Re: swallowing mercury

Glenn R. Morton (
Fri, 07 Aug 1998 22:55:17 -0500

At 10:12 PM 8/7/98 -0600, Bill Payne wrote:
>Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>> 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.

Yes, Steve did reverse that argument. For those on the ASA list who don't
know what Bill is talking about see

Bill seems to have trouble knowing what list something came from.

But Bill, he didn't reverse thousands of others against the global flood.
You are stretching things to say that you can believe whatever you want so
long as there MIGHT someday be an explanation.

And while you might think I diminish the power of God's word, I would
suggest that by making the Bible contrary to observation, which you YECs
do, you diminish the credibility of God, His inspiration of the Bible and
the credibility of the Bible as a conveyor of truth.

>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

So you are assuming that you can determine the 'clearest' interpretation of
scripture? Interpretation is just that, interpretation. It is one man's
opinion of what something says. There is nothing divine about your
interpretational abilities although the above statement seems to imply that
you believe that you personally are divinely inspired with an infallible
interpretational ability.

>> 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
>> miracles.
>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).

And since we humans will never have the 'full picture' we will always be
able to say what you say. I predict that in the year 145,489 A.D. people
still won't have all knowledge and will be able to say what you just said.

>> 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.

Well you said they were absent and they aren't.
You wrote:
>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.

So were you wrong when you said they were absent when you meant 'rare'?

And speaking of dodging the data, why didn't you respond to the 800 billion
Karro animals which would make them be about 21 animals per acre in the
preflood world? Why don't you face that data and explain how those 21
animals per acre lived with .28 meters of plankton over the entire world, 1
meter of coccoliths over the entire world, and 670 times more plants on the
preflood world than at present? Please explain how all these animals could
fit into one single biosphere? (See Foundation, Fall,and Flood p. 61-63

>> "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?

I humbly stand corrected. You did reply. Sorry. I forgot. But those
interested should follow the critiques of your reply.

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