>> There are numerous substantial geologic problems with the idea that
>> the sedimentary record is evidence of Noah's flood. [snip]
>>
>> 3. The occurrence of ichnofossils (trace fossils like burrows,
>> tracks, coprolites, root casts, etc.) seems difficult to
>> understand in the context of a global flood with rapid
>> sedimentation. How does one deposit thousands of feet of
>> sedimentary rock in a violent flood and then form a sandstone
>> bed with dinosaur tracks on it?
>
> I think Robert Gentry (in "The Young Age of the Earth video by Alpha
> Productions) satisfactorily explained that dinosaurs could have stayed
> alive on floating mats of vegetation. Gentry pointed out dino tracks
> on the roof of a coal mine in Utah (?), and said that these dinos were
> trying to escape drowning since their vegetation mat had now grounded
> and was being submerged by water.
So you're arguing that ALL dinosaur trackways, from sites ALL over the
world (even those not associated in any way with coals and those showing
what appear to be herds of migrating dinosaurs), are due to the dinosaurs
riding on ark-like mats of vegetation and then grounding somewhere (where?)
in the middle of the flood (remember, no dino tracks in all of the Paleozoic
sedimentary rocks which are presumably flood deposits) and leaving tracks
before they all drown (apparently before the large numerous large Tertiary
mammals and their remains since no dino tracks occur in all of the Cenozoic
sedimentary rocks either)? Why did no mammals hitch rides on these numerous
floating mats and leave trackways in Mesozoic rocks? Why did no dinosaurs
leave tracks in Carboniferous coals (presumably representing floating mats
as well). I find it difficult to take this explanation seriously and see it
as little more than a desperate attempt to ignore the geologic evidence.
For an alternative explanation of the Utah footprints Bob mentioned, I
recommend the following essay:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html
Want to know more about dinosaurs and dinosaur trackways? Start at Glen
Kuban's Dinosaur Den page at:
http://members.aol.com/fostrak/dinos.htm
>> Or develop a paleosol?
>
> You mentioned root casts above, and I assume you would say the root
> zone below a coal seam is a paleosol. I now realize that there are
> roots below most coal seams, and I believe that these roots grew in
> situ. However, the roots are poorly developed and the root zone is
> generally only a few inches deep. The paper by Bob Gastaldo, which
> I critiqued last year at your request, persausively argues that the
> Carboniferous trees were massive (up to maybe 30 meters tall) and
> required long stigmarian axial root systems for support. Bob failed
> to note that we don't observe these long root systems beneath coal
> seams.
>
> Where we do see long root systems, I believe that they may have been
> eroded from their original growth site, rafted by the flood to another
> location, and reburied in growth position, similar to the numerous
> vertical fossil tree trunks we observe (without roots).
>
> The shallow roots that we do observe beneath coal seams developed after
> the still living vegetation settled out of suspension. When it touched
> firm sediment, it began to root in an attempt to gain a foothold and
> begin a new forest. The fact that these roots are so shallow is evidence
> that the vegetation quickly died as it was buried by additional sediments
> in the flood. Therefore, we have transported (allochthonous) coal with
> in situ (autohthonous) roots.
This has been discussed before (was it on this list or the ASA list?) so
I won't get into it again other than to say that the only geologists which
accept an allochthonous origin for ALL coals are those pushing a global flood
model (i.e people who are desperate to explain away the evidence since it
doesn't fit into their preconceived idea of what happened). While some coals
may be allochthonous, there are many others which clearly are not.
Paleosols also occur in areas where there are no coals. Here are some images
and information about paleosols:
http://www.brynmawr.edu/Acads/Geo/Geo205/
http://lawr.ucdavis.edu/classes/ssc100/Chinese_Paleosol.html
http://lawr.ucdavis.edu/classes/ssc100/Chinese_Paleosols.html
You can't just try to explain some little part of the vast amount of evidence
against a global flood and ignore everything else Bill. You have to look at
ALL of the geologic record. Mainstream geologists have no problems with a
coal bed somewhere being allochthonous but flood geologists can't even have
one autocthonous coal bed or their "model" starts crumbling like a house of cards.
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich, Assistant Professor of Geology Department of Geology, Geography, and Environmental Studies Calvin College, 3201 Burton Street SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 sschimmr@calvin.edu (office), schimmri@earthlink.net (home) 616-957-7053 (voice mail), 616-957-6501 (fax) http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/