>Also, on bedding plane splits in Alabama coal, I have occasionally
>noticed the characteristic diamond-shaped pattern of leaf cushions on
>the outer surface of lycopod tree trunks. I think between the
>macroscopic and microscopic examination of Carboniferous coals, we will
>be able to show that one of the predominant components of vitrain is
>woody trunk and bark fragments from *trees*, not grasses. Which leaves
>you with the problem of lack of tree trunks preserved in the coals and
>roots in the underclays. It's hard to envision a swamp without trees,
>yet with tree bark and trunks in the organic deposits from the swamp!
>
>Your swamp model is beginning to mire up, Glenn.
First off, Bill, don't confuse what I have said. I will grant you that
there are most definitely coals that are formed mainly from wood. But I
will not grant you all of them. Secondly, if you want trees associated with
the coal seams surely you wouldn't disagree with Creationist Andrew Snelling
would you?
he said:
"If we go to the Newcastle coalfield north of Sydney, what we do
find is tree stumps sitting on top of the coal seam. These tree
stumps have their roots broken off indicating that they were
ripped up from another location where they grew, transported here
where they were buried."~Andrew Snelling, Raging Waters Video
from Answers in Genesis.
Now, his claim that the roots are broken off may be nothing more than the
roots turning to coal while the trunks are silicified by the overlying
sands. He shows a picture and it looks like the trunks are silicified. A
friend of mine saw the same thing in a coal bed in East Texas as a graduate
student. The silicified trunk came out of the lignite at an angle of about
30 degrees the upper part was silicified the lower was coalified. Since
this was a very immature lignite, he could still see the tree below the
sand/coal interface.
Also if you want tree stumps associated with coal then try
N.A. Rupke, "Prolegomena to a Study of Cataclysmal Sedimentation," Creation
Research Soc. Quarterly, p. 16-37
Once again a respectable creationist source. Rupke shows trees coming out
of the coal beds. But it is important that he does not give a case of a tree
going through another coal bed. Only in this way could you prove that the
coal bed was deposited catastrophically. Remember the 1993 Mississippi River
Floods? They covered trees with several feet of sediment and produced
incipient polystrate fossils. But no coal beds were deposited by this event
and no future polystrate trees will go through a coal bed. Coals can be on
the bottom of the tree or a new coal form on top of the buried tree in a
naturalistic scenario. thus in order to prove catastrophism you must have a
polystrate go THROUGH a coal seam and I know of none.
Before flood
tree
O
|
|
-----------
peat
-----------
immediately after flood
stump
-----------
| sand
|
-----------
peat
-----------
Several years later
-----------
peat
-----------
| sand
|
-----------
peat
-----------
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm