> I did, however, stumble upon a publication on my bookshelf (I forget I have things
> sometimes) that bears directly on this issue:
>
> Gastaldo, Robert A. 1984 (Reprinted 1996). A case against pelagochthony:
> The untenability of carboniferous arborescent lycopod-dominated floating
> peat mats. In: Walker, K.R. (ed.) The Evolution-Creation Controversy:
> Perspectives on Religion, Philosophy, Science and Education. The
> Paleontological Society, Special Publication 1. Pages 97-116.
>
> I think I only paid $5.00 for it at a GSA meeting and I'd be willing to FAX or
> mail a copy of the paper to Glenn or Bill if they would like me to do so.
I have a copy, for which I think I paid $7.50. If anyone would like to
order a copy, you may contact Barbara Pittman at:
pitmanb@clpgh.org
> Anyway, my point in posting this is to ask Bill Payne to comment on Gastaldo's
> serious critique of Austin's model. Arguing with Glenn is one thing, but he's a
> geophysicist, not an expert on lycopods and plant taphonomy (I mean no offense but
> I know how it is to try to argue an issue outside of my area of expertise).
> Gastaldo, on the other hand, has spent his life studying plant fossils in coals and
> therefore his critiques should be seriously addressed by any young-earth creationists
> pushing a floating peat mat model for the formation of coal. So how about it Bill,
> want to tell us why Gastaldo is wrong? He concludes that:
>
> "An evaluation of the floating mat hypothesis in perspective demonstrates
> the untenable nature of the hypothesis." (p. 111)
Wow, thanks Steve! I have studied that article in some detail and will
be happy to critique it (not tonight though). But, hey, that would be
too easy, so I took the liberty to invite Bob Gastaldo himself to join
us and offer his own comments to what I have to say. I better clear the
decks; if Bob responds I'll have a full plate! 8-)
Bill