> Let me ask this. Even if you are correct, that coal is deposited from
> water, that does NOT mean that it was the flood waters. Why do you jump to
> the conclusion that water deposition of coal must mean a global flood?
Whoa, there! Read my post again. In the past I may have said (likely did
say) that water-borne coal is evidence of a flood deposit(s), but you
forget that I'm a moving target and have been influenced by your heresy
- I mean: scientific observations! Could we just go one step at a time
without you throwing your whole arsenal at me when I cause you to stump
your toe over a pebble?
> This question is especially important in view of the fact that coal
> represents at least 45 times more plant matter on earth before the flood
> than there is on earth today. (I mistakenly told a friend at dinner the
> other night that it was 15 times; If he is listening, it is 45 times.)
>
> This comes from the fact that coal contains 15 x 10^18 g of carbon and there
> is only .3 x 10^18 grams in all of the biosphere today
>
> 15/.3 =45.
Big deal. If the pre-flood world was universally tropical, ie one big
rain forest, then today's arid, temperate and artic zones would all
produce more biomass - probably about...oh let me think...about 45 times
more? :-))) Also, if the oceans were lower before the "waters of heaven"
(whatever that was) fell and if the mountains were lower and if there
were floating mats of vegetation growing on the surface of waters as
well as land, and if... Shucks, these "just so" stories are easy to make
up.
The point is, Glenn, that none of us has all of the information, only
God does. When we get a little new info, it can have a major effect on
big theories. I'm perfectly willing to consider your ideas, I'm just
less eager than you to lock in on a model. You could be wrong, in MHO.
Bill