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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

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.

​

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

---

But the creationists need to show that coal formation occurred globally within a very short window of time, yes? I don't see how a specific example not correlated to other events around the world, can help.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

^ 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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ 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.

---

The point is that it would have to be correlated globally to point to a global flood. Multiple local events spanning many thousand years does not support a global flood. Such events fit very neatly into "that other model"------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

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?

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.

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.

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 don't think Cecil's work will fit very well into a YEC model... way too many paleosols, erosional surfaces, incised valleys, evaporites, etc. http://www.gcssepm.org/pubs/2002_ab_09.htmIf you can shoehorn that into your "floating mat" theory of coal formation, then I will be mightily impressed.Also this: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001AM/finalprogram/abstract_18566.htm"The Orinoco Delta comprises 22,000 km2 of fresh- to brackish-water wetlands within the seasonally wet and dry tropical northeastern South America. Preliminary mapping in the delta reveals approximately one third of the delta plain is underlain by peat, ranging in thickness from 3 to 10 m. "and this: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001AM/finalprogram/abstract_27876.htm
"Some coal beds preserved on the northwest basin margin develop from single beds to multiple beds in coal zones toward the southeast."How do floating mats manage to grade laterally from a single bed into multiple beds seperated by intervening clastics?

^ 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]

Why coal is ancient:

• No Carbon-14 exists in any coal anywhere, giving it a minimum age of at least 50,000 years. Dating of carbon from roughly the same proposed time at Biblical and related archeological sites yields the expected ages, so there is no evidence of fiddling with physical laws.
  ​
• Radiometric dating and geologic column positioning indicate two major periods of coal formation, one during the Pennsylvanian, the other during the Cretaceous. In other words, millions and millions of years ago.
  ​
• Coal beds lay embedded within the geologic column amidst layers containing fossils that differ considerably from modern forms.

Why it couldn't have happened all at once:

• The world's estimated coal reserves are around 1 trillion metric tons. The estimated total world photosynthesis based biomass production annually is around 0.1 trillion metric tons, and that's the amount produced during the entire year, not the amount in existence at a given point in time.
  ​
  So do the math. In order for this Creationist scenario to be true there would have had to have been 100 times the total vegetable biomass produced in an entire year in existence all at the same time in the form of vegetative sea mats (100 times, not 10 times, conservatively assuming vegetation is 90% water and that therefore a ton of coal requires 10 tons of vegetation).
  ​
• Heat, pressure and time are required to form coal. Without it you have only peat.

--Percy

I see where you are going with this now, but others in this thread have addressed the problems better than I could.Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com