Yellowstone's Petrified Forests

Yuretich, Richard F.  “Comment on Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone 'fossil forests' and Stumps transported and deposited upright by Mount St. Helens mud flows.”  Geology 9(4):146–147.  Apr 1981.  A short comment in the journal Geology by Richard F. Yuretich, with William J. Fritz's reply printed after it.  Yuretich argues that many vertical trees on Amethyst Mountain and Specimen Ridge have trunks too long to have been carried upright over long distances, and Fritz replies that the wood was preserved in a dynamic system with trees continuously buried and growing.  The article uses it because Fritz wrote that he never disagreed with Dorf (1964) about the amount of time the sequence represents.

1. 1a.

   Page 147:  Fritz's Reply.  “First, I did not argue that in situ trees of the Eocene 'forests' were not preserved.  I do believe, however, that calling them forests gives a wrong impression of the depositional environment, because they contain numerous upright transported stumps with short trunks and wide root systems preserved alongside in situ vertical trees with long trunks, possible soil horizons, and narrow root systems.  This mixture of transported and in situ stumps appears nearly identical to that seen in the Toutle River Valley.” ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 1b.

   Page 147:  Fritz's Reply.  “I never disagreed with Dorf (1964) on the amount of time represented in the sequence, but I believe his method for determining it is open to question.” ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

3. 1c.

   Page 147:  Fritz's Reply.  “Thus, instead of forests being buried in 27 discrete episodes, the wood was preserved in a dynamic system, with trees continuously being buried and growing, as shown in the model I presented (Fritz, 1980a, Fig. 8).”  Page 146:  Yuretich's Comment, the objection Fritz is answering.  “Many of the vertical trees on Amethyst Mountain and Specimen Ridge have very long trunks (Fritz, 1980a, Fig. 1) and could not be carried long distances in an upright position.” ↩ ↩

Karowe, A. L., and T. H. Jefferson.  “Burial of trees by eruptions of Mount St Helens, Washington: implications for the interpretation of fossil forests.”  Geological Magazine 124(3):191–204.  May 1987.  A 1987 paper in a geology journal on how eruptions bury trees and what that means for reading fossil forests.  The article uses it as the paper whose test for transported trees was fixed before the fieldwork, and whose authors found no evidence of upright transport at Yellowstone.

1. 2a.

   Pages 191–192:  “Upright stumps containing roots which penetrated a finer-grained matrix below the volcaniclastic sediment in which they were buried were considered to be in situ, whereas horizontal logs or upright stumps bearing detached roots were considered to be transported.” ↩

2. 2b.

   Page 197:  “Few instances were noted of trees which clearly had been transported in upright position (Fig. 2c).  Those that were seen measured less than 2 m high and had broad root mats, approximately 1.5 m across.  Root systems often incorporated large boulders and were encased within a mudflow matrix.” ↩ ↩

3. 2c.

   Pages 200–202:  “Our observations at Mount St Helens and at Specimen Ridge support a depositional model of in situ burial for the upright fossil trees of Yellowstone.  All of the standing trees examined on Specimen Ridge are relatively tall (4–9 m high) and are preserved upright despite the large size of boulders transported by the mudflows.  Branches appear to have been broken off and the tops of trunks coincide with the tops of the mudflow units in which they are buried.” ↩ ↩

4. 2d.

   Page 202:  “Roots of standing trees are well developed and are consistently located in a finer-grained matrix which is laterally continuous over many metres.  These finer-grained units, which show clear zonal differentiation very similar to that of modern soil profiles, were described by Retallack (1980) and interpreted as palaeosols.  Yuretich (1984) reported petrographic evidence of soil formation around the roots of fossil stumps, and noted cases where fluvially-deposited conglomerates had flowed around in situ trees.  No evidence of transport in upright position was seen during our investigations at Yellowstone National Park.  In the few examples of this seen at Mount St Helens, root mats were roughly as wide as the stumps were high, thus transport in upright position would be expected, as it would provide the position of maximum hydrodynamic stability.” ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

5. 2e.

   Page 202, figure 3e:  Describing Fig. 3e:  “Figure 3e shows a living tree with its root growing around a fossil log.  This indicates that the two trees lived at sufficiently different time periods for the first tree to become fossilized before the roots of the other were fully developed.”  Page 195, figure 3e:  The caption of the figure reads:  “Upright fossil tree in Specimen Ridge, Yellowstone National Park.  Note root (R) growing around horizontal fossil log (L).” ↩

6. 2f.

   Page 195:  “In one unusual instance, a number of trees still in growth position were transported over considerable distances by a mudflow in Smith Creek.  A 'rafted island' of forested land, approximately 10 m long by 20 m wide, was transported and deposited in the middle of the river channel (Figs. 3d and 5d).  This is a case of trees transported in upright position which is far more likely to be misinterpreted as in situ preservation than are the upright stumps reported by Fritz (1980c, 1982) and Fritz & Moore (1981), which were transported individually.  However, the exposure of a fossil forest over a large area should enable workers to establish or disprove the 'rafted island' origin in most cases.” ↩ ↩

Fritz, William J., and Harold G. Coffin.  “Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington.”  Geology 11(12):733–734.  Dec 1983.  A comment by William J. Fritz and a reply by Harold G. Coffin in the journal Geology, on Coffin's short report of upright stumps floating in Spirit Lake, Washington.  Fritz agrees that Coffin's stumps floated upright, but argues that the mechanism does not apply significantly to Yellowstone, where most petrified wood lies in coarse conglomerate laid down by rivers and sediment flows rather than in fine lake sediment.  The article uses it for Fritz's figure of 10%–13% of transported trees that stay upright, and for Coffin's question about what the organic layers are.

1. 3a.

   Page 733:  Fritz's Comment.  “I concur with Coffin's (1983) observation on upright stumps floating in Spirit Lake, Washington, and believe it may provide an interesting and useful geologic insight into interpreting ancient lake deposits.  Coffin's report also supports my own observations that stumps can be transported and deposited upright.  However, I must disagree with Coffin that this mechanism applies significantly to the Yellowstone 'fossil forests.'” ↩

2. 3b.

   Page 733:  Fritz's Comment.  “My first objection … is that most petrified wood in Yellowstone occurs in fluvial-sediment-flow conglomerate facies and not the low-energy fine-grained lacustrine facies (Parsons, 1974;  Dorf, 1980, p. 30;  Fritz, 1982).  If Coffin believes that stumps floating in large lakes explains Yellowstone, he needs to either (1) document coarse-grained sedimentation like that of the Lamar River Formation at the bottom of Spirit Lake (rather than normal fine-grained lacustrine sedimentation) or (2) demonstrate that previous observations are wrong and that, in fact, most trees in Yellowstone do occur in lacustrine rocks.” ↩

3. 3c.

   Page 734:  Fritz's Comment.  “I also object to this mechanism because, in addition to the transported stumps, many tall trunks with soil profiles in Yellowstone appear best explained by preservation in place (Retallack, 1981;  Fritz, 1981, 1982).  Because Coffin described the Spirit Lake area as 'totally devoid of rooted stumps' no such mixture of in situ and transported trees could result.” ↩ ↩

4. 3d.

   Page 734:  Fritz's Comment.  “Although I could not obtain exact counts from Coffin's figures, because of scale and oblique angle, only a small percentage (maybe 10%–20%) appear to remain upright.  In Yellowstone, I found up to 40% vertical stumps (well over 50% in a few intervals on Specimen Ridge) in distal conglomerate.  Because only 10%–13% of the transported trees remain upright in the Toutle River sediment flows, and a similar percentage in Spirit Lake, I conclude that Yellowstone remains best explained by a mixture of transported and in situ trees.  The Spirit Lake analogy does not fit because, unlike at the edge of the Toutle River, no trees remain in place to increase the percentage of upright stumps.” ↩ ↩ ↩

5. 3e.

   Page 734:  Coffin's Reply.  “My short paper on erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake (Coffin, 1983) does not imply that flotation in the lake is the only mode for the emplacement of the Yellowstone trees.  Neither does it represent denial of the processes suggested in Fritz's model (Fritz, 1980a, 1980b).  It merely opens up another possible mechanism.  The relative importance of each of the three processes (fluvial, lacustrine, and in situ growth) for the origin of the erect petrified trees in Yellowstone can be established only by further research.” ↩

6. 3f.

   Page 734:  Coffin's Reply.  “The percentages of erect trees in the Yellowstone area range all the way from 30% (17 out of 56 specimens) for levels 1 through 10 on Mount Hornaday to 75% (30 out of 40 specimens) near Tower Junction (Coffin, 1976).” ↩

7. 3g.

   Page 734:  Coffin's Reply.  “Other areas have, instead of lenses, thin uniform bands of organic matter (leaves, needles, twigs, bark, etc. in sorted ash) that usually lie above coarse-grained high-energy deposits.  These organic bands argue against the fluviatile origin of these sediments because they mantle a surface-like soil and rarely exhibit erosional breaks.  They could well be called 'soil levels' except for many unsoil-like characteristics (Coffin, 1979b).  If these organic levels are neither true soils nor fluvial sediments, what are they?  The lacustrine origin of these layers is a distinct possibility that will need to be established by further research.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Yuretich, Richard F.  “Yellowstone fossil forests: new evidence for burial in place.”  Geology 12(3):159–162.  Mar 1984.  A research paper in Geology, reviewed by H. D. MacGinitie, with Erling Dorf thanked in its acknowledgements, in which Richard F. Yuretich examined the tree stumps at eight stratigraphic levels on Specimen Ridge.  He found most stumps rooted in fine-grained sandstone, saw mudflow conglomerate flow around some of them, and saw no evidence that the upright stumps had been transported, while accepting Fritz's account of the mudflow setting.  The article uses it as the field study for the claim that the Specimen Ridge trees grew where they stand.

1. 4a.

   Pages 159–160:  The sentence runs across the page break.  “after examining the tree stumps at eight separate stratigraphic levels on Specimen Ridge (ranging from about 10 to 100 m on the measured section of Fritz, 1980b), I found none that were contained entirely within conglomerate.  More typically, the stumps are rooted in a fine-grained sandstone, with the lower part of the trunk projecting up into the conglomerate (Fig. 2).  In some cases, I also observed that the conglomerates had flowed around the tree stumps, indicating that they were in place prior to the conglomeratic event (Fig. 3).”  Page 159:  Yuretich's statement of his disagreement with Fritz.  “My conclusions are that the fluvial and mudflow depositional environments as outlined by Fritz (1980b) are essentially correct, but there is no evidence that the upright stumps have undergone transport.” ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 4b.

   Page 160:  “In contrast, horizontal logs are restricted almost exclusively to conglomeratic zones and underwent some degree of transport.  Some of these logs were doubtless moved long distances, as evidenced by their abraded appearance;  others may have been derived locally.” ↩

3. 4c.

   Page 161:  Yuretich credits the 'swirly' texture remark to J. F. Hubert, in a 1982 personal communication.  “Thin sections of twelve of these rocks give no indication of significant current activity at any of the stump levels. …  Neither the rock fragments nor plagioclase grains show preferred orientation or imbrication, characteristics that would indicate a current-dominated depositional system.  All but two samples from the root zones exhibit a 'swirly' texture in thin section, which is characteristic of the disturbed upper part of a soil zone (J. F. Hubert, 1982, personal commun.).” ↩

4. 4d.

   Page 161:  “At the base of the fining-upward sequence are chalcedony-filled 'microgeodes,' which are the silicified remains of charophytic algae.  These plants are diagnostic of a fresh-water lake or pond environment (Dean, 1981).  It seems likely that the trees at this level may have been killed in place by rising waters from streams dammed by mudflows.” ↩

5. 4e.

