Hi Bill, I never said I was leaving the list. I put a limit on our 'debate'
because you and I have gone round and round about this and I don't see a
reason to get into it again. It gets boring saying the same thing to the
same person over and over again. You don't see or think of much except coal
and there is so much more to the issue than just coal. My best anit-global
flood argument for coal concerns the fact that there is about 45 times more
carbon in coal than can exist in the entire biosphere. There is about 600
times more carbon in oil than can exist in the entire biosphere. And there
is almost 200,000 x more carbon in carbonate (carbon which used to be the
shells of critters) than exists in the entire worlds biosphere today. If
oil and coal are from a single biosphere, then living matter was living on
top of living matter on land, sea and up in the air prior to the flood.
Here is the data:
petroleum nonreservoir 200 x 10^18 g carbon
Petroleum reservoir 1 x 10^18 g carbon
Coal 15 x 10^18 g carbon
Carbonate rocks 51,000 x 10^18 g carbon
living things .3 x 10^18 g carbon
J.M. Hunt, "Distribution of Carbon in Crust of Earth," Bull. AAPG, Nov.
1972, p. 2273-2277. p.2274
Here is a more recent update:
Carbon in sedimentary rocks in 10^18 g
All sedimentary rocks Insoluble organic carbon Carbonate
Shales 8,900 9,300
Carbonates 1,800 51,100
Sandstones 1,300 3,900
Coal beds thicker
than 4.6 m 15 feet 15
Nonreservoir rocks soluble organic carbon
Asphalt 275
Petroleum 265
Reservoir rocks
Heavy oil and asphalt 0.6
Petroleum 1.1
Total ~12,600 ~64,000
John M. Hunt, Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology, (New York: W. H. Freeman
and Co., 1996), p. 19
To me, the math doesn't work out. The coal can't be due to a global flood.
Explain this on a global basis and you might begin to make discussing coal
interesting. Otherwise, anything you claim as indicative of rapid deposition
or sharp boundaries on the base of coal, simply doesn't make a dent because
no one answers where all the dead animals lived prior to the flood.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Payne [mailto:bpayne15@juno.com]
>Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 8:10 PM
>To: glenn.morton@btinternet.com
>Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: YEC/Geology
>
>
>Glenn, my apologies for the offense. I do remember things a little
>differently though.
>
>On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 21:57:05 -0700 "Glenn Morton"
><glenn.morton@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>> Bill, I am a bit disappointed in you for this. I have never seen you do
>this
>> before. When you privately asked me to debate the photos, I told you I
>was
>> leaving for a conference in a week. You said that was fine we could
>debate
>> until I left.
>
>As I recall, you said we could debate until you left for the conference,
>but I don't remember saying "that was fine we could debate until [you]
>left." I was a little puzzled as to why you were putting a timeframe on
>our discussion in the first place. It sounded as though you would be
>leaving the list when you left for the conference. When you reappeared a
>week or so later, I tried again to get you to address the data, with no
>response.
>
>> You never really posted anything about the coal except to say
>> sorry my schedule is taking me away from the debate.
>
>That sounds a little misleading, from my point of view (POV). Given your
>activity here since your conference, you certainly would have been "able
>to debate that", you just chose not to. And that's fine, Glenn, I
>realize we have beat this dead horse into the ground.
>
>> Fair enough, our
>> schedules do that to us, but don't say I didn't engage the data when
>you
>> didn't really debate and I had given you a time frame over which I
>would be
>> able to debate that.
>
>By my count we posted 8 times before you left and, as I look back over
>the posts, I feel that I really did push the points I was trying to make.
> It's not important though, we just see things differently.
>
>I was digging through some old posts and came across one from Keith on
>5/4/98 - Origin of Coal References. Keith listed 12 points that need to
>be addressed in considering the origin of coal. His 12th point was:
>"Many modern peats are formed by vegetation (including trees) that is
>detached from the underlying substrate. The decomposing bottom of the
>mat contributes the organic matter that accumulates to form the peat.
>This is the case for much of the Mississippi delta."
>
>If I may play devil's advocate (or if I may agree, just for the moment
>:-), with what you've been saying Glenn), a totally detached swamp, or a
>floating mat, would solve some of the objections I've had to the
>observations. In this scenario though, I can't see how a razor-sharp
>contact of organics with the substrate could be maintained. I would
>think bioturbation would obliterate the contact or make it gradational.
>Would water under a massive floating swamp become stagnant to the point
>that life on the bottom couldn't survive?
>
>Again, my apologies.
>
>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 : Mon Jul 22 2002 - 01:20:03 EDT