At 10:44 PM 10/29/97 -0600, bpayne@voyageronline.net wrote:
>Glenn Morton wrote:
>
>> First, why would all the trunks be deposited in "growth" position.
>
>They wouldn't be. Most were deposited horizontally and formed the coal
>seams.
The only ones we see are the vertical ones, which lack the dirt ball at
their roots. So why don't we see some laying at 15 deg., 20 deg, 45 deg. 75
deg etc. etc.? what you are saying is that the trees only landed in the
vertical or the horizontal position!
>
>> 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.
The roots may very well have been converted to coal and not be in the
underlying deposits. You are saying that the vertical trees were deposited
during the flood. Why should they preferentially be laid down in a vertical
or horizontal position? Why wouldn't they be ripped to shreds?
>
>> 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?
The trees buried by the Mississippi were rooted where they are now buried!
They didn't move, they didn't float, they were simply buried by sediment
brought in by the Mississippi. In a global flood you have to explain why the
trees floated upright. The usual explanation of how the trees are landed
vertically in the fossil record, given by global flood advocates is that
there is a ball of dirt on the bottom causing the trees to float upright.
>
>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."
Not true according to Rupke, who at the time he wrote this was a young-earth
Creationist, He wrote:
"The beds with upright trees often contain Stigmaria, sometimes spread
through the entire thickness of the bed. In both stigmarian beds on Cape
Breton Island, well-preserved upright trunks have been found."~N.A. Rupke,
"Sedimentary Evidence for the Allochthonous Origin of Stigmaria,
Carboniferous, Nova Scotia," Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 80,
p. 2109-2114, p. 2111-2112
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm