On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:48:20 +1000 Jonathan Clarke
<jdac@alphalink.com.au> writes:
> The heart of Michael's comment was "Creationists do the cause of the
Gospel
> incredible damage."
According to Scripture it's just the reverse:
"Who among you fears the Lord and obeys the word of his servant? Let him
who walks in the dark, who has no light, trust in the name of the Lord
and rely on his God. But now, all you who light fires and provide
yourselves with flaming torches, go, walk in the light of your fires and
of the torches you have set ablaze. This is what you shall receive from
my hand. You will lie down in torment." (Is 50:10-11)
> You wrote:
>
> "The problem I have encountered with many scientists is their complete
refusal
> to admit that their theories or hypothesis are not facts. They cling
to them
> with great faith but seem to be unable to deal with genuine challenges
to
> numerous assumptions."
>
> Since we are talking about YEC, please give specific examples with
respect to
> fundamental geological principles, particular in the area of
stratigraphy,
> sedimentology, palaeontology.
I'm growing tired of this (as I know certain others are), expecially
since those of us with the background to analyze the origin of coal (with
the exception of James) "seem to be unable to deal with genuine
challenges to numerous assumptions", but since Jon (?) asked for an
example, here it is again.
Glenn posted some photos of coal seams from Alabama back in May. Glenn
basically refused to engage the data. On May 20 Glenn wrote: "Bill, as
I have many times said, transported material is seen today in the
Okefenokee. So what. We aren't having a global flood today, that I am
aware of. Glub glub.... Transported material is occurring today, and
does not violate any 'model' that I might have. Why do you never pick up
on this point."
On May 25 I wrote:
*****************
"You keep coming back to the Okefenokee so I guess in your mind that is
the end of the discussion. I'm afraid though, that you are not listening
to what I have said. Let me repeat what I think I have said before, and
ask you to tell me how to resolve what I see as glaring inconsistencies
between the empirical data and the swamp model.
First of all, I do not deny that vegetation mats float and are grounded
in the Okefenokee Swamp. These mats are a tangled mass of roots, stems,
tree trunks, limbs, leaves, etc. If this mass of vegetation were
vertically compressed 10 times and coalified, it would still reflect the
tangled nature of the original mat. If a one-inch layer of volcanic ash
were deposited across the swamp, it would blanket everything and follow
the topography of the swamp. If the swamp existed for another 1,000
years after the volcanic ash layer was deposited, we would find that the
ash layer had been eroded where it draped across water courses. The ash
layer would also be disturbed by bioturbation from growing trees.
If this hypothetical swamp were then buried due to land subsidence and
marine flooding, the trees growing in the swamp would be preserved in
growth position, with their roots attached. The organics from the swamp
might eventually become coal, and the sediments might become rock. We
would then have a coal seam which was derived from a swamp. What would
be the features of this sequence?
Here are features commonly found associated with eastern US coal seams:
A) General lack of stigmarian axial root systems beneath the coal seams;
B) General lack of either tree stumps or roots in partings;
C) Commonly extensive, continuous nature of thin partings;
D) General lack of vertical tree stumps/trunks in the sediment overlying
coal seams, and general lack of attached roots where vertical tree
stumps/trunks are found;
E) Generally consistent total coal seam thickness between areas
containing splits and those that contain no splits;
F) Generally consistent thickness of coal seams draped over
contemporaneous slopes.
G) Generally razor-sharp contact of coal with its substrate.
We would not expect to see any one of these features in a swamp deposit,
yet you get all six in coal seams. As I said recently when you mentioned
the Okefenokee, there is nothing planar about a swamp. Yet the top and
bottom contacts of coal, along with any partings or splits, and the
internal structure of coal are all planar and were, for the most part,
nearly horizontal at the time of deposition. The Okefenokee has water
courses, vegatative islands, trees with trunks growing up and roots
growing down. None of this is horizontal (except on a macro scale), and
would not be planar, even if compressed 10 times.
So Glenn, I do accept your statement that there are drifting vegetation
mats in the Okefenokee; I do not accept your implication that these
drifting vegetation mats in any way explain the coal seams we see in the
eastern US. But maybe I have missed something here. Can you or Jonathan
or Michael or anyone reconcile the empirical observations, as seen in the
photos you have posted for me, with the swamp model for coal formation?"
**************
As far as I know, there were no further responses. I don't really expect
any substansive response this time either. I expect to see the OECs to
continue to say things like: well, nevermind - you know the drill.
Bill
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 20 2002 - 11:23:20 EDT