Re: Roots Below Coal

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: bpayne15@juno.com
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 00:49:52 -0600

>On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:20:14 -0600 "Glenn Morton"
><glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
>First let me say how grateful I am for your willingness to debate this
>issue. As you know, this has been a pet rabbit of mine for years, and I
>have a very hard time finding knowledgeable people who will even discuss
>this topic. OK, Glenn, here we go.
>
>This coal is a pretty crappy looking seam. If it weren't for the faint
>vitrain (glassy luster) bands in the right 1/3 of the photo at the bottom
>of the coal (the photo with "J SEAM" at the top), I'd say we are looking
>at the toe of an old stockpile of mined coal. Or the gouge zone of a
>fault plane.
>

It is a closed strip mine which is now closed. The details are at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cancoal.htm

What you see are the leavings that the coal miners didn't cart away, so it is only the base of the coal that is left in that photo.

>I note that the dark shale (or sandstone) makes a sharp, knife-edge
>contact with the coal above, as can been seen in the left and right sides
>of the "J SEAM" photo. It's hard to tell, but the dark shale (?) seems
>to make a sharp contact with the lighter sandstone in the center of the
>"J SEAM" photo; I believe the dark shale

You can clearly see that the sandstone gradually gets darker in color in the center of the photo and this is due to more organic material and less sand in the upper part of the sandstone. This is not a knife sharp gradation. I really don't know how you can say that.

>(?) pinches out to the right and left - it appears to be a lens
>sandwiched between the coal and sandstone in the center of the photo.
>There are a few individual root-like stringers (which I would agree are
>likely roots) visible in the dark shale as well as the light sandstone
>below. There is a faint horizontal line of dark detrital material in the
>sandstone visible in both the "J SEAM" and the "camera case" photos.

Agreed that these are roots. Then the only logical conclusion is that this coal was grown in place. You can't do this in a vegetable mat.

Also the stringer of coal which is under the arrow in http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ROOTSquintettemineTumblerRidgeCanadaCret5tw.jpg
shows that there was an episodic and gradual replacement of sandstone by coal at the top of the sandstone. The organic material at the top of the sand was becoming more and more predominant.

>
>These root structures are not all that uncommon, I've seen similar
>structures below Pennsylvanian coals in Alabama. While it is possible
>that the roots are in situ, it is not possible that these roots represent
>the record of forest growth which provided the peat for the J seam.

Then those coals also can't be due to veggie mats.

 The
>J seam appears to be at least 6 inches (15 cm) thick. On your web site
>you mention the Supardi et al article, which states rapid peat
>accumulation was 4-5 mm/yr, and a lesser rate was 2 mm/yr in the
>Indonesian peat swamps. At the most rapid rate of 5 mm/yr, it would have
>taken 30 years to form six inches of peat. I've seen estimates that peat
>compresses from 10 up 20-25 times to form coal. Therefore, we have to
>multiply 30 years by at least 10 to get the peat required for 6 inches of
>coal, or 300 years. I would think that with 300 years of continual
>forest growth, you would get more than a few individual roots 8 inches to
>3 feet or so beneath the coal. In 300 years the vitrain banding (usually
>formed by sheets of bark) at the bottom of the coal, and the sharp
>contact between coal and dark sandstone, should have been destroyed by
>root bioturbation. Furthermore, most swamps have burrowing animals which
>should have left some record of their activity, but I see none. The
>thin, dark horizontal line of detrital material below the primary root
>zone is undisturbed by burrowing animals, suggesting rapid burial.

The coal seam used to be thicker Bill. MOst of it has been mined out.Thus, your calculation is not quite correct. You should know that no one will mine a 6 inch coal because it is totally uneconomic. This coal used to be bigger and to use the post-mining thickness seems to be grasping at straws.

>The roots at the end of the arrows (J SEAM photo) do appear to be
>dendritic. There is a problem though, the root at the end of the right
>arrow is branching upward, not downward. Looks like the darned thing
>could have at least gotten oriented rightside up before it was buried.

Roots don't always go down just like branches don't always go up.

>
>I think the biggest giveaway though, is something that both you and your
>Canadian geologist friend seem to have overlooked -- the chunk of banded
>coal buried in the sandstone to the left of the root zone. This chunk of
>coal displays banding similar to that observed just above the shale or
>sandstone, except the banding is vertical instead of near horizontal!
>That chunk of coal was certainly transported.

Bill, have you ever heard of mechanical disruption? THat is what happens when a big coal mining shovel scoops up coal. Some pieces get broken up and fall in all sorts of unexpected patterns. That piece isn't in its original place. This is the remains of a big stripmine, which I would have expected you to have understood.

>
>It's quite obvious, Glenn, when you look at the details (where the devil
>is), that the J seam was transported. As to the roots, which I said
>above may be in situ, if they are in situ then they probably represent an
>opportunistic burst of growth during a recession of the flood waters,
>before being buried by additional sediment. Alternatively, they could
>have settled out of suspension as the sand was being deposited (which
>would.explain the branching-upward root).

You haven't proven your case yet. Why would you suggest this scenario? I contend it is only because you don't want to believe that the flood wasn't global. You have no evidence that this is an 'opportunistic' growth. How could it be? There was coal above the sandstone so the roots wouldn't have penetrated below that. Indeed there are several seams of coal above those roots.
>
>> As I have repeatedly said, Bill, so what if the Pennsylvanian coals are
>> allochthonous from floating mats.
>
>Based upon your current understanding, would you agree that the
>Pennsylvanian coals of the eastern US are allochthonous (transported, not
>in situ)?

Not all of them. If you found roots in Alabama, I would say that is evidence that that Alabama coal isn't transported. It is hard to transport roots in a soft sand and then deposit it in tact.

>
>> 1. prove why there has to be a global flood if SOME coal is from
>vegetational mats.
>
>You have yet to show me a coal that isn't transported.
>
>> 2. prove that no coal came from rooted beds
>
>Show me a coal seam with a root mat like that of Pfefferkorn et al on the
>CD I sent to you. Or one with stigmarian axial root systems like those
>depicted by Gastaldo (also on the CD). I'm looking for something more
>than the whimpy roots below the J seam.

That wasn't the question Bill. YOu need to prove that no coal came from rooted beds. Finding oddities is a fun game but it doesn't lead to substantive explanations.
>
>You're welcome to post anything on the CD to your web site. If others
>want a copy of the CD, please contact me offline.
>
>> 3. prove that the existence of vegetation mats requires a global flood.
>
>Water seeks its own level. If the North American continent was flooded,
>then there is an outside chance that the other continents were also
>flooded. Would you like to discuss the plant-free tonstein partings
>(volcanic-ash beds) in the Newcastle coals in Australia (on the CD)?

Once again, that wasn't the question. Your response was non responsive. You must prove that vegetation mats require a global flood. Partings have nothing to do with that question. There are floating vegetational islands in the Okefenokee, and there is no current global flood Bill.
Received on Fri Nov 28 11:05:13 2003