Re: swallowing mercury

Glenn R. Morton (
Fri, 07 Aug 1998 17:46:43 -0500

Hi Bill,

At 10:13 PM 8/6/98 -0600, Bill Payne wrote:
>You're double-minded, my friend. You allow a miracle every once in a
while, such
>as water standing up in a wall left and right while the Israelites crossed
the Red
>Sea during the exodus, but if the miracle were to leave some evidence of its
>occurrence, then you are looking at empirical science, and everybody knows
that is
>naturalistic processes only. Miracles with no footprints - OK, miracles
with a
>trail - no

No, actually I have a consistent view. If something is a miracle, I don't
try to explain it scientifically. If I don't think it is a miracle, then I
try to explain it naturalistically. This is opposite to what you and other
YECs do. You all try to explain the miraculous in a naturalistic fashion
until you figure out that the explanation won't work, then you retreat to

>> 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 each other.
>Marine animals do live on top of each other, and most of the fossils are

If you remember in Foundation, I calculated that from the vertebrate
animals in the Karroo beds of Africa alone, there would be about 21 (from
memory) hungry animals the size of a fox (average) per acre. Can you
imagine 7 hungry animals roaming your back yard now?

>As I said before, the oceans are too deep to collect enough organics in a
>bed to form coal.

There is very little terrestrial or kerigenous material in the deep water.
Even if it didn't collect in thick beds, it should be detectable with
modern techniques. Deep sea organic deposits do not have woody material at
all. Why didn't the vegetable mats leave ANY evidence of their existence?
>> 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.
>Probably all Carboniferous coals are allochthonous, since the stigmarian
>root systems you require are curiously absent. Your insistence on oceanic
>is a dodge so you don't have to face the data.

They are not missing. Their existence is mentioned in many books on coal.

"One phenomenon frequently advanced as proof of autochthonous coal
formation is the presence of tree trunks standing upright in coal seams,
with attached roots standing in the soil forming the floor of the seam -
i.e. the stigmaria of Lycopods. "Wilfred Francis, Coal: Its Formation and
Composition, (London: Edward Arnold, Ltd., 1961), p. 28

"Erect in situ lycopods have been documented in three lithotypes: shales,
sandstones, and marine limestones. In addition, studies of permineralized
coals have demonstrated that lycopod-dominated peats are permeated by
stigmarian axes and lateral appendages. There is no report known to the
present author that documents in situ lycopods within
conglomerates."~Robert A. Gastaldo, "A Case Against Pelagochthony: The
Untenability of Carboniferous Arborescent Lycopod-Dominated Floating Peat
Mats," in Kenneth R. Walker, Ed. "The Evolution-Creation Controversy, (The
Paleontological Society Special Publication No. 1, (The Paleontological
Society, 1984), pp.97-116, p. 106

And I know that Steve Schimmerich pointed you to the following, which I
never heard you explain,

As discussed previously, the cross-cutting relationships of the stigmarian
axes and appendages precludes interpretation of abiotic emplacement. If
stigmarian axes were abiotically introduced into the underclay by sinking ,
the aerenchymatous rootlets as well as the sediment itself should always
demonstrate distortion.
"If a stigmarian axis, perfectly horizontal with perpendicularly inserted
aerenchymatous appendages, was emplaced into the underclay, the resistance
of the sediment with the spirally arranged 'rootlets' would push them
upwards out of their original plane of growth. In transverse view, then,
theoretically only the two appendages inserted perpendiculalry to the
horizontal plane would be undisturbed. In another case, if this
horizontally disposed axial system had been emplaced with some accompanying
lateral motion (i.e., within a moving body of water) then the appendages
would be bent in the direction of movement. The same resultant situation
would apply if the axial system were inclined and then emplaced vertically.
Observations and reported occurrences of erect lycopods with attached
stigmarian axial systems do not demonstrate these conditions. Rather,
whether the stigmarian axes are horizontal or inclined, the preserved
rootlets are all essentially perpendicularly inserted on the axis. Slight
alterations from the perpendicular are due to eithe growth through the
sediment or diagenetic compaction.
"Examination of underclays results in the observation that there is no
evidence for abiotic disruption of the sediment that would have been caused
by the sinking of the axial system. Since the sediment would have been
unlithified at the time of stigmarian emplacement, disruption of the
sediments would have occurred in order to allow for complete encasement of
the axial system in the underclay. The time for sinking of the axial
system with attached plant body and hypothesized peat would have been
short. This rapid event would have caused compactional and deformational
sedimentary structures such as flame-like structures or clay injection
structures between 'rootlets' in addition to displacement of bedding.
Underclays in association with the axial systems do not demonstrate these
features."~Robert A. Gastaldo, "A Case Against Pelagochthony: The
Untenability of Carboniferous Arborescent Lycopod-Dominated Floating Peat
Mats," in Kenneth R. Walker, Ed. "The Evolution-Creation Controversy, (The
Paleontological Society Special Publication No. 1, (The Paleontological
Society, 1984), pp.97-116, p. 107


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