Hi Bill
I have been away for the past three weeks so my apologies for the slow reply.
Bill Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:33:45 +1000 Jonathan Clarke
> <jdac@alphalink.com.au> writes:
>
> > Please stick to the point. Your said (Thu, 07 Jun 2001 20:45:01 +1000)
> " tree stumps commonly up to 2+ feet in diameter are virtually *never*
> found in coal seams in the eastern US". I gave you five references, two
> from
> the eastern US and three from Canada that give examples of just this. Have
>
> you read them?
>
> There were 4 references, not 5. I have now obtained one from a library
> in Birmingham. Two more I should be able to get next week from a library
> in Tuscaloosa. The fourth reference, J. W. Dawson, "On the coal measures
> of the south Joggins, Nova Scotia" (Quarterly Journal of the Geological
> Society of London 10 (1854): 1-41) I may not be able to obtain locally.
My apologies. I originally had 5 and deleted one, but did not edit the
message accordingly.
>
>
> > You now write "I have seen tree trunks above, below, and between
> > coal seams." So you recognise that there are erect I am not surprised
> you
> > have seen trees above, below, and between coal seams. The references I
> > mention give examples of this. Your point is???
>
> You're using the exception to establish the rule. I did not say that
> these examples do not exist, just that they are very rare.
The literature suggests that they are not extremely rare, though not
ubiquitous, and have been recognised since the early 19th century. None of
these papers says that these are extraordinary features that need
explanation. They may be extremely rare in the places you are familiar with,
I can't comment on that. But they do occur often enough to be a studied
feature of coal facies.
>
>
> > I give you five published references easily located at a good library
> and you mention a your interpretation of powerpoint presentation by
> unnamed
> > people?
>
> 1) The published refs may be in error.
They may be in error, but this is for people how have seen the examples, such
as yourself or James to demonstrate the error. Until they are demonstrated
to be in error, I have to accept the evidence they present.
> 2) Yours is an appeal to authority, not open to new interpretations of
> data.
Present me with a new interpretation that explains the data better and I will
consider it. So far you have not done so. I then have a choice between the
authority of many workers who have researched these rocks and present what I
judge as good evidence for their case, and the evidence of one person,
yourself, who has not published on the subject and tries to explain the
evidence away. My assessment could be wrong of course!
> 3) If they publish, or if I get permission to release their names, then I
> will.
Why so coy? Is it commercially sensitive?
>
> I wrote: "The presenter showed photographs of, I'm guessing, more than 50
> vertical tree trunks in the interval between the Blue Creek and Mary Lee.
> *None*
> of these trees had roots attached. One photograph in particular was a
> closeup of the base of a tree, and clearly showed that the trunk was
> truncated, not rooted."
>
> > Is this your interpretation of the photos or are they the presenter's?
> Are the bases of the trees truncated or is presevation such that small
> structures like roots are not likely to be preserved? But what is your
> point
> exactly?
>
> One photograph in particular was clear enough to speak for itself without
> interpretation. The base of that tree was clearly truncated. Tree roots
> are commonly preserved in the geologic record. My point is that the case
> for transported rather than in situ vertical tree trunks is compelling.
> I will address this again when I get the other available refs. you
> posted.
Fair enough, I will take your word for it. The fact that some some vertical
tree trunks are transported has been known for more than 15 years and their
criteria for recognition established. See for example:
Fritz, W.J., 1980a. Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the
Yellowstone "fossil forests". Geology, 8: 309-313.
Fritz, W. J. 1980b. Stumps transported and deposited upright by Mt St.
Helens debris flows. Geology 8: 586-588.
Retallack, G. K. 1981. Comment on “reinterpretation of the depositional
environments of the Yellowstone fossil forests”. Geology 9: 52-53.
Yuretich, R.F. 1984. Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in
place. Geology 12: 159-162.
Fritz, W.J., 1984. Comment on "Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for
burial in place." Geology 12: 638-639.
Yuretich, R.F., 1984. Reply on "Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for
burial in place." Geology 12: 639.
However to say that all vertical tree trunks in the geological record are
transported seems extreme. Even YEC geologists accept that some have grown
in situ. See for example Coffin, H. G. 1969. Research on the classic
Joggins petrified trees, Creation Research Society Annual, 35-44. Steve
Austin would say likewise. Do you disagree with them also?
>
>
> > We discussed this on the ACG list. Flooding of the swamps does not prove
> your theory at all. Episodic flooding of coal forming environments is a
> integral part of most of the various models proposed (delta crevasse splay,
> flood plain, intramontane basin coastal plain). Tonsteins vary greatly in
> extent, depending on the deposit. Where they are continuous there was
> clearly
> nothing to interrupt this continuity, whether that continuity is of the
> order of 10's of m, km, or 10's of > km.
>
> I'm glad to see you admit that there are areas between and above coal
> seams where "there was clearly nothing to interrupt this continuity,
> whether that continuity is of the order of 10's of m, km, or 10's of km."
> The continuity of partings between and bedding immediately above coal
> seams is a snapshot of the top of the organic mat at the time of
> deposition. Since we agree that there was "clearly nothing to interrupt
> this continuity," then the tops of the organic mats were at that time
> clear of any vertical obstructions, and remarkably smooth. Where have
> you seen a swamp with an organic surface as smooth as a tabletop for 10's
> of square kms?
Seeing that most mires are defined by the water table their surfaces can be
very flat, especially when
occurring in a low relief depositional setting. Why is this a problem? On
the scale of an outcrop or mine exposure why would not these appear "as flat
as a table top"? It may be my fault, but I seem to have lost your point. I
can't see the global significance you are trying to draw out of this.
>
>
> I am going to try to send some photos separately. I'll comment on them
> later if they go through (I tried last night and they didn't make it).
>
> Bill
>
Jon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 09 2001 - 05:58:59 EDT