Coal Created in the Flood?
Jeremy Beauchamp
I recall Mark Isaak saying recently that all the forests on the Earth
'and then some' would be needed to create the coal we see. Is there a
detailed study of this? A FAQ?
A small amount of research (20minutes) tells me that there are about
1.0x10^15kg coal reserves known[A] and the amount of carbon in the
present-day biomass is about 8.3x10^14kg[B]. So.... If there were a
Noachian flood today and all the biomass were converted to coal, there
would just about be the right amount. A few questions spring to mind:
1) this is just the coal, what about all the oil and gas? (I couldn't
find figures for the reserves of these - our library is strange like
that.) Encarta says 700billion barrels (of the order of 10^14kg????)
of recoverable oil with 500 times that of shales and tars etc. ie
about 5x10^16kg. Although I'm not sure how to convert barrels to kg
sensibly.
2) How much biomass carbon is typically turned into coal/oil/gas
(under ideal circumstances)?
3) How much coal/oil/gas is there in non-minable rocks?
Now, taking the figures from 1 (plus a bit of gas) and taking into
account guesses for 2 and 3 we have about 10^17kg oil/coal/gas/tar
etc.
The Earth's surface is about 5.10x10^14m^2[B] and the biomass present
in tropical rain-forest is 20kg carbon/m^2[B]. Tropical rain-forest
has the highest biomass per unit area, so if we assume that the
pre-flood world was entirely covered in jungle and there were no
oceans, tundra, alpine regions or temperate forests then the total
biomass present on the Earth at the time was around 10^17kg.
Obviously there must have been a few oceans etc so this figure is a
bit high.
My point is that given these figures, the entire planet's biomass
isn't enough to produce the coal/oil/etc that we see, in one go, during
a flood.
Are the figures close to correct? Shall I look into this further for
a FAQlet?
Jeremy
[A] Minerals Handbook 1996-97, Phillip Crowson, Macmillan Press (1996)
ISBN 0-333-64084-5
[B] Carbon in the Biota, Whittaker & Likens (1973) in Brookhaven
Symposia in Biology _24_ p281-302
For the metrically challenged there are 2.2 pounds to a kg.
--
--------------------------Anti-Spam-------------------------
To reply by E-mail please change the xx in my address to uk.
------------------------------------------------------------
This post may be duplicated, sorry. Posted by forging the approved
header. (Really this time, not like the other post which just claimed
it.)
Andrew MacRae
In article <uyf3eov...@jura.chem.gla.ac.uk> Jeremy Beauchamp
|I recall Mark Isaak saying recently that all the forests on the Earth
|'and then some' would be needed to create the coal we see. Is there a
|detailed study of this? A FAQ?
|
|A small amount of research (20minutes) tells me that there are about
|1.0x10^15kg coal reserves known[A] and the amount of carbon in the
|present-day biomass is about 8.3x10^14kg[B]. So.... If there were a
|Noachian flood today and all the biomass were converted to coal, there
|would just about be the right amount.
Keep in mind that [A] refers very specifically *only* to land
plants, with a couple of volumetrically insignificant exceptions (e.g., a
few "Tasmanite coals" are composed of algal spores), and [B], if I
understand your source correctly, means everything. Make sure you are not
comparing apples and, uh, algae :-)
|A few questions spring to mind:
|
|1) this is just the coal, what about all the oil and gas? (I couldn't
|find figures for the reserves of these - our library is strange like
|that.)
Probably because estimates vary widely, in part because of the
unknowable aspect of technology and price. Many resources that were
economically unexploitable previously now are, not because the price of
the resource has gone up, but because of improvements in technology both
to find it and to exploit it. The exact number you use also depends upon
exactly what type of certainty you are using. A resource, for example, is
different from a reserve.
However, a reasonably well-known, if now somewhat outdated source
[p.13 of: North, F.K., 1985. Petroleum Geology. Allen and Unwin: Boston,
607p. ISBN 0-04-553004-1] puts the 1984 estimate of "recoverable,
conventional oil discovered" at 1.2X10^12 barrels, of which about 42
percent had been produced. This is probably an underestimate these days.
Remaining reserves of natural gas are estimated at 100X10^12 m^3, but that
doesn't count the 36X10^12 m^3 or so that has already been used, and the
remainder is also probably a big underestimate. Both these numbers are
reasonable estimates of the amount that is actually available and could be
used, *not* of what is actually down there. That could easily be a couple
of orders of magnitude higher (your "500 times higher" comment below).
Sorry for the outdated numbers, but that is all I have handy right
now. Some broader, probably less precise, but probably more relevant
estimates are below.
|Encarta says 700billion barrels (of the order of 10^14kg????)
|of recoverable oil with 500 times that of shales and tars etc. ie
|about 5x10^16kg. Although I'm not sure how to convert barrels to kg
|sensibly.
1 barrel = 42 US gallons
Because the density of oil varies, conversion from this to a mass
measurement is difficult, and only a range can be provided for "light oil"
(7.6 US barrels or more/1000 kg) versus "heavy oil" (6.8 US barrels or
less/1000kg). "Average" is about 7.33 US barrels/1000 kg.
|2) How much biomass carbon is typically turned into coal/oil/gas
|(under ideal circumstances)?
A teeny weeny fraction (<1% probably). I don't know what it is,
though.
|3) How much coal/oil/gas is there in non-minable rocks?
Orders of magnitude more than in "minable" rocks. It is
impossible to provide a precise value without a cutoff, but estimates
exist (see below). Sedimentary rocks with 1% total organic carbon are not
unusual and are volumetrically huge, but these could not be economically
exploited for much, so they would not be included in any estimates of
coil, oil, or gas resources. Even of the oil that is out there, only a
tiny fraction occurs in conventional reservoirs that we can exploit.
|Now, taking the figures from 1 (plus a bit of gas) and taking into
|account guesses for 2 and 3 we have about 10^17kg oil/coal/gas/tar
|etc.
According to North, p.38, who quotes a 1978 figure from a
Scientific American article by Woodwell (i.e. could be really out of
date), the numbers break down like this, all in 10^12kg (billions of
tonnes) of C:
living vegetation 827
dead land vegetation 1000-3000
marine life 2
dissolved organic matter (near surface) 30
dissolved organic matter (deep ocean) 1000-3000
sediments (*carbonates* + organics) 20 000 000
So the land vegetation versus the ocean C content is not as
different as I thought it would be. Note the whopping big content in
sediments, but most of that is in the form of carbonate (80%). How much
is actual, direct "organic C"?
From p.46 of North, it totals about 1.2X10^19 kg. In 10^15 kg, it
breaks down like this:
dispersed in sedimentary rocks 11 000
in coal and peat 15
petroleum in nonreservoir rocks 265
petroleum in reservoirs 1
By contrast, the present hydrosphere and biosphere is estimated to
contain 5X10^14 kg (compatible with your figure below), so we come up a
little short even if you kill everything alive several times over. This
doesn't even beging to consider where that 80% carbonate comes from, much
of which is biogenically-derived.
|The Earth's surface is about 5.10x10^14m^2[B] and the biomass present
|in tropical rain-forest is 20kg carbon/m^2[B]. Tropical rain-forest
|has the highest biomass per unit area, so if we assume that the
|pre-flood world was entirely covered in jungle and there were no
|oceans, tundra, alpine regions or temperate forests then the total
|biomass present on the Earth at the time was around 10^17kg.
Not enough. It is short 2 orders of magnitude.
|Obviously there must have been a few oceans etc so this figure is a
|bit high.
|
|My point is that given these figures, the entire planet's biomass
|isn't enough to produce the coal/oil/etc that we see, in one go, during
|a flood.
And that is assuming it *all* preserves perfectly, which is
awfully unlikely when you consider that coal has had a great deal of the
volitile C compounds removed compared to the original plants.
|Are the figures close to correct?
Looks like it.
|Shall I look into this further for a FAQlet?
Might be a good idea, although it would surprise me if there isn't
already a paper somewhere that deals with this issue and global flood
models.
|Jeremy
|
|
|[A] Minerals Handbook 1996-97, Phillip Crowson, Macmillan Press (1996)
|ISBN 0-333-64084-5
|
|[B] Carbon in the Biota, Whittaker & Likens (1973) in Brookhaven
|Symposia in Biology _24_ p281-302
|
|For the metrically challenged there are 2.2 pounds to a kg.
..
--
-Andrew
mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca (temporary)
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae (temporary)
Jeremy Beauchamp
mac...@UNSPAMgeo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae) writes:
> In article <uyf3eov...@jura.chem.gla.ac.uk> Jeremy Beauchamp
> <jer...@chem.gla.ac.xx> writes:
[...]
> |A small amount of research (20minutes) tells me that there are about
> |1.0x10^15kg coal reserves known[A] and the amount of carbon in the
> |present-day biomass is about 8.3x10^14kg[B]. So.... If there were a
> |Noachian flood today and all the biomass were converted to coal, there
> |would just about be the right amount.
>
> Keep in mind that [A] refers very specifically *only* to land
> plants, with a couple of volumetrically insignificant exceptions (e.g., a
> few "Tasmanite coals" are composed of algal spores), and [B], if I
> understand your source correctly, means everything. Make sure you are not
> comparing apples and, uh, algae :-)
[A] (I assume) refers to known economically minable coal, which
presumably is on dry land and presumably is made from land plants.
[B] does mean everything, but this estimate is mostly composed of land
plants. From the figures you gave this would seem to include only
'living' biomass, which isn't necessarily the best figure to be
working with.
I'm not expecting the type of coal to match up with the plant
material. It is a lot easier to say there isn't enough organic carbon
than there isn't enough of the right plant material. A creationist
would happily claim that any coal can be made from _any_ vegetable
matter, so it needs to be shown that there isn't enough of _any_
vegetable matter available. It is looking as though this might be the
case.
I'll look through all the stuff you posted (thanks) and try to come up
with a definitive figure - or a paper that has done it already.......
[...]
> |
> |[A] Minerals Handbook 1996-97, Phillip Crowson, Macmillan Press (1996)
> |ISBN 0-333-64084-5
> |
> |[B] Carbon in the Biota, Whittaker & Likens (1973) in Brookhaven
> |Symposia in Biology _24_ p281-302
> |
[...]
Jeremy
Mike Secorsky
Andrew MacRae wrote:
Although I snipped the article for brevities sake, I must ask why there
aren't more posts this informative on this NG?
So much knowledge, so little minds...
Mike S.
I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead.
Mark Isaak
In article <uyf3eov...@jura.chem.gla.ac.uk>,
Jeremy Beauchamp <jer...@chem.gla.ac.xx> wrote:
>
>I recall Mark Isaak saying recently that all the forests on the Earth
>'and then some' would be needed to create the coal we see. Is there a
>detailed study of this? A FAQ?
>
>1.0x10^15kg coal reserves known[A] and the amount of carbon in the
>
>[A] Minerals Handbook 1996-97, Phillip Crowson, Macmillan Press (1996)
>ISBN 0-333-64084-5
>
>[B] Carbon in the Biota, Whittaker & Likens (1973) in Brookhaven
>Symposia in Biology _24_ p281-302
You've done about as much research as I have. I got the figure 1.16x10^13
metric tons of coal reserves, including those that are "reasonably
inferred" [Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed, 1974, 4:781]. Oil reserves
(again using data from E.B.) were only about a tenth of a percent as much,
so I disregarded them. This works out to 22.8 kg/m^2.
I didn't have any references for global biomass, but I did find that the
biomass for a Belgian ash & oak forest was 380 tons/ha, and I figured a
prediluvian world couldn't be much more than that on average, especially
if it had oceans. This is 38 kg/m^2.
Thus an entirely forested earth, with half of its biomass going into coal,
could have accounted for all the coal. Of course, I still have pretty
much the same questions as you, plus one more now:
Why do our coal reserve figures differ by a factor of 10? Does that come
from including the "reasonably inferred" reserves?
How much coal and other plant fossils are there outside of reserves?
How much coal do you get from a given amount of biomass?
What is the most biomass we find, per area, in any kind of forest? I
imagine tropical and temperate rain forests both probably far exceed
dry forests in biomass.
--
Mark Isaak at...@best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"To undeceive men is to offend them." - Queen Christina of Sweden
Jeremy Beauchamp
at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) writes:
> In article <uyf3eov...@jura.chem.gla.ac.uk>,
> Jeremy Beauchamp <jer...@chem.gla.ac.xx> wrote:
> >
> >I recall Mark Isaak saying recently that all the forests on the Earth
> >'and then some' would be needed to create the coal we see. Is there a
> >detailed study of this? A FAQ?
> >
> >A small amount of research (20minutes) tells me that there are about
> >1.0x10^15kg coal reserves known[A] and the amount of carbon in the
> >present-day biomass is about 8.3x10^14kg[B]. [...]
> >
> >[A] Minerals Handbook 1996-97, Phillip Crowson, Macmillan Press (1996)
> >ISBN 0-333-64084-5
> >
> >[B] Carbon in the Biota, Whittaker & Likens (1973) in Brookhaven
> >Symposia in Biology _24_ p281-302
>
> You've done about as much research as I have. I got the figure 1.16x10^13
> metric tons of coal reserves, including those that are "reasonably
> inferred" [Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed, 1974, 4:781]. Oil reserves
> (again using data from E.B.) were only about a tenth of a percent as much,
> so I disregarded them. This works out to 22.8 kg/m^2.
>
> I didn't have any references for global biomass, but I did find that the
> biomass for a Belgian ash & oak forest was 380 tons/ha, and I figured a
> prediluvian world couldn't be much more than that on average, especially
> if it had oceans. This is 38 kg/m^2.
Hmmm. I got 20 kg/m^2 for rainforest and from memory it was about 15
kg/m^2 for temperate deciduous forest. This is just carbon -
presumably the only part that is converted to coal - and so is roughly
the same as your figure. I think my figure was for living carbon
only. Your's may include dead wood on the forest floor and the like.
>
> Thus an entirely forested earth, with half of its biomass going into coal,
> could have accounted for all the coal. Of course, I still have pretty
> much the same questions as you, plus one more now:
>
> Why do our coal reserve figures differ by a factor of 10? Does that come
> from including the "reasonably inferred" reserves?
My figure is from a mining resources yearbook. It refers to the coal
that people know they can lay their hands on and the coal that they
know they want to extract. It is going to be at the low end of the
scale. Obviously the total coal should be used, not the total
economically extractable coal. Your Encyclopedia Britannica
ref. talks about inferred reserves, so if we believe Andrew Macrae
(something I am generally inclined to do) there is still a lot more
out there. 1% of normal sedimentary rocks was mentioned......
>
> How much coal and other plant fossils are there outside of reserves?
AM deals with this - it appears impossible to get an authorative figure though.
>
> How much coal do you get from a given amount of biomass?
We can assume 100% and still disprove the flood hypothesis.
>
> What is the most biomass we find, per area, in any kind of forest? I
> imagine tropical and temperate rain forests both probably far exceed
> dry forests in biomass.
I am inclined to believe my 20kg carbon/m^2 for tropical rainforest
given your figures roughly match mine. My ref stated that tropical
rainforest was the highest biomass per unit area although I have seen
it stated that redwood forest has a higher figure. Again, I think we
can use 20kg/m^2, double it and still disprove the flood hypothesis.
> --
> Mark Isaak at...@best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
> "To undeceive men is to offend them." - Queen Christina of Sweden
>
To summarise.
Area of the planet: 5.10x10^14m^2 [1 Carbon in the Biota]
Highest likely carbon density in biomass: 20kg/m^2 [2 Carbon in the Biota]
Total coal: 1.16x10^16kg (This is an absolute minimum value and is at
least 2 orders of magnitude too low.) [3 Encyclopedia Britannica]
Possible coal production during a global catastrophy, assuming perfect
carbon to coal conversion and total coverage of the Earth's surface
with tropical rainforest: 1.02x10^16kg [4=1x2]
Conclusion:
The planet is not capable of producing the known reserves of coal
during a single event let alone the vast amount of unknown and
unminable coal, oil and natural gas. [3>4]
R.W.Thearle
Jeremy Beauchamp wrote:
> Area of the planet: 5.10x10^14m^2 [1 Carbon in the Biota]
>
> Highest likely carbon density in biomass: 20kg/m^2 [2 Carbon in the Biota]
>
> Total coal: 1.16x10^16kg (This is an absolute minimum value and is at
> least 2 orders of magnitude too low.) [3 Encyclopedia Britannica]
>
> Possible coal production during a global catastrophy, assuming perfect
> carbon to coal conversion and total coverage of the Earth's surface
> with tropical rainforest: 1.02x10^16kg [4=1x2]
>
> Conclusion:
> The planet is not capable of producing the known reserves of coal
> during a single event let alone the vast amount of unknown and
> unminable coal, oil and natural gas. [3>4]
Very nice piece of work.
However, there are a few factors which have not been taken account of:
- The biomass of the water canopy which existed before the flood, and which
would certainly have contained algal life forms.
- Before the flood, the water canopy protected the planet's surface from
harmful radiation, and creatures lived longer. Naturally, plants would
also live longer, so they would be on average larger. It would make for
a much higher carbon density if all trees were the size of giant redwoods.
- Prior to the flood, all animals were vegetarian, consequently there must
have been much more vegetation to provide food for them all.
- Prior to the flood, the earth contained the "fountains of the deep" which
erupted to provide some of thefloodwater. As the earth no longer contains
this water, it must have been larger before the flood, and therefore
have a higher surface area.
- You are making the uniformitarian assumption that forests now are like
forests then. But there were giants on the earth in them days, and the
felt effect of gravity was less, so the forest canopy would have been
much further from the ground, allowing for a huge increase in the
available biomass.
DA.
Monica Glynn
>
> Very nice piece of work.
>
> However, there are a few factors which have not been taken account of:
>
> - The biomass of the water canopy which existed before the flood, and which
> would certainly have contained algal life forms.
>
> - Before the flood, the water canopy protected the planet's surface from
> harmful radiation, and creatures lived longer. Naturally, plants would
> also live longer, so they would be on average larger. It would make for
> a much higher carbon density if all trees were the size of giant redwoods.
>
> - Prior to the flood, all animals were vegetarian, consequently there must
> have been much more vegetation to provide food for them all.
>
> - Prior to the flood, the earth contained the "fountains of the deep" which
> erupted to provide some of thefloodwater. As the earth no longer contains
> this water, it must have been larger before the flood, and therefore
> have a higher surface area.
>
> - You are making the uniformitarian assumption that forests now are like
> forests then. But there were giants on the earth in them days, and the
> felt effect of gravity was less, so the forest canopy would have been
> much further from the ground, allowing for a huge increase in the
> available biomass.
>
> DA.
Heh heh - this one still going?
You are aware, of course, that if there were a 'vapour canopy' around the
earth, it would make the atmosphere a bit - erm -*heavier* than it is
now.
To put it another way, our ancestors would have lived under an
atmospheric pressure many times that of today. Adapted to such a
pressure, old Noah and Co. would have exploded when the rains came.
We're talking the bends in spades here.
Monica Glynn
I'm surprised we're still debating this one. Everyone *knows* you
couldn't possibly create the coal reserves in the flood . . creationists
just prefer to forget this problem, like they 'forget' that the human
footprints next to the dinosaur ones have been shown to be no such
things.
If the best the Creationists can come up with is rehashing arguments that
were shown to be hogwash years ago, then I reckon they're hoist by their
own petard.
Rev. Chuck
REAL simple question. Why is it coal deposits are built up in alternating layers of
soil and coal? Was there _more_ than one great flood? If the babblical flood covered
the entire earth, why can't you dig a pit anywhere you want and bring up coal?
Ken Denny
R.W.Thearle wrote:
>
> - You are making the uniformitarian assumption that forests now are like
> forests then. But there were giants on the earth in them days, and the
> felt effect of gravity was less, so the forest canopy would have been
> much further from the ground, allowing for a huge increase in the
> available biomass.
The felt effect of gravity was less? That's the first time I've heard
that one. Was that because of the upward pull of the vapor canopy? Can
you provide some reference as to where you got this tidbit? And since
you say "the felt effect of gravity" as opposed to simply saying
"gravity" are you saying that gravity was the same but felt like it was
less?
Regards
Ken
Thomas Swanson
In article <33E662...@dial.pipex.com> Monica Glynn <xx...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>
>You are aware, of course, that if there were a 'vapour canopy' around the
>earth, it would make the atmosphere a bit - erm -*heavier* than it is
>now.
>
>To put it another way, our ancestors would have lived under an
>atmospheric pressure many times that of today. Adapted to such a
>pressure, old Noah and Co. would have exploded when the rains came.
>We're talking the bends in spades here.
Bends, yes. Explode, no. Water is pretty close to an incompressible
fluid. (That's why one uses it to test pressure vessels)
____________________________________________________________
Tom Swanson | "I have a cunning plan that cannot fail"
TRIUMF | S Baldrick
><DARWIN> "Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs."
L L B Waggoner
Leo Mauler
R.W.Thearle wrote:
>
> Jeremy Beauchamp wrote:
>
> > Area of the planet: 5.10x10^14m^2 [1 Carbon in the Biota]
> >
> > Highest likely carbon density in biomass: 20kg/m^2 [2 Carbon in the Biota]
> >
> > Total coal: 1.16x10^16kg (This is an absolute minimum value and is at
> > least 2 orders of magnitude too low.) [3 Encyclopedia Britannica]
> >
> > Possible coal production during a global catastrophy, assuming perfect
> > carbon to coal conversion and total coverage of the Earth's surface
> > with tropical rainforest: 1.02x10^16kg [4=1x2]
> >
> > Conclusion:
> > The planet is not capable of producing the known reserves of coal
> > during a single event let alone the vast amount of unknown and
> > unminable coal, oil and natural gas. [3>4]
>
>
> However, there are a few factors which have not been taken account of:
>
> - The biomass of the water canopy which existed before the flood, and which
> would certainly have contained algal life forms.
