Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[otseng]

Zzyzx and I have agreed to do a head-to-head debate on the Biblical flood.

The question for us to debate:
Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[Zzyzx]

.
Your “lasagna” interpretation of rock deformation is extremely naïve. Those rock units were not folded at the surface. At the time they were folded they were under intense heat and pressure deep within the crust of the Earth and later exposed by mountain building and erosion (processes that we know exist). Rock under such conditions is NOT a brittle solid as we know from low-temperature, low-pressure rock at the surface but is in a condition capable of being deformed.

Perhaps with no study of the natural world and without the ability to visualize Earth processes as occurring over long periods of time, one must think in simple terms – like “lasagna” – and come up with “explanations” and “excuses” seem to makes sense.

Your “explanation” that the sediments must have been folded before being lithified (formed into rock) leaves you with a very large problem.

Kindly explain how loose sand and mud can be folded. Lay out alternating layers of sand and mud and demonstrate the process you envision for the production of strata of alternating sandstones and shales.

When you discover that you cannot do that, the failure is complicated by other problems that you cannot “explain”.

Some folded rock units include coal and limestone. Coal is formed from peat which is partially decayed organic material deposited in oxygen-poor swampy conditions. Limestone is formed from small (often microscopic) calcium-rich body parts of marine organisms. Both are very slow processes.

Please describe the processes involved in a thick sequence of folded strata that consists of alternating sandstones, shales, limestones, and coal – repeated many times – and then folded.


One does NOT learn geology or geological interpretation from photographs. An expert geologist may use photographs to illustrate what has been learned directly from nature – but no legitimate investigator attempts to draw conclusions by looking at photos.

For instance, you imply that there is no faulting in the rock units and that faulting would be required in folding (because lasagna would break). On the site, one could actually look for faults that are not obvious in photographs. Do you suppose that it is possible for faults to exist without you being able to see them in photos? Do you suppose that study of the real thing instead of photographs might produce more understanding?


When one does not understand a field of study, they are well advised to learn from those who do study and learn. There are excellent sources from which one can learn introductory geology – IF one is interested in learning.

If one is NOT interested in learning, but only in promoting creationism, they may be tempted to read creationist sources, such as Walter Brown – people who have NOT bothered to study the fields in question – but who write “authoritatively” in pseudo-scientific manner. One is also likely to “pick and choose” from legitimate studies bits and pieces of information that seem to support creationism – while rejecting all information and conclusions that do not agree with creationism. Theological “authorities” weaving such stories may convince the naïve, but they cannot hold their own with those who have studied the filed. They are NOT taken seriously when one understands even freshman level geology.

Does it every occur to you, while imagining all sorts of fanciful “explanations” and excuses for bible stories (trying to make them fit reality), that it is far more rational, reasonable, and sensible to realize that those who actually study the Earth are likely to be closer to the truth about nature than “miracle” tales by Bronze Age bible storytellers or the pronouncements of religionists who promote such stories?

Water gushing out of vast caverns ten miles beneath the Earth’s surface, shoving continents apart ten miles per day, depositing all sedimentary rocks, eroding all landforms, mountains arising (all within a year). An ark, larger than any wooden boat known to have existed, floated merrily along on a violent worldwide ocean carrying a pair of every kind of animal on the Earth (including the largest, the microscopic, the most fragile and the most habitat-specific), fed and cared for by eight people, who also sailed the world’s largest wooden ship (and which had one 17” window for ventilation). Every animal survived (or the species would have gone extinct) and all were retuned to their native habitat. NONE of these claims can be verified.

“Oh the tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive” - Sir Walter Scott 1808.

Perhaps your beliefs should be reworked around reality, rather than trying to rework reality around your beliefs. (Modified from Openmind – 2007)

[otseng]

.
Your “lasagna” interpretation of rock deformation is extremely naïve. Those rock units were not folded at the surface. At the time they were folded they were under intense heat and pressure deep within the crust of the Earth and later exposed by mountain building and erosion (processes that we know exist). Rock under such conditions is NOT a brittle solid as we know from low-temperature, low-pressure rock at the surface but is in a condition capable of being deformed.

I don't understand the sequence that you are proposing. Are you saying this is the sequence:
1. Layers were formed horizontally at the surface.
2. All the layers went deep within the crust.
3. All the layers were deformed.
4. All the layers were raised to become mountains.

Kindly explain how loose sand and mud can be folded. Lay out alternating layers of sand and mud and demonstrate the process you envision for the production of strata of alternating sandstones and shales.

Again, layers would be a combination of sediments settling at different rates, layers forming at different times, and tidal forces. The layers would be compressed due to the weight of sediments/water so it would not simply be loose sand/mud.

Coal is formed from peat which is partially decayed organic material deposited in oxygen-poor swampy conditions.

"Subsequent deep burial by more sediments in succeeding geologic ages resulted in heat and pressure which transformed the peat into coal. Generally speaking, every 12 inches of coal thickness represents approximately 10,000 years of continuous peat accumulation. Coal seams in West Virginia average 3 feet in thickness, although they occassionally can be as thick as 25 feet."
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Article1.html

A thickness of 25 feet of coal would then require 250,000 years of continuous peat accumulation. So a peat bog would have to exist for 250,000 years to form this coal deposit.

