> For the 4th time I will answer your question. I will acknowledge that some
> coal seams are allochthonous (formed from plants washed in to the area). I
> am not sure if the Pittsburgh coal fits that description or not. I haven't
> seen you present evidence that the Pittsburg seam is allochthonous. I have
> seen you talk about other coals, but I don't recall you presenting specific
> evidence about the Pittsburg seam.
Fair enough; here, in a nutshell, it is:
A) Two remarkably uniform thin (~4 inches thick) shale beds, sandwiched
between three beds of coal, cover 15,000 square miles of area. If this
sequence were autochthonous (ie, a swamp), then stream erosion would
have cut through the shale interbeds and the coal seams in numerous
places.
B) If this sequence were autochthonous, then tree roots would have
intensely penetrated the shale, disturbing the contacts of shale with
the coal seams. When the swamp trees died and fell over, their roots
would have pulled a root ball up, creating a pot hole in the shale.
C) If this sequence were allochthonous, then a floating mat of
vegetation would sift organics to the sea floor. A pair of turbidity
currents would sweep uniform layers of silt across the organic layers as
the organic mat was being deposited.
D) The evidence is compatable with the allochthonous model, it is
incompatable with the autochthonous model.
> As to wandering off, let me note that the real reason that you require that
> all coals be allochthonous is that you believe in the global flood. If any
> coal is autochthonous (formed in place) your global flood model is wrong.
Your second sentence is right as far as the Carboniferous coals go. But
"the real reason" that I require all Carboniferous coals to the
allochthonous is because that is what the data demands. I'm really
sorry if the data messes up your local flood model. You can either
continue to ignore the data, or change your paradigm. In your 24 May
1998 22:07:40 -0500 post, you said, "I would prefer, as noted above, to
say we strive, or at least I strive, for consistency between the facts
of science and the facts of scripture." I'm trying to make it easy for
you, Glenn. You can relax and let the waters go everywhere that
Carboniferous coals are found (which I believe is *every* continent?).
> That is why I 'wander' off. As I have mentioned several times, even if
> some are allochthonous it doesn't mean that all are. And I haven't seen you
> present an airtight case for allochthony.
Maybe not, but the case for allochthony is better than the case for
autochthony.
> Frankly, the Pittsburg coal with its extreme consistency of coal beds and
> partings looks more like a precipitate than either allochthonous or
> autochthonous.
Allochthonous deposits are, in a sense, precipitates. Rather than
precipitating out of water, they drift down from above and settle to the
bottom like a precipitate.
> But I know of no means for that to occur given that coal is
> formed from the remains of dead plants. I can more readily see this
> consistency within an autochthonous model than an autochthonous one.
Did you mean to say, "an *allochthonous* model than an autochthonous
one"?
> Why
> are the shale partings so uniform given your view of the coals being
> deposited during the violent flood? And don't say that the flood was
> tranquil, because it ripped up all the sediments, and kept them suspended
> (or stored elsewhere)prior the final deposition.
Glenn, I'm just following the science where it leads - something you are
demonstrating a distinct reluctance to do. You are letting your
paradigm dictate the conclusion, rather than letting the science drive
the conclusion. Drilled any more dry holes lately? :-)
> How about an 'I don't know'. I really don't and am not trying to be coy
> here. I haven't seen you present a clear and cogent allochthonous
> explanation of the partings and coal seam thicknesses.
OK, I'll accept an "I don't know" - for the time being. :-)
For those who are interested in the origin of coal, I was asked to
critique an article by Dr. Robert Gastaldo, Geology Prof @ Auburn
University, AL. I posted my critique tonight to the ASA and ACG lists.
If anyone does not have access to these lists and would like the
critique, e-mail me and I'll copy it to you, or, better yet, tell you
how to subscribe to the ACG list where most of the response will likely
be.
Bill Payne