   Pages 160–161:  “The absence of readily identifiable soil profiles was additional evidence cited by Fritz (1980b) as arguing against an in situ origin of the tree stumps.  However, Retallack (1981) found podzol-like structures at one interval of the Specimen Ridge section (90 to 94 m of Fritz, 1980b;  the classic 'three trees' locality).  I must agree that, on a megascopic scale, soil development in the root zones of the tree-stump layers is not readily discernible.  However, as Retallack (1981) noted, these were most likely immature soils with weak development of district [read 'distinct'] soil horizons.  Furthermore, one would expect the scouring action of these mudflows (as demonstrated by the abrasion of logs and stumps) to remove a significant volume of the soils.” ↩ ↩

6. 4f.

   Page 162:  “As Dott (1983) has emphasized, sedimentation in general is dominated by episodic events of large magnitude, separated by long periods of relative quiescence.  In the case of the Eocene forests of Yellowstone, the volcanic events that buried the trees were apparently separated by enough time to permit the development of incipient soils.” ↩

7. 4g.

   Page 162:  “Although I have not examined other exposures of the Lamar River in the same detail, these processes likely occurred in other areas of the alluvial facies of this unit (Smedes and Prostka, 1972), such as at Amethyst Mountain (Holmes, 1879;  Dorf, 1960).” ↩

Retallack, Greg.  “Comment on Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone fossil forests.”  Geology 9(2):52–54.  Feb 1981.  A short comment in the journal Geology, with William J. Fritz's reply printed after it.  Retallack reports that he examined the fossil layers at the 75 to 100 m interval on Specimen Ridge in the summer of 1979 and found the stumps firmly attached to root systems in buried ancient soils (paleosols).  The article uses it for the test Retallack set for the transport idea and for his description of the soil layers under the stumps.

1. 5a.

   Page 52:  “The real question is whether the vertical stumps are attached to extensive root systems in the rock below or whether their roots have been broken and waterworn before deposition.  No evidence of this kind has been presented by Fritz.  That upright petrified stumps in the Lamar River Formation were transported is thus a theoretical possibility not yet documented.” ↩

2. 5b.

   Page 52:  “On the other hand, there are at least some cases of petrified tree stumps unquestionably in place — for example, the horizons at the 75- to 100-m interval on Specimen Ridge (Fritz, 1980a;  1980b, Fig. 1).  I examined these horizons carefully during the summer of 1979 and found that these stumps are firmly attached to extensive root systems in paleosols that, compared to previous accounts, are surprisingly well differentiated.” ↩

3. 5c.

   Page 52:  Retallack describes the soil layers under the stumps, starting with the A horizon.  “It has a clear A horizon of silicified, light-colored sandstone (an albic horizon, in the terminology of Soil Survey Staff, 1975).”  Page 53:  “The B horizon is an erosion-resistant gray claystone (probably an argillic horizon) with characteristic soil-like structure (weak to moderate, very coarse, columnar peds) defined by sand-filled clastic dikes (silans in the sense of Brewer, 1964).  The C horizon is the upper part of a mud-flow deposit, which appears more weathered than the lower part or other comparable units in the same outcrop.  These horizons are all more or less gradational, and there are no abrupt discontinuities in the profile.  The A[2] horizon is conspicuously thickened near the large petrified stump, as in basket podzols of modern soils.  Petrographic and geochemical data are needed before this paleosol can be accurately identified within a modern soil taxonomy.” ↩ ↩ ↩

4. 5d.

   Page 52:  “These issues are all related to the degree of differentiation of the paleosols rather than to whether they were soils.  A modern soil with the features described by Fritz would be regarded as immature and would be classified as an alluvial soil (in the classification of Stace and others, 1968) or an entisol (classification of Soil Survey Staff, 1975).” ↩

5. 5e.

   Page 53:  Fritz's Reply.  “Even though none of the organic zones I observed are unquestionably paleosols, I would expect discontinuous eroded soil horizons to occur in the Lamar River Formation.  These paleosols should be most numerous and best developed in sections representing depositional lowlands where mud flows occurred sporadically.”  Fritz also quotes Jensen 1931, p. 46, on the same interval.  “the soil in which the trees grew is never preserved.” ↩

6. 5f.

   Page 53:  Fritz's Reply.  “Specimen Ridge is such a section, and, like Retallack, I interpret the large trees at the 75- to 100-m interval (Fritz, 1980a;  1980b, Fig. 1;  Retallack, Comment above, Fig. 2) to have been preserved where they grew (Fritz, 1980c, p. 15).” ↩ ↩

7. 5g.

   Page 54:  Fritz's Reply.  “Tall upright trees with unbroken trunks, narrow root systems, and intact roots penetrating the substrate were apparently preserved where they grew (Fritz, 1980c, p. 15, 68–71).  Unlike the tall in situ trees, many upright stumps have short trunks and roots broken prior to burial in a conglomerate with no organic zone, weathering profile, or color change (Fig. 1 here;  Fritz, 1980b, p. 312;  1980c, p. 15).  The bark of these trees is rarely preserved, owing to abrasion by stream and mud-flow transport.” ↩

8. 5h.

   Page 54:  Fritz's Reply.  “Additional work is certainly needed to better document the percentage of transported stumps on each of the measured sections.  However, preliminary data suggest that sections far from source areas have many in situ trees, whereas transported stumps and logs predominate in sections near a source (Fritz, 1980c).” ↩

Fritz, William J.  “Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone 'fossil forests'.”  Geology 8(7):309–313.  Jul 1980.  A 1980 paper that argues the Yellowstone fossil wood was carried and laid down by streams and mudflows, and that entire forests were not preserved in place, though some upright trees were.  Creationist ministry pages cite it against long ages, and the article argues they misstate it.

1. 6a.

   Page 311:  “The conglomerate beds contain most of the petrified logs and stumps (Dorf, 1964b;  Parsons, 1974).  Only on Amethyst Mountain do ash and sandstone units contain a significant amount of petrified wood, but even there more than 50% of the petrified wood is preserved in conglomerate.” ↩

2. 6b.

   Page 311:  “suggested that these should be called paleosols.  However, no A, B, or C horizons can be distinguished, and the zones are very thin, are well laminated, have no decayed organic debris, and in places are draped over large boulders.  Remains of vertical trees in the conglomerate facies normally have no organic zone or weathering profile associated with the roots.  The organic zones probably do not represent soils but rather are plant litter deposited by sheet wash, possibly during intense rainstorms associated with volcanic activity.” ↩

3. 6c.

