Bill and other YEC's,
I would still answer my questions in my post and make an attempt to
explain the paleochannels seen in a coal from the floating mat theory.
In that explanation also show how the model can account for the change
of miospores in proximity of the channel. Both the Herrin and
Springfield have well mapped out paleochannels and show a change in
miospores in proximity to the channel.
Bill - I like to see Christians playing with models outside the
paradigms - but if they are going to be seen as credible they have to be
shown to have explanatory power that can explain specific feature and
not be just general theories. I would not expect an initial explanation
from a floating coal model to be as good as the accepted models
initially. However, if it can be shown to be useful at this level, it
would do a lot to increase the credibility of the model.
If you or some of your friends have some ideas feel free to share them
with me first privately and I will give you my evaluation so you can
make your explanation stronger. Mind you, I really I don't see how it
will work, but unless you develop the model from the broad hand waving
stage to explaining specific sedimentary or vegetation patterns, you
don't have much of a shot at getting it accepted.
-- James Mahaffy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 29 2002 - 17:47:03 EDT