I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm afraid we're talking past each
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:24:48 -0600 email@example.com (Keith B Miller)
>You argued that you have _not_ seen "intensely and deeply rooted
>with little or no interbedded structure." Furthermore you state that
>observations would invalidate your model.
I have not seen "intensely and deeply rooted underclays", I have seen
some underclays with bedd
>I replied that such would not be expected because rooting is not readily
>preserved, and the evidence for paleosols rest with the macro- and
>microstructural features. Saturated soils are characteristically not
>deeply or intensely rooted soils. (I never stated that no roots are
>present!) In addition, I state that water saturated soils are poorly
>developed and often retain some of their depositional fabric.
>what you demand for falsification of your interpretation is invalid,
>it is not the expectation of the in situ model of coal formation. By
>disallowing all evidence other than what you choose, you effectively
>insulate your position from falsification. Paleosols below coal are a
>reality, by the standards used to describe and recognize any other
>paleosols. You have already admitted that you are not knowledgable about
>paleosols, and that you do not have time to read the literature. Until
>do, I do not see how you can dismiss the in situ origin of carboniferous
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]