>There are many evidences that coal seams were formed rapidly, probably by
>transportation of massed plant accumulations by flooding waters,
>interspersed by alternative flows of sand or silt or lime mud from other
directions.
Since I see no question you are asking me to respond to, I assume you are
soliciting an opinion on your material. Coal was once thought to represent
in situ accumulation of plant material. That picture has proven, like most
early views in science, to be naive, and further study by numerous
individuals, mostly in the past 20 years or so, has shown that coal seams
are not all generic, but must be explained by a variety of different models.
At this time it may be just as naive to assert that all coal seams are
allochthonous, just because a number of them have been (re)interpreted that
way. I think allochthonous coals are consistent with either model and do
not represent by themselves an evidence for a global catastrophe. The
picture is changing, and as in other areas of geology, it is going to be fun
watching the changes come. I think it is unwise to assert dogmatically
anything in geology or biology (I find my physicist friends have no
difficulty with dogmatism, so I will exclude them from my dogmatic
statement...if there's one thing I can't stand, its a bigot!), so I offer
the above as my opinion.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu