>>>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
>>>of 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.
>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
>>GM>>>I don't understand your beef. The allochthonous model of coal
>>>does not require even weakly, a global flood.
As you know, Glenn, _requiring_ a global flood and _providing evidence
for_ a global flood are two different things. I have not changed my
>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
>cause from floating mats. This was your initial point in this thread.
>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
>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.
What you are saying strikes me as nonsense. Maybe we need to discuss the
implications of floating mats of vegetation over every continent during
the same span of time.
>In the above you listed the assumption "if they were all deposited
>single event". Exactly what is the evidence that all pennsylvanian
>are deposited in a single event? Coals occur at different stratigraphic
>levels and thus are demonstrably separated in time. So how do you
>evidence for a single event. YOu are not going where the evidence leads
>you; you are going where the assumption leads you.
Tornados deposit debris in different layers and "thus are demonstrably
separated in time." The question is, how much time?
>You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth.
You're welcome to your opinion, but I disagree.
>>Coals still display the characteristics of transported organics which
>>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.
At least you're now openly admitting that coals appear to be
allochthonous. During a discussion while you were off-line, Jonathan
Clarke found it hard to believe that you would make such an admission.