Re: the saddest statement

Bill Payne (
Mon, 9 Aug 1999 22:09:06 -0600

On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 06:05:42 +0000 writes:

>I don't understand your beef. The allochthonous model of coal formation
>does not require even weakly, a global flood.

Agreed. But all of the coal seams I have looked at (limited to the
eastern/southeastern US) appear to be allochthonous (transported), and
98% +/- of these are said by most geologists to be autohthonous (in situ
- a swamp deposit). If I am right and 98% +/- of the
eastern/southeastern coals have been misinterpreted, then I am willing to
believe that the same may hold true for all of the coal seams worldwide -
which would certainly be compatible with 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
> "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.'
>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."

So the Okefenokee is your modern analogy? Consider this, which you seem
to have
forgotten: The thin, widespread, planar partings or splits in some coals
may cover tens or hundreds of square miles without interuption or change
in thickness. Your Swamp is an uneven surface, dotting the open marsh
with clumps of trees, shrubs, and batteries, and channels which drain the
water flow. How do you shave the surface of the peat down to a plain
before you bring in the mud (which becomes shale)?

And when you crank the swamp up again, how do you get those thin, planar
beds of impurities which we see extending for tens and hundreds of feet
in coal, if the swamp topography is so irregular?

>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
>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.

You can always dream up a reason why something can't be possible. I
prefer to stay connected with the empirical data. Observations of coal
seams suggest that your scenario is incorrect, at least as far as the
coal seams go.

>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
>the slow settling velocity of clay particles. Some clay particles would
>require a year to fall through a 100 foot layer of water.

Some of my reading suggests that underclays beneath coals may have
weathered in place from coarser-grained particles due to the action of
acidic water from the organics in the peat/coal. Furthermore, a
superloaded turbidity current would not behave depositionally like
individual clay particles. Again, you are dreaming up reasons why
something we observe can't be true.