Re: Making Tracks

From: Bill Payne <bpayne15@juno.com>
Date: Fri Apr 09 2004 - 00:26:01 EDT

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 11:25:02 -0600 "Steven M Smith" <smsmith@usgs.gov>
writes:

> But a "just-so story"? You would say that this is more of a "just-so
> story" than ideas of floating vegetation mat rafts loaded with herds of
> dinosaurs???

Nice one, Steve. I like that. :-)

> The Dakota sandstone has a lot of plant debris. I assume that most of
it
> probably is allochthonous (jargon for transported as opposed to 'in
situ')
> -- especially associated with the beach environment. The simplest
> explanation is that the transported plant debris is local and not
> washed in from great distances.

Then we agree that it is likely transported, the question is how far. If
it was only moved short distances, I would think there should be some of
the soil horizons where it was growing before being relocated a short
distance. If it washed in from long distances there would be no soil
locally because nothing grew there.

> The tracksites are on a ancient beach. I
> wouldn't expect to see food sources in a beach environment. Beach sand
are
> not very good at preserving plant material - too much life, water, and
> oxygen.

But below you say the beach sands seem "to be exceptionally rich in
organic plant debris." My question is - why is so much of the
transported material preserved, but none of the in situ roots from which
you say the transported material came? Of course, this is a similar
argument that I see in coal, and one which I will use when I finally get
time to respond to one of Kevin's posts.

And besides, the conventional picture doesn't need huge
> populations and lush food sources. All things considered, the Dakota
Fm.
> here seems to be exceptionally rich in organic plant debris. Despite my
low
> expectations, there seems to be a lot of available food for herbivores.
 So
> what's the problem?

It's all transported. There was apparently no local food production.

> If you can't explain these Dakota features as a
> mid-flood depositional event then you might as well abandon any
> version of global flood geology.

If I do that, then I cease to see the possibilities that the conventional
interpretations are incorrect.

Bill
Received on Fri Apr 9 00:30:07 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 09 2004 - 00:30:08 EDT