I would propose that rapidly burial to produce coal is more plausible than a slow burial.

Here are some instances which would indicate rapid burial, rather than slow burial:

"Lepidodendra (a tree of the coal period) sixty feet long, were found, and plants so perfectly impressed that the terminal buds were preserved, and in a few instances the fruit."
http://www.bchistory.org/beavercounty/B ... MSU98.html

"Although bug fossils are quite common it is rare to find complete specimens. The Ohio specimen, which was found in a coal mine, was surprisingly well preserved."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... roach.html

Here is evidence of a rain forest right on top of a coal deposit:

"The fossil forest was rooted on top of the coal seam, so where the coal had been mined away the fossilized forest was visible in the ceiling of the mine."
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ ... orest.html

How can a swamp instantaneously turn into a forest?

Also, why would coal deposits be "pure"? Shouldn't we see evidence of alternating mini layers of soil and coal? That is, suppose a plant dies. In order for it not to decompose and by recycled, it would have to be rapidly buried by soil. But, where is this soil that had buried the plant?

Finally, when fossil fuels are subject to Carbon 14 dating, they consistently show amounts of C14.

"The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value"
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=117

If coal was millions of years old, they should not have any discernable C14 in it. Yet, C14 exists.

[Zzyzx]

.

Kindly explain how loose sand and mud can be folded. Lay out alternating layers of sand and mud and demonstrate the process you envision for the production of strata of alternating sandstones and shales.

Again, layers would be a combination of sediments settling at different rates, layers forming at different times, and tidal forces. The layers would be compressed due to the weight of sediments/water so it would not simply be loose sand/mud.

That is an interesting theory. Is there any reason to think that it is accurate? Have any studies verified the assumptions? Or are they pure guesswork?

When you propose that layers of sand, for instance, would be “compressed due to the weight of sediments / water” – is that the process of lithification? If not, what exactly occurs?????

If sand is “compressed” as you envision, does it become a rock? Please explain the process. Do you know what is produced when sand is compressed?

Once the sand and mud have been “compressed”, what is the process that produces folding?

Coal is formed from peat which is partially decayed organic material deposited in oxygen-poor swampy conditions.

"Subsequent deep burial by more sediments in succeeding geologic ages resulted in heat and pressure which transformed the peat into coal. Generally speaking, every 12 inches of coal thickness represents approximately 10,000 years of continuous peat accumulation. Coal seams in West Virginia average 3 feet in thickness, although they occassionally can be as thick as 25 feet."
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Article1.html

A thickness of 25 feet of coal would then require 250,000 years of continuous peat accumulation. So a peat bog would have to exist for 250,000 years to form this coal deposit.

In the study of any of the natural sciences 250,000 years is NOT regarded as a long time. Geologic time is measured in tens or hundreds of millions of years, so a quarter million is not unusual.

Creationist theories attempt to limit Earth history to a few thousand years because some Bronze Age storytellers and churchmen claim that the Earth was formed recently. Creationist theories, therefore, must resort to “miracles” to “explain” features that we observe on the Earth.

I would propose that rapidly burial to produce coal is more plausible than a slow burial.

Your personal opinion has no credibility. Kindly cite CONCLUSIONS of people who study the field to support the theory of rapid formation of coal.

Can you cite ONE credible, knowledgeable person (who has evidence of serious study of Earth processes and materials) who proposes that the Earth’s coal seams were produced rapidly?

I, and Standard Geology, reject your proposal. The preponderance of evidence favors slow accumulation of organic material and slow formation of coal rather than rapid burial as proposed by creationists (who do not study the Earth, but derive theories from scripture and from “pick and choose science” (accepting selected pieces of information from legitimate studies that seem to support their theories – and rejecting all information that disputes their theories).

Read the references you cite for verification of the position of legitimate geologists (those who actually study the field) on the process of coal formation.

Here is evidence of a rain forest right on top of a coal deposit:

"The fossil forest was rooted on top of the coal seam, so where the coal had been mined away the fossilized forest was visible in the ceiling of the mine."
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ ... orest.html

How can a swamp instantaneously turn into a forest?

Do you read and understand the references you cite????

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ ... orest.html

Replete with a diverse mix of extinct plants, the 300-million-year-old fossilized forest is revealing clues about the ecology of Earth’s first rainforests. The discovery and details of the forest are published in the May issue of the journal Geology.

“We’re looking at one instance in time over a large area. It’s literally a snapshot in time of a multiple square mile area,” said study team member Scott Elrick of the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS).

Forest find

Over millions of years as sediments and plant material pile up, layer upon layer, the resulting bands become time indicators with the newest, youngest layer on the top and the oldest layer at the bottom. Typically geologists peel away a vertical slice of rocky material to look at fossils spanning several time periods.

A coal mine offers a unique view of the past. Instead of a time sequence, illuminated in the layer upon layer of sediments, the roof of an underground mine reveals a large area within one of those sediment layers, or time periods.

Miners in Illinois are used to seeing a few plant fossils strewn along a mine’s ceiling, but as they burrowed farther into this one, the sheer density and area covered by such fossils struck them as phenomenal, Elrick said.

