>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.
Your presumption is incorrect as far as Pennsylvanian coals go.
>I already said I can't explain the shale partings. I acknowledged that
in
>the last note. Did you read that part?
It's not in your Aug 9 post. Where did you say that? Please quote it
for me.
>But on the other hand I don't see
>you advancing any workable explanation either.
Contraire; I am advancing the Floating Mat Model, similar to that
postulated by Steve Austin in his doctoral thesis at Penn State (1979),
and as modified by observations at Mount. St. Helens (post May 18, 1980
eruption).
>So what is your point? You raised the issue of allochtonous coal as
>supporting the YEC side.
Minor point, but I think I reminded you that _you_ made that connection
last year (or whenever it was). From my 8/8/99 post: "As I recall, when
you and I discussed the Pittsburgh Coal seam, you were asking for help
because you hated to see any YEC argument go unanswered." Last night I
said: "If I am right and 98% +/- of the eastern/southeastern coals have
been misinterpreted, then I am willing to believe that the same may hold
true for all of the coal seams worldwide - which would certainly be
compatible with a global flood." So it seems (unless I missed something)
that I said nothing about the age of the earth or YEC; it appears to me
that you are trying to lead me into a defense of a young earth rather
than discussing the evidence for transported organics forming coal. Is
this what you call "switch and bait, Glenn?" :-)
>But I haven't seen a single thing that allochthonous coals does for YEC.
Well, for one thing, allochthonous coals demonstrate how easily people
with the wrong paradigm fail to observe clear empirical data which would
turn their model up on its ear. Or as Halton Arp, who has documented
numerous high-redshift quasars connected to low red-shift galaxies, puts
it: "Regardless of how scientists think they do it, they start with a
theory - actually worse - a simplistic and counter-indicated assumption
that extragalactic redshifts only mean velocity. Then they only accept
observations which can be interpreted in terms of this assumption. This
is why I feel it is so important to go as far as possible with empirical
relations and conclusions. This is why it [is] so important to discard
any working hypothesis if it is contradicted by the observations - even
if there is no alternative hypothesis to replace it. As unpleasant as it
is, one must be able to live with uncertainty." (_Seeing Red_, Halton
Arp, p 167)
And, for another thing, if all Pennsylvanian through Jurassic coals are
allochthonous, and if they were all deposited during a single event, then
it follows that since these coals are found on every continent then water
would have covered every continent at one time, and therefore there was a
global flood. Sorry Glenn, I'm just following the data where it leads
me.
>Yesterday you said that the allothonous
>coal supported YEC and today, above, you admitted that it doesn't.
I don't see how you get that from what I said. Maybe you could quote me
if you think this is an important point?
>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?
Allochthonous coals are _compatible_ with a global flood, but they do not
_require_ a global flood. You are the one trying to maneuver me into the
young earth camp, because then you can bring forward all of your OEC
arguments instead of trying to defend what you know is indefensible. For
all I care, the earth can be billions and billions of years old. Coals
still display the characteristics of transported organics which settled
out of water. Do you agree, Glenn???
Bill