Date: Tue Sep 23 2003 - 06:34:52 EDT
Sorry, but I can't let this go by.
From: Glenn Morton (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 17:08:04 EDT
> Not if what you say about creation violates everything we see and
> Our confidence that what the YECs say about the world violates all
> observations of physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, and geology is
> extremely high. They simply have everything of importance wrong! I am
> confident of that fact.
> YEC is so bad it is not even wrong. And you know, they could fix it
> one change in their method. They could say 'this is what the Bible says
> it all happened miraculously'. No one could dispute them. But they
> upon having observation support their viewpoint, which of course it
> and when it doesn't, they claim that everyone else should ignore the
> contradictory data along with them. And by saying that observation
> support their interpretation, when it doesn't, they make the Bible
> They drag the Bible into falsehood.
On Sep 14 Glenn wrote [under the thread - Subject: Re: ICR/AIG claims
> 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.
I responded on Sep 15 with an explanation for two of your objections
(coal and oil). I was suspicious that you might ignore any response
since you furnished an excuse in advance: "Due to several personal
situations, don't expect much of a reply. I simply couldn't let this
nonsense go by unchallenged." It is apparent that your "several personal
situations" have not interfered with your ability to respond to other
I have no problem with you ignoring rational empirical data which
conflict with your OEC model, but, in light of your eschewing data, I do
have a problem with statements like those above where you refer to my
interpretations as "nonsense", and claim "They simply have everything of
importance wrong! I am highly
confident of that fact."
I presented four lines of evidence which cannot be rationally interpreted
within the swamp model for the origin of coal. You have ignored those
statements, made by people who believe as you do, that coal was a swamp
Here is another observation from a technical journal. Since you are so
confident that what I say is nonsense, let's see if you can make sense of
"One of the more enigmatic features revealed by the intraseam tonsteins
[volcanic-ash deposits] is an almost complete absence of tree
preservation, either as tree trunks extending from the coal ply [bench or
bed] below or as Vertebraria (root structures) extending from the coal
ply above... The observations of this group [men and women surveyed to
check Creech's observations], representing over 400 man-years, confirmed
the almost complete absence of tree preservation in intraseam tonsteins
within local seams."
"The established notion of a forest setting is therefore not supported by
observation, and contrasts with both a lack of tree preservation in
intraseam tonsteins and only sparse tree preservation in interseam tuffs.
It should, however, be recognised that this is a negative argument, and
that a lack of preserved trees is not direct evidence for a lack of
trees." (pp 190-191)
"It can also be argued that only those ash falls deposited when the peat
surface was flooded and devoid of trees have been preserved, and that
other ash falls have been washed away or incorporated into the active
peat surface. Such a proposition is indeed consistent with the lack of
preserved trees, but does not adequately explain the lack of tree root
systems that should be found extending into the tonsteins from the coal
plies above." (p 192)
"Incorporating thickness variations of up to 11 cm in the tonsteins
modelled indicates that topography on the peat surface varied by less
than 22-44 cm... Such an absence of topographic relief is not only
difficult to envisage in a forest setting, but is also inconsistent with
other irregular peat surfaces such as raised bogs." (p 202) [Modern
raised bogs in Indonesia reach a height of 10 meters above the rest of
From: Creech, Michael, 2002. Tuffaceous deposition in the Newcastle Coal
Measures: challenging existing concepts of peat formation in the Sydney
Basin, New South Wales, Australia. International Journal of Coal Geology
For the non-geologists, swamps have trees which grow up and roots which
grow down. If a swamp were blanketed with volcanic ash, the vertical
trunks should be preserved (unless, as Creech says, everything had died
down to a plane surface because the swamp was flooded before the ash
deposit. How long does it take trees standing in water to die and fall
down flat, Glenn?). Even so, when a new swamp is established on top of
the volcanic ash layer, tree roots would grow down and destroy the planar
ash deposit. In Glenn's swamp, the trees always lay down before a
volcano blows ash over the swamp, and the new trees never sink their
roots down into the soil (ash) like trees do today. Glenn's trees are
special. Modern swamps are not flat, they have domes and islands of
vegetation cut by watercourses. But Glenn's ancient swamps are flatter
than a Texas armadillo on I-20. Not only are Glenn's trees special, his
swamps are also special.
So let's hear it Glenn. Tell us how nonsensical it is to postulate a
flood model which agrees with the observations of over 400 man years, and
how rational it is to say that although "The established notion of a
forest setting is therefore not supported by observation, and contrasts
with both a lack of tree preservation in intraseam tonsteins and only
sparse tree preservation in interseam tuffs. It should, however, be
recognised that this is a negative argument, and that a lack of preserved
trees is not direct evidence for a lack of trees." And "Such an absence
of topographic relief is not only difficult to envisage in a forest
setting, but is also inconsistent with other irregular peat surfaces such
as raised bogs."
The spotlight is on you - long, tall Texan; here is your chance to
vanquish this dumb old Alabama redneck hillbilly geologist. Tell me how
your faith is built on those negative arguments. Talk to me, Glenn.
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 : Tue Sep 23 2003 - 06:35:11 EDT