Where did the water go?
> - Before the flood, the water canopy protected the planet's surface from
> harmful radiation, and creatures lived longer. Naturally, plants would
> also live longer, so they would be on average larger. It would make for
> a much higher carbon density if all trees were the size of giant redwoods.
With a water canopy, everything would have died off from an incredible
greenhouse effect, since that much water would have required a cloud
cover much like Venus.
> - Prior to the flood, all animals were vegetarian, consequently there must
> have been much more vegetation to provide food for them all.
Considering that some of the first cellular lifeforms were carnivorous,
I don't buy your argument.
Also, what reason do you have for carnivores to suddenly develop from
completely vegetarian stock?
> - Prior to the flood, the earth contained the "fountains of the deep" which
> erupted to provide some of thefloodwater. As the earth no longer contains
> this water, it must have been larger before the flood, and therefore
> have a higher surface area.
Or the water was never there to begin with, and the Flood is a grossly
exaggerated local flood story.
> - You are making the uniformitarian assumption that forests now are like
> forests then. But there were giants on the earth in them days, and the
> felt effect of gravity was less, so the forest canopy would have been
> much further from the ground, allowing for a huge increase in the
> available biomass.
Which still doesn't explain how enough sunlight reached the vegetation
to permit them to grow, through a water canopy that would have had to
have been so thick that it blotted out the sunlight.
In fact, the water canopy theory holds no water in terms of the Earth
being able to support life.
--
Never do this at home. Look how it killed this .sig
_/\ __/\ __/\ ______________________________________________
\/ \/ \/ gi...@tfs.net.xx (remove xx to E-mail me)
DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.
[How Am I Posting? If you think this post is spam, E-mail me.]
Adam Yates
On 4 Aug 1997, Jeremy Beauchamp wrote:
>
> To summarise.
>
> Area of the planet: 5.10x10^14m^2 [1 Carbon in the Biota]
>
> Highest likely carbon density in biomass: 20kg/m^2 [2 Carbon in the Biota]
>
> Total coal: 1.16x10^16kg (This is an absolute minimum value and is at
> least 2 orders of magnitude too low.) [3 Encyclopedia Britannica]
>
> Possible coal production during a global catastrophy, assuming perfect
> carbon to coal conversion and total coverage of the Earth's surface
> with tropical rainforest: 1.02x10^16kg [4=1x2]
>
> Conclusion:
> The planet is not capable of producing the known reserves of coal
> during a single event let alone the vast amount of unknown and
> unminable coal, oil and natural gas. [3>4]
>
As if this wasn't enough, try to imagine the density of coccoliths and
other calcareous plankton,that
would be required to create the world's chalk deposits in a single event.
Those prediluvian oceans must have been thicker than pea soup! Of course
you could postulate that the oceans were larger then, but that would be a
bit difficult if all of the Earth's surface was given over to tropical
rainforest for coal production.
Cheers
Adam Yates
Rev. Chuck
Ken Denny wrote:
>
> R.W.Thearle wrote:
> >
> > - You are making the uniformitarian assumption that forests now are like
> > forests then. But there were giants on the earth in them days, and the
> > felt effect of gravity was less, so the forest canopy would have been
> > much further from the ground, allowing for a huge increase in the
> > available biomass.
>
> that one. Was that because of the upward pull of the vapor canopy? Can
> you provide some reference as to where you got this tidbit? And since
> you say "the felt effect of gravity" as opposed to simply saying
> "gravity" are you saying that gravity was the same but felt like it was
> less?
>
> Regards
> Ken
You know what "cooking the data" means, don't you?
Richard Harter
"R.W.Thearle" <r...@cant.ac.uk> wrote:
>Jeremy Beauchamp wrote:
>> Area of the planet: 5.10x10^14m^2 [1 Carbon in the Biota]
>>
>> Highest likely carbon density in biomass: 20kg/m^2 [2 Carbon in the Biota]
>>
>> Total coal: 1.16x10^16kg (This is an absolute minimum value and is at
>> least 2 orders of magnitude too low.) [3 Encyclopedia Britannica]
>>
>> Possible coal production during a global catastrophy, assuming perfect
>> carbon to coal conversion and total coverage of the Earth's surface
>> with tropical rainforest: 1.02x10^16kg [4=1x2]
>>
>> Conclusion:
>> The planet is not capable of producing the known reserves of coal
>> during a single event let alone the vast amount of unknown and
>> unminable coal, oil and natural gas. [3>4]
>Very nice piece of work.
>However, there are a few factors which have not been taken account of:
>- The biomass of the water canopy which existed before the flood, and which
> would certainly have contained algal life forms.
>- Before the flood, the water canopy protected the planet's surface from
> harmful radiation, and creatures lived longer. Naturally, plants would
> also live longer, so they would be on average larger. It would make for
> a much higher carbon density if all trees were the size of giant redwoods.
>- Prior to the flood, all animals were vegetarian, consequently there must
> have been much more vegetation to provide food for them all.
>- Prior to the flood, the earth contained the "fountains of the deep" which
> erupted to provide some of thefloodwater. As the earth no longer contains
> this water, it must have been larger before the flood, and therefore
> have a higher surface area.
>- You are making the uniformitarian assumption that forests now are like
> forests then. But there were giants on the earth in them days, and the
> felt effect of gravity was less, so the forest canopy would have been
> much further from the ground, allowing for a huge increase in the
> available biomass.
Love it, love it, love it. I don't care if you are trolling or not, this
goes in my file of really stupid stuff seen on talk.origins. [Stuff by
Karl doesn't count because he's professionally stupid.]
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Men were designed for short, nasty, brutal lives.
WOmen are designed for long, miserable ones.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins "R.W.Thearle" <r...@cant.ac.uk> wrote:
>Jeremy Beauchamp wrote:
>
>> Area of the planet: 5.10x10^14m^2 [1 Carbon in the Biota]
>>
>> Highest likely carbon density in biomass: 20kg/m^2 [2 Carbon in the Biota]
>>
>> Total coal: 1.16x10^16kg (This is an absolute minimum value and is at
>> least 2 orders of magnitude too low.) [3 Encyclopedia Britannica]
>>
>> Possible coal production during a global catastrophy, assuming perfect
>> carbon to coal conversion and total coverage of the Earth's surface
>> with tropical rainforest: 1.02x10^16kg [4=1x2]
>>
>> Conclusion:
>> The planet is not capable of producing the known reserves of coal
>> during a single event let alone the vast amount of unknown and
>> unminable coal, oil and natural gas. [3>4]
>
>Very nice piece of work.
>
>However, there are a few factors which have not been taken account of:
>
I think I am the first to cry troll.
>- The biomass of the water canopy which existed before the flood, and which
> would certainly have contained algal life forms.
>
This may be the most gruesome idea yet presented in this newsgroup.
Just think of the rain if this were correct. Forget the flood related
hurricanes, the slime from the sky will kill everyone.
>- Before the flood, the water canopy protected the planet's surface from
> harmful radiation, and creatures lived longer. Naturally, plants would
> also live longer, so they would be on average larger. It would make for
> a much higher carbon density if all trees were the size of giant redwoods.
>
Remarkable logical.
>- Prior to the flood, all animals were vegetarian, consequently there must
> have been much more vegetation to provide food for them all.
>
Or course. I can't imagine why I didn't think of this. You are
persuasive.
>- Prior to the flood, the earth contained the "fountains of the deep" which
> erupted to provide some of thefloodwater. As the earth no longer contains
> this water, it must have been larger before the flood, and therefore
> have a higher surface area.
>
Which explains the mountains and the Grand Canyon. Your have just
about convinced me.
>- You are making the uniformitarian assumption that forests now are like
> forests then. But there were giants on the earth in them days, and the
> felt effect of gravity was less, so the forest canopy would have been
> much further from the ground, allowing for a huge increase in the
> available biomass.
>
An unanswerable argument.
Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------------
CAUCHON. And you, and not the Church, are to be the judge?
JOAN. What other judgment can I judge by but my own?
_Saint Joan_ by GBS, Scene VI
Richard Harter
"R.W.Thearle" <r...@cant.ac.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>- You are making the uniformitarian assumption that forests now are like
> forests then. But there were giants on the earth in them days, and the
> felt effect of gravity was less, so the forest canopy would have been
> much further from the ground, allowing for a huge increase in the
> available biomass.
Oops, felt effect of gravity. Give the man a Loki point; I missed that
on the first reading.
Jeremy Beauchamp
"R.W.Thearle" <r...@cant.ac.uk> writes:
[...]
>
> - The biomass of the water canopy which existed before the flood, and which
> would certainly have contained algal life forms.
Given the efficiency with which algae harvest light there wouldn't
have been _any_ light reaching the Earth's surface with this scenario.
OK, you can have algae in the water canopy, but not on the Earth as
well. Take your pick...
I believe we need _plants_ for coal as well - are you proposing a more
interesting ecology for the water canopy than we first thought?
Hydroponic redwoods supported by sunbeams?
>
> - Before the flood, the water canopy protected the planet's surface from
> harmful radiation, and creatures lived longer. Naturally, plants would
> also live longer, so they would be on average larger. It would make for
> a much higher carbon density if all trees were the size of giant redwoods.
OK. The carbon density is 40kg/m^2. We still win - although
admittedly not quite as obviously
>
> - Prior to the flood, all animals were vegetarian, consequently there must
> have been much more vegetation to provide food for them all.
Hmmmm.
>
> - Prior to the flood, the earth contained the "fountains of the deep" which
> erupted to provide some of thefloodwater. As the earth no longer contains
> this water, it must have been larger before the flood, and therefore
> have a higher surface area.
OK, double the Earth's surface area. We still win.
>
> - You are making the uniformitarian assumption that forests now are like
> forests then. But there were giants on the earth in them days, and the
> felt effect of gravity was less, so the forest canopy would have been
> much further from the ground, allowing for a huge increase in the
> available biomass.
Hmmmm. Someone that agrees with Ted. There is a sort of recognition
sequence in trolls these days. Mention the felt effect of gravity or
Ed's bones and you are labelled. Maybe the trollers need to be
recognised as such and these are just cries for help. Are there
counselling groups or something?
>
> DA.
Daniel Howell
In article <5s6cu3$3...@news-central.tiac.net>,
Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>"R.W.Thearle" <r...@cant.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>Jeremy Beauchamp wrote:
>
>>> Area of the planet: 5.10x10^14m^2 [1 Carbon in the Biota]
>>>
>>> Highest likely carbon density in biomass: 20kg/m^2 [2 Carbon in the Biota]
>>>
>>> Total coal: 1.16x10^16kg (This is an absolute minimum value and is at
>>> least 2 orders of magnitude too low.) [3 Encyclopedia Britannica]
>>>
>>> Possible coal production during a global catastrophy, assuming perfect
>>> carbon to coal conversion and total coverage of the Earth's surface
>>> with tropical rainforest: 1.02x10^16kg [4=1x2]
>>>
>>> Conclusion:
>>> The planet is not capable of producing the known reserves of coal
>>> during a single event let alone the vast amount of unknown and
>>> unminable coal, oil and natural gas. [3>4]
>
>>Very nice piece of work.
>
>>However, there are a few factors which have not been taken account of:
>
>> would certainly have contained algal life forms.
>
>> harmful radiation, and creatures lived longer. Naturally, plants would
>> also live longer, so they would be on average larger. It would make for
>> a much higher carbon density if all trees were the size of giant redwoods.
>
>> have been much more vegetation to provide food for them all.
>
>> erupted to provide some of thefloodwater. As the earth no longer contains
>> this water, it must have been larger before the flood, and therefore
>> have a higher surface area.
>
>> forests then. But there were giants on the earth in them days, and the
>> felt effect of gravity was less, so the forest canopy would have been
>> much further from the ground, allowing for a huge increase in the
>> available biomass.
>
>goes in my file of really stupid stuff seen on talk.origins. [Stuff by
>Karl doesn't count because he's professionally stupid.]
>
My money is on the troll - I've never seen anyone bar the (T)Ed use
'felt effect of gravity' except in a troll.
The 'all animals were vegitarian prior to the flood' is not something
even the karl style Christians claim (they say everything was vegetarian
prior to the Fall), so that suggests a troll as well.
{If it's for real it's easy enough to refute - blood in amber trapped
blood sucking insects for example}
Daniel
dd...@aber.ac.uk
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~ddh95
Brian Tozer.
Jeremy Beauchamp <jer...@chem.gla.ac.xx> wrote in article
<uyfafiv...@jura.chem.gla.ac.uk>...
> It isn't difficult to prove a creationist wrong, it is difficult to make
him/her see it.
And even more difficult to make him/her admit it.
As illustrated by Karl and the mean/median saga.
And his recent suggestion that the continental drift occured after the
flood waters had subsided, and various small animals had travelled all the
way from Ararat to New Zealand. And this 4000 years ago.
This is so utterly ridiculous that he can't possibly believe it.
I consider that the real problem is that such people are so intellectually
challenged that they are incapable of re-evaluating some of their
foundation religious beliefs when they find that the consequences are
obviously impossible.
It is interesting that such ones never seem to be able to reason for
themselves, but only to post material that they have plagiarised from
publications only printed to make money from a gullible public.
Such blind adherence to religious dogma was responsible for the atrocities
of the dark ages.
Fortunately, science rescued us from this darkness, and legislation
protects us from those who would return us to it if they could.
Brian Tozer
R.W.Thearle
> > - The biomass of the water canopy which existed before the flood, and which
> > would certainly have contained algal life forms.
>
Unknown.
> > - Before the flood, the water canopy protected the planet's surface from
> > harmful radiation, and creatures lived longer. Naturally, plants would
> > also live longer, so they would be on average larger. It would make for
> > a much higher carbon density if all trees were the size of giant redwoods.
>
> With a water canopy, everything would have died off from an incredible
> greenhouse effect, since that much water would have required a cloud
> cover much like Venus.
But 2000 years would be insufficient time for the greenhouse effect to
reach dangerous levels. It would however have ensured a uniformly tropical
earth prior to the flood.
> > - Prior to the flood, all animals were vegetarian, consequently there must
> > have been much more vegetation to provide food for them all.
>
> Considering that some of the first cellular lifeforms were carnivorous,
> I don't buy your argument.
Plants were the first life created - very few of them are carnivorous, and
those that are are not exclusively so, hence it could be a post-flood
adaptation.
> Also, what reason do you have for carnivores to suddenly develop from
> completely vegetarian stock?
Lack of available plant life after the flood, and a preponderance of
carrion.
> > - Prior to the flood, the earth contained the "fountains of the deep" which
> > erupted to provide some of thefloodwater. As the earth no longer contains
> > this water, it must have been larger before the flood, and therefore
> > have a higher surface area.
>
> Or the water was never there to begin with, and the Flood is a grossly
> exaggerated local flood story.
You have evidence that the water was never there to begin with?
> > - You are making the uniformitarian assumption that forests now are like
> > forests then. But there were giants on the earth in them days, and the
> > felt effect of gravity was less, so the forest canopy would have been
> > much further from the ground, allowing for a huge increase in the
> > available biomass.
>
> Which still doesn't explain how enough sunlight reached the vegetation
> to permit them to grow, through a water canopy that would have had to
> have been so thick that it blotted out the sunlight.
The obvious conclusion would be that the forest canopy would have to be
above the water canopy. This would mean an incredible increase in the
biomass.
> In fact, the water canopy theory holds no water in terms of the Earth
> being able to support life.
Gosh, isn't creationism easy?
DA
R.W.Thearle
> > - The biomass of the water canopy which existed before the flood, and which
> > would certainly have contained algal life forms.
>
> have been _any_ light reaching the Earth's surface with this scenario.
> OK, you can have algae in the water canopy, but not on the Earth as
> well. Take your pick...
>
> I believe we need _plants_ for coal as well - are you proposing a more
> interesting ecology for the water canopy than we first thought?
> Hydroponic redwoods supported by sunbeams?
As I recall (I may be wrong) some coal seams are almost exclusively algal -
Tasmanian ones, for example. And naturally the algae in the canopy would
be of a density that they would not filter out all the light, although
they may have given the earth's surface a greenish tinge.
The fountains of the deep may have contributed their own share of
biomass, comprising organisms similar to those that currently surround
deep-sea vents. These organisms would be brought to the surface by the
fountains' eruptions, and added to the flotsam of the flood from which
the coal was made.
> >
> > - Before the flood, the water canopy protected the planet's surface from
> > harmful radiation, and creatures lived longer. Naturally, plants would
> > also live longer, so they would be on average larger. It would make for
> > a much higher carbon density if all trees were the size of giant redwoods.
>
> OK. The carbon density is 40kg/m^2. We still win - although
> admittedly not quite as obviously
> >
> > - Prior to the flood, all animals were vegetarian, consequently there must
> > have been much more vegetation to provide food for them all.
>
> Hmmmm.
>
> >
> > - Prior to the flood, the earth contained the "fountains of the deep" which
> > erupted to provide some of thefloodwater. As the earth no longer contains
> > this water, it must have been larger before the flood, and therefore
> > have a higher surface area.
>
> OK, double the Earth's surface area. We still win.
But the difference is getting less and less.
Another possibility is that the preflood earth may have had a lot of
biomass tied up in peat bogs etc, greatly increasing the kg/m^2 value.
> >
> > - You are making the uniformitarian assumption that forests now are like
> > forests then. But there were giants on the earth in them days, and the
> > felt effect of gravity was less, so the forest canopy would have been
> > much further from the ground, allowing for a huge increase in the
> > available biomass.
>
> Hmmmm. Someone that agrees with Ted. There is a sort of recognition
> sequence in trolls these days. Mention the felt effect of gravity or
> Ed's bones and you are labelled. Maybe the trollers need to be
> recognised as such and these are just cries for help. Are there
> counselling groups or something?
Would you like to buy a bridge? One previous owner, and just a slight
case of goat.
DA
Andrew MacRae
In article <33EB38...@cant.ac.uk> "R.W.Thearle"
|> >However, there are a few factors which have not been taken account of:
"Felt effect of gravity". That's a little obvious. You may as
well have talked about the beauty of the large-mouthed bass :-)
|> >- The biomass of the water canopy which existed before the flood, and
|> > which would certainly have contained algal life forms.
|> >
|> This may be the most gruesome idea yet presented in this newsgroup.
|> Just think of the rain if this were correct. Forget the flood related
|> hurricanes, the slime from the sky will kill everyone.
|
|It's a logical extension of the vapour canopy argument - airborne
|organisms would inevitable reach the canopy and would probably have a
|much denser pupolation there than in the normal atmosphere.
Many single-celled organisms (or organisms with single-celled
stages) have no trouble getting from lake to lake by airborne means, so,
yes, why not? It is "logical". Just don't suggest trees were floating
around up there :-)
R.W.Thearle
Daniel Howell wrote:
> The 'all animals were vegitarian prior to the flood' is not something
> even the karl style Christians claim (they say everything was vegetarian
> prior to the Fall), so that suggests a troll as well.
> {If it's for real it's easy enough to refute - blood in amber trapped
> blood sucking insects for example}
That is a difficult point. How about:
Prior to the flood there were several kinds of plant that had much
richer flesh than current plants, including sap that was blood-like in
it's chemistry and consistency [1]. These plants were too rich for current
herbivores, but formed part of the diet of creatures which require a higher
energy intake (naturally these were the animals which would need to
change their habits and become scavengers and carnivores after the flood).
These would include insects which sucked the plant juices [2].
The post flood soil would have been fairly high in salt, and somewhat
water-logged, and would be unlikely to be rich enough to support these
fleshy plants. Thus, although the seeds would have been carried
in the ark and released when the waters receded, this, together with the
scarcity of food for the animals exiting the ark causing overbrowsing,
would have led to the rapid extinction of these plants [3]. The lower
temperature after the flood and the short ice age which followed it would
also have contributed to their loss.
This scenario is supported by linguistic analysis of the bible, in which the
same hebrew word is used for both meat and plant foods; pre-flood, there
would be no need for a word describing meat, so the word for fruit would
have been readily adopted in post-flood society. This would also
have helped to overcome the stigma of eating animals. This has been
passed down in English in the word "flesh", which refers to
both meat and fruit.
DA
[1] Both blood and sap are considered by evilutionists to be ultimately
based on sea-water; the differences may not be so extensive as first
thought.
[2] These insects would have to have adapted to the lack of suitable
browsing; blood-sucking would be one option. Other means of
survival, such as reduction of size enabling survival on the juices of less
rich plants, can be demonstrated in the aphids.
[3] Related plants in which the richer flesh was confined to a small part
of the plant have survived to modern times; examples include the water-melon
and the blackberry.
R.W.Thearle
> >However, there are a few factors which have not been taken account of:
> >
> I think I am the first to cry troll.
2nd.
> >- The biomass of the water canopy which existed before the flood, and which
> > would certainly have contained algal life forms.
> >
> This may be the most gruesome idea yet presented in this newsgroup.
> Just think of the rain if this were correct. Forget the flood related
> hurricanes, the slime from the sky will kill everyone.
It's a logical extension of the vapour canopy argument - airborne
organisms would inevitable reach the canopy and would probably have a
much denser pupolation there than in the normal atmosphere.
DA
Andrew MacRae
In article <33EB3D...@cant.ac.uk> "R.W.Thearle"
|> > - The biomass of the water canopy which existed before the flood, and
|> > which would certainly have contained algal life forms.
|>
|> have been _any_ light reaching the Earth's surface with this scenario.
|> OK, you can have algae in the water canopy, but not on the Earth as
|> well. Take your pick...
|>
|> I believe we need _plants_ for coal as well - are you proposing a more
|> interesting ecology for the water canopy than we first thought?
|> Hydroponic redwoods supported by sunbeams?
|
|As I recall (I may be wrong) some coal seams are almost exclusively algal
|- Tasmanian ones, for example.
Yes, the Tasmanian ones are good examples. Perhaps
unsurprisingly, this type of coal is known as a Tasmanite coal, and they
consist mostly of the "algal" cysts of a prasinophyte called, uh,
_Tasmanites_. You probably think I'm making this up, don't you?
"Algal coals" are a vanishingly small proportion of coal deposits.
I could probably find some numbers for you, but I would be surprised if
they constituted even 1%.
|And naturally the algae in the canopy would
|be of a density that they would not filter out all the light, although
|they may have given the earth's surface a greenish tinge.
Probably more of a greenish brown if _Tasmanites_ was really
common :-)
|The fountains of the deep may have contributed their own share of
|biomass, comprising organisms similar to those that currently surround
|deep-sea vents. These organisms would be brought to the surface by the
|fountains' eruptions, and added to the flotsam of the flood from which
|the coal was made.
So, what you are saying is, we should see a great number of fossil
tube worms? Actually, there are fossil seep communities (both hot seeps
and cold), but, again, they are a teeny tiny fraction of what is out there
as fossils.
..
|> > have a higher surface area.
|>
|> OK, double the Earth's surface area. We still win.
|
|But the difference is getting less and less.
|
|Another possibility is that the preflood earth may have had a lot of
|biomass tied up in peat bogs etc, greatly increasing the kg/m^2 value.
If standing crop isn't enough, then store a great deal more dead
vegetation? Not a bad idea. If that was the case, where are the
globally-encircling coal beds? Or did they all get ripped up and
redeposited during the flood? If the latter, and most coal is transported
en masse for long distances by water, then how did trees get rooted in the
tops of many coal beds, at multiple levels in the stratigraphy, even at
single localities?
|> > - You are making the uniformitarian assumption that forests now are
|> > like forests then. But there were giants on the earth in them days,
|> > and the felt effect of gravity was less, so the forest canopy would
..
|> Hmmmm. Someone that agrees with Ted. There is a sort of recognition
|> sequence in trolls these days. Mention the felt effect of gravity or
|> Ed's bones and you are labelled. Maybe the trollers need to be
|> recognised as such and these are just cries for help. Are there
|> counselling groups or something?
|
|Would you like to buy a bridge? One previous owner, and just a slight
|case of goat.
How much? And could it stand up in *today's* gravity?
Paul Yost
R.W.Thearle <r.w.t...@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote in article
<33EB37...@cant.ac.uk>...
> > > - Prior to the flood, the earth contained the "fountains of the deep"
which
> > > erupted to provide some of thefloodwater. As the earth no longer
contains
> > > this water, it must have been larger before the flood, and
therefore
> > > have a higher surface area.
> >
> > Or the water was never there to begin with, and the Flood is a grossly
> > exaggerated local flood story.
>
> You have evidence that the water was never there to begin with?
Whoa, that's not the way it works, Mr. Thearle. It is your job to provide
geologic evidence supporting the contention "fountains of the deep" were
possible. It is easier to change a theory than to change reality.
Paul Yost
R.W.Thearle <r.w.t...@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote in article
<33EB37...@cant.ac.uk>...
> > > - The biomass of the water canopy which existed before the flood, and
which
> > > would certainly have contained algal life forms.
> >
> > Where did the water go?
>
> Unknown.
I'm telling you, ice pirates from Delta Pavonis absconded with the water.
Paul Yost
> > This may be the most gruesome idea yet presented in this newsgroup.
> > Just think of the rain if this were correct. Forget the flood related
> > hurricanes, the slime from the sky will kill everyone.
>
> It's a logical extension of the vapour canopy argument - airborne
> organisms would inevitable reach the canopy and would probably have a
> much denser pupolation there than in the normal atmosphere.
I guess that depends on what the water canopy is. Algae don't fare well in
pure water, they need other resources. If the water canopy were
contaminated with micrometeorite bombardment, perhaps there would be a
growth medium. I would suspect this water would absorb more light as its
albedo increased, turning dark and murky and redolent with life. A dark
water canopy would occult the sun. Perhaps God collapsed the canopy not
to destroy life on earth, but to save it! The sky must have grown so dark
terrestrial life would have been doomed without a deluge!
Cataclysms must have been no big deal to God by the time of Noah. We
already know, for example, a planet larger than Mars struck the earth many
years ago. From that event our moon accreted. We also see fossil evidence
of quite a number of mass extinctions. Destroying terrestrial life appears
to be one of God's hobbies. Doesn't the christian Bible predict God is
next going to try pyromania?
Rev. Chuck
Andrew MacRae wrote:
>
> In article <33EB38...@cant.ac.uk> "R.W.Thearle"
> <r.w.t...@canterbury.ac.uk> writes:
> |> I think I am the first to cry troll.
> |2nd.
>
> well have talked about the beauty of the large-mouthed bass :-)
>
> |> > which would certainly have contained algal life forms.
> |> >
> |> Just think of the rain if this were correct. Forget the flood related
> |> hurricanes, the slime from the sky will kill everyone.
Think about how _rank_ the people must have smelled after being showered with that pond
scum. People took baths maybe once a year. Soap? Had to wait for the Romans. They
must have reeked like a cesspool.
As for that "water canopy" -- where'd it come from? Evaporation. Evaporation from
where? The sea? Lakes? Did sea level fall in the weeks before the flood?
Think about how those billions of rotting fish must have added to the stench.
Dave Haas
How do you explain the presents of various extinct families of plants
found in coal ball fossils? Coal balls are spheres of petrified coal
found in US & European coal seams. They contain hundreds of extinct
species of spore producing plants like Lycopods, Horsetail relatives,
and Tree ferns. Coal ball fossils contain actual plant parts like
stems, leaves and roots and their cell walls. They are so detailed you
can study the anatomy of the plant organs. The university of Illinois
has approximately 10 tons of coal balls in their Paleobotany
Department. These fossil beds are estimated to be from 300 to 250
million years old. We don't find angiosperm fossils until approximately
140 million years ago.
D. Haas
R.W.Thearle
Dave Haas wrote:
>
> R.W.Thearle wrote:
> >[stuff about plants with haemic(?) sap deleted]
> How do you explain the presents of various extinct families of plants
> found in coal ball fossils? Coal balls are spheres of petrified coal
> found in US & European coal seams. They contain hundreds of extinct
> species of spore producing plants like Lycopods, Horsetail relatives,
> and Tree ferns. Coal ball fossils contain actual plant parts like
> stems, leaves and roots and their cell walls. They are so detailed you
> can study the anatomy of the plant organs. The university of Illinois
> has approximately 10 tons of coal balls in their Paleobotany
> Department. These fossil beds are estimated to be from 300 to 250
> million years old. We don't find angiosperm fossils until approximately
> 140 million years ago.
I wsn't aware of these - thanks. However, I don't see the problem; if
coal balls contain fossils of richly sapped plants, then good; if they don't
then it makes the scenario less likely (much less likely?), but doesn't rule
it out completely - maybe they simply didn't grow near what is now Illinois.
If a coal ball was found which contained a blood-sucking insect trapped in
amber, and also contained a large amount of vegetable matter which could
not possibly have had blood-like sap, that would almost disprove the
scenario (unless the amber was particularly reddish),
but there would still be the possibility that the insect was merely
alighting on a non-food plant on its way elsewhere.
I'm not sure why you refer to angiosperms.
DA
R.W.Thearle
Andrew MacRae wrote:
>
> In article <33EB3D...@cant.ac.uk> "R.W.Thearle"
> <r.w.t...@canterbury.ac.uk> writes:
> |As I recall (I may be wrong) some coal seams are almost exclusively algal
> |- Tasmanian ones, for example.
>
> Yes, the Tasmanian ones are good examples. Perhaps
> unsurprisingly, this type of coal is known as a Tasmanite coal, and they
> consist mostly of the "algal" cysts of a prasinophyte called, uh,
> _Tasmanites_. You probably think I'm making this up, don't you?
Well, I am, so why shouldn't you...
> |The fountains of the deep may have contributed their own share of
> |biomass, comprising organisms similar to those that currently surround
> |deep-sea vents. These organisms would be brought to the surface by the
> |fountains' eruptions, and added to the flotsam of the flood from which
> |the coal was made.
>
> So, what you are saying is, we should see a great number of fossil
> tube worms? Actually, there are fossil seep communities (both hot seeps
> and cold), but, again, they are a teeny tiny fraction of what is out there
> as fossils.
And also those shrimp-like creatures. But I was also considering the
possibility of organisms which live/lived inside the
fountains/seeps/smokers rather than around the vents. As far as I know we
haven't yet managed to explore the inside of any of these vents, and there
may be organisms in them that we are unaware of. Some form of weed capable
of withstanding extreme currents, and which reproduces mainly by roots
and runners, perhaps. Or small fish/crustacea that live in cracks and
side channels away from the main flow.
> |Another possibility is that the preflood earth may have had a lot of
> |biomass tied up in peat bogs etc, greatly increasing the kg/m^2 value.
>
> If standing crop isn't enough, then store a great deal more dead
> vegetation? Not a bad idea. If that was the case, where are the
> globally-encircling coal beds? Or did they all get ripped up and
> redeposited during the flood? If the latter, and most coal is transported
> en masse for long distances by water, then how did trees get rooted in the
> tops of many coal beds, at multiple levels in the stratigraphy, even at
> single localities?
Hmmm... they wouldn't need to have been global, just extensive. And a
flood that raises mountains would definitely break them up and
redistribute them - possibly clumping them together in small areas to
produce the coal distribution we see now. As for the trees, they could
grow in the peat bogs in the usual way, with either
- the root systems being preserved in the peat/coal when the flood swept
the trees away, and the redistribution causing single bogs to be broken
into segments which are then overlaid;
- as the peat bog deepens, root systems of older trees get buried deeper
and deeper, with younger ones being apparently rooted higher.
> |Would you like to buy a bridge? One previous owner, and just a slight
> |case of goat.
>
> How much? And could it stand up in *today's* gravity?
3, of various sizes. And I doubt it would have trouble standing up with
all this levity around...
DA
R.W.Thearle
Andrew MacRae wrote:
>
> In article <33EB38...@cant.ac.uk> "R.W.Thearle"
> |It's a logical extension of the vapour canopy argument - airborne
> |organisms would inevitable reach the canopy and would probably have a
> |much denser pupolation there than in the normal atmosphere.
>
> Many single-celled organisms (or organisms with single-celled
> stages) have no trouble getting from lake to lake by airborne means, so,
> yes, why not? It is "logical". Just don't suggest trees were floating
> around up there :-)
Trees in the vapour canopy? Definitely ungrounded and completely
unsupportable.
DA
Andrew MacRae
R.W.Thearle
Maybe I shouldn't have written that, or at least phrased it differently.
"fountains of the deep" are standard creationist theory.
See, for instance, the work of Walter Brown (http://www.creationscience.com)
It has the same level of support as all creationist theories.
I was merely using the concept to show that one of the assumptions
made in the article about coal formation during the flood (that the
earth was the same size before the flood) was unjustified.
DA
P.S. If you wish to be formal, it's "Dr.". But "DA" is much more
appropriate in this case.
David L Evens
R.W.Thearle (r.w.t...@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote:
: > > - The biomass of the water canopy which existed before the flood, and which
: > > would certainly have contained algal life forms.
: > Where did the water go?
: Unknown.
Which means it couldn't have been there to begin with, since there isn't
any way to hide it.
: > > - Before the flood, the water canopy protected the planet's surface from
: > > harmful radiation, and creatures lived longer. Naturally, plants would
: > > also live longer, so they would be on average larger. It would make for
: > > a much higher carbon density if all trees were the size of giant redwoods.
: >
: > With a water canopy, everything would have died off from an incredible
: > greenhouse effect, since that much water would have required a cloud
: > cover much like Venus.
: But 2000 years would be insufficient time for the greenhouse effect to
: reach dangerous levels. It would however have ensured a uniformly tropical
: earth prior to the flood.
Appart from the fact that there wouldn't have been any light at all at
the surface, that is.
: > > - Prior to the flood, all animals were vegetarian, consequently there must
: > > have been much more vegetation to provide food for them all.
: >
: > Considering that some of the first cellular lifeforms were carnivorous,
: > I don't buy your argument.
: Plants were the first life created - very few of them are carnivorous, and
: those that are are not exclusively so, hence it could be a post-flood
: adaptation.
So you admit that that you assume evolution happens far faster than any
scientist would postulate.
: > Also, what reason do you have for carnivores to suddenly develop from
: > completely vegetarian stock?
: Lack of available plant life after the flood, and a preponderance of
: carrion.
Accoridng to your 'model,' all the carrion got burried.
This also fails to explain the animals that did not eat the non-existent
carrion not dieing.
: > > - Prior to the flood, the earth contained the "fountains of the deep" which
: > > erupted to provide some of thefloodwater. As the earth no longer contains
: > > this water, it must have been larger before the flood, and therefore
: > > have a higher surface area.
: >
: > Or the water was never there to begin with, and the Flood is a grossly
: > exaggerated local flood story.
: You have evidence that the water was never there to begin with?
The fact that there isn't any evidence of it ever being there makes a
good start.
:
: > > - You are making the uniformitarian assumption that forests now are like
: > > forests then. But there were giants on the earth in them days, and the
: > > felt effect of gravity was less, so the forest canopy would have been
: > > much further from the ground, allowing for a huge increase in the
: > > available biomass.
: >
: > Which still doesn't explain how enough sunlight reached the vegetation
: > to permit them to grow, through a water canopy that would have had to
: > have been so thick that it blotted out the sunlight.
: The obvious conclusion would be that the forest canopy would have to be
: above the water canopy. This would mean an incredible increase in the
: biomass.
Yes, and trees that stuck up out of the atmosphere, too. That would
require trees to grow to a height of more than 20 000 feet without any
sunlight.
: > In fact, the water canopy theory holds no water in terms of the Earth
: > being able to support life.
: Gosh, isn't creationism easy?
Yes, stupidity is easy.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Howell
In article <01bca4ee$57b6c9e0$7f009696@paul>,><33EB38...@cant.ac.uk>...
>
>> > This may be the most gruesome idea yet presented in this newsgroup.
>> > Just think of the rain if this were correct. Forget the flood related
>> > hurricanes, the slime from the sky will kill everyone.
>>
>> organisms would inevitable reach the canopy and would probably have a
>> much denser pupolation there than in the normal atmosphere.
>
>pure water, they need other resources. If the water canopy were
>contaminated with micrometeorite bombardment, perhaps there would be a
>growth medium. I would suspect this water would absorb more light as its
>albedo increased, turning dark and murky and redolent with life. A dark
>water canopy would occult the sun. Perhaps God collapsed the canopy not
>to destroy life on earth, but to save it! The sky must have grown so dark
>terrestrial life would have been doomed without a deluge!
Except that certain algae (and other organisms) can generate light,
so the earth could have been illuminated from biogenic light within
the vapour canopy. Isn't there something in genesis about light before
the sun? Maybe it means that the sun wasn't visible on Earth untill
after the collapse of the vapour canopy....
Note also that while modern algae, living on the earth's surface,
require an abundant supply of minerals, Pre-Flood algae, living in
different environment could have had different nutritional
requirements.
Richard Harter
dev...@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote:
>R.W.Thearle (r.w.t...@canterbury.ac.uk) wrote:
>: The obvious conclusion would be that the forest canopy would have to be
>: above the water canopy. This would mean an incredible increase in the
>: biomass.
>Yes, and trees that stuck up out of the atmosphere, too. That would
>require trees to grow to a height of more than 20 000 feet without any
>sunlight.
When the Bible says that there were giants in those days it wasn't just
talking about people.
>: > In fact, the water canopy theory holds no water in terms of the Earth
>: > being able to support life.
>: Gosh, isn't creationism easy?
>Yes, stupidity is easy.
Fishing real good up in your parts, eh, Roy?
Daniel Howell
In article <01bca393$ca688a20$LocalHost@brian>,
Brian Tozer. <bria...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>Jeremy Beauchamp <jer...@chem.gla.ac.xx> wrote in article
><uyfafiv...@jura.chem.gla.ac.uk>...
>
>> It isn't difficult to prove a creationist wrong, it is difficult to make
>him/her see it.
>
>And even more difficult to make him/her admit it.
>As illustrated by Karl and the mean/median saga.
What was the result of this Saga? I went away to the North Sea so I
missed it...
Ken Cox
Andrew MacRae wrote:
> In article <33EF06...@cant.ac.uk> "R.W.Thearle"
> |Trees in the vapour canopy? Definitely ungrounded and completely
> |unsupportable.
>
> Groan.
Oh dear. I was going to say that hovering trees formed an integral
part of the vapor canopy, but if you're going to react like that...
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Rev. Chuck
Daniel Howell wrote:
>
> >I guess that depends on what the water canopy is. Algae don't fare well in
> >pure water, they need other resources. If the water canopy were
> >contaminated with micrometeorite bombardment, perhaps there would be a
> >growth medium. I would suspect this water would absorb more light as its
> >albedo increased, turning dark and murky and redolent with life. A dark
> >water canopy would occult the sun. Perhaps God collapsed the canopy not
> >to destroy life on earth, but to save it! The sky must have grown so dark
> >terrestrial life would have been doomed without a deluge!
>
> Except that certain algae (and other organisms) can generate light,
> so the earth could have been illuminated from biogenic light within
> the vapour canopy. Isn't there something in genesis about light before
> the sun? Maybe it means that the sun wasn't visible on Earth untill
> after the collapse of the vapour canopy....
>
> Note also that while modern algae, living on the earth's surface,
> require an abundant supply of minerals, Pre-Flood algae, living in
> different environment could have had different nutritional
> requirements.
>
> Daniel
And so the data is cooked more and more to fit the hypothesis. Ptolemey's geocentric
solar system fell and Copernicus' model won universal (read "catholic", and in more ways
than one) acceptance for such reasons. How did Ptolemy's system explain the planets'
seen retrograde motions? Through a baroquely complex system of "cycloidal orbits" that
at times had the planets' orbiting about, well, nothing at all. Copernicus' system laid
it out simply. Retrograde motion is all due to our point of view. If you could escape
Earth, if you could look downwards from celestial north instead of up from the ground,
retrograde motion would cease to be reality. The planets would travel about the sun in
their neat, boring little circles (this being prior to Kepler). Easy enough for even a
Pope to comprehend...
And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so much coal. Funny
thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall before they collapse under their own
weight. How much longer until those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
Wayne Throop
::: "R.W.Thearle"
::: Trees in the vapour canopy? Definitely ungrounded and completely
::: unsupportable.
:: Andrew MacRae
:: Groan.
: Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com>
: Oh dear. I was going to say that hovering trees formed an integral
: part of the vapor canopy, but if you're going to react like that...
And as I recall, Larry Niven wrote an entire novel about hovering trees,
called "The Integral Trees", with a sequel entitled "The Smoke Ring".
Clearly references to the vapor canopy. There, that proves it!
Can't be coincidence!
--
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Richard Harter
"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
[snip excellent explanations and evilutionist speaking through his gills]
>And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so much coal. Funny
>thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall before they collapse under their own
>weight. How much longer until those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
Andrew MacRae
In article <5spihe$p1u$1...@osfb.aber.ac.uk> dd...@aber.ac.uk (Daniel Howell)
writes:
|In article <01bca4ee$57b6c9e0$7f009696@paul>,
|Paul Yost <SPA...@iea.com> wrote:
|>R.W.Thearle <r.w.t...@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote in article
|><33EB38...@cant.ac.uk>...
|>> > This may be the most gruesome idea yet presented in this newsgroup.
|>> > Just think of the rain if this were correct. Forget the flood
|>> > related hurricanes, the slime from the sky will kill everyone.
|>>
|>> It's a logical extension of the vapour canopy argument - airborne
|>> organisms would inevitable reach the canopy and would probably have a
|>> much denser pupolation there than in the normal atmosphere.
|>
|>in pure water, they need other resources. If the water canopy were
|>contaminated with micrometeorite bombardment, perhaps there would be a
|>growth medium. I would suspect this water would absorb more light as
|>its albedo increased, turning dark and murky and redolent with life. A
|>dark water canopy would occult the sun. Perhaps God collapsed the
|>canopy not to destroy life on earth, but to save it! The sky must have
|>grown so dark terrestrial life would have been doomed without a deluge!
|
|Except that certain algae (and other organisms) can generate light,
Yes, like _Noctiluca_, a common bioluminescent dinoflagellate in
tropical areas. When they bloom, the light show is apparently quite
impressive. Many other dinoflagellates are bioluminescent too, as are
other organisms.
