RE: Whimpy Roots

Bill, I got other things I need to do. I will answer this one, but it will
be the last for a while.

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Bill Payne
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:45 PM

>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?

You don't think long term enough. Raise the sea level, the trees die. Get
some floating vegetation mats as seen in the Mississippi Delta, and clays
coming down from the western highlands flows through those mats and deposits
the parting. That isn't hard to understand unless one doesn't want to.

>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.

See above

>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?

Do you seriously think the geologic evidence supports a global flood?

>> 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.

Sorry Bill, that is a bit disingenuous. If all we are arguing about is
whether a local flood caused a parting then we don't have an argument. But
you know that isn't the issue. You want that 'flooding condition' to be the
global flood. So don't try this 'we have the same argument' business

>> Not all plants have radiating roots Bill.
>
>Please name some swamp plants that don't have radiating roots.

This is why discussing things with you gets ridiculous. The picture we are
speaking of is not a swamp. You don't seem to take the time to understand
what you are looking at. It is an oxbow lake deposit.

>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.

Not a swamp. When you argue from the case as it is, you might get a
response.

>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?

Come on Bill, we were discussing floating vegetational mats, which are
observed, unrooted in the Mississippi delta. Your argument above doesn't
even address the conditions that apply.

>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?

I thought your big argument against rooted coal was the LACK of trees in the
partings. Are you now saying they are there? You can't have it both ways.

You got the last word. I don't find your coal arguments worth much, Bill.
You are a very fine person, but your insistence on ignoring all data in your
quest for believing a global flood is a bit embarrassing.
Received on Wed Mar 10 06:48:33 2004