Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 13:49:22 EDT
From what I've presented here, Paul, you wouldn't know this, but I have
much more than "a couple details that might be inconsistent with the
conventional 'swamp model' of coal formation". I have a 45-minute Power
Point presentation outlining one feature after another (from the
professional literature and field observations) which is inconsistent
with the swamp model and explained by the flood model. Individually you
might dismiss any one observation as a yet-unexplained enigma of geology,
but when strung together they marshal a strong argument for a global
flood or floods.
If you know anything about the features of coal which support the swamp
model (or, as you say, "the rest of the evidence"), and if you care to
list them, we could discuss the strengths/weaknesses of your
interpretations. OTOH, if you are just parroting what you have been
taught and are not open to revisions in your thinking either, then let's
not waste each other's time.
Back in the early days of this list, we (as the archives show) used to
discuss hard science. We seem to have devolved into something less.
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:59:35 -0700 "Paul Greaves" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I am mostly in agreement with you, but I would put a somewhat different
slant on this particular issue... You present evidence that the amount of
coal found in the earth is inconsistent with a young earth / global flood
model. A counterargument is put forth pointing out . Why not continue
by saying that maybe there are some cases where the swamp model might not
be the complete story, but that doesn't alter the basic issue of the
flood model being inadequate? For example, maybe some coal beds were
formed by a "normal" (but very large) flood-caused vegitation mat
decomposing and sinking... so what if that was the case? Or maybe some
pre-existing coal seams were eroded into and reworked to create pebbles
of coal deposited in a mostly sandstone layer. It doesn't really
threaten the old earth model. What the YEC community needs to find is
evidence that *only* makes sense in a global flood context, and then
create a consistent proposal that explains all the evidence within that
model. Also, for example, the YEC model would have to explain how the
organic matter could have been compressed into coal very quickly, and
then re-worked into the pebbles found in sandstone.
I've found this pattern in YEC literature many times... find a detail of
evidence that doesn't fit in to the "standard" geologic model, that could
make some sense in a flood model, and then focus hard on that detail to
try to discredit the whole idea of an old earth while ignoring the rest
of the evidence completely. I think that is why they have as much
success as they do with this approach... if you didn't know about the
rest of the evidence, it would seem like a good argument. And it takes a
certain amount of understanding and thought to sit back and realize "hey,
this is really an argument about the specific process of rock
formation... and just being consistent with water or flood deposition
doesn't mean it had to be done recently, or even by a global flood at
all. In the old earth scenario, there is plenty of room for floods, even
some very big ones. So evidence like that is really kind of irrelavant."
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 13:48:54 EDT