On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 05:31:03 -0600 James Mahaffy <mahaffy@mtcnet.net>
writes:
> Do remember though that most of the Carboniferous coals were dominated
> by lycopods and most of the trunk was "bark". Those are plants quite
> different than the angiosperm trees coalified in Inonesia swamps. This
> difference could mean that Carboniferous coals are easier to flatten.
They probably were easier to flatten, but vertical tree trunks up to five
feet in diameter growing in a swamp would leave a bit of an interruption
in the horizontal continuity of the structure, I would think?
> But I am not sure that Carboniferous coal dominated by gymnosperms
> (Cordaites) is any less banded. You are right that it is not easy to
> account for the uniform widespread thickness and sharp contact of some
> of the widespread partings (I have studied one of the more famous of
> these, the "blue band" in the Herrin Coal of the Illinois Basin).
> And then I wonder if the Western Cretaceous coals generally have less
of a
> sharp contact? That is true of a small coal in the Dakota fm here
south
> of Sioux City but I haven't looked at many of them. In your model they
> too should be floating vegetation mats.
I would love to study coals in the West and around the world, but then I
need to leave something for your students to do. :-)
> Bill remember all models have some problems.
Yes, and that is what makes these discussions so interesting. Yet,
unless God supernaturally monkeyed with the data, the true model which
perfectly matches the actual conditions of formation will successfully
and naturalistically explain everything. However, I'm not so sure God
didn't monkey with the results; I enjoy contemplating the meaning behind
I Cor 1:20-31. I know the context refers to the message of the cross,
but I'm not so sure we can restrict God to the theological realm only.
> While coal researchers are not going to quickly change
> to a paradigm of floating vegetation,
Based upon my limited experience, the current crop is entrenched and
won't change no matter what. To be fair, though, I need to attempt to
publish something and let them try to tear it apart.
> if they tried, I think they would find more problems with this model.
The only observational problems I know of are the biostratigraphy you
mention below. The real problem is the radically different paradigm,
which, if accepted, would have far-reaching reverberations. But we'll
not know unless it is tried.
> For one it is much harder to
> explain intraseam variation in plant material or spores [my area] and
> from one coal bed to another (biostratigraphy really works on those
> coals in the Illinois Basin).
I have no problem with your observations; just with your interpretation
that requires a swamp model in light of so much consistent macroscopic
data to the contrary. Here is a list of that data which I posted to the
ACG last year:
To: acg-l@cc.dordt.edu
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:20:05 -0600
Subject: Evidence for Allochthonous Coal
From: Bill Payne <bpayne15@juno.com>
I see several evidences in eastern US coals of allochthonous origin. I
have not previously listed all of these in one place, so here they are as
I presently see it:
A) General lack of stigmarian axial root systems beneath the coal seams;
B) General lack of either tree stumps or roots in partings;
C) General lack of vertical tree stumps/trunks in the sediment overlying
coal seams;
D) General lack of change in total coal seam thickness between areas
containing splits and those that contain no splits;
E) Commonly extensive, continuous nature of thin partings;
F) Generally consistent thickness of coal seams draped over
contemporaneous slopes.
> And of course Bill, if you want to
> persuade the scientific world you need to find a respected coal
> petrologists to think your model works.
If you know of any willing to consider this, please send them my way.
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 25 2001 - 23:32:43 EST