>A few days ago you suggested that a miracle was the explanation for all the
problems that I was >raising for the global flood. Since when is a miracle part
of science?
Hi Glenn,
You're double-minded, my friend. You allow a miracle every once in a while, such
as water standing up in a wall left and right while the Israelites crossed the Red
Sea during the exodus, but if the miracle were to leave some evidence of its
occurrence, then you are looking at empirical science, and everybody knows that is
naturalistic processes only. Miracles with no footprints - OK, miracles with a
trail - no
> There are more dead bodies in the marine deposits than could
> possibly fit around the world if all those animals represent the remains of
> a single worldwide flood. There would be meters of animals living on top
> of each other.
Marine animals do live on top of each other, and most of the fossils are marine.
> If there was a global flood and vegetation mat deposited coal, why is there
> no coal in the ocean basins. Why didn't the vegetable mats float over the
> present ocean basins. Your flood can't explain the LACK of oceanic coal beds.
As I said before, the oceans are too deep to collect enough organics in a single
bed to form coal.
> Do what? have the only explanation for coal? Sure there are two
> explanations for coal allochthonous and autochthonous. But the flood
> requires allochthonous and would predict that there should be oceanic
> coals. You don't have them.
Probably all Carboniferous coals are allochthonous, since the stigmarian axial
root systems you require are curiously absent. Your insistence on oceanic coals
is a dodge so you don't have to face the data.
Bill