That’s when they called paleobotanist Howard Falcon-Lang from the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom and William DiMichele, a curator of fossil plants at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.

"It was an amazing experience. We drove down the mine in an armored vehicle, until we were a hundred meters below the surface,” Falcon-Lang said. “The fossil forest was rooted on top of the coal seam, so where the coal had been mined away the fossilized forest was visible in the ceiling of the mine.”

Forest snapshot

Here’s what the miners and other scientists saw underground: Relatively narrow passageways wind through the “cave,” marked off with stout 100-foot-wide pillars to ensure the roof doesn’t collapse.

“It’s like in some bizarre Roman temple with tons of Corinthian pillars that are 100 feet across and only six feet tall,” Elrick told LiveScience. “As you’re walking down these passageways you see these pillars of coal on either side of you and above you—imagine an artist’s canvas painted a flat grey and that is sort of what the grey shale above the coal looks like.”

The largest ever found, the fossil forest covers an area of about 4 square miles. This ancient assemblage of flora is thought to be one of the first rainforests on Earth, emerging during the Upper Carboniferous, or Pennsylvanian, time period that extended from about 310 million to 290 million years ago.

A reconstruction of the ancient forest showed that like today’s rainforests, it had a layered structure with a mix of plants now extinct: Abundant club mosses stood more than 130-feet high, towering over a sub-canopy of tree ferns and an assortment of shrubs and tree-sized horsetails that looked like giant asparagus.

Flash freeze

The scientists think a major earthquake about 300 million years ago caused the region to drop below sea level where it was buried in mud. They estimate that within a period of months the forest was buried, preserving it “forever.”

“Some of these tree stumps have been covered geologically speaking in a flash,” Elrick said.

Because the spatial layout of the forest has been maintained, the scientists can learn about entire plant communities, not just individual plants.

"This spectacular discovery allows us to track how the species make-up of the forest changed across the landscape, and how that species make-up is affected by subtle differences in the local environment," Falcon-Lang said.

The fossil forest extends along the ceiling of two adjacent mines, the Riola mine and the Vermillion Grove mine, which are located in Vermilion County, just south of Danville, Ill.

The study above is diametrically opposed to “Young Earth Creationism”. These are legitimate scientists discussing conditions of hundreds of millions of years ago – NOT a few thousand years ago.

Thank you for providing information to dispute your own proclamations.

If you wish to cite credible sources to support your theories, it is necessary to find credible sources that actually agree with your theories – and have knowledge and training to give some weight to their conclusions. Citing people who disagree with your theories does NOT substantiate what you claim.

Also, why would coal deposits be "pure"? Shouldn't we see evidence of alternating mini layers of soil and coal?

Some coal seams are relatively pure, others have layers of shale (commonly) or sandstone (occasionally). “Soil” is not expected after lithification. Many coal seams are so impure that they are not commercially desirable. Read your reference that I quoted above.

That is, suppose a plant dies. In order for it not to decompose and by recycled, it would have to be rapidly buried by soil. But, where is this soil that had buried the plant?

If you understood the process of coal formation, the above would no longer be a mystery. Coal is typically formed of vegetation deposited in oxygen-poor (stagnant) fresh water. The lack of decay is due to the lack of oxygen. The process is occurring today in peat bogs. Occasionally, as cited in a reference above, vegetation can be buried in mud which retards or prevents decay (or it can be deposited in deep, cold fresh water). The bulk of coal seams, however, originate from swamp deposits (peat bogs).

As mankind learns about nature, “mysteries” are unraveled and their causes are understood. “Miracles” are no longer required to “explain” the unknown. Magical floods are not required to “explain” sedimentary rocks and fossils – provided that artificial limits are not placed upon time (for religious purposes).

Here are some instances which would indicate rapid burial, rather than slow burial:

"Lepidodendra (a tree of the coal period) sixty feet long, were found, and plants so perfectly impressed that the terminal buds were preserved, and in a few instances the fruit."
http://www.bchistory.org/beavercounty/B ... MSU98.html

Again, from the references you cite (dated 1885) one can learn that a shale formation is overlain by a 1 foot thick bituminous coal seam, which is overlain by an 8 foot thick cannel coal seam, which is overlain by a 60 foot thick sandstone then a 7 foot thick oil shale.

What conclusions do you draw from that sequence of strata – particularly the cannel coal?

The geological horizon of this immense coal seam has not been certainly determined; it may occupy the same relative position to the ferriferous limestone as the Neshannock Township and Hoghollow coals of this county, but it more likely is found at the place of the third seam above the limestone, making it the lower Freeport coal of PA, corresponding with No. 4 coal of Ohio. We find it overlaid with a fine grained white sandstone, about sixty feet in thickness - very likely the Freeport sand rock. The coal has been worked about one and one-half miles from the entrance, due north, and 600 yards wide; the thickness of the coal will average about eight feet, but increase, in places, to ten feet or more. Over this seam is about seven feet of shale, hardly distinguishable from the coal, from which coal oil was manufactured quite extensively, on the premises, many years ago, the coal itself being too rich in bitumen to convert into oil.

