> I thought it was relevant to your model for coal formation. If you don't
> have the water coming and going, you can't satisfy both the Bible and the
> need to keep the mats confined.
> I repeat, the logs are still in the lake. In a global flood the logs would
> be free to float. And if mountains stuck up in one place, the currents
> would usually be diverted in another direction and the mats would obediently
> go with the currents.
> Bernoulli is someone you cannot take lightly....
> Thus the vegetable mats would be expected to spend more time (moving
> slowing) in the ocean basins than they spend on the continents. So your
> veggie mat theory should predict thicker and more plentiful coals on the
> ocean basin floors. They aren't there. In fact I know of NO coal in the
> deep ocean basins. Where were the vegetable mats?
I thought you were big on Christians being able to make logical and
correct interpretations of empirical data. You provided the description
(from Corliss) of the Pittsburg Coal, I provided a rational explanation
of how it might have been formed, and asked you to admit to the validity
of the "Floating Mat Model", or provide a better explanation. To date,
you have discussed grass, vitrain, peat moss floating down a creek, log
jams in Spirit Lake, mountains sticking up out of the flood waters, no
coal in the ocean basins, and Bernoulli. These are all wonderful things
to talk about, but they have nothing to do with the data derived from
observations of the Pittsburg Coal and how to interpret the data. You
seem to be so committed to a local flood that you refuse to admit the
obvious - the subaqueous origin of the Pittsburg Coal. It's just one
little 15,000 square-mile deposit, Glenn. Quit running from the
question and give us an answer: Based upon the direct empirical data
you provided (and not your imaginary scenarios of why the global flood
is impossible) is the Pittsburg Coal a subaqueous or an in-situ swamp
deposit - or something else?