> While it would explain some coal it won't explain it all, which is what your
> floating mat view must explain.
OK, which Pennsylvanian-age coals will the floating mat not explain?
> 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.
I see your point. What I'm trying to emphasize is that the shale
interbeds would seem to require subaqueous deposition, and therefore the
entire coal sequence is subaqueous.
> 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.
I guess that's about as close as we'll ever get to seeing you admit that
the Pittsburg Coal is a subaqueous (allochthonous) deposit. :-)
> 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.
What's your point with this?
> 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?
Now wait a minute. You said that if the Pittsburg Coal was from a
subaqueous environment and a floating mat, that is *consistent* with the
flood but provides *no proof* of a global flood. Then you said "the
*lack* of coal in the ocean basins *disproves* the floating mat/global
flood hypothesis of coal formation." You're saying positive data
(subaqueous coal) provides no proof (of a global flood), but the absence
of data (no coal in the ocean basins) does prove the global-flood model
I contend that the Pittsburg Coal is typical of Pennsylvanian-age coals,
and that they are all allochthonous. Give us an example that supports
your swamp model.