Bill wrote:
Sorry, I was out for the weekend and may be in the field for the next few
>days, so I may not be able to respond again until toward the end of the
>week.
That may very much shorten our conversation, as I told you privately, I have
a conference in Florence to go to.
>> The pics are at:
>> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/15-inchTreeTrunk.jpg
>> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/6-InchTreeTrunk.jpg
>> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/CoalClose-up4.jpg
>> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/CoalClose-up1.jpg
>> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/CoreClose-up1.jpg
>> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/CoreShaleCoalContact.jpg
>> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/CoreCoalShaleContact.jpg
>> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/StigmarianAxialRoot2.jpg
>Glenn, you are demonstrating a remarkable proclivity to ignore or dismiss
>empirical data that doesn't fit with your model, which by the way is OK
>since I do the same thing with ease. The question you have always
>managed to dodge over the years is whether the data points to transported
>organics or in situ deposits. As you know, the geology textbooks are
>united in their presentation of the swamp nature of the Carboniferous
>coals. Now, please tell us, based upon the photos you have posted for
>me, do these photos suggest a swamp or transported organics???
Bill, as I have many times said, transported material is seen today in the
Okefenokee. So what. We aren't having a global flood today, that I am aware
of. Glub glub.... Transported material is occurring today, and does not
violate any 'model' that I might have. Why do you never pick up on this
point.
>
>It is important that we answer this one basic question before we move on
>to the next. Please don't continue to leapfrog over the data and jump to
>your conclusion that there was no global flood. Whether there was a
>global flood or not is not the question. The question is: How do you
>interpret this empirical data? If you say it represents a swamp deposit
>you must furnish evidence from either these photos or from other sources.
Even in the Okefenokee, there is transported peat. So why should you try to
force me into a given point of view about coal? That seems to indicated
that you desparately desire me to play the role you have assigned me in this
debate.
> If you say that these deposits look transported, you have broken ranks
>with prevailing thought in geology. Please answer the question:
>transported or swamp???
How about transported IN A SWAMP? That does happen in the Okefenokee as I
have pointed out to you many, many times.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 20 2002 - 17:36:10 EDT
