Re: Destructive criticism of Christian apologists (was

Glenn R. Morton (
Mon, 25 May 1998 20:57:37 -0500

At 01:36 PM 5/24/98 -0600, Bill Payne wrote:
>24 May 1998 07:48:49 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>Thanks for your patience with me on this, Glenn. What I do not
>understand is, when I ask you a specific question about a specific coal
>seam, instead of giving me a straightforward answer, you wander off into
>the deep blue sea, or now into coal/root ratios.

For the 4th time I will answer your question. I will acknowledge that some
coal seams are allochthonous (formed from plants washed in to the area). I
am not sure if the Pittsburgh coal fits that description or not. I haven't
seen you present evidence that the Pittsburg seam is allochthonous. I have
seen you talk about other coals, but I don't recall you presenting specific
evidence about the Pittsburg seam.

As to wandering off, let me note that the real reason that you require that
all coals be allochthonous is that you believe in the global flood. If any
coal is autochthonous (formed in place) your global flood model is wrong.

That is why I 'wander' off. As I have mentioned several times, even if
some are allochthonous it doesn't mean that all are. And I haven't seen you
present an airtight case for allochthony.

You, Glenn, are the
>one who is concerned about making "observationally correct facts" of
>empirical data. All I am asking is that you give us a logical inference
>of origin based upon the cited (from Corliss) empirical data of the
>15,000 sq. mile Pittsburg group.

Frankly, the Pittsburg coal with its extreme consistency of coal beds and
partings looks more like a precipitate than either allochthonous or
autochthonous. But I know of no means for that to occur given that coal is
formed from the remains of dead plants. I can more readily see this
consistency within an autochthonous model than an autochthonous one. Why
are the shale partings so uniform given your view of the coals being
deposited during the violent flood? And don't say that the flood was
tranquil, because it ripped up all the sediments, and kept them suspended
(or stored elsewhere)prior the final deposition.

> To say that "some are. Not all." is
>sort of mushy. Is it possible for you to give us a nice, crisp "yes" or
>"no" to the question, "Is the Pittsburg Coal allochthonous?"

How about an 'I don't know'. I really don't and am not trying to be coy
here. I haven't seen you present a clear and cogent allochthonous
explanation of the partings and coal seam thicknesses.

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information