|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coal 'coincidentally correlated' with marine innundations | |||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Tranquility Base writes: 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:
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: It is also suggestive of modern coastal plains and swamps.
quote: No. It means that erosion has gone on for a long period of time.
quote: You really think that geologists haven't thought about this?
quote: Please explain. I'm sure that there are geologists out there who need to know what they are doing.
quote: It give us no such picture.
quote: Perhaps you could read some of our posts in the meantime.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024