Re: Grass in the Carboniferous.

Bill Payne (
Mon, 27 Apr 1998 02:52:26 -0600

26 Apr 1998 15:46:24 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:

> You seemed to have missed my admisstion that you were correct about the
> bark. But even if correct about the bark being the main source of coal,
> that does not prove a global flood. There are lots of thick peat beds in
> both Indonesia and even in Louisiana.

Do they have roots and stumps in them, or do they display laterally
continuous horizontal bedding like coal seams do? If allochthonous peat
beds are intensely penetrated with roots and stumps, then they are not a
reasonable analog to coals. Are you admitting that Carboniferous coals
are allochthonous?

> And as to going back to YEC I would be perfectly willing provided that you
> explain things like the fish distribution in the geologic column,

I've already admitted (I think) that I can't explain your fish
sequence. You've got me on that one - for the time being. :-(

> the footprints up and down the geologic column, the burrows throughout the
> flood deposited geologic column,

I think Leonard Brand has addressed this, as pointed out by Art Chadwick
about 6 months ago on this ListServ.

> the deposition of salt with both pollen and micrometeorites but no shale or sand > during the flood,

Possibly the same reason there are no shales or sands in most coal
seams; these depositional areas were temporarily protected. BTW, I
don't see how the salt deposits could have been evaporite deposits
during the flood, the salt must have been driven out of solution by
chemical changes in the seawater.

> why there are no coal beds in the deep ocean basins if your model is correct,

The more I think about that, the more I think you have a good point.
Art Chadwick mentioned his work on the worldwide distribution of
paleocurrents as recorded in the rocks. His work will have to be
reconciled with the apparently restricted distribution of coal. But I
don't see this as being a fatal flaw to the flood model at this point.

> why the thickest sedimentary layers are on top of the continental platforms rather
> than in the deep ocean basins as would be expected in a global flood (BTW the sediment > distribution violates the 2nd law of thermo if they were deposited by a flood See G.R. > Morton, "Prolegamena to the Study of the Sediments" Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, > 1980 pp 162-167).

Because there wasn't enough energy to carry the sediments out to the
deep ocean. It's the same principal that causes river sediments to be
deposited at the mouth of the river, e.g. the Mississippi River Delta.
BTW, you keep mentioning the CRSQ; are back issues available? I'd love
to get copies of your articles.

> ...I would also like to know how you explain the geometric triangulation of SN1987a
> which proves that it is 169,000 light years away and yet the light is here
> today,

I have a question about SN1987A. About one year after the supernova
exploded, two shells of gas were lit up by the explosion and light was
reflected from the shells towards the earth, following by one year the
straight-line path some of the light from supernova made to the earth.
IOW, the echo of light from the shells took one year longer to get to
us, therefore the radius of the shells is one light year, as I
understand it. However, on page 151 of _Supernova! - the Exploding Star
of 1987_ by Donald Goldsmith: "Astronomers have been quick to make
mathematical models of the situation that gives rise to the light
echoes. Their calculations show that the inner ring arises from dust
located about 400 light-years from SN1987A, and the outer ring from dust
grains some 1,000 light-years from the supernova, all still well within
the Large Magellanic Cloud."

If the rings are 400 and 1,000 light years away from the supernova, then
why did the light echoing form both shells get to us after about a year?

I accept the apparent age indicated by this trig. See, I told you I'm
not a true YEC! OTOH, the wine Jesus created at Cana would have also
yielded apparent age. Do you believe Jesus literally created the wine
in a few seconds or minutes, or is this mythology? Why or why not?

> why the moon is littered with craters yet the earth isn't (did the
> meteor bombardment occur between the creation and the flood)?

Assuming the validity of the global flood model, I would say the meteor
bombardment occurred at the beginning of the flood, and that the meteors
were part of a comet which had large quantities of water associated with
it. Because all of the lunar mares/mascons occur *only* on the near
side of the moon, these impacts were probably formed simultaneously,
possibly as the result of the explosion of a planet, as hypothesized by
Tom Van Flandern ( This hypothesis also
explains the origin of comets and why all coments are gravitationally
bound to the sun. And if the moon were subjected to a cosmic
catastrophe, so was the earth and the rest of the planets and moons. In
his book, _Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets_, Van Flandern
discusses evidence of an exploded planet.

> I also need
> to know how 13 million layers deposited in the Green River formation and
> showing the solar cycle rhythmicity and rhythmicity associated with the
> 100,000 years eccentricity of the earth's orbit is to be explained in a
> global flood.

Art Chadwick gave the best response I've seen to the Green River
formation, maybe 6 months ago in his discussion with you, either here or
on the Evolution Reflector.

> And why are there so many mudcracks in the geologic column
> (often associated with footprints showing shallow water) during the middle
> of this vast flood which covered the earth to 15 cubits above the highest
> mountain of the day?

It was 15 cubits deep for a while, during which time some of the
critters clung to floating mats of vegetation. As sedimentation caught
up with erosion and as the floating mats began to settle out as future
coal, the critters lost their means of support and tried to survive in
the shallow water. Lenorad Brand has addressed this, as pointed out by

I understand that many mudcracks can be shown to have formed
subaerially. If so, then the flood waters must have receded long enough
for the mudcracks to form, and then the waters re-flooded the area.

> That will do for a start. If you can come up with explanations for these,
> then I would seriously consider going back.

Don't do that; what would I do for entertainment? :-)

Bill Payne