PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Coal Formation

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

IN another thread there has been some discussion of how coal forms and how long it takes.  I figure we can devote an entire thread to the subject.
Here's what all non religious sites say about coal formation, from here:
CoalFormation
"Coal comes from ancient plants buried over millions of years in Earthís crust, its outermost layer. "
And from the same source:
"Coal originally formed from ancient plants that died, decomposed, and were buried under layers of sediment during the Carboniferous Period, about 360 million to 290 million years ago. As more and more layers of sediment formed over this decomposed plant material, the overburden exerted increasing heat and weight on the organic matter. Over millions of years, these physical conditions caused coal to form from the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and inorganic mineral compounds in the plant matter. "

Creationists make claims that coal can form quickly, that it doesn't need millions of years.  But they gloss over the details.  Many use Gentry's experiments to back their claim but when pressed for details they can't provide any.  In another thread I've asked where Gentry tried to duplicate natural coal formation in his experiments, no one can show me this.  Maybe he can do this in a lab but this is not how nature does it.
Other questions creationists can't or won't answer.  It's been pointed out that a huge amount of plant matter is needed to create the coal beds we see today.  How long did it take for this material to accumulate?  And then how long did it take for sedimentry layers to accumulate on top of it?  Moern geology says, by way of the evidence, millions of years.  Creationists say...what exactly?
One important point to make is that we find new coal beds by using a standard geological
model which is one based on coal forming over millions of years.  It has been extremely successful.  From here:
Finding Coal
"The process of searching for coal begins by doing detailed geological surveys of the area to see if there is a potential for finding it in the region. This involves stratigraphic studies on the sedimentary layers there. This type of study attempts to determine the extent, age, and depositional environment of the sedimentary rock layers."
Where do we see coal being found using a creationist model?  Simple, we don't, because it is so inaccurate, no one would find any coal if they used it.
Getting back to where all this plant material came form.  Standard geology says that multiple forests lived and then died in low oxygen waters.  We have direct, unambiguous evidence for this.  From here:
Fossils
"Stands of large trees and palm thickets have been preserved in growth position. Root systems of the larger trees extend horizontally across the peat surface and show development of the northwest-southwest orientation discussed earlier [this is perpendicular the regional paleoshoreline -AM]. Where roof falls have occurred, the vitrianized [coalified] tree trunks are commonly exposed in cross section. .... The spacings of the trees are similar to the spacings of Cypress trees in Okefenokee Swamp. Here, tree spacings are determined by crown widths. Occasionally, leaf floras are preserved on the basal surfaces of the flood deposits [on top of the coal seam - he is talking about river floods :-)]. The leaf assemblages are commonly dominated by broad-leaf angiosperm genera with a scattering of palms, conifers, and ferns... Charcoal in the coals suggests that during the dry seasons, fires swept through the swamps as they do in modern Okefenokee...
In the swamp forests, the peat surfaces have been deformed by vast numbers of dinosaur footprints [some of which he illustrates as photographs]. The footprints are depressions in the swamp peats that have been filled with flood-deposited sediment... Peat is a water-saturated material that after compression tends to rebound to its undisturbed state. The abundance of well-defined tracks suggests that they were made just prior to the deposition of the sediment and that dinosaurs were very abundant in the swamp forests... Occasionally, tracks of three-toed dinosaurs [probably hadrosaurs], occur around the bases of the trees, and are pointed inward as though the animals were browsing on the standing vegetation. The large numbers of well-defined, three-toed tracks and their association with trees suggest that the parent dinosaurs were gregarious herbivores. Occasionally, single trackways can be followed for considerable distances in mine entries driven parallel to the paths of the dinosaurs."
So what we see is new trees growing in the peat already formed from previous forest growth.  We see dinosaur foot prints in the peat floor.  We see direct evidence of forests dieing and new ones growing on top of them.
We can clearly see this has happen, as shown here:
Coal Seams
"Vegetation continued to grow for many generations and centuries, forming vast, thick peat beds which were later to turn into coal. After a time the areas of swamp gradually became submerged by shallow seas, where they were covered by sediment. these sediments would later become sedimentary rock. This cycle of swamp followed by submersion was often repeated a number of times, so that a sequence of horizontal bands of peat and inorganic, sedimentary rock was built up. This formed the first stage, called the biochemical stage. Coal formation occurred in other geologic periods as well."

So, I'd like some creationist to answer these key questions, how do you explain the huge amount of plant matter needed to form coal without using millions of years?  How do you explain the great success of finding coal based on the standard geological model?  How do you explain the fossils that clearly show multiple forests forming coal beds?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:05 AM on September 23, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

demon38.,

thank you for starting this.  i was going to myself, but the conversation kept getting side-tracked.

i'm quite interested in this topic, and i must say...i have not formed an opinion on it,  so i SHOULD be able to be nonsubjective on the matter.

so far - with what i've read and seen, it seems POSSIBLE that coal can, in fact, form more rapidly than wholistically thought.  but i don't know.

i'll read over your post in detail today, and see what all i can find on this.


