Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 17:10:02 EDT
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Paul Greaves" <email@example.com>
Reply-To: "Paul Greaves" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:59:35 -0700
>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 a couple details that might be inconsistent with the conventional "swamp model" of coal formation. 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?
Paul, that frankly misses the point. there is 45 times more coal than could be formed in a single preflood biosphere. And there are several hundred times more carbon in oil than could exist in one single preflood biosphere. All this stuff about vegetable mats is red herring territory. It matters not one herring.
Until the YECs come to grip with the fact that there are enough dead crinoids in limestones around the world to cover the entire world to a depth of 1 meter, and similar things, no progress will be made. It matters not one herring how coal was formed for the global flood. There simply is too much coal, too much oil, too much limestone composed of dead animals.
And that is why it is worthless to argue with Bill Payne about how coal was formed, or with you for that matter. Explain the quantity, then we can speak about how it was formed.
Due to several personal situations, don't expect much of a reply. I simply couldn't let this nonesense go by unchallenged.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 17:08:58 EDT