   Page 312:  “In all the sections, with the exception of several small intervals in the Specimen Ridge section, fossilized horizontal logs are most abundant and make up 60% to 100% of the total.  The unit 250 m from the base of the Amethyst Mountain section (unit 30 of Fisk, 1976) is typical.  This unit contains 39% vertical stumps, 53% horizontal logs, and 8% diagonal logs (Fritz and Fisk, 1978).” ↩

4. 6d.

   Page 312:  “In some areas, such as the layer 272 m above the base of the Cache Creek section, all trees are horizontal and most of the logs are oriented in a particular direction, as in log jams (Fig. 3).  The horizontal logs of Amethyst Mountain are also preferentially oriented northwest.southeast (Fritz and Fisk, 1978).  Coffin (1976) previously reported dominant orientations of horizontal logs in the Lamar River Formation.” ↩

5. 6e.

   Page 312:  “I have found no key beds or layers in the formation that correlate between sections (with the possible exception of the white ash exposed in the Cache Creek, Amethyst Mountain, and Mount Hornaday sections).  In fact, most beds occur as lenses or interfinger with other rock types and can be traced laterally only 100 m or less.” ↩ ↩

6. 6f.

   Page 313:  “Due to the complex alluvial system responsible for deposition of the Lamar River Formation fossil wood deposits, it is not possible to determine the exact number of 'layers' or 'forests.'  I do not think that entire Eocene forests were preserved in situ even though some upright trees were apparently preserved where they grew.  It is also difficult to determine how many times nearby volcanoes erupted.”  “Some upright trees with long trunks and well-preserved root systems were apparently buried and preserved in situ.” ↩ ↩ ↩

7. 6g.

   Page 313:  “Even some vertical stumps, after being broken and uprooted by mud flows, were transported and deposited in the upright position by streams and subsequent mud flows.  Many of the petrified vertical stumps in the Lamar River Formation have a wide root system with short, broken trunks.  Such trees would behave as any irregular clast with the vertical position being most stable.” ↩

Coffin, Harold G.  “The Yellowstone Petrified 'Forests'.”  Origins (Geoscience Research Institute) 24(1):5–44.  1997.  A booklet-length special edition of Origins, the journal of the Geoscience Research Institute, by Harold G. Coffin, who studied these forests for much of his life.  It counts the fossil forest levels and trees at each site, reports over 350 soil samples analyzed by X-ray and infrared methods, and argues that the trees were carried in and buried quickly rather than grown where they stand.  The article uses it as the fullest statement of the creationist case and as the reference that the ministry summaries should be checked against.

1. 7a.

   Pages 7, 9:  Coffin's prose counts, which differ from his Table 1: Dorf's 27 levels at Amethyst Mountain, 31 plotted on Mount Hornaday, Mount Norris 5, Specimen Ridge 15, Cache Creek 26.  “The greatest sequence of superimposed fossil forest levels is located in the Specimen Creek area where 65 or more levels can be counted.”  Page 6:  About the exposed section:  “Extensive erosion has exposed more than 1000 vertical meters of these volcanics.”  Table 1, page 9:  Table 1 counts differently, giving upright-tree levels plus organic levels with no upright trees: Cache Creek 13 + 12 = 25, Fossil Forest 32 + 9 = 41, Mt. Hornaday 37 + 5 = 42, Specimen Creek 48 + 17 = 65, Mt. Norris 5 + 0 = 5, Specimen Ridge 11 + 3 = 14.  Only the Specimen Creek total of 65 is the same in both. ↩ ↩

2. 7b.

   Page 9:  “For three levels of the Fossil Forest (Amethyst Mountain) with 208 petrified trees, only 28% are upright.  On the other hand, the Petrified Tree area near Roosevelt Lodge exhibits 30 upright out of a total of 40 visible petrified trees (75%).  Individual levels may be even more variable — some with all trees horizontal or all upright.  These figures are based upon trees revealed in the irregular cross-section exposed by the eroded cliff faces.  If a surface view of the total fossil forest for any particular level were possible, the percentages for standing and fallen trees could be different.”  Table 2:  Erect and prone trees by site: Specimen Creek 50/20; Mt. Hornaday 157/173; Fossil Forest 58/150; Specimen Ridge 57/26; Petrified Tree 30/10; Mt. Norris 29/31. ↩ ↩ ↩

3. 7c.

   Pages 9–11:  “Most of the wood tissue of the Yellowstone forests is well preserved, even though limbs and bark are usually absent.  Roots are present and often can be seen extending a short distance from the bases of the petrified stumps.  Occasionally stumps and logs show driftwood-like abrasion or broken and reduced root systems.” ↩ ↩

4. 7d.

   Pages 11–12:  “Trees growing on a hillside have roots extending up and down slope.  Such root arrangement was not observed for any of the petrified stumps.  The flat spread of the roots of the petrified stumps indicates that they grew on a relatively flat surface.  Furthermore, the surfaces on which the trees stand, which can be traced in gullies back into the mountain, deviate from horizontal only by 7° or less.” ↩

5. 7e.

   Page 27:  “Small rootlets can be located at the bases of upright stumps, and this feature has been used to argue against transport.  Observations in Spirit Lake near Mount St. Helens and of trees uprooted by bulldozing operations show that the small roots and rootlets are usually still intact, but the larger roots often may be broken.  The presence of small roots extending from the base of a petrified tree therefore is not evidence for an in situ interpretation unless large roots also extend unbroken.” ↩ ↩

6. 7f.

   Page 13:  “In 1929-1930 A.E. Douglas, a pioneer in dendrochronology, was unable to cross-match the rings of the Yellowstone petrified trees on Specimen Ridge.  Little additional dendrochronological work has been done on petrified trees until recently.  In 1979 and 1991 Michael Arct located several small trees in the Specimen Creek forest that had similar bands of distinctive anomalous growth-ring patterns.”  Coffin prints the surname as Douglas; the dendrochronologist is A. E. Douglass. ↩

7. 7g.

