>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?<
The accumulation of organic material in the bottom of a swamp or
under a stationary floating mass (the existence of which is
incompatible with the global flood models that posit violent activity
such as rapid plate tectonics) can easily lead to anoxia in the pore
waters, inimical to most bioturbators. Also, diagenetic compression
of the sediments will make contacts sharper than they were during
deposition.
Distinctive freshwater bivalves are associated with some Paleozoic
and later coal deposits, which is problematic for a floating mat in a
global flood.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 22 2002 - 14:03:33 EDT