Underneath and attached to the cannel coal is about one foot of bituminous coal of good quality, which is taken out at the same time and marketed separately; they are united as firmly as if they were the same formation, but so very different in appearance, the cannel coal bearing a very close resemblance to common slate, and still so rich in bitumen.

http://www.bchistory.org/beavercounty/B ... MSU98.html

A personal note: I owned land underlain by coal within 25 miles of Newcastle during the time I taught in Pennsylvania. I have taken students on many field trips to surface coal mining operations in the area. However, I am not familiar with the specific location discussed in the article. Underground mining had been replaced by strip mining in the area decades earlier.

Finally, when fossil fuels are subject to Carbon 14 dating, they consistently show amounts of C14.

"The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value"
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=117

If coal was millions of years old, they should not have any discernable C14 in it. Yet, C14 exists.

Do you understand radiometric dating well enough to explain the various techniques using only your own knowledge without using references?

Do you acknowledge that you are talking about things that you do not understand?

[otseng]

When you propose that layers of sand, for instance, would be “compressed due to the weight of sediments / water” – is that the process of lithification? If not, what exactly occurs?????

No, I'm not proposing that compression is the process of lithification.

Lithification:
"Conversion of an unconsolidated (loose) sediment into solid sedimentary rock by compaction of mineral grains that make up the sediment, cementation by crystallization of new minerals from percolating water solutions, and new growth of the original mineral grains. "
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/lithification

Lithification would involve "cementation by crystallization of new minerals from percolating water solutions". The FM would account for the "percolating water solutions" since all the layers were deposited underwater. Where would the "water solutions" come from to account for all the layers for the SGM?

Once the sand and mud have been “compressed”, what is the process that produces folding?

Horizontal compression resulting from the hydroplates moving and hitting the basalt underneath. The momentum of the moving hydroplates would cause the layers to compress and fold.

In the study of any of the natural sciences 250,000 years is NOT regarded as a long time. Geologic time is measured in tens or hundreds of millions of years, so a quarter million is not unusual.

Of course. The magic of time is invoked in order to make anything plausible. Do we have current evidence of square miles of peat bogs that exist for thousands of years?

And let's look at the size of some of these "peat bogs" that would have been required:


http://www.minepermits.ky.gov/miningedu ... mation.htm

And why would peat bogs have such patterns? Why would they have been so large and widespread?

How could peat bogs accumulate so much material to produce so much coal?


http://marlimillerphoto.com/hard-rock.html

The preponderance of evidence favors slow accumulation of organic material and slow formation of coal rather than rapid burial as proposed by creationists

Then it should be quite easy to produce the evidence.

Do you read and understand the references you cite????

Of course. And we've covered this before. Just because an article states that something is millions of years old does not mean it is a fact that it is millions of years old. However, if you see the top of a coal mine is the remnant of a rainforest, then that would be a fact.

Some coal seams are relatively pure, others have layers of shale (commonly) or sandstone (occasionally). “Soil” is not expected after lithification. Many coal seams are so impure that they are not commercially desirable.

Let's look at some pictures of coal deposits.


http://www.geokem.com/images/scans/Indo ... l_mine.jpg


http://www.geokem.com/images/scans/Niko ... logist.jpg

Coal is typically formed of vegetation deposited in oxygen-poor (stagnant) fresh water. The lack of decay is due to the lack of oxygen.

That might address aerobic decomposition, but what about anaerobic decomposition?

Occasionally, as cited in a reference above, vegetation can be buried in mud which retards or prevents decay (or it can be deposited in deep, cold fresh water).

Wouldn't then a lot of mud layers be evidenced in coal beds?

Again, from the references you cite (dated 1885) one can learn that a shale formation is overlain by a 1 foot thick bituminous coal seam, which is overlain by an 8 foot thick cannel coal seam, which is overlain by a 60 foot thick sandstone then a 7 foot thick oil shale.

What conclusions do you draw from that sequence of strata – particularly the cannel coal?

What would be particular about the cannel coal?

Do you understand radiometric dating well enough to explain the various techniques using only your own knowledge without using references?

Um, it would be more productive if you would address the argument rather than question me personally.

[otseng]

So, let me then present one of the main evidence of a global flood.

When we look at geological stratas, the basic pattern that seems to be seen universally is that layers were all deposited horizontally. Then after all the layers were deposited, something happened to those layers. Could be deformation, erosion, normal fault, etc. Or could be a combination of these.

What we do not commonly see is one layer forming, then deformation/erosion/faulting. Then another layer. Then more deformation/erosion/faulting. And so on.

This pattern is so prevalent that it needs an explanation for this. The Flood Model is consistent with this in that all the layers were deposited horizontally. Then deformation/erosion/faulting occurred after the layers were formed.

I've covered mountains and faults. Next I'll present canyons/gorges.

When we look at canyons/gorges, we again see the basic pattern that all the layers were deposited horizontally. Then after the layers were deposited, the canyons/gorges were formed.


http://www.oars.com/grandcanyon/dories.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_River_Canyon


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bryc ... norama.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vikos-gorge.jpg

So, evidence from mountain, faults, and gorges all exhibit the same pattern of all the layers forming first, then afterwards something happened to them (folding, fault, erosion). And the FM has better explanatory power for this prevalent pattern.

