Let me be more specific. My observations of Alabama and western Kentucky
(Steve Austin's thesis area) coals suggest to me that coal was formed by
organic matter deposited out of water (known as allochthonous coal).
For the moment I don't care what problems a rational interpretation of
the data may cause to the various models of origins. Yours is the same
diversion I picked Glenn about. I know what I see in specific coal
seams, and they look allochthonous. If some coals are allochthonous and
some are autochthonous, then so be it, but I have never seen a coal seam
in Alabama or Kentucky which I would call autochthonous (an in situ
swamp deposit).
On a field trip to several coal mines with the Alabama Geological
Society last year, I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with several geologists
and looked at the same coal outcrops. I said the coals seams were
allochthonous, they said the same coal seams were autochthonous. One
geologist said, "I have seen stigmarian root systems in 3-dimensions and
I can't imagine that they were transported." Therefore, he implied, this
coal we are looking at must also be autochthonous. Now, there were no
root systems in the coal we were looking at, there were no stumps in the
coal where the trees once grew, there were very thin laminae which
continued for some distance horizontally, there was a sharp contact
between the coal and underclay, there were only organic fragments in the
underclay - no root systems! But "don't bother me with you
observations, I saw some roots in 3-D one time," or what about "the
VOLUME (mass) of coal we know about?" I would say that my specific
observations are more compelling than the "what abouts" of others. I
will also admit, though, that I have quite a bit of reading of papers by
my opponents here in Alabama before I fully understand their arguments.
The one paper I have studied is, IMHO, full of holes.
Bill