Re: Whimpy Roots

This is the best and most dramatic way of proving the relationship between
floating mats and in situ!

The main point is that geologists started with a young earth paradigm
(pretentious term) in the 17th century and as they found more evidence
shifted to an old earth without any reference to evolution.

Can I ask Bill one question, how many people have been lost to Christ
because of YEC?

Also to every one "saved" by a YEC argument how many are lost?

Also why were so many of the geologists who devised the geological column
from 1800 to 1850 devout Christians, Buckland, Henslow, and a good number
bible believing evangelicals - Lewis, Sedgwick, conybeare, Salter, Townsend?
It is too slick as well as being false to say they were seduced by the
Enlightenment

Bill put up a valiant fight, but he was doomed from the start.

Now I have been reading YEC literature for 33 years and have yet to read any
sound arguments

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "Bill Payne" <bpayne15@juno.com>
Cc: <ksharman@pris.bc.ca>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 12:11 PM
Subject: RE: Whimpy Roots

>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Bill Payne
> >Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:10 PM
> >On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 06:07:57 -0600 "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net>
> writes:
>
> >> Bill, I believe I have agreed with you that partings in Paleozoic coals
> are
> >> very tough to explain several times before.
> >
> >So I gather that you aren't buying Kevin's explanation? It's not that
> partings are tough to explain, it's just that you
> >don't like the explanation that fits the empirical data. If I can admit
> that vertical roots may be in situ, then why can't
> >you admit that the best (simplest) explanation for undisturbed partings
may
> be burial from a floating mat?
>
> That doesn't follow, Bill. I have been busy on other boards so haven't
been
> following this thread so I don't know Kevin's argument. I don't find coal
> to be that problematical. I find your insistence that the coal comes from
a
> global flood, regardless of roots in places that you can't explain to be
> shear stubbornness.
>
> I was discussiong this issue with a sedimentologist who works for me the
> other day. He suggested much of the following. He said that in the mouth
of
> the Mississippi, rooted vegetation by the distributary channel becomes
> floating vegetation away from the levee. A friend of his was leading a
field
> trip showing some oil industry execs how the vegetation was floating. He
> jumped up and down on the floating vegetation to show them the waves, when
> all of a sudden, the vegetation beneath him gave way. He fell completely
> through the layer and disappeared. Everyone thought he was going to die
> because he didn't come back up through the hole. It was a full 30 seconds
> before he found his way to the edge of the floating vegetation and climbed
> back on the raft to the relief of all those standing there.
>
> It is clear that the Pennsylvanian cyclothems were deposited on a very
flat
> topography. Such situations of floating vegetation, which we see today,
> probably would have applied to that situation. And that would allow an
> explantion of the partings. The partings occurred when muddy water
flooded
> the area. It filtered through the floating vegetation, left its shale.
>
> And you know something, Bill? None of this requires the silliness of
> believing the unbelievable, which is what you constantly ask us to
believe.
>
>
>
> >> And I have no problem with some coals being allochthonous.
> >
> >OK, then will you admit that the coals with undisturbed partings are
likely
> allochthonous?
>
> I will go with what my sedimentologist suggested. It explains those
partings
> without trying to create big mysteries. And creating big unexplained
> mysteries is what YEC is all about.
>
>
> >> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/roots.gif
> >
> >I have a few questions about this rock photo:
> >What age is this rock?
>
> Cretaceous
>
> >What is the scale of the photo?
>
> 3 inches in height 5 inches wide (approximately). there was 250 layers
like
> this in a 3 ft core.
>
> >Can you put this photo into Power Point and draw red lines across it
where
> you think the breaks between annual layers and
> >then either posts it or e-mail it to me as an attachment?
>
> I think you have my book (not sure) but that photo is in there and it has
> the layers marked (I beleive, it is early and I don't want to go look
right
> now). Hint, count the dark layers.
>
>
> >Do you have an extra piece of this rock I could look at for myself? I'll
> be happy to return it if necessary.
>
> >Will you agree that the Herren coal with the three partings which cover
> ~250,000 sq. miles is allochthonous? What about the
> > Pittsburg coal which we discussed years ago; is the Pittsburg
> allochthonous?
>
> Not after speaking with my sedimentologist the other day. I suspect it
was
> much like the situation in which that field trip leader experienced. That
> would make it autochthonous, but from an attached mat.
>
>
>
Received on Fri Mar 5 11:11:07 2004