Re: Grass in the Carboniferous.

Glenn R. Morton (
Mon, 27 Apr 1998 20:40:26 -0500

At 02:52 AM 4/27/98 -0600, Bill Payne wrote:
>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?

I have already said that I would grant that some are. Not all. And I don't
think you have proven your case that all are either. Because your model
should have some coals in the deep ocean basin. There are none.

>> 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.

It was another listserv and Brand has only address footprints in the
Coconino, not footprints up and down throughout the geologic column. You
can't generalize what Brand has published on to include everything. And by
the way, no one but Brand and maybe one or two others believe that those
animals were leaving footprints underwater. And it won't work for a flood
explanation because it would mean that the flood waters were no more than 6
inches deep (spiders, scorpions, and small lizards are not very tall).
Hardly the stuff of legends.

>> 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.

so why is there pollen in and meteorite particles with enough density to
only be explained by long periods of deposition. or did the cosmic dust
increase and fall catastrophically during the flood? (see Ulrich Jux, The
Palynologic Age of Diapiric and
Bedded Salt, Department of Conservation, Louisiana Geological
Survey, Geological Bulletin 38, October, 1961, p. 1


James Matthew Barnett, Sedimentation Rate of Salt Determined by
Micrometeorite Analysis, M. S. Thesis, Western Michigan
University, 1983,

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

It, added to the fish and mammalian distribution are some of the many
issues that Flood geology can't seem to answer. This is what frustrated me
so much over the years and finally, I had to ask, if my interpretation of
the Bible is correct, why does it explain so little?
>> 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.

Some issues can be bought from the CRS. But there is one BIG, BIG
difference between what happens today and what had to have happened in the
flood. If the Cambrian strata is from the flood, all the sedimentary
material above it had to have been eroded off the Precambrian basement
BEFORE the cambrian was deposited. That sediment had to be stored
temporarily somewhere else. It couldn't be stored straight up, because in
order to erode the preflood topography required currents which would move
the eroded material somewhere else. Thus, you are NOT looking at the same
phenomenon then as occurs today. You have to account for the total erosion
of the sedimentary material PRIOR to its deposition in a flood model. This
is a big big problem.
>> ...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 have not ever seen this in any of the astrophysical articles I have read.
Does anyone else on this list have an explanation? I would suggest the
possibility that Goldsmith is incorrect about the size of the light echos
or the echos he is talking about are from a previous event. Nothing
travels faster than light and to travel 1000 light years in one year would
violate the speed of light.
>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?

yes, I do believe that Jesus created the wine instantly. That does not
mean that God does everything instantly. Do you believe that Namaan had to
wash 7 times before his miraculous healing? In that case God didn't act

>> 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.

But you forget that Art was citing the inconsistent rhythms in Fossil Lake
which is about 100 miles west of the Lake Gosuite desposits which is what I
am talking about. One can not say that the lack of consistency in the
layers of a very small (>16 miles) diameter lake corresponds to the rhythms
of a lake (Gosuite) which is about 200 miles across. This is like the drunk
looking for his keys under the streetlamp. Fossil lake being small does
have storm laminae (runoff from rain storms which are deposited no more
than 8 miles from shore. The center of Gosuite was far enough from shore
to avoid that problem.

>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.

I would say that it takes at least a day for mudcracks to form.
>> 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? :-)

Watch TV :-)

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information