Re: Coal (Was the saddest statement)
Thu, 02 Sep 1999 05:58:48 +0000

At 11:07 PM 09/01/1999 -0600, Bill Payne wrote:
>>Not if the trees were waterlogged. No case can be made.
>Maybe not. I'm thinking about agreeing with you. :-)

Oh no, that would be awful. :-)
>>Which reminds me, Mt. St. Helens is now about 20 years old and the
>>in spirit lake haven't rotted yet.
>True, but neither do they have roots beyond about two or three feet from
>the base - which is just like the stumps I see near coal seams: stumps
>without roots. If peat accumulates at the rate of an inch per year, or
>whatever it is, and since we see stumps up to several feet in diameter
>near coals, and since Gastaldo says that stigmarian axial systems
>penetrate the substrate at angles of ~10 to 30 degrees, then why don't we
>see roots attached to stumps in these supposed "coal swamps"? I assume
>the flooded forests you cited have stumps with roots still connected?

I honestly don't know. I havn't ever seen a report about anyone dig them
up to see what the case is with the fine roots.

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

Lots of information on creation/evolution