Re: Floating mats and coal - settling rates

Come on, Bill, why not be honest and say that YEC simply does not work.

Come and join all sensible people and believe that God created over a few
billion years. There is no alternative

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Sharman" <ksharman@pris.bc.ca>
To: "Bill Payne" <bpayne15@juno.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: Floating mats and coal - settling rates

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Payne" <bpayne15@juno.com>
> To: <ksharman@pris.bc.ca>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 9:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Floating mats and coal - settling rates
>
>
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:47:05 -0700 "Kevin Sharman" <ksharman@pris.bc.ca>
> > writes:
> >
> > Two comments - one to the settling velocity, and one to the larger issue
> > of how we interpret data.
> >
> > A lower concentration of acid will still cause flocculation, although at
> > a slower rate. "The inference of pH influences is based on modern
> > analyses in the topogenous mires of the southeastern United States,
where
> > pH differences in water chemistry cause clay to flocculate adjacent to
> > the channel margin, apparently limiting extensive inundation into the
> > mire (Staub and Cohen, 1979)." (Greb, S.F., Elbe, C.F., Hower, J.C.,
> > Andrews, W.M., 2002. Multiple-bench architecture and interpretations of
> > original mire phases -- Examples from the Middle Pennsylvanian of the
> > Central Appalachian Basin, USA. International Journal of Coal Geology
49,
> > 151.) The pH of water is one factor that can alter or invalidate
Stokes'
> > Law, and there may be others.
> Flocculation is a phenomenon confined to clays because of the electrical
> charges these very small particles (less than 4 microns) carry. Lower pH
> would only affect floccing of clays, not larger particles. Stokes Law is
> not invalidated; the particle size of a floc aggregate is larger than the
> individual particle, so it settles faster.
>
> >
> > 2) Your post, to which I am now responding, was written after I had
> > described the accelerated settling rate of my acidified sample, and
after
> > you received and I think worked your way through the Power Point
> > presentation I sent you - where the above quote appears. It seems that
> > either you miss the significance of the effect of low pH on Stokes' Law,
> > or I am overrating the importance of low pH. My point here is that
there
> > are always factors which we may not have included in our scenarios of
> > past events, factors which have the potential to completely undo our
> > conclusions.
> True, but we do the best with what's in front of us. We cannot adjust for
> unknown factors, we can only seek out all the factors which may influence
a
> system and adjust for them. So, based on what we know today about the
> settling behavior of particles, it is reasonable to model them as I have
> attempted. Throwing one's hands up and saying there's no use trying
because
> of unknown factors that may influence the results will not get us
anywhere.
> What's worse is rejecting an argument based on the possible influence of
> unknown factors, which is what you seem to be doing. If you can't specify
> what in particular invalidates my argument, then you can't reject it.
>
> You haven't put forth a mechanism for reducing the pH of a column of
> seawater with floating vegetation.
>
> > As I have mentioned before, at some point the Flood would have ended,
but
> > recession of the waters/emergence of the land may have occurred
gradually
> > over a longer period of time. Deposition of peat may have begun after
> > the end of the Flood, but while much of the land was still flooded.
> So, you want to have it both ways: the Flood is over, but the land is
still
> flooded. To me, if the land is still flooded, it's the Flood. What does
> the Bible say about the time period of receding flood waters? It seems
like
> you are compressing the floating mat deposition window to a few weeks in
> this vague scenario.
> >
> > > Remember that you
> > > also need time to deposit the other sediments, such as the ~9000
meters
> > of
> > > other sediments that make up the Phanerozoic succession in the area of
> > Gates
> > > Fm. coals.
> No, the thrust of my post is that you don't have enough time in a year
long
> Flood to account for all the coal AND all the other sediments. This is
> completely relevant to coal because time that you need to deposit
sediments
> takes away from your potential time to deposit peat.
> > I'm working on the foundation (coal) now; I would like to leave the
> > superstructure till later, or to others. If I can reasonably show that
> > coal is from transported peat, then the under- and overlying strata will
> > have to be reinterpreted in light of the allochthonous nature of coal.
> >
> > > Also, the order of settling of plants/peat would be the large dense
> > > particles first (large inertinite), as well as large waterlogged wood.
> > In
> > > the middle would be small particles with a high density difference
> > (small
> > > coalified macerals), then last would be small particles with a low
> > density
> > > difference (small pieces of waterlogged wood, spores) and pieces with
a
> > > large surface area to mass ratio, such as leaves and sheets of lycopod
> > bark.
> > > This is not the order we see, either in a given seam or as an upward
> > trend
> > > in the world's coal.
> >
> > There are too many unknown or unconsidered factors for you to draw this
> > order of settling.
>
> Another vague statement from you, Bill. If the factors are unknown, we
can'
> t model them. If there are factors which I haven't considered, tell me
what
> they are and how they would affect what I proposed. Again, you reject my
> argument without giving grounds.
> >
> > > How do you explain discrete beds of sporinite (spore rich layers) in a
> > > floating mat scenario? These very small particles with a low density
> > > difference would take a very long time to settle. In the mainstream
> > view,
> > > these settle out slowly in a lake environment with an absence of
> > clastic
> > > input.
> >
> > This line of reasoning is secondary to more direct data indicating the
> > allochthonous nature of coal, IMO.
>
> Bill, the above statement must mean you are agreeing with me that this
line
> of reasoning refutes allochthonous coal. If you disagree that my argument
> refutes allochthonous coal, you would have answered my question about
> sporinite above. You have dodged the question.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Feb 22 13:31:28 2004