>I have difficulties relating the last sentence, and what follows,
>to the Yellowstone fossil forest. The Lamar River site used to
>be regarded as "in-situ" growth of successive forests. But the
>evidences for the "forests" being transported in mud and debris
>flows is overwhelming. These rocks and the enclosed fossil flora
>are linked to volcanism, but they are sedimentary and water laid.
>Cooling is not an issue here.
The evidence on the Yellowstone forests is equivocal. If a volcano blew up,
most of the trees would be felled by the shock wave as happened at St.
Helens. Most of the trees are horizontal at the yellowstone forests.
Horizontality does not necessitate that the trees were transported from far
off. There is an interesting article I ran into concerning the fossil
forest. It is Richard M. Ritland, Stephen L.
Ritland, "The Fossil Forests of the Yellowstone Region," Spectrum, No. 1/2,
1974.
They write:
"An explorer of the fossil forest can hardly fail to be impressed
by the changing scene from level to level. If one starts near
the crest of the Ramshorn with the magnificent 10-foot Sequoia
(called King of the Forest) and continues along the side of the
mountain on this same level, a whole series of the mountain on
this same level, a whole series of naturally spaced giant
sequoias of similar size are encountered, as if one were in an
old-growth forest along the California coast. By contrast,
levels 11 and 12 (on the slope we have designated Plot 1-B north
of Specimen Creek) are composed of what woodmen often refer to as
second-growth forests, most of the upright trees ranging from 10
to 18 inches in diameter. On Level 18, nearly all of the upright
stumps are saplings of no more than 5 inches. Other levels
average 30, 48, 72 inches, etc. Although the size may vary from
1 inch to 12 feet or more on the same level, as in most present-
day naturally occurring forests, the prevalence of a given size
class tends to be the rule."~Richard M. Ritland, Stephen L.
Ritland, "The Fossil Forests of the Yellowstone Region,"
Spectrum, No. 1/2, 1974, p. 40.
Level 18 being no more than saplings would appear to require some strange
explanation of why only saplings were deposited upright at that time by the
flood.
The number of trees per acre were similar to what is found today in
oldgrowth forests. (p. 39)
The quality of leaf fossils argues against transport. They write:
"Often the most delicate features in the leaf imprints, including
fine veins and margin patterns, are well-preserved in an angular
volcanic matrix. If extended transport in a mudflow had
occurred, such fine features would have been obliterated by the
sharp edges of the rock particles."~Richard M. Ritland, Stephen
L. Ritland, "The Fossil Forests of the Yellowstone Region,"
Spectrum, No. 1/2, 1974, p. 40.
As at Mt. St. Helens there are areas of waterl deposition of the trees as
at Spirit Lake and other areas covered by ash falls. They state,
"Well preserved fossil leaves may be found in fine-grained zones of air-drop
ash in both the vent and the alluvial facies and in the fine grained
sediments of alluvial facies. They are rarely found in coarse alluvial
facies deposits from which most of the fine-grained deposits have been
reworked basinward." p. 37
Notice that areas like St. Helens have similar reworkings going on today.
Furthermore roots are almost always found.
"Roots found range in size from about 1 millimeter up to large roots coming
directly off the stumps." p. 53
"Careful examination reveals that some small roots are almost always present
in the several inches beneath the organic detrital zone. Beneath some large
stumps they may be found 2 feet and more below the original ground level." p. 53
If this is the result of a flood, why are no marine animals found mixed in
with the trees? How can a global flood sort marine creatures from land
creatures. Remember the fish were not on the ark and must have survived in
the waters. But surely some fish would die with the trees.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm