> 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.
There's the rub, "If I don't think it is a miracle..." You, with only a
sliver of the total body of knowledge, in effect dilute and diminish the
power of the Word of God. If we had the total view of knowledge that
God has, I would venture to say that a world-wide flood would pose no
problems at all. Steve Smith's reply to your "swallowing mercury" post
totally reversed your argument; God just might have similar answers for
all of your other objections.
If you don't think it is a miracle, then that's your opinion, but if
your opinion runs counter to the cleanest interpretation I personally
can make of the Scripture, I'll go with Scripture rather than your
> 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
Not exactly, for me at least. I tend to think the data has been
misinterpreted and interpretations have been advanced without the full
picture (which none of us have).
> They are not missing. Their existence is mentioned in many books on coal.
But the fact that they are mentioned only points to their preservation
where they happen to be found. My point is that preserved stigmarian
roots are rare, the exception rather than the rule. And their presence
*does not* necessarily prove that they were in situ.
> "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.
Marine limestones? So these trees grew in 20 feet of salt water? Is
there no place that these trees didn't grow, or were they washed in?
> 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.
NEVER HEARD ME EXPLAIN???????????? AAAAAAAAAAAKK!!!!!!!!!! Please go
back and read
in detail. I discussed that at length (I'm not coming down on you,
Glenn, I know you have a full plate) and said the data Gastaldo offered
can be rationally interpreted to support allochthonous coal. Remember
the uprooted tree example I gave?