>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.
While it would explain some coal it won't explain it all, which is what your
floating mat view must explain.
>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.
I have discussed those items at your request because it was you who said
that vitrain could only come from wood bark. If I were to show that this
might not be the case, I had to discuss those items. I also had to discuss
those issues to be able to show that the Pittsburg coal could be formed by
other means. If you want to so limit my responses so that I can't explain an
alternative mechanism, then you there is not much point in any discussion.
Coal is a complex object and to explain it, one must examine geochemistry
(which you yourself were the first to bring up in this discussion)
As to the Pittsburg Coal I have already admitted that I can't really explain
the lack of tree trunks other than possibly as being due to the fact that
there were no trees going into the formatio of that coal. And if vitrine is
available from other sources as grass, then the Pittsburg coal seam might
have gotten its vitrine and carbon from those plants.
>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?
Fine, Bill, even if the Pittsburg Coal was from a subaqueous environment and
a floating mat, does that really prove the global flood? No. It is
consistent with the flood but provides no proof of a global flood. There
are lots of subaqueous environments today including all of Lake Michigan and
the entire ocean basin. BTW there are gelatinous organic goo s at the
bottom of cold Canadian lakes.
Since you can't really keep the coal mats anchored during the flood, one
would expect that coal would be everywhere including the deep sea basin
where there is none. Why can't you admit that the lack of coal in the ocean
basins disproves the floating mat/global flood hypothesis of coal formation?
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
Foundation, Fall and Flood