Re: Roots Below Coal

Bill

There is another possibility and that is that God created everything in 4004BC with the appearance of age. That makes more sense than your ideas

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: bpayne15@juno.com
  To: glennmorton@entouch.net
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 4:35 AM
  Subject: Re: Roots Below Coal

  On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:05:46 -0500 <glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:

> 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.

  Dark sandstone is not coal. The transition from light to dark sandstone is gradational; the transition from dark sandstone to coal is abrupt. However, after looking at the photos again, I believe the coal we can see may be entirely reworked by the mining process. Therefore, I don't think either of us can draw any conclusions about how abrupt this coal/sandstone contact was. I also retract my earlier statement that I could see vitrain bands in the right 1/3 of the photo at the base of the coal; that may just be a fortuitous placement of coal fragments.
   
> 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.

  Again, there is another possibility. The stringer of coal may be a piece of flotsam that got buried in the sand, along with the roots and fine organic material which became more predominant as the influx of sand subsided. When the transport of sand ceased, the organics were all that was deposited, hence the presence of coal and the absence of sand. The transition from light to dark sandstone is indicative of an increasing percentage of fine detrital peat, not increasing roots.

> 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.

  Glenn, I only know what I can see and what you tell me about this coal. Using an assumed thickness of six inches, all that is visible of what's left in the photos, and using the most rapid rate of peat deposition at 5 mm/yr, I calculated 300 years to produce only 6 inches of coal. That's a best-case scenario for your model. If the coal was thicker, say three feet, and if we use a more commonly accepted rate for peat accumulation of 1 to 2 mm/yr and a compaction ratio of 20x for peat to coal, then we are looking at more like 13,000 years to accumulate the peat for 3 feet of coal. I can live with 300 years, or 13,000 years, or any number in between. The original thickness of the coal is completely irrelevant. You still need to explain the whimpy roots beneath 300+ year-old trees (or however long trees lived back then).

> 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.

  I assumed that the area had been mined. I did not understand that you would label the disturbed remains of an old stockpile as a particular coal seam - the J seam. What you call the J seam is not a crappy seam of coal, it is no coal seam at all. Your label is misleading. I should have realized I was looking at an interpretation by a biased observer and not data.

  Based upon the distinct banding (now vertical, but near horizontal when formed) in the dislodged chunk of coal to the left of the sandstone, I think it is safe to assume that the J seam was a banded coal, just like the coals in the eastern US. Horizontal banding typically runs through these coals from bottom to top, and consists primarily of sheets of bark interbedded with less shinny leaves, pollen, impurities, etc. Thin bedding is characteristic of water-borne sedimentary deposits. Sheets of bark sink through water and settle flat on the bottom, or follow the contour if the bottom is sloping. Now, Glenn, how do you propose to preserve this thinly-banded structure when you have root balls from mature trees growing through the peat, and furthermore ripping the peat up if the tree is uprooted? Look at Pefferkorn's photo of the Amazon swamp, or check your Okefenokee swamp, and tell me how you will even propose to collect sheets of tree bark on a planar surface that extends unbroken for miles, when you have no extensive planar surfaces in modern swamps. This is an important point, and one which you OECs love to ignore.

> 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.

  I don't understand what you are saying here. What do you mean "so the roots wouldn't have penetrated below that?" Below what?

> 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.

  I didn't say transport the soft sand with the roots. Rather, as the roots settle out the sand settles around the roots. Roots would tend to settle first out of a mixture of peat since roots are designed to absorb water more aggressively than trunks or leaves, and would therefore become waterlogged first and settle first.

> 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.

  Glenn, roots below coal is exactly the question. I've sent you quotes from the professional literature that the roots that do appear below coals are often disarticulated and crumpled, photos that show that the roots below coal, such as they are, don't look anything like intact tree roots either from modern swamps or from ancient trees. Intact, articulated tree roots don't appear below the coal, they don't appear in partings, they don't disturb the horizontal banding, and vertical tree trunks don't appear in partings or above coal seams, except in rare instances when they settled out of suspension into a vertical position and were buried.

> 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.

  Actually, partings do require a flood to create a smooth, treeless surface for the parting to lay on, but I can see you would rather avoid that issue (and understandably so). Vegetation floating in the Okefenokee means only that there is vegetation floating in the Okefenokee. It is a non sequitur to say that you must have a global flood before you can have floating vegetation. But that's OK, I know you're getting desperate when you throw the Okefenokee at me.

  In summary, I have presented a number of independent lines of evidence which strongly suggest that your J seam of coal originated from a flood deposit. You have only offered sparse, whimpy roots to support a forest and your claim that this coal was in situ from a swamp. Your tree roots are sparse, lack any consistent pattern we would expect to see if they were articulated to individual tree stumps, appear to be disconnected, and one is upside down. Limbs grow toward light, roots grow toward water. Water sinks in sand. To get roots to grow up in a sandy soil would require perched water, which would require an aquitard layer, which we don't see in your friend's photos.

  One last thing: Behind the "t" in the word "roots" on the "J SEAM" photo, and below the "n" in "rootzone" in the "camera case" photo is a vertical root which is truncated by the horizontal dark bed. In the "camera case" photo there appear to be one or two other roots to the right which may also be truncated by this horizontal bed. If these were roots growing down looking for water, how did they know to stop at the dark bed?

  Bill
Received on Tue Dec 2 04:16:44 2003