[Zzyzx]

.
WHAT the h*** are you doing using a photo of a copper mine in an attempt to prove a point about coal?

If you don’t know the difference between a coal mine and a copper mine you have NO BUSINESS attempting to discuss the matter.

This demonstrates the quality and reliability of your conclusions about geology. Is it a deliberate misrepresentation -- or do you simply not know any better?

How could peat bogs accumulate so much material to produce so much coal?


http://marlimillerphoto.com/hard-rock.html

Even if one does not know the difference between a coal mine and a copper mine, they can do a few minutes worth of research and learn.

The Bingham Canyon Mine is an open-pit mine extracting a large porphyry copper deposit southwest of Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, in the Oquirrh Mountains. It is owned by Rio Tinto plc through Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation which operates the mine, a concentrator and a smelter. The mine has been in production since 1906, and has resulted in the creation of a pit over 0.75 mile (1.2 km) deep, 2.5 miles (4 km) wide, and covering 1,900 acres (7.7 km²). According to Kennecott, it is the world's largest man-made excavation.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingham_Canyon_Mine

[otseng]

I'm sorry, I had posted the wrong image from that link.


http://marlimillerphoto.com/hard-rock.html

Would this one be a coal mine?

[otseng]

Though most geologists do not recognize a global flood, there are several areas around the world where geologists accept cataclysmic local floods. One such flooding is the Missoula Floods.

The Missoula Floods (also known as the Spokane Floods or the Bretz Floods) refer to the cataclysmic floods that swept periodically across eastern Washington and down the Columbia River Gorge at the end of the last ice age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods

The standard explanation for these massive floods is a series of ice dam breaches. Though I think a global flood is a better explanation than an ice dam, I'll talk more about that later.

But one thing I want to mention is that when J Harlen Bretz proposed that a massive flood caused features found in the Channeled Scablands, he was immediately dismissed by geologists. It sounded too much like a Biblical flood. It was only until when someone else proposed that an ice dam could've been the source of the water, then did other geologists start warming up to Bretz's ideas. So, we see a bias among geologists that even when confronted with data, they will not accept it if it resembles anything in the Bible.

[Zzyzx]

.

I'm sorry, I had posted the wrong image from that link.

Would this one be a coal mine?

Yes, that appears to be a coal mine, and is labeled as such. It is a bit difficult to analyze, and I do not attempt “geology from photographs”; however, it appears as though there has been mining of several coal seams at different elevations.

How does your Flood Model explain the occurrence of several to many different coal seams separated by thick layers of shale?

Geologists, biologists and mining engineers explain the formation of coal as a slow process over time. Here is a simplified version:

Coal is a fossil fuel created from the remains of plants that lived and died about 100 to 400 million years ago when parts of the earth were covered with huge swampy forests. Coal is classified as a nonrenewable energy source because it takes millions of years to form.

The energy we get from coal today comes from the energy that plants absorbed from the sun millions of years ago. All living plants store energy from the sun through a process known as photosynthesis. After the plants die, this energy is released as the plants decay. Under conditions favorable to coal formation, however, the decay process is interrupted, preventing the further release of the stored solar energy.

Millions of years ago, dead plant matter fell into the swampy water and over the years, a thick layer of dead plants lay decaying at the bottom of the swamps. Over time, the surface and climate of the earth changed, and more water and dirt washed in, halting the decay process. The weight of the top layers of water and dirt packed down the lower layers of plant matter. Under heat and pressure, this plant matter underwent chemical and physical changes, pushing out oxygen and leaving rich hydrocarbon deposits. What once had been plants gradually turned into coal.

Seams of coal--ranging in thickness from a fraction of an inch to hundreds of feet-may represent hundreds or even thousands of years of plant growth. One important coal seam, the seven-foot thick Pittsburgh seam, may represent 2,000 years of rapid plant growth. One acre of this seam contains about 14,000 tons of coal, enough to supply the electric power needs of 4,500 American homes for one year.

http://lsa.colorado.edu/summarystreet/texts/coal.htm

To account for Interbedding with shale, mudstone, or sandstone the environment is thought to have changed slightly to allow deposition of sediments instead of vegetation. Increased rainfall on a large drainage basin is known to be sufficient to increase deposition of clastic materials in lowlands – or swamplands where vegetation had been accumulating.

Any environmental change over thousands or millions of years is sufficient to cause deposits to shift between favoring deposit of swamp vegetation and deposit of clastics – and perhaps back again several times.

Typical coal seams are 3 to 4 feet to 6 to 8 feet – though some limited areas have seam thickness over 100 feet. Seams less than about three feet are usually not economical to mine unless they are very near the surface (have little overburden), cover large areas, are close to horizontal and contain good quality coal.

Here is an image of a “High Wall” coal mine. The coal seam is ONLY the short vertical section of the wall that is about the height of the men. ALL the rest is waste rock or overburden (unwanted material). The high-wall mining equipment is designed to extract as much coal as economical from the seam. There are many different techniques for mining from the surface or from underground mines. It is a fascinating study.