   Page 15:  “sequoia is not the best tree for such studies because of tendencies for rings to split or merge from one side of the stump to the other.” ↩ ↩

8. 7h.

   Page 29:  “Arct has found matching growth ring patterns for upright trees separated by one or more levels.  Living forests on successive levels that are sequentially buried by volcanic mud slides could not have grown at the same time and under the same weather conditions. …  These results are a strong argument for their being allochthonous (transported from elsewhere).” ↩

9. 7i.

   Page 25:  “Spark source mass spectrometry analysis of trace elements in the bands of ash revealed pulses of ash from four source areas for the Specimen Creek Petrified Forest.  The four trace element profiles interfinger in an irregular manner up the sequence of 65 organic levels …  If these 65 ash layers (organic levels) were laid down over a long time span, the ash that was laid down thousands of years later near the end of the series of ash eruptions would have changed sufficiently to produce a new and different trace element profile.  This has not been the case.  Quick burial of the whole sequence seems to be required.” ↩ ↩ ↩

10. 7j.

    Page 25:  “None of these have been found in the fossil forest organic levels during a century of research. …  Only one exception is known.  Remains of termites have been found in chambers within the petrified wood.” ↩ ↩

11. 7k.

    Page 33:  “Using side-scan sonar, transects covering slightly under 1% of the lake bottom yielded 154 vertical stumps and 95 prostrate logs. …  Extrapolation to the entire lake bottom gave approximately 19,500 erect stumps and about 12,000 horizontal logs.”  Coffin's source note for these figures is Coffin 1987, Palaios 2:179–180. ↩

12. 7l.

    Page 36:  “Some have argued that Spirit Lake is not a good analog for the Yellowstone Fossil Forests, because the large number of logs accumulating on the bottom of Spirit Lake is very different from the more scattered fossil logs and stumps in Yellowstone.  However, one important difference between the two deposits is that Spirit Lake has not had adequate sediment input to bury the sinking logs and stumps.  If the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption had been followed by a series of volcanic breccia flows into Spirit Lake, spaced long enough apart to bury successive sets of logs and stumps as they sank, it would likely have produced a deposit very similar to the Yellowstone Fossil Forests.” ↩

Johns, Warren H.  “The Challenge of Fossil Forests for Creationist Research.”  Answers Research Journal 12:179–209.  2019.  A review article in the Answers Research Journal, a creationist research journal of Answers in Genesis, that sets out criteria for telling trees that grew where they are buried from trees carried in by water, built on a 2016 creationist study and nine more criteria drawn mainly from secular research.  Johns's bibliography is the most complete on this subject in either camp.  The article uses it because its author tells creationists to start from Karowe and Jefferson's 1987 study of uprooted trees.

1. 8a.

   Page 180:  “unfortunately, all creationist studies have largely ignored the work of Karowe and Jefferson (1987) on the implications of the Mount St. Helens uprooted trees for analyzing fossil forests.  These two authors set up helpful criteria for determining which trees are allochthonous and which are autochthonous.  Creationists re-examining the Yellowstone fossil forests ought to begin with the purely geological study of Karowe and Jefferson (1987).”  Page 179:  From the abstract.  “Nothing has appeared in secular journals by creation scientists on the general topic of fossil forests since that time.  Creationism's focus on the Yellowstone 'fossil forests' has faded into the past as far as field research goes.” ↩ ↩

2. 8b.

   Page 190:  Criterion 13 of Johns's list.  “According to Fritz and Harrison (1985) if 10% to 15% of the total logs are upright, then the probability is high that at least some of them are in situ, based on an analysis of upright and prostrate trees at Mount St. Helens.”  Johns is quoting Fritz and Harrison (1985), Sedimentary Geology 42(1–2):49–64.  Johns's sentence is loosely worded, so read it alongside Fritz's own 1983 figure of 10%–13% upright among transported Toutle River trees:  the sense is that an upright fraction above roughly 10–15% is more than transport alone produces.  The article relies on the paraphrase no further than this. ↩

3. 8c.

   Page 192:  Criterion 16.  “the height/width dimensions of stumps are critical.  Stumps having many meters of height and only a meter or so of stump base diameter will more likely to be autochthonous.  Allochthony has been assessed where the stumps were bottom heavy, stabilized in a vertical stance by wide root systems that were wider than the height of the stump or by boulders entrapped in the root mass.” ↩

4. 8d.

   Page 192:  Criterion 16.  “One mudflow matrix in the middle of Smith Creek appears to have a dozen or so upright stumps on its surface.  The 'island' in the creek's center was estimated to be 10 m by 20 m …  This discovery may offer creationists a new interpretation for the transport of groves of trees as single units in volcanic mudflow deposits, such as at Yellowstone.” ↩

Dorf, Erling.  “The Petrified Forests of Yellowstone Park.”  Scientific American 210(4):106–114.  Apr 1964.  A 1964 article in the magazine Scientific American.  It describes a bluff on Amethyst Mountain where 27 buried forests are exposed, and it works out a 20,000-year span for the 1,200 feet of rock from growth-ring counts and from volcanic regrowth in Mexico.  The article uses it as the source of the 27-forest count and of the 20,000-year figure, which it says is arithmetic rather than a measurement.

1. 9a.

   Page 107:  “On a steep bluff overlooking the Lamar River a few miles above its confluence with the Yellowstone River … no fewer than 27 …  been exposed by erosion.  These layers, which total about 1,200 feet in depth, represent alternating periods of violent volcanic activity and quiet forest growth over a span of some 20,000 years.”  Page 109:  Figure caption:  “'FOSSIL FOREST' is the collective name given to this site on the northeastern slope of Amethyst Mountain, where the petrified remains of no fewer than 27 Eocene forests have been exposed to view by erosion.”  The caption's own words:  “A drawing of the site appears on the following page,”. ↩

2. 9b.

