Coal 'coincidentally correlated' with marine innundations

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Here in a mainstream abstract it is apparent that coal formation really is associated with marine inundations. Although it is proposed that marine innundation might be required for preservation the abstact also mentions that it does appear 'coincidental':

​

(...)

​

Of course creationists would say that the correlation of coal with marine innundations is not coincidental at all.

---

Well, that's what the author says, too. They correlate because the transgressive part of the sequence preserved underlying coal seams. This is not a coincidence.

quote:

---

Creationists look at the data and say the correlation suggests that the coal was deposited by (rapid) marine innundations.

---

Nope, doesn't say that. It says the coal was preserved by transgression of the sea.

quote:

---

The floating mat model of coal formation is a far better explanation of coal formaiton than the mainstream swamp explanation.

---

Another unsupported assertion. Please explain.

quote:

---

It is simply mainstream bias that suggests the association is 'coincidental'.

---

Wrong. Please read your quote carefully.

quote:

---

The data really suggests the marine innundations were causative.

---

Not from what you just showed us.

quote:

---

PS - for other laymen: coal beds can cover US state sized regions and regardless of horizonal breaks in coal deposits these beds correlate across half of the width of the continent (from Kansas to Pennsylvania).

---

Please show us where a single coal bed is continuous from PA to KN. The maps only show where coal bearing strata of a certain Period exist. One-to-one correlation can be difficult even across a single mining district, though the will consistently occur within a certain member of a formation.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The point is that coal formation is associated with marine innundation - at least in Nth America, and certainly in any cyclothem deposit (= cyclical coal/marine beds) worldwide. This fits very neatly with our model.[/B][/QUOTE]You're not going to bring up the cyclothem business again are you? Weren't you embarrassed enough the last time?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, the only thing I'm embarressed about on the cyclothems is that I thought I was citing an evolutionist when it was a creationist! I have little doubt that there are polystrate fossils passing through multiple cyclothems. I just don't have the time and resources to clear it up.

​

Polystrate fossils or no polystrate fossils, cyclothems and coal beds in general are first order evidence of the flood.

---

In this case, I suggest that you drop the argument. You cannot base your first-order evidence on something that you cannot verify.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
My "rapid marine innundations" which of course would never be said in plain English in a mainstream abstract are strongly suggested by the "exceedingly low relief" of the epeiric interface.

---

It is also suggestive of modern coastal plains and swamps.

quote:

---

That simply means - no time for normal land surface erosion.

---

No. It means that erosion has gone on for a long period of time.

quote:

---

It really is ludicrous to expect such things from innundations of the sea on geological time scales but it fits our model perfectly.

---

You really think that geologists haven't thought about this?

quote:

---

The only reason mainstream geologists don't feel it is ludicrous is that almost all of their marine transgresson and regressions look like this so they 'calibrate' to it.

---

Please explain. I'm sure that there are geologists out there who need to know what they are doing.

quote:

---

It is not what one would actually expect. The lack of uneven erosion together with the paleocurrent data for the Paleozoic gives us a pretty clear picture of a rapid transgression.

---

It give us no such picture.

quote:

---

I've enjoyed the discussion too Percy although it would be more pleasant if you stopped treating us like flat earthers!

---

Perhaps you could read some of our posts in the meantime.

quote:

---

We are convinced we have a new scientific paradigm for interpreting earth history and that the source of the model is, perhaps not irrelevant, but of secondary importance scientifically. And the point is we know why the two paradigms are so different - it's dead simple: flood vs no flood.

---

Correct. Dead simple. It has to be. Actually, you were convinced before you looked at any data and before you ignored everything we have said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It sounds as if this 'exceedingly low relief' really needs to be quantified. I know geologists have thought about these issues but they assume the answer must somehow fit the long age model so they ignore the possibility that rapid innundaitons might explain the data far better.

---

Rapid innundations DO describe parts of the geological record. There have been MANY rapid innundations. But this does not necessarily mean a global flood. It is also apparent that you do not address the possibility of local flooding. Even flooding of the entire Cretaceous Seaway was not a global flood.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Read my post Edge - I'm saying regardless of polystrate fossils, coal beds are first order evidence of the flood. This thread is about so-called 'coincidental' association of coal and marine innundations.

---

I meant to reply to this earlier, but didn't have time. If you read the author closely he says that the association of 'relative sea level' appears to be coincidental, but the preservation of coal beds is not coincidental because transgression make preservation more likely. He does not say that the relationship is an unexplained coincidence.