BTW, the mine is for sale – 15 million tons of proven reserves – Eastern Kentucky

Coal is present in 38 States, lying under 13 percent of the land area of the United States. As can be seen on the map of coal fields in the U.S., bituminous coal comes mostly from the Appalachian Basin and the Midwest, while the Western coals are mostly subbituminous. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/foss ... works.html

Minable coal seams occur in many different shapes and compositions. Some coal seams can be traced over tens, even hundreds, of miles in relatively uniform thickness and structure. The extensively mined Herrin coal bed of the Illinois Basin and the Pittsburgh coal bed of the northern Appalachian Basin are examples. They are 6–8 ft (2–2.5 m) thick over thousands of square miles. These coals originated in peat swamps that developed on vast coastal plains during the Pennsylvanian Period. The German brown coal deposits near Cologne are characterized by very thick coal deposits (300 ft or 100 m). However, their lateral extent is much more limited than are the two examples from the United States. These peat deposits formed in a gradually subsiding structural graben bounded by major faults. Land lay to the south and the sea to the north. Only a relatively small portion of the subsiding graben block provided optimal conditions for peat accumulation over a long period of time. Thus each coal bed has its own depositional history that determined many of its characteristics
http://www.answers.com/topic/coal-1

Since you raised the issue of copper mines (mistakenly). Please explain in detail how 4000+ feet of copper ore was deposited in the Bingham Canyon by a “literal flood” – all within a year – a few thousand years ago. Please cite credible sources.

[Zzyzx]

.

Lithification would involve "cementation by crystallization of new minerals from percolating water solutions". The FM would account for the "percolating water solutions" since all the layers were deposited underwater. Where would the "water solutions" come from to account for all the layers for the SGM?

Once the sand and mud have been “compressed”, what is the process that produces folding?

Horizontal compression resulting from the hydroplates moving and hitting the basalt underneath.

You ducked my question about what results from compression of sand. First, sand is not compressible to any significant degree. The process involved may be compaction. Is that what you were indicating?

Kindly explain how loose sand and mud can be folded. Lay out alternating layers of sand and mud and demonstrate the process you envision for the production of strata of alternating sandstones and shales.

Again, layers would be a combination of sediments settling at different rates, layers forming at different times, and tidal forces. The layers would be compressed due to the weight of sediments/water so it would not simply be loose sand/mud.

That is an interesting theory. Is there any reason to think that it is accurate? Have any studies verified the assumptions? Or are they pure guesswork?

When you propose that layers of sand, for instance, would be “compressed due to the weight of sediments / water” – is that the process of lithification? If not, what exactly occurs?????

If sand is “compressed” as you envision, does it become a rock? Please explain the process. Do you know what is produced when sand is compressed?

The correct answer to the question:

The most likely product of compaction of sand is SAND. Compaction of sand does NOT result in a solid or semi-solid unit because adhesion and cohesion of particles larger than silt or clay is insufficient to bond the particles together. Cementation is required.

NOW: please explain how loose sand is “folded” in your theories.

If enough pressure is exerted on sand and/or sandstone (in the process known as metamorphism) the result can be the metamorphic rock quartzite.

Quartzite (from German Quarzit[1]) is a hard, metamorphic rock which was originally sandstone.[2] Sandstone is converted into quartzite through heating and pressure usually related to tectonic compression within orogenic belts. Pure quartzite is usually white to grey. Quartzites often occur in various shades of pink and red due to varying amounts of iron oxide. Other colors are due to impurities of minor amounts of other minerals.

In true metamorphic quartzite, also called meta-quartzite, the individual quartz grains have recrystallized along with the former cementing material to form an interlocking mosaic of quartz crystals. Minor amounts of former cementing materials, iron oxide, carbonate and clay, are often recrystallized and have migrated under the pressure to form streaks and lenses within the quartzite. Virtually all original textures and structure have usually been erased by the metamorphism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartzite

However, we were discussing sedimentary rock, so metamorphism is not an option. Cementation does not appear to be an option either, because you propose that the sand is not solid rock when deformation occurs. Therefore, it appears as though loose sand is the condition that will exist – unless you have evidence of other processes (perhaps something unknown to geology?).

The momentum of the moving hydroplates would cause the layers to compress and fold.

Can you document the existence of “hydroplates”? It appears as though very few people (not including those who study the natural sciences) accept that such things exist.

Can you cite legitimate studies of the topic that suggest compression and folding due to “hydroplate” movement or momentum?

Why should anyone accept your theories and opinions? Are they based in study of “hydroplates” in reality or is the whole FM pure conjecture developed with NO study of nature?

In the study of any of the natural sciences 250,000 years is NOT regarded as a long time. Geologic time is measured in tens or hundreds of millions of years, so a quarter million is not unusual.

Of course. The magic of time is invoked in order to make anything plausible.

Do you dispute the time frames used in the natural sciences – such as 4.5 Billion years for the age of the Earth, 250 to 65 Million years for dinosaurs? If so, what is the basis for your dispute? What is your evidence that your time reference is correct and the time reference used by the natural sciences is wrong?

Do we have current evidence of square miles of peat bogs that exist for thousands of years?

Yes, see the Wikipedia article below (and similar others available using Internet search engines).

You seem to be emphasizing coal for some reason. Have you studied the formation process and distribution of coal?

A bog is a wetland type that accumulates acidic peat, a deposit of dead plant material. The term peat bog in common usage is not entirely redundant, although it would be proper to call these sphagnum bogs if the peat is composed mostly of acidophilic moss (peat moss or Sphagnum spp.). Lichens are a principal component of peat in the far north. Moisture is provided entirely by precipitation, and for this reason bog waters are acidic and termed ombrotrophic (or cloud-fed), which accounts for their low plant nutrient status. Excess rainfall outflows, with dissolved tannins from the plant matter giving a distinctive tan colour to bog waters. See also blackwater river.

Distribution and extent

Bogs are widely distributed in cold, temperate climes, mostly in the northern hemisphere (Boreal). The world's largest wetlands are the bogs of the Western Siberian Lowlands in Russia, which cover more than 600,000 square kilometres. Sphagnum bogs were widespread in northern Europe. Ireland was more than 15% bog; Achill Island off Ireland is 87% bog. There are extensive bogs in Canada and Alaska (called muskeg), Scotland (called mosses), the Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Estonia (20% boglands), Finland (26%), and northern Germany. There are also bogs in the Falkland Islands. Ombrotrophic wetlands - that is, bogs - are also found in the tropics, with notable areas documented in Kalimantan; these habitats are forested so would be better called swamps. Extensive bogs cover the northern areas of the U.S. states of Minnesota and Michigan, most notably on Isle Royale in Lake Superior. The pocosin of the southeastern United States is like a bog in that it is an acidic wetland but it has its own unusual combination of features. In certain areas such as Ireland and Scotland, coastal bogs are frequently intruded upon by low lying dunes called Machairs.

Bog habitats

Bogs are recognized as a significant habitat type by a number of governmental and conservation agencies. For example, the United Kingdom in its Biodiversity Action Plan establishes bog habitats as a priority for conservation. Bogs are challenging environments for plant life because they are low in nutrients and very acidic. Carnivorous plants have adapted to these conditions by using insects as a nutrient source. The high acidity of bogs and the absorption of water by sphagnum moss reduce the amount of water available for plants. Some bog plants, such as Leatherleaf, have waxy leaves to help retain moisture. Bogs also offer a unique environment for animals. For instance, English bogs give a home to the boghopper beetle and a yellow fly called the hairy canary.

Archaeology

In parts of Denmark, Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom, peat bog conditions exist where the subsurface chemistry of moisture combined with an anaerobic environment, such that remarkable preservation of animal organisms can result.[3] Some bogs have preserved ancient oak logs useful in dendrochronology, and they have yielded extremely well-preserved bog bodies, with organs, skin, and hair intact, buried there thousands of years ago after apparent Germanic and Celtic human sacrifice. Excellent examples of such human specimens are Haraldskær Woman and Tollund Man in Denmark. In the Iron Age culture of Denmark, a discovery of several victims of ritual sacrifice by strangulation was recorded.[4] The corpses were thrown into peat bogs where they were discovered after 2000 years, perfectly preserved down to their facial expressions, although well-tanned by the acidic environment of the Danish bogs. The Germanic culture has similarities to the characteristics of the probably Celtic Lindow man found at Lindow Common and with the Frisian culture described in the story of St. Wulfram. In Ireland, at Ceide fields in County Mayo, a 5000 year old neolithic farming landscape complete with field walls and hut sites has been found preserved under a raised blanket bog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat_bog

And why would peat bogs have such patterns? Why would they have been so large and widespread?

See the quote above and the referenced article to learn more about the distribution, size and age of peat bogs.

Why would anyone attempt to debate things that they know nothing about? Shouldn’t one have at least some rudimentary knowledge of a subject before attempting to expound upon it in detail.

The preponderance of evidence favors slow accumulation of organic material and slow formation of coal rather than rapid burial as proposed by creationists

Then it should be quite easy to produce the evidence.

It should ALSO be quite easy to produce evidence (NOT CONJECTURE or conclusions of an uninformed person) to verify the original claim that coal was formed rapidly. Kindly do so.

Here are a few references that discuss coal formation as a slow process:

NOW, Kindly cite your references for rapid formation of coal.

http://www.athro.com/geo/trp/gub/coal.html
http://www.minersmuseum.com/educational ... 20Text.pdf
http://www.ket.org/Trips/Coal/AGSMM/AGSMMhow.html
http://www.planete-energies.com/content ... ation.html
http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coalform.htm
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sci ... mation.htm
http://www.geocities.com/aleph135/morwell18.html
http://www.appaltree.net/aba/coalspecs.htm
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sci ... mation.htm

From the Kentucky Geological Survey site http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coalform.htm

http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/images/peatcoal.gif

Coal is formed when peat is altered physically and chemically. This process is called "coalification." During coalification, peat undergoes several changes as a result of bacterial decay, compaction, heat, and time. Peat deposits are quite varied and contain everything from pristine plant parts (roots, bark, spores, etc.) to decayed plants, decay products, and even charcoal if the peat caught fire during accumulation. Peat deposits typically form in a waterlogged environment where plant debris accumulated; peat bogs and peat swamps are examples. In such an environment, the accumulation of plant debris exceeds the rate of bacterial decay of the debris. The bacterial decay rate is reduced because the available oxygen in organic-rich water is completely used up by the decaying process. Anaerobic (without oxygen) decay is much slower than aerobic decay.

For the peat to become coal, it must be buried by sediment. Burial compacts the peat and, consequently, much water is squeezed out during the first stages of burial. Continued burial and the addition of heat and time cause the complex hydrocarbon compounds in the peat to break down and alter in a variety of ways. The gaseous alteration products (methane is one) are typically expelled from the deposit, and the deposit becomes more and more carbon-rich as the other elements disperse. The stages of this trend proceed from plant debris through peat, lignite, sub-bituminous coal, bituminous coal, anthracite coal, to graphite (a pure carbon mineral).

Because of the amount of squeezing and water loss that accompanies the compaction of peat after burial, it is estimated that it took 10 vertical feet of original peat material to produce 1 vertical foot of bituminous coal in eastern and western Kentucky. The peat to coal ratio is variable and dependent on the original type of peat the coal came from and the rank of the coal.

Here are references that discuss how creationists distort information and propose false theories about coal formation:

http://www.athro.com/geo/trp/gub/coal.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/coal.html

Do you read and understand the references you cite????

Of course. And we've covered this before. Just because an article states that something is millions of years old does not mean it is a fact that it is millions of years old.

As I have stated before, if the articles you cite are flawed and inaccurate in any significant way, you are honor-bound to NOT cite them as support for your arguments. Citing articles KNOWN to be flawed is a faux pas of the first magnitude in serious debate, discussion or research.

If you claim that the articles are WRONG in their conclusions about time, then the study cannot be used to support your claims.

NOW: Please cite references from people who actually study the subject that contain CONCLUSIONS that support your time and climate claims.

However, if you see the top of a coal mine is the remnant of a rainforest, then that would be a fact.

How is that fact interpreted by those who study the matter? [/quote]

Some coal seams are relatively pure, others have layers of shale (commonly) or sandstone (occasionally). “Soil” is not expected after lithification. Many coal seams are so impure that they are not commercially desirable.

Let's look at some pictures of coal deposits.

Let’s NOT attempt to do geological interpretation from photographs. You have demonstrated that you cannot distinguish between the world’s largest open pit copper mine and a coal mine. That should be sufficient to demonstrate the error in “geology by amateurs looking at photographs”.

If you were knowledgeable in the field and were using photographs to illustrate conclusions you had reached from study of the actual situations, that would be quite acceptable. However, that is not the case. You, without any understanding of the field are attempting to use photographs to “prove” that your personal “Flood Model” is correct. That is invalid.

Whenever you use a photograph to illustrate a point, please cite interpretations from someone knowledgeable who has studied the illustrated features. Their conclusions, developed from evidence on-site, may be valid. Yours, guessed from photographs are mere conjecture.

Coal is typically formed of vegetation deposited in oxygen-poor (stagnant) fresh water. The lack of decay is due to the lack of oxygen.

That might address aerobic decomposition, but what about anaerobic decomposition?

Are you attempting to dispute the development of coal in oxygen-poor fresh water?

Since you raise the issue of anaerobic decomposition, please discuss its significance in relation to the formation of coal. What processes are involved, in what environments, over what time spans? How prevalent is the process? Please cite conclusions by knowledgeable persons who have studied the matter.

Occasionally, as cited in a reference above, vegetation can be buried in mud which retards or prevents decay (or it can be deposited in deep, cold fresh water).

Wouldn't then a lot of mud layers be evidenced in coal beds?

“Mud layers” become shale by lithification while coal is being formed from organic material. Shale interbedded with coal is very common. (Interbedding means “between : among : in the midst” – layers alternating)

In many cases thin coal seams occur within large shale strata – and vice versa.

What is your point?

Again, from the references you cite (dated 1885) one can learn that a shale formation is overlain by a 1 foot thick bituminous coal seam, which is overlain by an 8 foot thick cannel coal seam, which is overlain by a 60 foot thick sandstone then a 7 foot thick oil shale.

What conclusions do you draw from that sequence of strata – particularly the cannel coal?

What would be particular about the cannel coal?

If I repeat the question will you attempt to answer rather than ducking the question that I asked about a reference YOU cited?

What conclusions do you draw from that sequence of strata – particularly the cannel coal?

If you cannot address the question, kindly acknowledge that you cannot. If you do not understand the significance of cannel coal, please signify.

Do you understand radiometric dating well enough to explain the various techniques using only your own knowledge without using references?

Um, it would be more productive if you would address the argument rather than question me personally.

It would be MUCH more productive if you would discuss topics about which you are informed and knowledgeable.

You have displayed remarkable lack of understanding of the topics that you attempt to discuss. I have more than adequate reason to question whether you understand a topic that you raise.


I would like to invite you to simply talk about subjects you know something about. The danger in attempting to appear knowledgeable in a subject that one does not possess knowledge is that blunders make the lack very obvious.