   Page 108:  “We observed that each of the 27 forests in these beds was buried by a single deposit of volcanic debris.  We also knew from more recent volcanic eruptions in Mexico that a new forest begins to grow on top of a volcanic sediment about 200 years after the sediment has been deposited.  By counting the number of annual growth rings in the buried stumps we were also able to estimate the age of each forest at the time of its burial.  In some cases we found as many as 500 of these growth rings.  From these data we were able to calculate that the entire 1,200-foot 'layer cake' of sediments exposed at this site must have been deposited over a period of some 20,000 years.  This is equivalent to about three-quarters of an inch a year, a rate of deposition roughly 100 times more rapid than that estimated for shallow-water sand or mud sediments of a comparable age in the Gulf Coast region.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Coffin, Harold G.  “The Organic Levels of the Yellowstone Petrified Forests.”  Origins (Geoscience Research Institute) 6(2):71–82.  Jun 1979.  A 1979 field survey of the organic levels, the thin layers of plant matter between the volcanic beds of the Yellowstone petrified forests.  It measured sixty-three levels above Specimen Creek, found no organic matter in 24% of 130 tree-bearing levels, and checked 120 thin sections, 86 of which show the matter mixed with no order of density.  The article calls it the best original creationist field data on this subject, and uses its findings on upside-down organic matter and missing forest animals.

1. 10a.

   Section General Description:  “Sixty-three levels on the slopes above Specimen Creek range from a trace of organic matter to 15 cm thick.  The average is close to 3 cm.  These dimensions are for the total depth of 'soil' or organic matter.  A distinction between forest floor litter and underlying soil is not visible.  Of the 130 levels with upright trees included for the four petrified forests listed in Table 1, 24% contain no organic matter.” ↩

2. 10b.

   Section Evidences of Reworking by Water:  “Eighty-six (71.6%) of 120 vertical thin sections of organic levels studied have the organic matter mixed into the sediments with no prevailing order of density.  Twelve of the sections (10%) have a reverse organic profile with the greatest accumulation of organic matter at the bottom.” ↩ ↩

3. 10c.

   Section Evidences of Reworking by Water:  “Differential decay with depth is absent in the organic levels of Yellowstone.  Throughout the petrified forests of the region, vegetable debris at the bottom of a layer is as well preserved as that at the top.” ↩

4. 10d.

   Section Evidences of Reworking by Water:  “Land snails, some amphibians and reptiles, many insects, arachnids and worms would not escape burial.  Eggs and young of many types would be unable to flee.  In addition, bones, teeth, scales, exuviae, castings, droppings, burrows, etc., would qualify as evidence of animal life.  None of these have been found in the organic levels during a century of research.  Considering the excellent preservation of the delicate plant parts, diagenetic destruction of animal remains appears unlikely.” ↩

5. 10e.

   Section Taxonomic Characteristics:  “Although Sequoia cones are small and fragile, they do remain intact and visible for several months after falling.  No petrified Sequoia cones have been found in Yellowstone despite the dominance of Sequoia trees.  Cones of any type are rare in the petrified forests.”  Of Roosevelt Lodge:  “One would expect to find great numbers of Sequoia needles and some cones, since most of the upright trees are Sequoia.  However, large numbers of broad leaves and only a few pine needles are seen in the organic levels.  Sequoia needles were entirely absent.” ↩ ↩ ↩

6. 10f.

   Section Taxonomic Characteristics:  “A flotation experiment involving aspen and poplar leaves and fir needles in a tank of water showed that the needles became saturated and sank to the bottom first.  Thus flotation in water is a possible explanation for this kind of taxonomic sorting.”  The pattern being explained is:  “a sequence of broad leaves at the top of the organic zone, mixed broad leaves and needles just below, and only needles at the bottom.” ↩

7. 10g.

   Section Taxonomic Characteristics:  Reporting DeBord's 1977 Loma Linda dissertation:  “No positive correlation exists between Yellowstone fossil pollen abundance and the proximity of possible source trees.” ↩

8. 10h.

   Section Other Related Evidence:  “An analysis by x-ray diffraction and infrared scans on over 350 samples has been done for the Specimen Creek Area.  Of nine horizontal bands of clay (montmorillonite) found distributed through the Specimen Creek petrified forest, three were limited to the breccias between organic levels. …  Clay content was up to 60% but no profile was detected on any of the seven organic zones included in the clay bands.” ↩

Morris, John D.  “The Yellowstone Petrified Forests.”  Impact 268.  Institute for Creation Research.  Oct 1, 1995.  An Impact article by John D. Morris for the Institute for Creation Research, built on Coffin's Origin by Design (1983), Arct 1991 and Fritz's Roadside Geology of the Yellowstone Country (1985).  The article uses it as the source of two claims that Coffin contradicts, that the roots of the Specimen Ridge trees end abruptly and that the soil layers have no clay, and of the figure of 27 layers at Specimen Ridge.

1. 11a.

   Section Opening:  “At Specimen Ridge, 27 successive layers have been claimed, but at nearby Specimen Creek, over 50 have been counted, each requiring the lengthy burial and decomposition process described above.  Obviously, the total time for the deposition was at least tens of thousands of years (Fritz, 1985).” ↩

2. 11b.

   Section Fossils and Soils:  “In many growing trees, the root systems are larger than the tree itself.  In the Specimen Ridge trees, however, the roots abruptly terminate at ground level, or in some cases with a 'root ball' — individual roots having been broken. …  They have no bark or branches.”  On clay:  “Finally, the 'soil' layers possess no clay (Coffin, p. 145), the altered remnant of volcanic ash.” ↩ ↩

Answers in Genesis.  “Petrified Forests in Yellowstone.”  Wonders of Geology.  Jul 17, 2008.  A web article from Answers in Genesis, the creationist ministry, on the Yellowstone petrified forests.  The page carries no author's name.  The article uses it for two claims that Coffin's own papers contradict:  that the roots are only root balls, and that the layers hold no clay.

1. 12a.

   Section What is the Evidence?:  “Trees that grew in place and then were petrified should show an extensive petrified root system as well, but what we actually observe are small root balls — evidence of them having been forcefully pulled out of the ground at another location and transported to the Yellowstone area where they were buried.” ↩

2. 12b.

