> First, why would all the trunks be deposited in "growth" position.
They wouldn't be. Most were deposited horizontally and formed the coal
seams.
> That
> would violate the second law of thermo unless you try to say that there was
> a ball of dirt hanging on the bottom of them. If you say, that, where are
> the balls of dirt under the vertical fossil trees? They are almost never there!
Neither are the roots.
> If these hollow trunks were ripped up and redeposited in a global flood, I
> would expect them to be disintegrated. But the fact that they stand were
> they do, without a ball of dirt on the bottom and ARE filled with sediments
> from above, I would say that the deposit was created in place as the result
> of a local flood like what happened to in the Mississippi river floods of
> 1993 where standing trees were buried by up to 6 feet of sediment. These
> are future polystrate fossils which will be used by future creationists to
> say that the world is young.
We're not communicating, Glenn. Polystrate trees I have observed do not
have dirt or roots attached. I have a photo of a tree trunk mentioned in
my paper which was sheared off above the roots, and yet it was buried
vertically. If this violates one of the laws of thermodymanics, then I'm
really sorry, but the tree trunk was there, with no roots. I suspect
that the trees buried by the Mississippi River floods had their roots
buried along with the trunks. Or do you think that the roots rot but the
trunks are preserved?
As I've said before, the underclays immediately below coal seams contain
only plant fragments, but no continuous stigmarian root systems like we
would expect if large trees grew in a "coal swamp."
Bill