Re: Whimpy Roots

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:55:07 -0600 "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:

> Raise the sea level and the Amazon basin wouldn't be a bad analog. My
point
> was that slight rises and falls of sea level could account for the
> sedimentation we see.

How do you propose to level the trees before you deposit a parting?
Partings generally are not wrapped around tree trunks, and if there were
standing trees, shrubs, grasses etc., they would baffle the flow of
sediment-laden water before it got very far into the swamp. Distance of
travel is also affected by pH:
  
"The inference of pH influences is based on modern analyses in the
topogenous mires of the southeastern United States, where pH differences
in water chemistry cause clay to flocculate adjacent to the channel
margin, apparently limiting extensive inundation into the mire (Staub and
Cohen, 1979)." In Greb, S.F., Elbe, C.F., Hower, J.C., Andrews, W.M.,
2002. Multiple-bench architecture and interpretations of original mire
phases -- Examples from the Middle Pennsylvanian of the Central
Appalachian Basin, USA. International Journal of Coal Geology 49, 151.

Do you seriously think the Amazon basin is a good analog for mud flats
with virtually no standing trees? How do you correlate the sedimentation
we see in thin, widespread coal partings with that which would occur in
the Amazon basin with a rise in sea level?

> No we don't. You seem to think it requires a global flood. I don't. so
we
> don't have the same explanation.

No, I think it requires a flooded condition. The global aspect of the
flood is very secondary.

> Not all plants have radiating roots Bill.

Please name some swamp plants that don't have radiating roots.

On what basis do you assume that the layers are annual?

Look at the roots attached to clumps of grass growing in real swamps and
wetlands today (or ask your sedimentologist), and tell us if those modern
roots look like the ones in your photos.

It seems that you snipped the following, maybe while you think about it
or until you could check with your sedimentologist. I'll post it again
just to help you remember to get an answer:

> I will go with what my sedimentologist suggested. It explains those
partings
> without trying to create big mysteries. And creating big unexplained
> mysteries is what YEC is all about.
 
You need to get just a little higher in your thinking. Think about the
top of the parting and ask your sedimentologist to explain how he
proposes to grow a swamp on top of a soft mud parting without
bioturbating it with roots and critters. Are you going to propose a
floating veggie mat?

> >Will you agree that the Herren coal with the three partings which
cover ~250,000 sq. miles is allochthonous? What about the
> > Pittsburgh coal which we discussed years ago; is the Pittsburgh
allochthonous?

> Not after speaking with my sedimentologist the other day. I suspect
it was
> much like the situation in which that field trip leader experienced.
That
> would make it autochthonous, but from an attached mat.
 
Attached to what? And where do the trees come from? Are they growing on
the mat? If so, then the mat must be thick enough to support the weight
of trees commonly several feet in diameter. If they come from adjacent
exposed land, then the swamp is not flat and therefore could not be an
analog for the Pennsylvanian cyclothems.

> I wouldn't go so far as to make the claim about big dinos. You have no
> evidence of that. I have not seen anyone march an elephant across
> Mississippi Delta

Are you trying to grow trees on the floating mat? If it will hold trees
it should hold elephants. If the trees are on adjacent land, then the
swamp isn't flat. Which is it, Glenn?

________________________________________________________________
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 Tue Mar 9 22:57:02 2004