   Section What is the Evidence?:  “The evidence should show layers of clay alternating with thick layers of organic material between successive forests.  The fact is that there is no clay found in these volcanic layers in Yellowstone and the average layer of organic material is only about 1 inch thick.” ↩ ↩

Sarfati, Jonathan.  “The Yellowstone petrified forests: Evidence of catastrophe.”  Creation 21(2):18–21.  Mar 1999.  A 1999 article by Jonathan Sarfati in Creation, later put on the web, where the version is from 2010 and was updated in 2018.  The article uses it for the claims that the petrified layers have no clay and that the forests lack soil, rootlets and animals, and for the fullest published account of Michael Arct's tree-ring match.

1. 13a.

   Section Problems with the long-age scenario:  “Growing forests have definite soil and humus layers, with lots of rootlets as well as a thriving animal population.  However, the petrified 'forests' lack all these.”  On roots:  “But the Yellowstone petrified trees have their large roots broken off, leaving 'root balls.'” ↩ ↩

2. 13b.

   Section Problems with the long-age scenario:  “Volcanic minerals such as feldspars quickly weather into clay when exposed to water and air.  But the petrified 'forest' layers lack clay.” ↩

3. 13c.

   Section Problems with the long-age scenario:  “If the layers had been buried by volcanic eruptions thousands of years apart, the mineral content of each would probably have been quite different.  But the mineral content remains the same throughout over a kilometer of vertical height.” ↩

4. 13d.

   Section Problems with the long-age scenario:  “Dr Michael Arct analyzed cross-sections of 14 trees in different levels spanning seven meters (23 feet).  He found that they all shared the same distinctive signature, and that four of them had died only seven, four, three and two years before the other ten.  These ten had apparently perished together, and the evidence was consistent with them all having been uprooted and transported by successive mud flows.”  The footnote Sarfati gives is Arct's 1991 Loma Linda dissertation. ↩

Brand, Leonard.  “The Explanation for the 'Yellowstone Fossil Forests:' An Uncompleted Research Project.”  Origins (Geoscience Research Institute) 65:74–79.  2018.  A review article in Origins, the journal of the Geoscience Research Institute, in which Leonard Brand summarizes the evidence on the Yellowstone fossil forests and lists the work still to be done.  Brand is a Loma Linda paleontologist auditing his own movement's argument.  The article uses it because a creationist paleontologist says in print that the case for the trees being carried in is not yet finished.  Mirror:  Grisda.org

1. 14a.

   Page 76:  “But is the task completed?  Has the new model of transported trees been solidly supported and established?  For a time the Park Service in Yellowstone took down the highway information signs describing the fossil deposits as forests that grew there.  However, it does not appear that the geological community is convinced that the transport model should be taken seriously.  Even for those of us who were acquainted with the research and are convinced that it was done with proper scientific care, it is not clear that the research went far enough.” ↩

2. 14b.

   Page 77:  “Quantitative research is needed, examining many samples to determine how frequently different features appear in these samples.  Random observations don't tell us whether a particular feature is exceptional or uncommon, or whether it is the way things usually are.” ↩

3. 14c.

   Page 78:  “The research that has been published exists as individual publications in relative isolation from each other.  A comprehensive case for a new model for these fossil forests is not available in professional publications.”  Brand's closing falsifiability statement is worth printing beside it; it says the forests could still have come from transport even if the biblical timescale is wrong:  “Even if we were wrong about the biblical time scale, the Yellowstone fossil forests could still have resulted from transport of the sediments and trees, and burial in the Yellowstone region.” ↩

4. 14d.

   Page 78:  “The original paper presenting these forests as evidence as a challenge to the biblical perspective presented about a dozen lines of evidence which the authors described as supporting in situ growth of the forests.  However, for each of these lines of evidence they only presented a hypothesis in support of their conclusions.  They did not present the types of evidence needed to test their hypothesis, in relation to other hypotheses.”  Brand's endnote 2 identifies the paper as Ritland RM, Ritland SL. 1974, Spectrum 6(1/2):19–66. ↩

Answers in Genesis.  “Yellowstone National Park.”  Creation Vacations.  n.d.  Retrieved Sep 5, 2026.  A travel page on Yellowstone from Answers in Genesis, part of its Creation Vacations section.  The page is unsigned and undated, but Kevin Nelstead quoted the same wording in May 2018, so the text is at least that old.  The article uses it to show that Answers in Genesis runs the Yellowstone caldera together with the Specimen Ridge beds.

1. 15a.

   Paragraph 4:  “The volcano that left the enormous crater at Yellowstone was far greater than anything we observe today.  While modern craters measure barely 20 square miles (52 km²), the crater at Yellowstone covers about 1,500 square miles (3885 km²).  You can still see the massive volcanic lava and ash beds at Specimen Ridge and other places north of the park.”  Nelstead's reply: "The 3885 km² caldera must refer to the 640,000 year-old Yellowstone Caldera, which produced the Lava Creek Tuff.  This was the third of the three major Quaternary calderas formed at Yellowstone." ↩ ↩

Nelstead, Kevin.  “Yellowstone National Park — Another bad answer from Answers in Genesis.”  The GeoChristian.  May 29, 2018.  A blog post by a Christian geologist on his own blog, The GeoChristian, which is not peer-reviewed.  The article uses it for one geological distinction and one concession against Answers in Genesis.

1. 16a.

   “The volcanic and volcaniclastic deposits at Specimen Ridge, however, are related to [an] entirely different set of volcanoes, and have nothing to do with the Yellowstone Caldera eruptions.  The rocks at Specimen Ridge are part of the Eocene Absaroka Volcanic Supergroup, which was created by a series of stratovolcanoes similar to those in the Cascade Range.”  Nelstead also concedes against Answers in Genesis.  “There are also tree stumps that do have roots, and some may be in their original positions.” ↩ ↩ ↩

Holmes, William Henry.  “Fossil Forests of the Volcanic Tertiary Formations of the Yellowstone National Park.”  Bulletin of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories (1879–80), Art. VIII 5:125–132.  1879.  A short field report, in a government survey bulletin, on the petrified forests of the Yellowstone Tertiary rocks.  It describes the trunks on the slopes of Amethyst Mountain, among them an upright trunk ten feet across with bark four inches thick, and says the beds seem to have piled up too fast for water to sort them thoroughly.  The article uses it for these observations only, because Holmes got the age and the subsidence model wrong.