Hmm... which makes me think about another scary possibility. If
the "vapour canopy" was full of algae, I sure hope it wasn't any of the
toxic dinoflagellates. If a rain fell full of large concentrations of
those, you may as well be dropping neurotoxin-laced chemical weapons on
the Earth.
|so the earth could have been illuminated from biogenic light within
|the vapour canopy. Isn't there something in genesis about light before
|the sun? Maybe it means that the sun wasn't visible on Earth untill
|after the collapse of the vapour canopy....
|
|Note also that while modern algae, living on the earth's surface,
|require an abundant supply of minerals, Pre-Flood algae, living in
|different environment could have had different nutritional
|requirements.
Yeah, and hopefully non-toxic bodies too. Let me guess --
dinoflagellates weren't toxic until "after the Fall".
Rick Gillespie
In article <5srdp0$e...@news-central.tiac.net>,
Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so much coal. Funny
>>thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall before they collapse under their own
>>weight. How much longer until those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
>
>Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
Clams got hands, silly. B'sides, you've gotta admit that trees that
big is quite a feat.
Rick Gillespie
Mark Isaak
In article <33F0D3...@research.bell-labs.com>,
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>> In article <33EF06...@cant.ac.uk> "R.W.Thearle"
>> |Trees in the vapour canopy? Definitely ungrounded and completely
>> |unsupportable.
>
>part of the vapor canopy, but if you're going to react like that...
There is mythohistorical evidence of the trees-in-vapor-canopy model.
According to the myths of the Makiritare (an Amazonian tribe), there
was, at first, no water on earth, but only in heaven. A tree,
Marahuaka, grew high into the sky and even hung there after its trunk
was cut. When the branches were separated from the sky, water poured
down.
With eyewitness testimony like that, you can't go wrong.
--
Mark Isaak at...@best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"To undeceive men is to offend them." - Queen Christina of Sweden
Mark Isaak
In article <5srdp0$e...@news-central.tiac.net>,
Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>much coal. Funny thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall
>>before they collapse under their own weight. How much longer until
>>those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
>
>Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
The lack of feet on trees is no doubt due to Paul Bunion.
Brian Tozer.
Daniel Howell <dd...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in article
<5spimq$pcv$1...@osfb.aber.ac.uk>...
> >> It isn't difficult to prove a creationist wrong, it is difficult to
make
> >him/her see it.
> >
> >And even more difficult to make him/her admit it.
> >As illustrated by Karl and the mean/median saga.
>
> What was the result of this Saga? I went away to the North Sea so I
> missed it...
Many pointed out to Karl the mathematical incorrectness of his statements
concerning the use of mean and median.
No response from Karl.
Then, assuming that he may be having difficulty in understanding the
technicalities involved, posters vied in offering ever more simple
explanatory examples of his basic error.
Still no response from Karl.
Soon after this Karl changed his signature line to include "Truth Hurts".
Since then everyone has left him alone to get over the pain.
Hopefully he will further change his signature line to include a comment
about "Honesty".
In my reading of many debates on the Net I have noticed that the
Creationist camp (Gish et al) and their minions of similar ilk on the NGs,
have a marked reluctance to admit when their arguments or examples have
been proved to be erroneous.
Presumably an example of the different morality espoused by the
Creationists, I think it is known as "Lying for God".
Brian Tozer
mel turner
In article <5stp27$m84$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
at...@best.comNOSPAM says...
>
>In article <5srdp0$e...@news-central.tiac.net>,
>Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip excellent explanations and evilutionist speaking through his gills]
>>
>>>And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so
>>>much coal. Funny thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall
>>>before they collapse under their own weight. How much longer until
>>>those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
>>
>>Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
>
>The lack of feet on trees is no doubt due to Paul Bunion.
Ouch! [Corny.]
But footloose or not, bald cypresses at least got knees...
[And are we forgetting about Paw-paw trees?]
cheers
Matt
Brian Tozer. wrote:
> Presumably an example of the different morality espoused by the
> Creationists, I think it is known as "Lying for God".
Give the devil its due. "Lying for God" is a vast improvement over
"Killing for God." Imagine this news group during the Spanish
Inquisition days!
Richard Harter
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>
>>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>
>>>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <5srdp0$e...@news-central.tiac.net>,
>>>>>>>Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[snip excellent explanations and evilutionist speaking through his gills]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so
>>>>>>>>>much coal. Funny thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall
>>>>>>>>>before they collapse under their own weight. How much longer until
>>>>>>>>>those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The lack of feet on trees is no doubt due to Paul Bunion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But is that the sole reason?
>>>>>>
>>>>>So I've been toe-ld.
>>>>
>>>>Now that's an arch remark.
>>>>
>>>Now you make me feel like a heel. But it won't last.
>>
>>Have you noticed how the loafers clog up this newsgroup?
>>
>Yes, but we will never know how many lurkers and sneakers are out
>there.
My, you are a slippery fellow.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
>
>>In article <5srdp0$e...@news-central.tiac.net>,
>>Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>>"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip excellent explanations and evilutionist speaking through his gills]
>>>
>>>>And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so
>>>>much coal. Funny thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall
>>>>before they collapse under their own weight. How much longer until
>>>>those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
>>>
>>>Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
>
>>The lack of feet on trees is no doubt due to Paul Bunion.
>
>But is that the sole reason?
>
So I've been toe-ld.
Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------------
CAUCHON. And you, and not the Church, are to be the judge?
JOAN. What other judgment can I judge by but my own?
_Saint Joan_ by GBS, Scene VI
Richard Harter
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>
>>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>
>>>>at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <5srdp0$e...@news-central.tiac.net>,
>>>>>Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>>>>>"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[snip excellent explanations and evilutionist speaking through his gills]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so
>>>>>>>much coal. Funny thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall
>>>>>>>before they collapse under their own weight. How much longer until
>>>>>>>those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
>>>>
>>>>>The lack of feet on trees is no doubt due to Paul Bunion.
>>>>
>>>>But is that the sole reason?
>>>>
>>>So I've been toe-ld.
>>
>>Now that's an arch remark.
>>
>Now you make me feel like a heel. But it won't last.
Have you noticed how the loafers clog up this newsgroup?
Nikkal
mel turner wrote:
>
> In article <5stp27$m84$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> at...@best.comNOSPAM says...
> >
> >Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
> >>"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>[snip excellent explanations and evilutionist speaking through his gills]
> >>
> >>>And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so
> >>>much coal. Funny thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall
> >>>before they collapse under their own weight. How much longer until
> >>>those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
> >>
> >>Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
> >
> >The lack of feet on trees is no doubt due to Paul Bunion.
>
>
> But footloose or not, bald cypresses at least got knees...
>
> [And are we forgetting about Paw-paw trees?]
>
> cheers
Is this where I'm supposed to say "obviously this theory doesn't have a
leg to stand on"????
*ducks*
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
>>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <5srdp0$e...@news-central.tiac.net>,
>>>>>>>>>>Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>[snip excellent explanations and evilutionist speaking through his gills]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so
>>>>>>>>>>>>much coal. Funny thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall
>>>>>>>>>>>>before they collapse under their own weight. How much longer until
>>>>>>>>>>>>those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The lack of feet on trees is no doubt due to Paul Bunion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But is that the sole reason?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So I've been toe-ld.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now that's an arch remark.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now you make me feel like a heel. But it won't last.
>>>>>
>>>>>Have you noticed how the loafers clog up this newsgroup?
>>>>>
>>>>Yes, but we will never know how many lurkers and sneakers are out
>>>>there.
>>>
>>>My, you are a slippery fellow.
>>>
>>I know, I keep flip flopping around. But I am sure if you pump me, you
>>can get a straight answer.
>
>I thought they taught you not to do that at Oxford. Don't ask me, I was
>booted out.
>
Probably something about your tongue. They should have given you a
good lacing. Well, at least you didn't go to Milan, they would have
used a stiletto.
Richard Harter
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5srdp0$e...@news-central.tiac.net>,
>>>Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>>>"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snip excellent explanations and evilutionist speaking through his gills]
>>>>
>>>>>And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so
>>>>>much coal. Funny thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall
>>>>>before they collapse under their own weight. How much longer until
>>>>>those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
>>>>
>>>>Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
>>
>>>The lack of feet on trees is no doubt due to Paul Bunion.
>>
>>But is that the sole reason?
>>
>So I've been toe-ld.
Now that's an arch remark.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
>>>at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <5srdp0$e...@news-central.tiac.net>,
>>>>Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>>>>"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip excellent explanations and evilutionist speaking through his gills]
>>>>>
>>>>>>And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so
>>>>>>much coal. Funny thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall
>>>>>>before they collapse under their own weight. How much longer until
>>>>>>those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
>>>>>
>>>>>Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
>>>
>>>>The lack of feet on trees is no doubt due to Paul Bunion.
>>>
>>>But is that the sole reason?
>>>
>>So I've been toe-ld.
>
>Now that's an arch remark.
>
Now you make me feel like a heel. But it won't last.
Richard Harter
at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
>In article <5srdp0$e...@news-central.tiac.net>,
>Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip excellent explanations and evilutionist speaking through his gills]
>>
>>>And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so
>>>much coal. Funny thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall
>>>before they collapse under their own weight. How much longer until
>>>those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
>>
>>Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
>The lack of feet on trees is no doubt due to Paul Bunion.
But is that the sole reason?
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
>>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <5srdp0$e...@news-central.tiac.net>,
>>>>>>Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[snip excellent explanations and evilutionist speaking through his gills]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so
>>>>>>>>much coal. Funny thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall
>>>>>>>>before they collapse under their own weight. How much longer until
>>>>>>>>those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
>>>>>
>>>>>>The lack of feet on trees is no doubt due to Paul Bunion.
>>>>>
>>>>>But is that the sole reason?
>>>>>
>>>>So I've been toe-ld.
>>>
>>>Now that's an arch remark.
>>>
>>Now you make me feel like a heel. But it won't last.
>
>Have you noticed how the loafers clog up this newsgroup?
>
Yes, but we will never know how many lurkers and sneakers are out
there.
Matt Silberstein
>My, you are a slippery fellow.
>
I know, I keep flip flopping around. But I am sure if you pump me, you
can get a straight answer.
Rick Gillespie
In article <01bca83c$48ac8060$LocalHost@brian>,
>> missed it...
>
>Many pointed out to Karl the mathematical incorrectness of his statements
>concerning the use of mean and median.
>No response from Karl.
>Then, assuming that he may be having difficulty in understanding the
>technicalities involved, posters vied in offering ever more simple
>explanatory examples of his basic error.
>Still no response from Karl.
Well, that's not strictly true. Karl did respond to say that the
examples didn't apply for various reasons. Perhaps the best one
was that, get this, they were too simple (they had to have 8,000
"elements" to be analogous to the Ark). Karl should take his act
on the road ... a L O N G road :-)
Rick Gillespie
Richard Harter
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>I thought they taught you not to do that at Oxford. Don't ask me, I was
>>booted out.
