Re: ICR/AIG claims (coal)

Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 13:49:22 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: ICR/AIG claims (coal)"

    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" <>
    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."

    -Paul Greaves

    The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
    Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
    Only $14.95/ month - visit to sign up today!

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 13:48:54 EDT