Perhaps you can refer us to a modern analogue of floating mats covering
hundreds of square miles?
>> Again we see that there is an overwhelming case for coal
>> development in place as opposed to allochthonous.
> You have possibly oversimplified the situation. It could have developed
> in place and then become allochthonous, without becoming mixed. In
> fact, in a massive floating mat covering hundreds of square miles, it
> would be virtually impossible to mix everything up.
Same question as above.
>> This does not at
>> all rule out "floating mat" environments, but they are the exception,
>> the odd case.
> What criteria do you use to differentiate between the two? Are the
> underclays identical beneath allochthonous and autochthonous coals?
>> Anyone wanting to push the opposite situation is
>> beating a dead horsie.
> IOW, "My mind's made up; don't bother me with the facts." I must say,
> this discussion has taken a decidedly different tack from what I had
> expected. Gastaldo at least focused on the data of Austin and attempted
> to refute the data directly, not by relying upon indirect,
> "circumstantial" evidence which, as I have pointed out above, can be
> interpreted in more than one way. Before now, I had not realized how
> pervasive is the tendency within science to selectively cull data in
> order to protect the integrity of any particular paradigm. I had
> assumed that scientists would generally incorporate *all* of the
> available data into any given model, and admit the areas where the data
> did not fit, which would highlight where additional research is needed.
> This defense raised by Keith, Steve, and now Jeff ("Anyone wanting to
> push the opposite situation is beating a dead horsie") raises the question:
> How much relevant data has been ignored in other areas of geology?
I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black as the saying
goes. I see those pushing the floating mat hypothesis ignoring piles of
evidence for autochthonous coal formation and loudly trumpeting some
ambiguous data which may or may not indicate allochthony for a few localities.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Physical Sciences Department email@example.com (office) Kutztown University firstname.lastname@example.org (home) 217 Grim Science Building 610-683-4437, 610-683-1352 (fax) Kutztown, Pennsylvania 19530 http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/