Re: the saddest statement
Wed, 11 Aug 1999 06:02:10 +0000

At 10:38 PM 08/10/1999 -0600, Bill Payne wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 22:45:32 +0000 writes:
>>So if you agree that the floating mat theory doesn't require a global
>>flood, I presume that you now agree that my characterization of the lack
>>evidence for the global flood is correct.
>Your presumption is incorrect as far as Pennsylvanian coals go.

You are being very inconsistent. I wish you would stick to one position. ON
August 9th you replied to my statement that the allochthonous coal model
doesn't require a global flood. You agreed with it. Here is the exchange:

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

>>I already said I can't explain the shale partings. I acknowledged that
>>the last note. Did you read that part?
>It's not in your Aug 9 post. Where did you say that? Please quote it
>for me.

Bill, You aren't reading very well these days. I would suggest som +2.00
reading glasses. I have an extra pair. It is in my August 9th post. You
asked if I had an explantion; I said no:

>BP>>>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?

GM>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.<<<<

>>But on the other hand I don't see
>>you advancing any workable explanation either.
>Contraire; I am advancing the Floating Mat Model, similar to that
>postulated by Steve Austin in his doctoral thesis at Penn State (1979),
>and as modified by observations at Mount. St. Helens (post May 18, 1980

You are advancing a floating mat theory not a floating shale theory. The
mat theory explains the coal not the shale. And in any event as you already
agreed on August 9th, the floating mat theory has nothing to do with the
global flood. So what is the point. YOu started this exchange by saying
that the allochthonous coal model supports the YECs yet now you are not
relating this to the YEC views.
>>So what is your point? You raised the issue of allochtonous coal as
>>supporting the YEC side.
>Minor point, but I think I reminded you that _you_ made that connection
>last year (or whenever it was). From my 8/8/99 post: "As I recall, when
>you and I discussed the Pittsburgh Coal seam, you were asking for help
>because you hated to see any YEC argument go unanswered." Last night I
>said: "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." So it seems (unless I missed something)
>that I said nothing about the age of the earth or YEC; it appears to me
>that you are trying to lead me into a defense of a young earth rather
>than discussing the evidence for transported organics forming coal. Is
>this what you call "switch and bait, Glenn?" :-)

I am not arguing last year's discussion. Nor am I discussing coal origin
per se. I am trying to find out why you think there is support for the YEC
cause from floating mats. This was your initial point in this thread. ON
Aug 8th you implied that my statement that there was no evidence for YEC
was erroneous because of the floating mat theory of coal. Then you agreed
with me that it had nothing to do with the global flood and today you
disavow your former agreement. It is hard to argue when one's debate
opponent has gelatinous points of view.

>>But I haven't seen a single thing that allochthonous coals does for YEC.
>Well, for one thing, allochthonous coals demonstrate how easily people
>with the wrong paradigm fail to observe clear empirical data which would
>turn their model up on its ear.

So, what? Are YECs/global flood advocates the only people in the world who
can't possibly be wrong and thus because other people are wrong we must
beleive YEC? THat is a non sequitur.

>And, for another thing, if all Pennsylvanian through Jurassic coals are
>allochthonous, and if they were all deposited during a single event, then
>it follows that since these coals are found on every continent then water
>would have covered every continent at one time, and therefore there was a
>global flood. Sorry Glenn, I'm just following the data where it leads

In the above you listed the assumption "if they were all deposited during a
single event". Exactly what is the evidence that all pennsylvanian coals
are deposited in a single event? Coals occur at different stratigraphic
levels and thus are demonstrably separated in time. So how do you derive
evidence for a single event. YOu are not going where the evidence leads
you; you are going where the assumption leads you.

>>Yesterday you said that the allothonous
>>coal supported YEC and today, above, you admitted that it doesn't.
>I don't see how you get that from what I said. Maybe you could quote me
>if you think this is an important point?

Your original point:
GM>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.

BP:_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.

Your rejection of that point:
>GM>>>I don't understand your beef. The allochthonous model of coal formation
>>does not require even weakly, a global flood.
BP>Agreed. <<<<<<<<

You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

>>I don't
>>see why you are arguing about this. You acknowledge it doesn't support
>>global flood so how does allochthonous coal support a young earth?
>Allochthonous coals are _compatible_ with a global flood, but they do not
>_require_ a global flood. You are the one trying to maneuver me into the
>young earth camp, because then you can bring forward all of your OEC
>arguments instead of trying to defend what you know is indefensible. For
>all I care, the earth can be billions and billions of years old. Coals
>still display the characteristics of transported organics which settled
>out of water. Do you agree, Glenn???

Yes but so what. YOu started this thread by implying that transported
organics supports YEC. IT doesn't. Being compatible with YEC is not the
same thing as supporting YEC. The rising sun is compatible with YEC but
does nothing to help their cause.


Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

Lots of information on creation/evolution