Re: Roots Below Coal

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:58:41 -0600 "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:

> The sandstone is not reworked,

I didn't mean to say that it was; I was referring to the coal having been
dug up and stockpiled, or that's the way it looks to me.

> The transition from light to dark is indicative of an increasing
organic
> content. That is what I said originally. And so now you acknowledge
> that the transition isn't abrupt. You are being inconsistent here with
what
> you said above.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in what I said. I meant to say that the
sandstone/coal contact is abrupt, the light to dark sandstone transition
is gradational.

> As to the roots, explain how soft unconsolidated sand can cling to
> the veggie mat long enough for roots to grow into them when the sand is
> soaking wet.

Again, I don't think the sand clung to the roots while they were hanging
from the mat.

> And explain the roots. The dark color change is not due to
> increasing roots. The only thing that are roots are the dendritic dark
marks
> the hand points to. You are ignoring those and now claiming that I said
the
> color change was increasing roots. Nowhere did I say that. So stick
with the
> subject and explain how the roots (the dark dendritic things) embedded
> themselves in a sand on the bottom of the sea.

Based upon the observations of dissociated, inverted and horizontally
terminated roots, the most likely scenario is that the roots sank and
were buried by loose sand washing in around them.

> If you can live with 13,000 years, then neither the global flood nor
the
> young earth is true. Thus there is no need to try to make this data
out to
> be a deposit of the global flood.

I am more concerned with logically interpreting the data associated with
the coals I can see, than trying to support YEC or a global flood. If I
can make the same inference on the other continents that I have made in
the eastern US for transported peat becoming coal, then by connecting the
dots the individual floods become global.

> What I labeled disturbed was that single piece of coal on the left side
of
> the photo. Not the entire deposit. Don't extrapolate.

If the single piece of coal on the left side is from the J seam, then the
J seam likely was banded throughout. I cannot see banding or any
significant structure at all in the coal above the sandstone. Therefore,
I am saying that either the coal seam is actually the remains of mined
coal or is structurally altered (gouge or crushed). It doesn't look like
any coal seam I have ever seen. Maybe your friend can clear this up.

> I will ask the guy who sent me those photos to come and let him explain
them
> if he choses to. But I would like to ask about bias. You are the one
who
> seems to be biased towards massive catastrophes and floating coal
meaning a
> global flood, when no one else follows your chain of logic.

In August I presented these ideas to a group of about 45 engineers and
geologists. Several were very enthusiastic about the problems with the
conventional theory of swamp coal which are answered with the floating
mat model; the talk was generally well received and I got no negative
comments. In September I presented the same talk to a group of mining
engineers and geologists. One University of Alabama geology prof
monopolized the Q & A period, after having made snide comments under his
breath during my talk. Needless to say, he was laying for me. When I
sat down a mining engineer reached over and shook my hand, saying he had
no trouble seeing geology as a series of catastrophic events. The logic
is not flawed; trying to convey the concepts in this format is difficult.
 With what we have discussed here, you only have part of the picture.

> First off without doing microscopic analysis you can't automatically
claim
> that any banding you see is due to bark. That is assuming evidence you
don't
> have. Secondly, in this very note, you said :
> >>> 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.<<<<
>
> Which is inconsistent with this part of the note.

We can see vertical banding in the displaced chunk of coal. The banding
is not clear in what you labeled as the "J seam." I don't see that as
being inconsistent. If we had a sample of the coal, we might be able to
break it open along the banding and identify the vitrain layers as bark.
Microscopic analysis of thin sections or polished samples in reflected
light would help but might not be necessary to make a positive
identification.

The reason I think this banding is probably bark is because of a study by
Steve Austin as part of his doctoral thesis. "Vitrain, the vitreous coal
lithotype thicker than 0.1 cm, was studied megascopically in more than
250 vertically oriented, polished blocks of Kentucky No. 12 coal.
Vitrain, which comprises 10% by volume of the coal, exists as think
sheetlike masses, and as wide, thin-walled, flattened cylinders with
extraordinary, unbroken extent lying parallel to bedding.... The size
and shape of vitrain, and its association with abundant miospores from
_Lepidodendron_ and _Lepidophloios_, indicate that vitrain sheets in the
Kentucky No. 12 coal represent ruptured cortex shed or broken from the
outer supportive structure of aborescent lycopods. It is extremely
difficult to imagine how abundant, horizontally extensive bark sheets
could remain intact in an intensely root-penetrated environment such as a
swamp. Instead, the bark must have been deposited in a subaqueous
environment below a floating vegetation mat. Mechanical abrasion of
floating lycopod trunks appears to have stripped off large, waterlogged
bark segments and cylinders which were deposited at the bottom of the
water mass where rooting was absent, and where the fine interlamination
of bark with macerated plant material and clay could be preserved."
(Austin, Steven A., 1980. Depositional environment of mummified bark
sheets in the Kentucky No. 12 coal bed: Geological Society of America
Abstracts with Programs, v 12, p 380)

That description of banded coal fits the dislocated piece of coal in the
"J SEAM" photo.

> Explain how roots originally in a veggie mat ended up growing in a
sandstone
> on the bottom of the ocean?

See below.

> You can't do that Bill. First, surely not every single root is so
> gentlemanly as to fall from the veggie mat before the bark. Secondly,
if
> the veggie mat is shedding material, and sand is being deposited, there
> should be sand in the base of the coal and coal in the top of the sand,
> meaning the contact couldn't be sharp. Your explanation is a bit
> stretched.

Sharp contacts between coal and the underlying rock aren't a problem for
me; they are for your model. This is the point I made with the graphs
plotting % ash in the Indonesian peat swamps.

Every single root doesn't fall, just some of them settle first and are
buried with the last of the sediment. Then the influx of sediment (sand)
stopped and waterlogged peat covered the bottom.

> I will acknowledge I don't understand how partings take place...

This isn't rocket science, Glenn. Partings are planar layers of
impurities in coal resulting from turbidity flows or air falls of dust.
How can you not understand that? Could it be your _bias_ making you
unwilling to follow the evidence where it leads? Can't you figure out
how to get a planar parting and lay sheets of bark out flat in a swamp?

Isn't this refusal to consider data what you accuse the YECs of? On your
web site you say "The YEC silence is deafening on these posts. Can't
ya'll explain them?" Looks like the pot's calling the kettle black.

> Oh, I am always desperate. :-)

Stop it, you're going to make me feel sorry for you. <G>

> First off, I haven't seen the evidence you say you presented.

The Power Point slides on the CD I sent to you.

> Secondly, I didn't claim these were tree roots. They aren't at least
the small
> ones aren't. So don't try to claim that this was necessarily a forest.

> The roots look more like shrubs than trees.

Bet you a B-B-Q that the coal consists of trees and not shrubs or
grasses. The shrubs in my yard have roots that radiate out horizontally
and vertically from the central bush. I don't see that pattern in the
photos. They all seem to be more or less vertical and evenly dispersed.

> If these were roots growing down
> looking for water, how did they know to stop at the dark bed? <<<
>
> Don't see any real significance to this observation.

The thin, horizontal dark bed is an old depositional surface. When the
roots floated down and touched the bottom, they stopped at the bottom
surface (the thin, horizontal dark bed). Sand settled in around the
roots sitting on the bottom. We would not expect to see this common
plane of termination if the roots had grown in situ - some would have
stopped short of this depth, others would have grown deeper. Of course
there are roots above and below this plane, but several seem to stop at
the dark bed, which is at least curious.

Bill

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Received on Wed Dec 3 22:11:54 2003