So if you agree that the floating mat theory doesn't require a global
flood, I presume that you now agree that my characterization of the lack of
evidence for the global flood is correct.
>
>So the Okefenokee is your modern analogy? Consider this, which you seem
>to have
>forgotten: The thin, widespread, planar partings or splits in some coals
>may cover tens or hundreds of square miles without interuption or change
>in thickness. Your Swamp is an uneven surface, dotting the open marsh
>with clumps of trees, shrubs, and batteries, and channels which drain the
>water flow. How do you shave the surface of the peat down to a plain
>before you bring in the mud (which becomes shale)?
I already said I can't explain the shale partings. I acknowledged that in
the last note. Did you read that part? But on the other hand I don't see
you advancing any workable explanation either. So this is not evidence of
anything but our collective ignorance not evidence of a global flood.
>You can always dream up a reason why something can't be possible. I
>prefer to stay connected with the empirical data. Observations of coal
>seams suggest that your scenario is incorrect, at least as far as the
>coal seams go.
So what is your point? You raised the issue of allochtonous coal as
supporting the YEC side. But I haven't seen a single thing that
allochthonous coals does for YEC. Yesterday you said that the allothonous
coal supported YEC and today, above, you admitted that it doesn't. I don't
see why you are arguing about this. You acknowledge it doesn't support the
global flood so how does allochthonous coal support a young earth?
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution