DT>This is VERY important observation. The old idea of trees being
> >fossilised in growth position surrounded by a peat soil do not match
> >up to observation. The root systems of these trees are not in seat
> >earths.
> >
> Wait, David. The observation in Lancashire was that the roots of the trees
> above were not in the coal at all. How does this argue for a rapid
> deposition of the coal/sediment system? Randy was arguing for that. I am
> not sure you and I are in disagreement.
OK - my comments related to the fossil trees and their enclosing
sediments. Perhaps we do not differ about that.
> It seems to me that this lack of projection out of the coal might argue for
> a rapid deposition of the sediment above the coal, which is coarser-grained
> and higher energy than is the coal below. The coal, under this circumstance
> is not required to be deposited rapidly with the beds above.
Agreed.
> By contrast the coal is lower energy so like shales, how do we explain the
> deposition of fine-grained material by a global flood?
I'm not sure I want to get into the wider debate here. Are there
mechanisms for rapidly depositing fine grained material? What about
flocculation?
> The chalk at Dover
> in your country is approximately the same age as the white chalk upon which
> Dallas is built. Here the chalk is around 400 feet thick. Chalk consists
> of about 80% dead, microscopic coccoliths. These coccoliths require lots of
> time to fall to the ocean floor, like several years if they are falling by
> themselves. Hooked to other coccoliths it can fall faster. but in a flood
> how do such fine grained, organic remains like coccoliths fall in a year?
There are lots of features of chalk that seem to me to favour
catastrophism. However, I agree that 1 year is unrealistic. I
think a timescale of decades is necessary to be defensible. [But
that's another thread - which I'm not wanting to open up!]
Best wishes,