>But, I understand that thin-sections of coals under the microscope show
>tree bark to be the primary constituent of coal. And swamps are
>invaribly cut with drainage paths, which would, one would think,
>interrupt the 15,000 square mile expanse of the Pittsburg seams in at
>least one place.
My source is old and needs updating, but I do have this:
"When these are examined under a microscope they are found to
consist of spores, pollen grains, and fragments of the epidermal
cells of leaves and seeds, sometimes even complete seeds. These
are about the only plant parts in which we find cell structure
preserved in coal."~Henry N. Andrews, Jr., Ancient Plants and the
world They Lived In, (Ithaca: Comstock Publishing Associates,
1947), p. 117
and
"The microscopic study of the coal itself may be approached in
two different ways. Either the coal may be macerated, or
extremely thin sections may be prepared. . . . When the coal
sections prepared in this way are observed under a microscope,
the greater part of it appears as a structureless golden-brown
mass, consisting of crushed and chemically altered wood, bark,
and other plant parts. Wood that has been charred prior to its
deposition in the ancient 'coal swamps' was apparently better
able to withstand the drastic treatment that Nature has subjected
it to for scattered through the coal one may occasionally
distinguish recognizable wood cells."~Henry N. Andrews, Jr.,
Ancient Plants and the world They Lived In, (Ithaca: Comstock
Publishing Associates, 1947), p. 115
>
>> Your statement about a "general lack" of tree stumps may be true IN GENERAL
>> but there are indeed vertical trunks found in coal.
>
>I don't deny the occassional exception, which, incidentally, can be
>explained within the allochthonous (transported) model (as at Mt. St.
>Helens). But swamps do *generally* have tree stumps, don't they? How
>do you explain the general lack of stumps without pleading swamp
>grasses, which, last time I checked, don't have tree bark?
I don't get the feeling from the above that there is lots and lots of bark.
But I may be wrong.
>
>> As noted above, there is some evidence in its favor. But even if we
>> suddenly discover that the organics came from marsh grasses, that doesn't
>> necessarily prove a global flood.
>
>Fine; let's forget the global-flood extrapolation for the moment.
>You've still got the problem of no stumps and tree bark in the coal.
You assumed lots of bark with no documentation and now have taken as fact
the large bark content of coal. This is not the proper way to handle the
chain of logic. First prove that bark is a major constituent of coal. then
we can deal with this.
>
>> If these mats were floating on the surface they could circle the globe at a
>> drift of merely 3 miles per hour. So why do we find coal piled up in
>> certain places? What anchored the mats in these localities.
>
>Doesn't matter. The fact is that they were stable enough to stay in one
>general area long enough to drop a layer of organics, which may have
>only taken a day or so. The floating mats may have been hemmed in
>between the continents and the continual push of waves from the deep
>ocean.
>
I thought that the entire globe was covered in water and that all the high
mountains were covered by the flood. So how do you have mountains sticking
up when the mats are dumping? How much variation was there in the sealevel
during the flood? Where did the extra water come from and go to? After all
ups and downs in water level require extra water.
>The floating logs in Spirit Lake, below Mt. St. Helens, tend to move
>together in clumps in response to the wind; they do not tend to
>disperse.
>
That is a log jam. the logs are not moving anywhere, but are staying put in
the Lake.
>> And you believe that the organics can remain together after such a crushing
>> catastrophe?
>
>That's what the data tells us. Do you have a problem with the data? :-)
I don't agree that that is what the data tells us. It only tells you that
if you assume a global flood which has so many other problems that it is a
weak assumption.
>Since there are no coals in the ocean basins, then the obvious inference
>is that they didn't cross the oceans. The floating mats probably were
>trapped in the shallow seas over the continents.
This makes no sense, Bill. How can you trap the mats on the continents when
the entire world up to the highest mountains were covered. Afterall the
highest mountain was covered by 15 cubits of water. Everywhere else the
water was shallow.
>
>> It is not world wide. I don't think western Oklahoma or West Texas have
coals.
>
>It *is* world wide since all of the continents have coals. I didn't say
>that every square inch of each continent was covered at one time with
>coal; only the areas with organics trapped in shallow seas.
Shallow seas are where the fastest currents move. Go look up Bernoulli's law.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm