Canadian Coal - unanswered questions

Hi Bill,

We've been at this debate for several months now - time to summarize before
moving to Paleozoic coals. There are a number of issues I've brought up
which you haven't answered. Now I realize everyone is busy, but some of
these are 3 months old - plenty of time for you to address them in some
fashion, I would think.

1. No coal in DeeP marine CLASTIC sediments, LIMESTONES, ETC.

This one was brought up early on by Glenn and myself, and has not been
answered by you.

2. low sulphur coals - need fresh water - mechanism?

You say you're not worried about this issue, because no one really knows
what might have happened during the Flood. This appeal to unknown processes
sounds like an "anything goes, and I don't need data to back it up"
approach.

3. pre-flood peat accumulation rate

How do you account for the vast thicknesses of peat/veg material which would
be needed to make all the seams from floating mats, if those layers were
ripped up intact (bound together with roots)?

4. piling up of vegetation mats - shoreline?

You said that loose vegetation could pile up, and gave a modern example
where vegetation bunched up against a shoreline. No reply from you when I
asked if that meant that there were shorelines during the Flood to account
for all coal deposited with so-called Flood rocks.

5. detailed mechanism for parting and interseam sediment deposition

You have avoided this one repeatedly. First it was turbidites, then
sub-aqueous deposits that may be turbidites, now it's settling from
suspension. No mechanism, references, or modern analogues.

6. channels in interseam sediments

This one needs a special variation on your turbidite theme, which you have
not provided.

7. ash layers beneath floating mats

This one needs an extra-special variation on your turbidite theme, which you
have not provided. You need to provide a credible reason why an ash layer
would not be mixed by a high energy event like a turbidity current. I have
commented recently on the drifting and settling that you recently proposed -
I don't think that's the answer either.

8. Petrology - inertinite, segregation

No comment from you on the petrology post, where I showed that inertinite
was from oxidation of the peat, which would not happen underwater, and
segregation of inertinite rich layers in coal seams could not be explained
by floating mat deposition.

9. large intervals of multiple layers of vertical roots in the Gates
Formation, alternating with thick coal seams.

No comments.

10. vertical zonation of plant types, pollen, spores

No comments.

11. vertical zonation of vertebrates

You commented that it provided strong evidence for evolution, and that you
would like to keep your mind open to all the possibilities. No explanation
of how this would happen in a floating mat/Flood scenario.

12. Stokes Law

You commented that unknown and unconsidered variables may alter and/or
invalidate Stokes Law. No comment when I asked what the unconsidered
variables would be, and no explanation of why the observed data in seams is
inconsistent with Stokes Law settling.

 Bill, rather than moving on to details of Paleozoic coals, how about if you
answer these leftover questions for Cretaceous coals? You can then answer
all but # 9 for your Pennsylvanian coals. These all refute your floating
mat scenario; so it's no wonder you have not answered them for Cretaceous
coals. Unless you are willing to address these questions, I don't see that
there is much point in going further.

Take your time, as I will be on vacation until March 28th.

 Kevin
Received on Thu Mar 18 00:25:47 2004