>From: Bill Payne [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 8:18 PM
>Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>Subject: Re: Oppressive YEC
>Hey My Friend,
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 13:08:55 -0700 "Glenn Morton"
>> No, Guy, all roads lead to the conclusion of a young-earth.
>Is that a Freudian slip? :-)
Naw, just an author who can't proof read!
>> Everything verifies everything else. The only reason one would deny
>> verifications by various methods is for theological reasons. What
>> you are seeking is some way to think the world is different than it
>I don't have time to get into a protracted discussion, but I can't resist
>mentioning that coal seams (at least the eastern US ones) don't fit the
>OEC model. One of the common features of these seams that doesn't fit
>the swamp model is the sharp bottom contact of coal with the substrate.
>In GSA SP 286, _Modern and Ancient Coal-Forming Environments_, the paper
>"Inorganic Geochemistry of domed peat in Indonesia", p 30-31, peat is
>defined as material which has 1-5% ash, then there is a gradational zone
>with 5 to 25% ash, and the mineral substrate is defied as >25% ash. If
>this material were lithified, there would be a gradational boundary at
>the bottom of the peat (which would be turned to coal).
>In the paper "Two Middle Pennsylvanian Coal Beds" (p 127-128), graphs are
>presented showing the ash in the transition from coal to substrate in two
>samples. Ash content jumps from about 10 to 15% in the coal (sample
>height appears to be about 5 inches) to 80 to 90% in the substrate. The
>jump is similar in a Stockton coal (p 126) and two Fire Clay coal (p 127,
>128) increment columns.
One thing you don't mention is how thick the transitional zone is. Remember,
compaction. Peat is compacted quite a bit during the process which turns it
into coal. An old source said:
(2) Assuming that 10 feet of plant remains form one foot of peat and that a
12 foot deposit of peat is required to make a layer of coal one foot thick,
then a 50 foot seam represents the continuous growth of forests in one site
equivalent to deposits of plant remains 6,000 feet thick. In coal measures
containing several thick seams, such accumulations must have been repeated
many times in the same location." ~ Wilfred Francis, Coal: Its Formation
and Composition, (London: Edward Arnold, Ltd., 1961), p. 15
Given this type of compaction that 5 inches used to be 60 inches of
>As far as I could tell, the varioius authors never notice or attempt to
>reconcile the discrepancies between the Indonesian peat deposits, said to
>be a modern analog for coal swamps, and the Pennsylvanian coal seams they
>are said to represent.
Did you attempt to reconcile the differences or merely grab the differences
and conclude that it must mean a global flood?
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 01 2002 - 00:18:58 EDT