Re: the saddest statement
Mon, 09 Aug 1999 06:05:42 +0000

At 10:13 PM 08/08/1999 -0600, Bill Payne wrote:
>Hi Glenn!
>On Sat, 07 Aug 1999 20:06:05 +0000 writes:
>>So we are supposed to invest such time in an intellectual lark, that
>>admittedly ignores the evidence? And then we are supposed to say that
>>failed lark, which is opposed by every piece of observational data is
>>we should be engaged in because it supports the very Word of God. Sorry
>>Burgy, I find this all very, very sad, hypocritic and blind.
>_Every_ piece of obversational data....? As I recall, when you and I
>discussed the Pittsburg Coal seam, you were asking for help because you
>hated to see any YEC argument go unanswered. And after it was all said
>and done, you begrudgingly admitted that the most logical model to
>explain the data was an allochthonous (floating mat) model rather than
>the autochthnous (swamp) model.

I don't understand your beef. The allochthonous model of coal formation
does not require even weakly, a global flood. There are floating mats with
allochthonous peats in the Okefenokee Swamp today. And I don't think we
are in the midst of a global flood. Consider this, which you seem to have

"About 15% of the 412,000-acre Okefenokee Swamp is open marsh dotted with
various-sized clumps of trees and shrubs known locally as 'houses.' These
houses originate from partially floating masses of peat which are called
'batteries.' Batteries are of three types. In one type a mass of peat
breaks loose from the underlying peat bed and floats freely on the water
surface. A second type is that in which an upper layer of peat partially
separates from the peat bed and forms a bulge above the water surface. A
third type results from bits of loose floating peat and other debris
drifting to the edge of a pond or a lake and accumulating until a base
forms for the growth of vegetation. The upper surface of these batteries,
being at or slightly above the water surface, provides habitat for a
greater variety and more profuse growth of plants forming the clumps of
trees known as houses." ~ Eugene Cypert, "The Origin of Houses in the
Okefenokee Prairies," American Midland Naturalist, 87(1972):2:448-458, p. 448

Have you now come up with an explanation
>for how you can imagine depositing a thin, widespread clay or shale
>parting in a swamp? Or, did you just forget about the Pittsburg Coal?

No, I haven't. But then I don't think the turbulent waters of a global
flood, in which the entire geologic column is ripped up by its roots only
to be deposited again within a one year time frame is the answer either.
Everything should be mixed up, not sorted out in a global flood. Given the
fact that shale is made of small particles which require long periods of
time to be deposited you don't have that in a global flood scenario. In
Pennsylvania where there are about 20,000 feet of sediment the flood
requires a depositional rate of 54 feet per day. That is incompatible with
the slow settling velocity of clay particles. Some clay particles would
require a year to fall through a 100 foot layer of water.


Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

Lots of information on creation/evolution