-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 09:30 AM on September 23, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 01:05 AM on September 23, 2008 :

Creationists make claims that coal can form quickly, that it doesn't need millions of years. †But they gloss over the details. †Many use Gentry's experiments to back their claim but when pressed for details they can't provide any. †In another thread I've asked where Gentry tried to duplicate natural coal formation in his experiments, no one can show me this. †Maybe he can do this in a lab but this is not how nature does it.
Other questions creationists can't or won't answer. †


This statement is misleading and COMPLETELY NOT TRUE.  It almost seems that you blatantly disregard anything I have stated.  I donít know if you just forgot or if you are intentionally misleading, but I did not gloss over details.  I did, in fact, give the specifics of dr. gentryís experiments.  To say that I didnít provide any is utterly misleading to a new reader.  I explained what he did, gave the source, and gave another corroborating, non-bias source as reference material.  

i thought you were one that might be ready to have a productive conversation on this, but again, i find someone that is simply trying to win an argument, and will even go so far as to intentionally leave out material to do so.

like i said before.

i will now look over the rhetorical questions and points you have presented, think on them for a bit, do some research, and get back with my findings.
can we do that, please?  can we stick to a healthy debate without misrepresenting anything?

-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 10:11 AM on September 23, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dj, it would have been cool if you just put

QUESTION:
It's been pointed out that a huge amount of plant matter is needed to create the coal beds we see today.  How long did it take for this material to accumulate?  And then how long did it take for sedimentry layers to accumulate on top of it?  Moern geology says, by way of the evidence, millions of years.  Creationists say...what exactly?


ANSWER:
These coal beds, sometimes hundreds of feet thick, are better explained by a rapid deposition and burial of billions of tons of vegetation by a massive flood mechanism.


So, it turns out dj is right on this one. Creationist did provide some answer (none that has not been refuted, but they did anyway).

I don't believe Demon38 meant to consciously disregard it.




-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:27 AM on September 24, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i'm still researching this.  
i meant to simply look at a few details from each side for each point brought up from demon38 and form an opinion, but, as it turns out, there are a lot of twists and turns in getting to the truth of the matter.  i'm finding that there is a certain amount of detail left out on either side.  intentional? perhaps?

i don't want to post until i feel like the proper stones have been uncovered without bias.

i'm finding that this single issue of coal has many facets.  it's association to the flood on the creationsists' side opens up a whole new can of worms.  

i'm not going to simply throw out some misguided statement as a defense mechanism just to try to sound right or win an argument.  


i'll get back once i have gathered more facts and evaluated enough to form a solid opinion on this.


-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 3:13 PM on September 24, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If coal was formed by a huge flood, why don't we have coal deposits everywhere?

Furthermore, why are there so few fossils in coal deposits?

Millions of animals would have been swept up with plant material and deposited by mass. So why aren't there lots of fossils in coal? Furthermore, if a flood did occur, why are there different coal seams? There should be a single seam of a single age. That isn't what we find. Furthermore, how does a giant flood leave delicate root structures in place?
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 5:55 PM on September 27, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This statement is misleading and COMPLETELY NOT TRUE.  It almost seems that you blatantly disregard anything I have stated.  I donít know if you just forgot or if you are intentionally misleading, but I did not gloss over details.  I did, in fact, give the specifics of dr. gentryís experiments.  To say that I didnít provide any is utterly misleading to a new reader.  I explained what he did, gave the source, and gave another corroborating, non-bias source as reference material.

Where did he show how this replicates a natural process?  We can do many things in a lab a lot faster than nature can.  Unless Gentry is directly trying to show how coal could form quickly via natural means, his results are worthless for trying to prove the point that coal froms quickly in nature.  So answer MY question, where does Gentry claim he is replicating natural processes?

These coal beds, sometimes hundreds of feet thick, are better explained by a rapid deposition and burial of billions of tons of vegetation by a massive flood mechanism.

I don't think they are better explained by rapid deposition and the experts agree with me.  From here:
Coal Formation

"Some people have proposed coal forms from floating mats of dead plant material deposited in deep water in a short amount of time. Although not too far from the conventional explanation (dead plant material, sometimes transported), it can not explain the majority of coal deposits. Most coals are found in sedimentary rocks deposited in terrestrial river floodplains. They have river channels, levees, and fossil soil horizons. Often soil horizons are found immediately below coal seams, and these are often filled with plant roots (see the "polystrate trees" FAQ, for example). All these structures are similar to modern peat-forming environments. The common occurrence of rooted upright trees that can not be transported (because they have delicate rootlets embedded in the sediment) is compelling evidence that most coals form near the surface in terrestrial environments (see the "polystrate trees" above). However, even more convincing is the co-occurrence of dinosaur footprints and upright trees on the top surface of several coal seams at a Cretaceous-age locality near Price, in southeast Utah:"

So we wouldn't see upstanding trees and dinosaur footprints in coal beds if they had been rapidly deposted.  And I've shown in previous posts that unambiguous fossils have beenfound in coal beds, fossils that prove that these coal beds could not have been formed rapidly.




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:20 AM on September 29, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

©†YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.