In article <1994May22.133828.562@alc-ohio.alc.com> malone@alc-ohio.alc.com (Bruce Malone) writes:
....
> Fossil trees trunks, which extend upward through multiple layers of
> limestone,  have been found in many areas of the world including
> Kingston, Ontario

[ there are no such trees in Kingston, Ontario - see other post for other comments]

> and Joggins, Nova Scotia.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> This suggests that these
> very thick deposits were deposited very rapidly.  Similar polystata
> trees have been found extending upright through successive seams of
> coal.  Some of these trees have supposedly stood upright while
> successive cycles of oceans and peat swamp have pasted through an area.
> You be the judge as to the most logical interpretation... slow
> accumulation over thousands of years or... rapid burial during a
> massive world wide flood.

[ See other post for more detailed comment on the fallacies of using
_average_, net depositional rates to interpolate what conventional
geologists suggest for individual beds at metre scales ]

	One of the best, and longest-known "fossil forest" occurrences
is a locality known as Joggins, in Nova Scotia.  It is Carboniferous
in age, and was first described in detail in the late 1800s.  Here is
a quote from Dawson, 1868, on the nature of the trees at this
locality, in a beautiful cliff section over 1km thick:

[p.179]
"In the [stratigraphic] section in the preceding chapter, the reader
will observe the words "Underclay, _Stigmaria_ [a type of fossil tree
trunk]" frequently recurring; and over nearly every underclay is a
seam of coal.  An underclay is technically the bed of clay which
underlies a coal-seam; but it has now become a general term for a
*fossil soil* [Dawson's emphasis], or a bed which once formed a
terrestrial surface, and supported trees and other plants; because we
generally find these coal underclays, like the subsoils of many modern
peat-bogs, to contain roots and trunks of trees which aided in the
accumulation of the vegetable matter of the coal.  The underclays in
question are accordingly penetrated by innumerable long rootlets, now
in a coaly state, but retaining enough of their form to enable us to
recognize them as belonging to a peculiar root, the _Stigmaria_, of
very frequent occurrence in the coal measures, and at one time
supposed to have been a swamp plant of anomalous form, but now known
to have belonged to an equally singular tree, the _Sigillaria_, found
in the same deposits (Fig. 30).  The _Stigmaria_ has derived its name
from the regularly arranged pits or spots left by its rootlets, which
proceeded from it on all sides.  The _Sigillaria_ has been named from
the rows of leaf-scars which extend up its trunk, which in some
species is curiously ribbed or fluted.  One of the most remarkable
peculiarities of the stigmaria-rooted trees was the very regular
arrangement of their roots, which are four at their departure from the
trunk, and divide at equal distances successively into eight, sixteen,
and thirty-two branches, each giving off, on all sides, an immense
number of rootlets, stretching into the beds around, in a manner which
shows that these must have been soft sand and mud at the time these
roots and rootlets spread through them.
	It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into
[p.180]
stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their
natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have
been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them
were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that
these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the
recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes [these are local tidal
marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and
sediment].  In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther
examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these
fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees
connected with their roots and still in their natural position."

	There is very little, with the exception of terminology, that
would be different in a "modern" interpretation of these features, and
Dawson has much more detail on the other sedimentological features
found at Joggins that support his interpretation.  Dawson records well
over a dozen horizons with large upright trees, and smaller ones are
even more common.  The section at Joggins can still be visited today,
and is particularly well-known for the small reptile fossils found
there (they often occur inside the upright tree stumps, apparently
they fell in the hollow stump).  There are usually a few upright trees
exposed on the shore, although the rapid erosion of the 10m+ high
cliffs means the exposed examples change every year.

