From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Thu Nov 20 2003 - 06:56:14 EST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bpayne15@juno.com [mailto:bpayne15@juno.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 9:20 PM
> To: glennmorton@entouch.net
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Declining water and oil
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:51:17 -0600 "Glenn Morton"
> <glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
>
> Limestone and chalk are both basically CaCO3. Why do you say there must
> be limestone in the ocean to create chalk? Did you mean to say "calcium"
> instead of "limestone"? If so, that's an interesting limiting factor and
> a source of Ca would need to be postulated to support the raw material to
> fuel the bloom.
I spoke loosely. The fact is that coccoliths extract CaCO3 from the ocean
and deposit it in their skeletons, which then fall to the ocean floor to
create chalk. Thus, if there isn't enough CaCO3 in the oceans to account for
all the limestone, it clearly can't be the result of a one year flood.
> Here I must point out to you again :-( that you are ignoring empirical
> data so you can maintain your imaginary model. On your web site you rail
> against the YECs for not attempting to explain the multiple lines of
> evidence you present supporting an old earth. I agree with you that this
> data must be explained for YEC to be ultimately viable. I disagree
> though with your skirting the coal data I have presented. I really don't
> care if you engage the data, but it would be nice to hear you say that
> you can't explain the data within the OEC swamp model.
Yes we can. You just don't like the explanation. To almost everyone else,
the explanation fits coherently and cogently.
>
> As to your objection that the lack of deep-ocean coal negates the
> floating mat model for the origin of coal, I had said before that a
> floating mat of peat would be pulverized by wave action and finely
> disseminated over the ocean floor. And we do in fact find fine coal
> particles spread over the ocean floor. Therefore, the floating mat model
> survives your objection. Try again?
And that is what Austin says caused the coalseams to form--vegetation
falling from beneath the floating mat and forming.
"Dr. Steven Austin wrote his doctoral dissertation at Penn State University
on a new model for coal formation based on his study of a coal field in
Kentucky. While geologists have used a peat swamp model to explain coal
formation for over 100 years, Austin argued that explanation doesn't fit
because coal is coarsely textured like bark, not finely textured like swamp
peat. Swamp peat contains root material; coal does not. Swamp peat rests on
a layer of soil; coal often rests on a rock layer. No swamp peat has been
found partly formed into coal. "
"Austin advanced a floating mat model--that a watery catastrophe
stripped away millions of acres of forest and tangled them into mats. The
mats floated on an ocean over Kentucky, bumping against one another and
dropping their bark to the bottom. Subsequent volcanic activity provided
heat and pressure, the final ingredients used in laboratories to produce
coal. The result was rich seams of coal in Kentucky and a Ph.D. for Austin.
" http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders.htm
Thus there shouldn't be any difference between the deep and shallow water
coal. All you can point to in the deep water is the occasional log that
floated out the sea, got waterlogged and sank to be compressed to a particle
of coal. That isn't at all what Austin's view is.
And if you want to see roots underneath a coal bed see
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ROOTSquintettemineTumblerRidgeCanadaCret2tw.jpg
These coals didn't float in the ocean.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 20 2003 - 06:56:57 EST