>>
>Probably something about your tongue. They should have given you a
>good lacing. Well, at least you didn't go to Milan, they would have
>used a stiletto.
I see you are still keeping in step with this thread.
Richard Harter
Andrew MacRae
In article <5t1bbd$6he$1...@osfa.aber.ac.uk> dd...@aber.ac.uk (Daniel Howell)
writes:
|In article <5ss7uq$muv$1...@kerberos.ediacara.org>,
|Andrew MacRae <mac...@UNSPAMgeo.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
|>In article <5spihe$p1u$1...@osfb.aber.ac.uk> dd...@aber.ac.uk (Daniel
Howell)
|>writes:
|>|In article <01bca4ee$57b6c9e0$7f009696@paul>,
|>|Paul Yost <SPA...@iea.com> wrote:
|>|>R.W.Thearle <r.w.t...@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote in article
|>|><33EB38...@cant.ac.uk>...
|>|>> > This may be the most gruesome idea yet presented in this
newsgroup.
|>|>> > Just think of the rain if this were correct. Forget the flood
|>|>> > related hurricanes, the slime from the sky will kill everyone.
|>|>>
|>|>> It's a logical extension of the vapour canopy argument - airborne
|>|>> organisms would inevitable reach the canopy and would probably have
|>|>> a much denser pupolation there than in the normal atmosphere.
|> Hmm... which makes me think about another scary possibility. If
|>the "vapour canopy" was full of algae, I sure hope it wasn't any of the
|>toxic dinoflagellates. If a rain fell full of large concentrations of
|>those, you may as well be dropping neurotoxin-laced chemical weapons on
|>the Earth.
|
|Doesn't the bible say something about scourging the earth? It's
|obviously a peotic description for a rain of toxic dinoflagellates....
Well, it has been suggested that one of the plagues of Egypt (the
one where the Nile turned red) was a result of a dinoflagellate bloom. :-)
Richard Harter
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>>Probably something about your tongue. They should have given you a
>>>good lacing. Well, at least you didn't go to Milan, they would have
>>>used a stiletto.
>>
>>I see you are still keeping in step with this thread.
>>
>We have tapped into something, but this theme is making me horse.
>Maybe I should look for some mary jane? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
>Or were you just needling me?
Are you saying that that the games still afoot but that it is not all
that it was cracked up to be? Or are you are saying that we've drug this
thread too far?
Richard Harter
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>I am not sure we want to continue in this vein. We will leave tracks.
>Maybe we should head in another direction.
Now that's an acid comment. I understand that there is an exhibition of
ancient ancestral fossils in the Hebrides and that Jared Diamond is the
guest speaker. Since he is bringing his entire family it's very much a
case of Lucy in the Skye with Diamonds.
>(BTW, I do want to point out that I got two different meanings with
>both mary jane and horse.)
Two meanings for horse, eh? Which two did you have in mind?
Hors: This thread is killing me.
hoarse: wearing down my power of speech
horse: heroin
"making me horse": Sexual practices best not described
Rev. Chuck
Daniel Howell wrote:
>
> Doesn't the bible say something about scourging the earth? It's
> obviously a peotic description for a rain of toxic dinoflagellates....
>
Or whatever else the cretinists want it to be...
Rev. Chuck
Nikkal wrote:
>
> mel turner wrote:
> >
> > In article <5stp27$m84$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> > at...@best.comNOSPAM says...
> > >
> > >Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
> > >>"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>[snip excellent explanations and evilutionist speaking through his gills]
> > >>
> > >>>And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so
> > >>>much coal. Funny thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall
> > >>>before they collapse under their own weight. How much longer until
> > >>>those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
> > >>
> > >>Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
> > >
> > >The lack of feet on trees is no doubt due to Paul Bunion.
> >
> >
> > But footloose or not, bald cypresses at least got knees...
> >
> > [And are we forgetting about Paw-paw trees?]
> >
> > cheers
>
> Is this where I'm supposed to say "obviously this theory doesn't have a
> leg to stand on"????
>
> *ducks*
Nor platforms. Stilted, I guess.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
>>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <5srdp0$e...@news-central.tiac.net>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Rev. Chuck" <c....@erols.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>[snip excellent explanations and evilutionist speaking through his gills]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And so we have here 20,000 foot tall trees explaining why we have so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>much coal. Funny thing about trees is, they can only grow so tall
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>before they collapse under their own weight. How much longer until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>those trees grow to 30,000 feet? 40,000 feet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trees don't got feet. Clams got feet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The lack of feet on trees is no doubt due to Paul Bunion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>But is that the sole reason?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So I've been toe-ld.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Now that's an arch remark.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Now you make me feel like a heel. But it won't last.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Have you noticed how the loafers clog up this newsgroup?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, but we will never know how many lurkers and sneakers are out
>>>>>>there.
>>>>>
>>>>>My, you are a slippery fellow.
>>>>>
>>>>I know, I keep flip flopping around. But I am sure if you pump me, you
>>>>can get a straight answer.
>>>
>>>I thought they taught you not to do that at Oxford. Don't ask me, I was
>>>booted out.
>>>
>>Probably something about your tongue. They should have given you a
>>good lacing. Well, at least you didn't go to Milan, they would have
>>used a stiletto.
>
>I see you are still keeping in step with this thread.
>
We have tapped into something, but this theme is making me horse.
Maybe I should look for some mary jane? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
Or were you just needling me?
Matt Silberstein
>Are you saying that that the games still afoot but that it is not all
>that it was cracked up to be? Or are you are saying that we've drug this
>thread too far?
>
I am not sure we want to continue in this vein. We will leave tracks.
Maybe we should head in another direction.
(BTW, I do want to point out that I got two different meanings with
both mary jane and horse.)
Matt Silberstein
Daniel Howell
In article <5ss7uq$muv$1...@kerberos.ediacara.org>,
Andrew MacRae <mac...@UNSPAMgeo.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>In article <5spihe$p1u$1...@osfb.aber.ac.uk> dd...@aber.ac.uk (Daniel Howell)
>writes:
>|In article <01bca4ee$57b6c9e0$7f009696@paul>,
>|Paul Yost <SPA...@iea.com> wrote:
>|>R.W.Thearle <r.w.t...@canterbury.ac.uk> wrote in article
>|><33EB38...@cant.ac.uk>...
>|>> > This may be the most gruesome idea yet presented in this newsgroup.
>|>> > Just think of the rain if this were correct. Forget the flood
>|>> > related hurricanes, the slime from the sky will kill everyone.
>|>>
>|>> It's a logical extension of the vapour canopy argument - airborne
>|>> organisms would inevitable reach the canopy and would probably have a
>|>> much denser pupolation there than in the normal atmosphere.
>|>
>|>in pure water, they need other resources. If the water canopy were
>|>contaminated with micrometeorite bombardment, perhaps there would be a
>|>growth medium. I would suspect this water would absorb more light as
>|>its albedo increased, turning dark and murky and redolent with life. A
>|>dark water canopy would occult the sun. Perhaps God collapsed the
>|>canopy not to destroy life on earth, but to save it! The sky must have
>|>grown so dark terrestrial life would have been doomed without a deluge!
>|
>|Except that certain algae (and other organisms) can generate light,
>
> Yes, like _Noctiluca_, a common bioluminescent dinoflagellate in
>tropical areas. When they bloom, the light show is apparently quite
>impressive. Many other dinoflagellates are bioluminescent too, as are
>other organisms.
>
> Hmm... which makes me think about another scary possibility. If
>the "vapour canopy" was full of algae, I sure hope it wasn't any of the
>toxic dinoflagellates. If a rain fell full of large concentrations of
>those, you may as well be dropping neurotoxin-laced chemical weapons on
>the Earth.
Doesn't the bible say something about scourging the earth? It's
obviously a peotic description for a rain of toxic dinoflagellates....
Daniel
dd...@aber.ac.uk
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~ddh95
Matt Silberstein
>Now that's an acid comment. I understand that there is an exhibition of
>ancient ancestral fossils in the Hebrides and that Jared Diamond is the
>guest speaker. Since he is bringing his entire family it's very much a
>case of Lucy in the Skye with Diamonds.
>
>
>>(BTW, I do want to point out that I got two different meanings with
>>both mary jane and horse.)
>
>Two meanings for horse, eh? Which two did you have in mind?
>
>Hors: This thread is killing me.
>hoarse: wearing down my power of speech
>horse: heroin
>"making me horse": Sexual practices best not described
>
>
>
You win.
Richard Harter
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
[elaborate exchange snipped]
>You win.
Sniff.
Mommy, he won't play any more.
Paul Yost
Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> wrote in article
<01bca9e4$d27d5cc0$08df...@lflank.fast.net>...> <33EB37...@cant.ac.uk>...
> > Plants were the first life created - very few of them are carnivorous,
> and
> > those that are are not exclusively so, hence it could be a post-flood
> > adaptation.
>
>
> Really. And what rate of mutation would be necessary to transform an
> ordinary plant inot a carnivorous plant in the space of, what, 4,000
years
> since your mythical flood . . . . ? And where again can I go to see
this
> rate of mutation anywhere in existence?
> > > Also, what reason do you have for carnivores to suddenly develop from
> > > completely vegetarian stock?
> >
> > Lack of available plant life after the flood, and a preponderance of
> > carrion.
> Uh, didn't you just tell us in the previous paragraph that carnivorous
> plants were post-flood adaptations? Make uo your friggin mind,
> fundie-----were there plants after the flood or weren't there?
What I'm wondering about isn't a 4000 year rate of change for plants to
carnivorous plants, but about a 4 month rate of change. In order for the
carnivorous plants to evolve fast enough to avail themselves of all the
fresh carrion, wouldn't they have had to evolve furiously? Not just
genetic evolution, but plants "evolving" before our very eyes, so to speak?
Richard Harter
"Paul Yost" <SPA...@iea.com> wrote:
Oh, no, it's a case of post-flood trauma. Very bad stuff, post-flood
trauma. There was no actual evolution, of course. What happened was
that PFT changed the sequencing of genes being turned on and off during
development. The capability of being carnivores was in the DNA but was
not expressed; it took the right environmental conditions (PFT) to
express them.
R.W.Thearle
Er... I think you're mixing up two questions. Carnivorous plants don't eat
carrion. They eat insects, and that only when the soil quality is poor.
The phrase "carnivores to suddenly develop from completely vegetarian
stock?" could hardly apply to plants.
Regarding post-flood conditions, there would be both a lack of plants,
meaning a reduced supply of food for animals, and a lack of good soil,
meaning harsh conditions for those plants that were there. This would
lead to increased survival chances for animals utilising non-vegetable
food supplies and plants that could get nutrients from sources other than
the soil.
(If it takes 90 years for an animal to evolve so that it can eat plants
which were previously poisonous to it, how long would it take for a
sundew plant to evolve from extracting nutrients from rainwater that falls
on it to extracting nutrients from insects that fall on it?)
DA