Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 22:54:17 EDT
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:10:02 -0400 <email@example.com> writes:
> 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.
Glenn, you are ignoring plain, straightforward empirical data because you
can't envision a model that will suit you. This is analogous to
evolutionists saying evolution must be true because there is no
alternative (read naturalistic) mechanism, effectively prohibiting God
from interfering with his universe.
Again, this is not a YEC issue with me. I am comfortable with thousands
of years, but can accept billions of years. The important thing is to
properly interpret the data at hand, rather than hitting what you
consider an insurmountable roadblock and referring to data that doesn't
fit your pet model as "nonsense".
I think you are assuming (correct me if I am wrong) that all of the coal
must have come from living pre-flood trees. Granting you, for the sake
of argument, that there are 45 times more coal than could be formed in a
single pre-flood biosphere, then I need to explain how we have the extra
biomass. Incidentally, your 45x more coal than biomass seems to be at
odds with your "Foundation, Fall and Flood" book (p 62): "One can
account for all the carbon in coal only by postulating a tropical rain
forest over the entire world. But this is impossible, because many of
the animals in the fosil record require low productivity regions to
survive. Grazing animals which live on grass can not live in tropical
rain forests." To say "One can account for all the carbon in coal only
by postulating a tropical rain forest over the entire world" ignores the
biomass-storage capacity of swamps. You didn't consider all of the
Pre-flood trees grew in swamps, and peat collected in those swamps. If
we assume that a swamp flora would have matured in 30 years (which should
be reasonable for the hollow or pithy-core lycopods), and assume 1,600
years from creation until the flood, 1600/30 = 59 generations of peat
collected in swamps, ripped up by the flood, re-deposited, buried and
coalified. There was more than enough biomass to form all of the coal we
Why, Glenn, did you go from saying "one can account for all the carbon in
coal only by postulating a tropical rain forest over the entire world" to
saying "there is 45 times more coal than could be formed in a single
preflood biosphere". Were you off by 45x in your book? Do animals
occupy all but 1/45 of the continents? Please explain this apparent
inconsistency in your logic.
I suppose the same principles might work for your crinoids. The
important thing to note is that paradigms strongly influence our
interpretations of data, which is why the conventional model for the
origin of coal completely ignores the obvious, and why what appears to be
nonsense to you may have a rational explanation after all.
I assume you have incorporated the following information (i.e., I think
you saw this when Art posted it) from Art Chadwick into your oil
Arthur V. Chadwick (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:25:04 -0800
Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199802/0178.html
Previous message: David Campbell: "science-Scripture interaction"
The latest issue of the AAPG Explorer has a commentary section discussing
the recent work of Martin and Young showing huge quantities of marine
plankton can be produced by adding minute quantities of iron to the
seawater. The author, Paul Comet, is suggesting that oil tankers
empty could instead carry iron (Fe+++) in their tanks, and release it on
the way back. The calculations of the effects reveal that the iron could
potentially generate more oil than the tanker carried over from
hydrocarbons generated by microplankton in the ocean. Te figures are
1 gram Fe+++ will generate 250,000 grams CH2 (= nearly 2 barrels
Thus the potential for generating oil reserves from the present oceans is
virtually unlimited. In addition, for those who might be concerned about
the excess production of CO2 forom the burning of fossil fuels, according
to his calculations, .0000035 percent of the volume of oil transported
occupied by salts used to replace Fe+++ in the oceans, virtually all of
CO2 produced by the burning ot that oil could be removed from the
We are again reminded that the oceanic production of planktonic forms can
be virtually unlimited if the proper nutrients are available (Fe+++,
and a source of Ca++ and CO2-- which could be dissolved or suspended
CaCO3). I suspect that submarine volcanism could keep the ocean saturated
with CO2 and SiO2, provide lots of Fe+++, and Ca++ and that such
would produce planktonic blooms that would deplete the ocean of O2,
the death of oxygen dependent creatures such as whales and other marine
and the production of unimaginable masses of planktonic forms, which
in relatively short order accumulate in huge microplanktonic deposits
as those we see at Lompoc and in other places.
On page 62 of "Foundation...", you state: "If all the oil were the result
of the decay of organic matter, then there is far too much oil and
natural gas in the world. There are 201 x 10^18 grams of carbon in the
hydrocarbons of the earth. In all of the world's living things there are
only 0.3 x 10^18 grams of carbon. There is 670 times more carbon in
petroleum than there is in every living plant and animal on earth.
Surely the world was not 670 times more crowded than it is today."
With one gram Fe+++ producing 2 barrels of oil by marine plankton, I
wouldn't think that would crowd the world too much. Did/does this
information have any effect on your model?
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 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 23:20:50 EDT