Re: Roots Below Coal

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:35:43 -0600 "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:

> But the dots don't connect. It is highly unlikely that the roots would
fall
> and land vertically waiting for more sand to deposit around them. That
is
> like dropping pencils from the empire state building and expecting them
to
> land on their eraser ends and wait for the dust to infill around them.
> Doesn't make sense to me, Bill.

It's not the same thing. Pencils fall through air, roots float in water.
 Tree trunks get waterlogged at the root end first and rotate from a
horizontal to vertical floating position, and then with continued
waterlogging sink to the bottom, and maintain their vertical orientation
while being buried. I am suggesting that roots may do the same thing,
i.e., float vertically to the bottom and get buried. This interpretation
is supported by the common root-termination plane of the thin, dark bed.
 
> But you are extrapolating from Paleozoic coal to coal you haven't
studied.
> You may or may not be correct, but you can't claim it until you examine
it.

The roots and banding (in the coal fragment) are identical to what I have
studied. It's all part of the same flood process. Hopefully your friend
will respond and examine it for me. I tend to trust people who oppose my
view but supply data that can be interpreted to support the flood model.
I've found the professional literature to be a gold mine.

Of course a single flood event does require that the geologic time scale
get telescoped by 200 million years to fit the Pennsylvannian and
Cretaceous into the same event. Darn! Or I guess we could have multiple
floods: one for the Pennsylvannian, one for the late Permian for
Michael's Australian volcanic partings, and another for the Canadian
Cretaceous coal, and other floods for all the other coals of different
ages. As Michael has told us by his silence, he and I know these
features are the result of a deluge. Pick your poison, Michael, how many
times do you want to flood the earth?

> But I keep telling you that the change in color has to be due to an
> increased influx of organics which means that the contact isn't sharp.
If
> our difference boils down to this, then we can go no further in
> this discussion.

This is a minor point, and we both agree that there is a gradational
change in the color of the sandstone. I think you say the change to
darker is from in situ growth of plants. I say it is due to increased
volume of organics settling from the floating mat, and due to a decreased
volume of sand influx.

> And why are none horizontal???? Some should be just by virtue of
> chance.

Either of us could explain horizontal roots. That wouldn't prove
anything either way.

> Saying I don't know something is not the same as ignoring it. But I
don't
> think that mystery to me, rises to the strength to overthrow the roots
I see
> in those coals.

I undertand. We need a good quality pic of the undisturbed coal,
preferably with partings or at least banding. Hopefully one will be
forthcoming. I'd be interested in any photos of coal your friend or
anyone else would be willing to share.

> > Stop it, you're going to make me feel sorry for you. <G>
>
> That was the point. Didn't it work? :-)

Yes, I'm about to cry. :-)))

> The reason I said shrubs is that the roots in that one photo aren't
that
> big. But if my friend from Canada ever responds I will ask him what he
> knows.

> And stood on their tippee top ends waiting for sand to be deposited.
That
> doesn't make sense. If it was waterlogged enough to fall, it would not
stand
> in such an unstable position for very long.

Trees do.
 
> Maybe the root goes into the plane of the outcrop, merely being
diverted by
> the old surface (if that is what it really is)?

That's certainly a possibility, but several roots taking a right angle
turn at the same time?

________________________________________________________________
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 Thu Dec 4 22:35:12 2003