Coal 'coincidentally correlated' with marine innundations

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':

quote:

---

Cecil, C. et al, 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.

​

"Relative sea level may coincidently correlate with extensive peat formation but is far more important as a mechanism for peat burial and preservation."

---

Of course creationists would say that the correlation of coal with marine innundations is not coincidental at all. Creationists look at the data and say the correlation suggests that the coal was deposited by (rapid) marine innundations. The floating mat model of coal formation is a far better explanation of coal formaiton than the mainstream swamp explanation.It is simply mainstream bias that suggests the association is 'coincidental'. The data really suggests the marine innundations were causative.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).

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-17-2002]

^ We don't claim that things were all globally correlated. The data doens't support that anyway. The flood was global but everything happens locally (sounds like Apple dogma ).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.

Sure John, I agree that to prove it was global we need diagnostic evidence of that. But along the way we will also need to look a little more locally and show tha tindividual formaitons occurred rapidly (eg like coal or epeiric sea deposits etc).I personally think we do have diagnostic evidence of globality. The larger marine innundations undountedly were global phenomenon. The paleocurrents demonstrate semi-globality for much of the Palezoic and Mesozoic beds. Some general features of the geological record do follow semi-globally (eg lots of coal in the Carboniferous, lots of chalk in the upper Cretateous I think). We're quite happy to not have to evoke millions of year long chalk ages or coal ages like you guys have to! Both of those phenomena are catastrophic consequences of the flood in our view.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-17-2002]

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.

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.

^ WehappyDid you note how 'low relief' the paleosoils were? I wouldn't get too excited about the paleosoils. The floating mat model very easily can deposit multiple mats on multiple surges and of course it will grade laterally in 2D.I'm happy for you that you can find large peat bogs today. That still doesn't resolve the systematic association with marine innundation.

EdgeThe authors of the paper still seems to think that the assocaition is somewhat coincidental - why else would they state this using that word?The data is most simply explained via rapid marine inundations that tore up the vegetation and buried it. Rapidity is suggested by the data becasue of the vastness of the floating mats.There are three state sized coal beds between PA and KN. They are sandwiched between correlated marine strata. For you that is coincidental again. For us it simply means that the vast floating mats had some gaps.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-18-2002]

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.

^ 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]

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]

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.

EdgeIt 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.