On Wed, 1 May 2002 05:06:54 -0700 "Glenn Morton"
> One thing you don't mention is how thick the transitional zone is.
The transitional zone (5 to 25% ash) appears to be an average of one
meter thick. Some of the x-sections show areas with no transitional
zone; these maybe comprise 25% of the total, and may be due to the one to
two-meter spacing of the sample points. That is, the transition zone may
have been missed because of sample centers too far apart.
> 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
> 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
> containing several thick seams, such accumulations must have been
> many times in the same location." ~ Wilfred Francis, Coal: Its
> and Composition, (London: Edward Arnold, Ltd., 1961), p. 15
> Given this type of compaction that 5 inches used to be 60 inches of
> transitional zone.
>From what I've read, 12 to one is too high. I think a better number is 3
to 5x. Therefore, a 1-meter transition zone would yield a 4 to 7-inch
Now, please note that the transition from coal to substrate is commonly
razor-sharp. The sample thickness of the Pennsylvanian coals was 6
inches, but that is NOT the thickness of the transitional zone. There
may be some crinkled up root frags or even straight roots beneath the
coal, but the coal/substrate contact is almost always razor-sharp.
> >As far as I could tell, the varioius authors never notice or attempt
> >reconcile the discrepancies between the Indonesian peat deposits, said
> >be a modern analog for coal swamps, and the Pennsylvanian coal seams
> >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?
I can't see any way to reconcile the differences. If you can please let
me know. But if you can't you should admit that there is at least one
data set that doesn't fit your model, instead of saying: "Everything
verifies everything else. The only reason one would deny these
verifications by various methods is for theological reasons."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 01 2002 - 23:18:43 EDT