I don't know of streams cutting through the Pittsburg coal, someone who has
work it if any are here might want to comment. Are there NO meandering
channels like there are in some of the coals in Illinois?
By the way, Bill, streams did cut through the coal in Illinois.
"Figure 4 (modified from a map by Trescott) shows that the No. 5 coal
underlies all of the area except for the locality of a meandering channel
averaging about three-quarters of a mile in width in the main alluvial
valley. ~Harold R. Wanless, James R. Baroffio, and Peter C.
Trescott,"Conditions of Deposition of Pennsylvanian Coal Beds," Geol. Soc.
America Spec. Paper 114 pp 105-142 (1969), p. 115-116, in Charles A. Ross
and June R. P. Ross, Geology of Coal, (New York: Hutchinson Ross Publishing
Co., 1984, p. 95-96
So while I can't cite one for the Pitsburgh coal, and you may or may not be
right about it being allochthonous, it seems to me that one example
falsifies the global flood. You may be right that some seams were deposited
by veggie mats but this doesn't mean all were.
>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.
Once again, are you sure there are none. The brief description I provided
wasn't detailed enough to have discussed such fine details. I don't know.
Can you find me an article that says "there are no potholes"?
>
>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.
Here I disagree. Turbidity currents produce flute and sole marks (gouges
out of the underying material filled in with the material in the turbidity
current. The description says that the shale is uniform. So where is the
evidence that this is a turbidity (flute and sole marks are diagnostic)?
Secondly, shale when deposited has an 80% porosity. Shale is rarely the
major component of a turbidity current because it is too rarified. Most
turbidity deposits are made of sand which is heavier. The shales separating
the sand in a turbidity deposit are deposited slowly because shale
particles are so slow and require years to settle through the water.
>
>D) The evidence is compatable with the allochthonous model, it is
>incompatable with the autochthonous model.
Not the turbidity part of the above. And you haven't provided positive
evidence that there is no channel cuts in the Pittsburg seam. Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence.
>
>> 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.
Then explain the meandering channel cutting through the Illinois coal I
mention above? How does that fit the veggie mat theory? here is another.
"In contrast, other examples are known where a widespread coal thins
markedly over a major sandstone channel. Such an example is the Colchester
(No. 2) coal of western Illinois, which is generally 26-30 inches thick
over large areas and thins to 16 inches over the channel of the Browning
Sandstone in Schuyler County. This channel evidently was filled with
sediment at the time of coal accumulation, and greater compaction of the
shale caused the channel area to stand higher topographically.
"In Saline County, southern Illinois, Trescott mapped the thickness of the
Harrisburg (No. 5) coal in an area where the coal had been tested
extensively with the diamond drill. Here, also, is an area of no coal, a
meandering sandstone cut-out channel about one-quarter mile wide.
Elsewhere within the 10-square-mile area of the map, there are all
gradations in thickness between 0 and 9 feet."~Harold R. Wanless, James R.
Baroffio, and Peter C. Trescott,"Conditions of Deposition of Pennsylvanian
Coal Beds," Geol. Soc. America Spec. Paper 114 pp 105-142 (1969), p. 117,
in Charles A. Ross and June R. P. Ross, Geology of Coal, (New York:
Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., 1984, p. 9
Above you say that the lack of these is support for the veggie mat theory.
is their presence falsification for the veggie mat theory?
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.
It doesn't. You haven't proved the case yet.
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 the shale takes years to settle. At Athabasca the shales created by
the mining of tar sands is sent to settling tanks. Even with chemical
treatment it takes 10 years for a tank to settle out. How do you fit a
fine particle shale requiring 10+ years to settle out of the water into a
one year flood?
>
>> 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"?
yeah.
>
>> 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? :-)
Yeah, sure have :-( But as to following the evidence explain the meandering
channels I mention within your view. I haven't yet heard an explanation.
Explain within your theory why there is no deep water (oceanic) coals.
Explain within your theory why there is no mixture of angiosperm plants in
the coal.
These are expectations if the coals are from a global flood. Frankly it is
not important to me if one or two coals are allochthonous. But it should
matter to you and does to me that your flood model doesn't find what it
should.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm