Re: Coal and theYEC position

Glenn Morton (
Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:41:13 -0500

At 10:37 PM 4/20/98 -0600, wrote:
>20 Apr 1998 04:55:26 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
>> 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 pointed you to this before but you said that it sounded like a
turbidite deposit. It isn't. It is a set of meandering streams as the map
that goes with this text clearly shows.

"Example f1: No. 5 coal of southeastern Illinois and adjoing
parts of Indiana (Coal V) and western Kentucky (No. 9 coal).
Figure 1 is based upon information obtained from approximately
3000 electric logs, drill-core logs, and outcrop descriptions,
and on a map by Potter (1962a) and an earlier mapping by D. R.
Gednetz. It illustrates the substrata of the coal, indicating
that one stream entered the Illinois Basin from the north, just
west of the LaSalle Anticline, and eight separate streams entered
from the east in Indiana and Kentucky. As the channel sandstones
are commonly about 1 mile or less in width, the records sampled
are not always close enough together to permit the accurate
outlining of these narrow channels."~Harold R. Wanless, James R.
Baroffio, and Peter C. Trescott,"Conditions of Deposition of
Pennsylvanian Coal Beds," Geol. Soc. America Spec. Paper 114 pp
105-142 (1969), p. 113-114, in Charles A. Ross and June R. P.
Ross, Geology of Coal, (New York: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co.,
1984, p. 93-94

>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.

Swamp floors are 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. :-)
>> 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.
>What's your point with this?

The same as above. Swamps are subaqueous and lakes are subaqueous and they
preserve organic matter and there is no flood occuring today.

"Frazier and Osanik reported peat accumulations as much as 6
m thick between natural levees along the Teche and Lafourche
Bayous in the Mississippi Delta. These peat beds are derived
from forest swamp vegetation, mostly cypress and gum, that
accumulated in broad, subsiding inland flood basins during
progradational-aggradational river phases. Analyses of these
peat beds indicated that they contain less than 1 percent sulfur
and about 15 percent ash."~Henry W. roehler, Depositional
Environments of coal-Bearing and Associated Formations of the
Cretaceous Age in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 1575, (Washington: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1987), p. 13

>> 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

yes, that is exactly what I am saying. And it is the way science and logic
work. If there were a global flood and coals were deposited by floating mats
of vegetation, then since 70% of the earth is ocean basin, probabilistically
we should expect about 70% of the coals to be dumped by mats in deep water.
observationally we find 100% of the coals on the continental platforms. This
means that there were no mats over the oceans, in spite of the fact that
this would be expected during the flood.

As to "positive evidence" not proving the flood. Even if the Pittsburg coal
is subaqueous, it doesn't prove a global flood because: 1. it might have
been a local flood like Spirit Lake at Mt. St. Helen's you like to point
out, 2. it might have been due to marsh plants (the floor of a marsh is
subaqueous) 3. inorganic origin of coal.

The Pittsburgh coal seam does not rule out the other possibilities but the
lack of coal in the oceans rules out free-floating vegetable mats.

>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.

See above, the meandering sandy partings are the channels through the swamp.


Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man


Foundation, Fall and Flood