>It is widely known that the ICR (with which Steve Austin is associated)
>generates propaganda, not science. The "science" they turn out is so
sloppy
>that it would only convince the already convinced. No real scientist
wants
>to have anything at all to do with them. And no Christian propaganda
>belongs in a scientific publication (or in a tax-supported classroom)
even
>under the guise of "balance."
Stay on target, Susan. We are discussing the work of Steve Austin, who
got his PhD in geology from Penn State University - not exactly a
creationist stronghold. Steve's dissertation was on the Kentucky No. 12
Coal seam and evidence for it's allochthonous origin. Since you "read
everything", I'm sure you must know all about coal and the flaws in
Steve's dissertation. Please point out the "propaganda" which Steve
incorporated in his thesis. Just to help jog your memory, here is his
abstract:
"From Penn St Univ Grad School Dept of Geoscineces. "Depositional
Environment of the Kentucky No. 12 Coal Bed (Middle Pennsylvanian) of
Western Kentucky, with Special Reference to the Origin of Coal
Lithotypes" - A Thesis in Geology by Steven Arthur Austin. Submitted in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, August, 1979.
ABSTRACT
The KY No. 12 coal bed (upper Desmoinesian) is a high volatile B
bituminous, high mineral, and high sulfur coal occurring within the
Providence Limestone Member at the base of the Sturgis Formation in
western KY. The coal bed was studied stratigraphically,
petrographically, mineralogically, and palynologically in order to
decipher the environment of deposition and the origin of coal
lithotypes.
In Hopkins, Muhlenberg, and part of Ohio Counties, the No. 12 coal
contains 8 thin carbonaceous shale partings (6 of which extended over an
area exceeding 1,500 sq km), 4 thin bony coal bands, and at lease 1
widespread fusain band. Partings define chronostratigraphic horizons,
divide the coal bed into benches, demonstrate the facies relationship of
the coal with the marine roof strata, and indicate that the coal was
deposited on a north-dipping surface in response to marine
transgression. The thickest coal accumulated on the highest elevations.
Partings are marine in origin because they contain marine fossils,
connect to marine roof strata, have a high ratio of illite to kaolinite,
and grade southward (upslope) into bony coal and fusian clast
conglomerate. Vitrain, "pseudovitrinite," and clay are moe abundant in
the thiner, more marine-influenced coal to the north, whereas clarain,
"normal vitrinite," and liptinite are more common in the thicker, less
marine-influenced coal to the south. Some benches have distinctive
composition which can be recognized over wide areas. A statistical test
of maceral associations generally supports published concepts of the
origin of macerals. Maceral analyses of thin lithotype bands indicate
that vitran, clarain, bony coal, and carbonaceous shale form a
compositional series which can be described by quadratic equations.
Miospores of arborescent lycopods appear to be especially common in the
more marine influenced coal.
Although the coastal plain swamp environment provides a possible modern
analogue for the No. 12 coal bed, it fails to explain several important
characteristics of the coal: (1) the mechanism for emplacement of thin
and widespread marine shale partings, (2) the lack of rooting of
lithotypes, (3) the abrupt succession of bright lithotypes and miospores
of arborescent plants just above partings, and (4) the unusual
intertonguing of coal with marine roof strata. These problems are best
resolved if the coal was deposited below an extensive floating mat. An
environment ideal for the production of a floating mat is indicated by
the stratigraphic data. Carbonaceous shale partings, bony coal bands,
and fusain clast conglomerate appear to have been deposited below the
mat by short-lived density currents generated by turbulent water in
marine areas marginal to the mat. Clarain, the most abundant lithotype,
was produced in quiet, shallower water generally removed from the margin
of the mat. Vitrain, which is common near intertonguing marine rocks,
appears to have formed primarily at the margin of the mat where lycopods
were dominant, and where currents and waves were stronger."
>>Is it any wonder, Susan, why "Creation scientists have tried that and
failed"?
>Not if you consider that they lack any evidence to support their claims.
Let's have it, Susan. Instruct me.
Bill