Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Coal 'coincidentally correlated' with marine innundations
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 26 (11779)
06-18-2002 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
06-18-2002 10:33 PM


Percy, when I get around to it I'll post some quotes from Nature about rapid coal formation and some C14 dates you wont like. I can imagine a tropical world with approximately 100 times the vegetation - most of our planet is semi-arid currently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 06-18-2002 10:33 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 06-18-2002 11:27 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 17 of 26 (11782)
06-18-2002 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tranquility Base
06-18-2002 10:47 PM


Read it again. It isn't just 100 times the vegetation we have at present. It's 100 times the vegetation produced over the course of an entire year being present just during your flood in sea mats alone. And that's assuming every single ounce of sea mat becomes coal, that none escapes coalification and simply decays and returns its elements to the environment. Burial is a chancy process, so even if we give any piece of sea mat a 10% probability of burial, now you need at least 1000 times more than today's annual biomass production.
Just like all the other unlikelihoods and impossibilities I'm sure you'll again state that you have no problem imagining this, but that's not science. Imagine all you like, but you still need evidence. The problem in science isn't to convince yourself, but to convince others. As long as the only people you can convince are other evangelical Christians then you quite obviously have a religious, not a scientific, viewpoint.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-18-2002 10:47 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-18-2002 11:31 PM Percy has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 26 (11783)
06-18-2002 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
06-18-2002 11:27 PM


^ If you want to believe it happened over tens of millions of years in primarily two coal ages, feel free Percy. You may have a point, but as a scientist I know how many orders of magnitude out such estimates can be (either way).
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 06-18-2002 11:27 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 06-18-2002 11:49 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 19 of 26 (11786)
06-18-2002 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Tranquility Base
06-18-2002 11:31 PM


Tranquility Base writes:

If you want to believe it happened over tens of millions of years in primarily two coal ages, feel free Percy.
It has nothing to do with wanting to believe anything. Why in the world would I have any predisposition toward two coal forming eras versus one or three or seventeen? Why would I care whether coal formed a billion years ago, a million years ago, or yesterday?
The answer is I don't care. I could care less when coal formed. It doesn't matter to me at all.
What I care about is following the evidence where it leads. I've got God's hard evidence telling me it formed one way, and then there's you with a book written by ancient Jews who were intent on communicating a religious message but that you claim:
  • It also communicates scientific information
  • You've interpreted this information correctly
  • It states that evidence of ancient coal is wrong or incorrectly interpreted.
Before you can begin to convince anyone else of this I think you're going to have to take a step back and try to get a better idea of just how hugely unlikely all this sounds.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-18-2002 11:31 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-19-2002 12:01 AM Percy has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 26 (11788)
06-19-2002 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
06-18-2002 11:49 PM


The abstract I cited has plenty of evidence for rapid marine innundations. The paleosoils have 'exceedingly low relief' (ie very little uneven erosion, ie doesn't look like today's land surface). The mainstream idea of gradual marine innundations over tens of thousands of years without uneven erosion is actually ludicrous.
quote:
Cecil, C. Blaine, Dulong, Frank T., Neuzil, Sandra G., Sequence stratigraphy and the origin of Pennsylvanian coal beds in North AmericaAnonymous, American Association of Petroleum Geologists 2000 annual meeting, Annual Meeting Expanded Abstracts - American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 2000, p. 25, 2000.
Abstract: Sequence boundaries in Pennsylvanian epeiric deposystems of North America commonly are defined by paleosols. In the United States (U.S.), these paleosols document low stands of sea level and the exceedingly low relief and continental extent of epeiric depositional systems. Characteristics of these paleosols can be used to infer conditions of soil genesis including paleoclimate. In the eastern U.S., coal beds and intensely weathered underlying paleosol/sequence boundaries are indicative of humid to perhumid climates coeval with either low stand or transgressive systems tracts. In the western U.S., coeval paleosol/sequence boundaries are weakly weathered, contain features indicative of aridity, and lack overlying coal. The diminution of coal and the degree of weathering at low-stand sequence boundaries from east to west across the continent indicate that climate rather than relative sea level was the primary control on peat formation. Stratigraphic variation in geochemistry and sediment supply suggest climatic drying and increased seasonality during transgression. When compared to the U.S., climatic conditions in Nova Scotia were reversed when equated to relative sea level. Nova Scotian coal deposits appear to coincide with humid climates during relative high stands; relative low stands are characterized by dry climate paleosols (Gibling, 1999). Extensive deposits of Holocene peat generally are forming under humid to perhumid conditions. In high latitudes, extensive peat is forming in upland areas independent of relative sea level. Equatorial peat is forming on coastal plains contemporaneously with, but necessarily controlled by, present sea level. Both Pennsylvanian coal and Holocene peat deposits indicate that extensive deposits of peat tend to form under humid to perhumid climatic conditions. Relative sea level may coincidently correlate with extensive peat formation but is far more important as a mechanism for peat burial and preservation.
These vast Pennsylvanian deposits are part of the Paleozoic epeiric depoiusts of Nth America which, via paleocurrents, demonstrate correlated flow across the continent. You laugh at our model primarily becasue you already believe in the long ages.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 06-18-2002 11:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 06-19-2002 12:12 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 21 of 26 (11789)
06-19-2002 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tranquility Base
06-19-2002 12:01 AM


I already tracked down the full abstract earlier today, and anyway I can't see anything in it that hints at "rapid marine innundations". Is this the same kind of thing where evangelicals look at geologic layers and see flood evidence where no one else does?
Using the word "lucicrous" and supporting that characterization are two different things. You've done the former but not the latter, and clearly the authors do not agree with you.
Enjoyed the exchanges, going to bed now. Good night!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-19-2002 12:01 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 26 (11790)
06-19-2002 12:28 AM


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. That simply means - no time for normal land surface erosion. It really is ludicrous to expect such things from innundations of the sea on geological time scales but it fits our model perfectly. 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. 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.
I've enjoyed the discussion too Percy although it would be more pleasant if you stopped treating us like flat earthers! 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by edge, posted 06-19-2002 12:35 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 23 of 26 (11791)
06-19-2002 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tranquility Base
06-19-2002 12:28 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-19-2002 12:28 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-19-2002 12:44 AM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 26 (11794)
06-19-2002 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by edge
06-19-2002 12:35 AM


Edge
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by edge, posted 06-19-2002 12:35 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by edge, posted 06-21-2002 1:41 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 25 of 26 (11928)
06-21-2002 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tranquility Base
06-19-2002 12:44 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-19-2002 12:44 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 26 of 26 (11932)
06-21-2002 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
06-18-2002 12:10 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-18-2002 12:10 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024