	Given that an "in place" occurrence was convincingly
determined by observations made in the 19th century for this and
_many_ other "fossil forest" localities, it is surprising that these
conclusions have not been recognized by modern "young Earth global
flood" [YEGF] creationists as clear evidence of non-global-flood
deposition for much of the geologic record.  They often hinge their
current arguments on the occurrence of upright trees in Yellowstone
National Park, point to their volcanic setting, and then point to
floating upright trees floating in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens
[2], and say, "See?  They could be transported during the flood.".
This argument is completely fallacious, because most "fossil forests"
do _not_ occur in volcanic deposits, and _do_ have the fragile roots
of the stumps tightly penetrating into the surrounding sediment, often
into a paleosol (fossil soil) [besides Joggins, see also 3].  One
occurrence is even associated with dinosaur footprints on the same
surface, on top of a coal seam [4, 5, 6].  The "transported floating
upright stumps" model [2] is a complete red-herring that does not
apply to the _VAST_ majority of "fossil forest" occurrences.

	As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for
the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a
non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional
rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres.  This is
_not_ the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be
deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then
little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as
is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees
commonly occur.  In short, he is assuming conventional geologists
would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated -
they do not.

	One of the most compelling features of Dawson's comments, from
a YEGF creationist's perspective, may be the closing remarks of his
book, in the conclusion section on p.671.  Statements expressing
similar sentiments can be found in most geological books of the period
(e.g., Murchison's "Siluria", where the Silurian and other Paleozoic
systems are first defined):
	
	"Patient observation and thought may enable us in time better
to comprehend these mysteries; and I think we may be much aided in
this by cultivating an acquaintance with the Maker and Ruler of the
machine as well as with His work."

	Dawson has no theological problems with the conclusions he
drew, which are basically similar to the ones drawn by geologists now.
Many other geologists of the period were devoutly religious, and
clearly expressed the fact in their publications.

	Apparently, many 19th century geologists share a common
philosophical framework with modern creationists, but, strangely
enough, modern creationists come to completely different conclusions
from both the 19th century geologists _and_ current geologists.  The
common appeal by modern creationists to an "atheistic" or "humanistic"
philosophical framework that "taints" the interpretations of science
is quite ridiculous in light of the strong beliefs of many historical
scientists, particularly in geology.  Why should creationists still
have a problem with their conclusions, more than 100 years later?

	Malone, along with many "young Earth global flood
creationists, have no idea that even data from the _19th_century_,
presented by a _creationist_ geologist is enough to demolish the
"polystrate fossil trees" part of their presentation.  "Polystrate
fossil trees" are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence YEGF
creationists can offer for their interpretation.  I wish they would
stop using it.

	-Andrew
	macrae@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
	or: macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca

References:

[1] Dawson, J.W., 1868.  Acadian Geology.  The Geological Structure,
Organic Remains, and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
and Prince Edward Island, 2nd edition.  MacMillan and Co.: London,
694pp.

[2] Coffin, H.G., 1983.  Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake,
Washington.  Geology, v.11, p.298-299.

[3] Cristie, R.L., and McMillan, N.J. (eds.), 1991.  Tertiary fossil
forests of the Geodetic Hills, Axel Heiberg Island, Arctic
Archipelago, Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 403, 227pp.

[4] Parker, L.R. and Balsley, J.K., 1989.  Coal mines as localities
for studying dinosaur trace fossils.  IN: Gilette, D.D. and Lockley,
M.G. (eds.), Dinosaur Tracks and Traces.  Cambridge University
Press:Cambridge, p.354-359.

[5] Parker, L.R. and Rowley, R.L., Jr., 1989.  Dinosaur footprints
from a coal mine in east-central Utah.  IN: Gilette, D.D. and Lockley,
M.G. (eds.), Dinosaur Tracks and Traces.  Cambridge University
Press:Cambridge, p.361-366.

[6] Carpenter, K., 1992.  Behaviour of hadrosaurs as interpreted from
footprints in the "Mesaverde" Group (Campanian) of Colorado, Utah, and
Wyoming.  Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, v.29, no.2,
p.81-96.  [ This one has a map of the dinosaur footprints and stumps -
fig. 1 ]