Re: Whimpy Roots

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:47:58 -0600 "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:

> 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.
>
> >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?

On March 9 you said: "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." There are a couple of
problems with your scenario - one is that when you raise the sea level
and flood the Amazon basin, you have a basin full of standing trees
instead of a flat bottom to deposit a parting on. Second, once you do
get a flat bottom and deposit a thin mud layer (parting), you need to be
able to deposit organics on top of the thin, delicate, widespread parting
without disturbing it.

We agree that trees die when sea level rises. However, as you pointed
out on Jan 20, 2000, trees take a long time to rot away:

"The argument goes that a tree can't stand out in the weather for
thousands
of years waiting to be slowly and gradually covered. It would rot
according
to the young-earth creationists. Thus, they conclude such trees are
evidence of rapid deposition ala the global flood.

Here is what is wrong with that idea. First such trees are evidence of
rapid deposition, but this can be accomplished without a global flood. In

1993 the Mississippi River flooded and dumped up to 6 feet of sand on the

forests and farm fields of the Midwest. This had the effect of killing
millions of trees, whose trunks now are polystrate tree trunks. They are
firmly rooted in the pre-1993 sediments and their trunks extend through
the
next layer. If there had been a 1994 flood, the trees, still standing but

dead at that time, would then extend through many layers of strata. So,
in
the year 10,000 AD the 1993 trees will be used by future young-earth
creationists to argue that this is evidence of a global flood--yet we
know
differently.

Secondly, the assumption that trees can't stand for millennia without
rotting is fallacious under certain circumstances. Waterlogged wood will
last millennia. There are forests offshore England today that were
inundated by the rise in sealevel after the ice age. Those tree trunks
still stand. And at a famous site of Mt. St. Helens, the trees in Spirit
lake still exist underwater, 20 years after the explosion."

So forests inundated by sea water can stand for millennia. And you have
to prevent clastic influxes during that time since partings don't have
standing trees. After how many ever millennia it takes for trees to rot
down to a plane surface, then you can have a deposit of mud, and then you
can land your floating mat, complete with trees (since we see trees above
as well as below partings), on the mud, but somehow without disturbing
the continuity of the mud layer. It all makes perfect sense as long as
you don't think about it, Glenn.
> >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.
OK, Glenn, then name or post photos of some oxbow lake plants that don't
have radiating roots. As we all know, oxbow lake plants are radically
different from swamp plants.
 
> >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.

Right, oxbow lake is not a swamp - I knew that. Now, look at the roots
attached to clumps of grass growing in real oxbow lakes today (or ask
your sedimentologist), and tell us if those modern roots look like the
ones in your photos.

> >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.

Trees are not in partings; trees are in coal below and above partings.
If you would take the time to comprehend what I am saying, you would
realize that what you are saying doesn't follow.
 
> 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.

Yeah, whatever, Glenn. It looks like you just jumped into my
conversation with Kevin to make me look foolish, not to entertain any
serious discussion. Kevin has done a much better job of both than you
ever thought about.

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 Sun Mar 14 01:51:33 2004