> So you're arguing that ALL dinosaur trackways, from sites ALL over the
world [snip]
Although I wasn't arguing for "ALL dinosaur trackways, from sites ALL
over the world", you make some excellent points.
> For an alternative explanation of the Utah footprints Bob mentioned,
>I recommend the following essay:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html [snip]
I don't have access to the web at the moment, so I'll have to wait on the
sites you referenced.
> This has been discussed before (was it on this list or the ASA
>list?) so
>I won't get into it again other than to say that the only geologists
>which
>accept an allochthonous origin for ALL coals are those pushing a
>global flood
>model (i.e people who are desperate to explain away the evidence since
>it
>doesn't fit into their preconceived idea of what happened). While
>some coals
>may be allochthonous, there are many others which clearly are not.
The previous discussions you remember were on the ASA and ACG.
Incidentally, practically everything being discussed in this thread has
been discussed before, but that doesn't seem to slow you down except with
me. :-)
Since I only a few weeks ago realized that shallow roots are likely in
situ growth from transported vegetation, I know that this aspect of the
origin of coal has never been discussed by me. Rather than try to
steamroller me by saying "You can't just try to explain some little part
of the vast amount of evidence against a global flood and ignore
everything else Bill. You have to look at ALL of the geologic record,"
why don't you offer a few specifics to support your POV? Incidentally,
what I am saying is not just "some little part of the vast amount of
evidence", but includes every Carboniferous coal seam I have ever looked
at, which is hundreds of coal exposures in Alabama, Tennessee, West
Virginia, and Kentucky.
Again, my basic point is that Gastaldo was correct in arguing that the
trees which comprise most of coal seams were massive and had extensive
stigmarian axial root systems. Gastaldo failed to realize (or
acknowledge) though that these root systems do not generally exist
directly below coal seams. I have yet to see any of these root systems,
yet if your theory is correct, they should be ubiquitous, along with the
stumps to which they should have been connected, and which should have
penetrated the coal.
>Mainstream geologists have no problems with a coal bed somewhere being
>allochthonous but flood geologists can't even have one autocthonous coal
bed or >their "model" starts crumbling like a house of cards.
Ummmm. Which one of us is looking at empirical data?
Bill
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]