Re: swallowing mercury

Glenn R. Morton (
Thu, 06 Aug 1998 05:30:45 -0500

At 10:14 PM 8/5/98 -0600, Bill Payne wrote:
>Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>> Here is the thing. I have found some success in getting lots of YECs to
>> admit that the term 'scientific creationist' is erroneous because they
>> don't use science.
>Hi Glenn,
>If YEC's don't use science, then neither do evolutionists.

Hi Bill,

A few days ago you suggested that a miracle was the explanation for all the
problems that I was raising for the global flood. Since when is a miracle
part of science?

>> And frankly if a person wants to say that the Flood
>> occurred totally miraculously with no scientific evidence for it, then
>> there is nothing wrong with that.
>But Glenn, how about Carboniferous coals, which cover portions of every
>continent? You yourself publically admitted that it is easier for you
>to envision the Pittsburg coal (which is typical) as having settled out
>of water than having formed as a swamp deposit. If you want to maintian
>that coal is not evidence of a global flood because coal deposits are
>not found on the deep ocean bottom (where the organics would have
>dispersed anyway before collecting in an organic mat on the bottom
>hundreds or thousands of feet below the surface), then OK, but you
>should at least say that evidence is present indicating that significant
>portions of all of the continents were submerged during the same period
>and collecting organics underwater.

Yes, it has been known by every geologist for a 100 years that large parts
of the continent were submerged since marine fossils are found all over the
continent. But that doesn't mean that the submergence was due to Noah's
flood. There are more dead bodies in the marine deposits than could
possibly fit around the world if all those animals represent the remains of
a single worldwide flood. There would be meters of animals living on top
of eachother.

If there was a global flood and vegetation mat deposited coal, why is there
no coal in the ocean basins. Why didn't the vegetable mats float over the
present ocean basins. Your flood can't explain the LACK of oceanic coal beds.
>> But when they do that, they can't then
>> claim to have an alternative scientific theory.
>But, when you do that, you can't claim to have the only sicentific
>theory. :-)

Do what? have the only explanation for coal? Sure there are two
explanations for coal allochthonous and autochthonous. But the flood
requires allochthonous and would predict that there should be oceanic
coals. You don't have them.


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