1. 17a.

   Page 128:  “In many cases the roots are exposed, and may be seen penetrating the now solid rock with all the original ramifications.” ↩

2. 17b.

   Page 129:  “Many of the trunks are twenty and thirty feet in height.  Their roots are in most cases imbedded in the layers of finer-grained materials, in which they grew, while the battered and branchless trunks are encased in the coarse conglomerates and breccias.” ↩

3. 17c.

   Page 128:  Of a ten-foot-diameter upright trunk:  “Although the trunk is hollow, and partly broken down on one side, the woody structure is perfectly preserved, the grain is straight, and the circles of growth distinctly marked.  The bark, which still remains on the firmer parts, is four inches thick, and retains perfectly the original deeply lined outer surface.” ↩

4. 17d.

   Page 130:  “These beds are massive and irregular, and seem to have accumulated too fast to be thoroughly redistributed by the waters.” ↩

5. 17e.

   Page 125:  “So destitute of animal remains are they, and so unlike the formations of the age in other parts of the Rocky Mountain region, that, notwithstanding the frequent visits of geologists, no divisions into sub-groups have been made.” ↩

Coffin, Harold G.  “Orientation of trees in the Yellowstone petrified forests.”  Journal of Paleontology 50(3):539–543.  May 1976.  A field measurement, by the creationist Harold Coffin, published in a mainstream peer-reviewed paleontology journal.  The article counts it as the only creationist Yellowstone fieldwork published in such a journal.  He also examined three living forests, in Michigan, the California redwoods and the Oregon Cascades, and found no or questionable agreement in the direction of the sixty or more fallen trees in each.  The article uses it for those control forests and for Coffin's own check of the tilt of the upright stumps, which he concluded was natural and not produced later by outside forces.

1. 18a.

   Page 542:  “Three living forests, a grove of deciduous trees in Southern Michigan, a redwood forest of Northern California, and a typical mixed coniferous forest of the western slopes of the Cascade Mountains of Oregon, were examined.  The sixty or more fallen trees measured in each location showed no or questionable orientation agreement.” ↩

2. 18b.

   Page 542:  “The direction of tilt is close to being at right angles to the orientation of the long axes of the cross sections of these upright trees.  This might suggest that the pressure of moving breccia has slightly compressed the trunks and tilted them also.  However, examination of the rings of the trees indicate that the asymmetry is natural and not produced later by external forces.  Furthermore, the tilt is opposite to the dip of the bedding in the Mt. Norris example.” ↩

Arct, Michael J.  “Dendroecology in the fossil forests of the Specimen Creek area, Yellowstone National Park.”  Dissertation Abstracts International 53(06B):2759.  Loma Linda University.  1991.  A doctoral dissertation at Loma Linda University, 98 pages, on tree-ring studies (dendroecology) of the fossil trees at Specimen Creek, plus an earlier 65-page MA thesis of 1979, "Dendrochronology in the Yellowstone fossil forests", on tree-ring dating (dendrochronology).  It was never published as a journal paper.  The article uses it as the strongest single creationist claim about these trees' growth rings, and gives reasons to doubt it. ↩ ↩

Wheeler, Elisabeth A.  “Fossil woods of Yellowstone National Park.”  Parks Stewardship Forum 40(1).  2024.  A retrospective on the fossil woods of Yellowstone National Park, written by Elisabeth Wheeler, who wrote the monographs on Yellowstone's dicot wood (the wood of flowering trees, as opposed to conifers) that Fritz cited.  The article uses it as the field's own recent account of what is still unsettled about the forests.

1. 20a.

   Section Preservation:  “Fritz's (1980a, 1982) studies of Amethyst Mountain led to the conclusion that although many upright trees were preserved in situ, there were also upright logs and stumps that had been transported, so that some layers might contain a mixture of plants from different elevations and different habitats. …  The Specimen Ridge forests have been interpreted as being preserved in relatively low-energy depositional environments with most of the upright stumps in situ (e.g., Retallack 1981;  Fritz 1982;  Yuretich 1984).” ↩

2. 20b.

   Section Preservation:  “In one 10-meter interval at Specimen Ridge, four of ten stumps of Sequoia magnifica were suitable for growth ring analyses;  the other stumps had surfaces too rough for measuring growth rings.  The growth ring signatures of these four stumps indicated they were contemporaries (Ammons et al. 1987).” ↩

3. 20c.

   Section Introduction:  “Erling Dorf's 1964 Scientific American article 'The Petrified Forests of Yellowstone Park' includes an illustration of Specimen Ridge with more than 20 layers of fossil forests within a vertical section of some 2,000 feet of volcanics.  It is unclear how many different volcanic eruptions were involved in creating these massive accumulations of petrified stumps and logs and the time span represented, as well as how long-lived were the individual forests.” ↩

4. 20d.

   Section Preservation:  “There are but two studies of Yellowstone's fossil forests that inventoried the composition of individual layers:  (1) one unit of Amethyst Mountain (Fritz and Fisk 1978), and (2) three units of the Gallatin Fossil Forests that have differences in composition (Chadwick and Yamamoto 1984).” ↩ ↩

5. 20e.

   Section Introduction:  “The classic paper on the geology of the region is by Smedes and Prostka (1972), who concluded that the Lamar River Formation in which Amethyst Mountain and Specimen Ridge occur and the Sepulcher Formation in which the Gallatin Fossil Forests occur are comparable in age, approximately 50 million years old.”  This is potassium-argon-era work. ↩ ↩

Ammons, Richard et al.  “Cross-identification of ring signatures in Eocene trees (Sequoia magnifica) from the Specimen Ridge locality of the Yellowstone fossil forests.”  Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 60:97–108.  1987.  A 1987 paper in a peer-reviewed journal on the growth rings of Sequoia magnifica trees from Specimen Ridge.  The article uses it as the only peer-reviewed ring study of these trees. ↩