Scotia, June 1952, pp 32-99,
p.76
There are just enough polystrates to tell us that if the
>vertical trees were there, they were preserved. Therefore, it is not an
>example of lack of preservation, but of a lack of standing trees to
>preserve.
See above.
>
>There are virtually no polystrates in the coal swamps because........???
>(Don't forget, grass hadn't evolved yet, and the coals are full of tree
>debris).
So? But there are polystrate trees coming out of coal.
>
> And at a famous site of Mt. St. Helens, the trees in Spirit
>>lake still exist underwater, 20 years after the explosion.
>
>Ah yes, tree trunks, with their roots snapped off two or three feet from
>the base of the trunk, standing in growth position on the bottom of the
>lake as they are being buried by layered sediments. Funny how the
>polystrates at Specimen Ridge also have their roots snapped off two or
>three feet from the base of the trunk and are buried in growth position
>in layered sediments.
You miss the point. The point was that waterlogged wood can be preserved.
Please pay attention to the context of the discussion and don't read into
it what wasn't said. I said nothing about coal. The discussion with Wendee
wasn't about coal. Somehow you read coal when it was not there.
You may have the last word. I won't get into another big coal discussion as
they sometimes seem pointless.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 22 2000 - 16:50:26 EST