Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[ChordatesLegacy]

I have read many explanations put forward by creationist about the formation of coal. But there is one thing that all their explanations cannot explain, and that is there are no Carboniferous coal measures anywhere in the world that contain flowering plants and/or grasses. What they do contain are ferns, conifers and lycopods, all of which had simple root structures.

As the world today is dominated by flowering plants and grasses this creates a paradox that creationists cannot get out of.

However evolution easily explains this, because flowering plants did not evolve until the Mid-Cretaceous and grasses the Mid-Tertiary.

Has any creationist got an answer to explain this inconsistence, particularly as we know in your version of the earths history, flowering plants were around from the start “Eves Apple Tree”.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Good question, though I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Here’s an artists depiction of the carboniferous, based on coal seam fossils.

I repeat to all creationists, why are there no flowering plants and grasses found in these coal seams.

 

[Avatar]

The big heavy logs got waterlogged and sank during the flood becoming coal. The light grasses and flowers floated and eventually rotted away.

Do I win a prize?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Here’s an artists depiction of the carboniferous, based on coal seam fossils.

I repeat to all creationists, why are there no flowering plants and grasses found in these coal seams.

Obviously, they fled to higher ground when the Flood came.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The big heavy logs got waterlogged and sank during the flood becoming coal. The light grasses and flowers floated and eventually rotted away.

Do I win a prize?

I am not saying there are no grasses and flowers, what the evidence tells us, is that there were no flowering plants or grasses, including logs of oak, elm, beach, chestnut and so on and so forth.
Perhaps you are also suggesting every grass plant in the world uprooted itself so it could float away.

So I will reword it

In the Carboniferous coal seams from around the world, no part (i.e. roots, trunks, branches, flowers, seeds etc) of any flowering plant or grass is found.

Evolution easily answers that, they had not evolved yet.

Most plants are distinguished by they seeds, because seeds are very robust and fossilise very well, this includes the seeds of flowering plants and grasses, nether of which have ever been found in the carboniferous coal measures.

 

[Avatar]

I said they floated away. Sheesh.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The big heavy logs got waterlogged and sank during the flood becoming coal. The light grasses and flowers floated and eventually rotted away.

Do I win a prize?

Sure: if you can explain how flowers and light grasses can float in a year long flood.

Though I smell a Poe...

 

[Avatar]

Dang.

But its not like we'll get any genuine responses, right?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I said they floated away. Sheesh.

The number of species of flowering plants is estimated to be in the range of 250,000 to 400,000. Not only this, but they dominate the world of flora. Let’s take Africa for example, its rain forests are dominated by flowering plants and its savanna is dominated by grasses. All over the world you can find flowering plants, in all recent sedimentary basins their fossils are found, in essence these plants fossilize well.

They did not float away, in many cases how could they, trees such as oak and beech have extensive root systems, they seeds are buried by animals such as jays and squirrels, and in the case of grasses, millions of tons of pollen are produces every years, all of which are commonly found fossilized.

So you will have to do better than the answer you give i.e. they all floated away.

In fact the right answer is even simpler than that, “there were no flowering plants during the Carboniferous”. Plant evolution would take another ~200 millions years to come up with flowering plants.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Just thought I would throw this in to show in-situ coal formation, note the roots.

Come on creationists, you must have some paradigm to explain the total lack of flowering plants in the Carboniferous.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Obviously the devil removed all the flowers

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Obviously the devil removed all the flowers

Is that the best you can do, what about your creation science, or is the devil a central tenet of your pseudoscience?

Here’s a few more images of carboniferous fossils whilst you contemplate the absolute destruction of your young Earth point of view.




Asterophyllities equisetiformis. Leafy branches of a calamite tree. Note how the leaves themselves (which are thin and elongate) are arranged in whorls on the stems.



Trunk of giant lycopsid, probably Lepidodendron. Lycopsid trees could get huge. In this photo, you see Howard Falcon-Lang (University of Bristol) and John Nelson (Illinois State Geological Survey) standing below a tree trunk lying just above the contact of the coal bed with the roof shale (of course, the coal has been mined out to reveal the roof!). Their raised hands mark the edges of the trunk. This trunk was more than 6 feet wide (nearly 2 m) and more than 120 feet long (over 30 m) and we did not see the crown! Who knows how much bigger it was in life.


Link to images

 

[plindboe]

Is that the best you can do, what about your creation science, or is the devil a central tenet of your pseudoscience?

You really need to work on your Poe radar.

Otherwise, excellent posts!

Peter

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Is that the best you can do, what about your creation science, or is the devil a central tenet of your pseudoscience?

Here’s a few more images of carboniferous fossils whilst you contemplate the absolute destruction of your young Earth point of view.




Asterophyllities equisetiformis. Leafy branches of a calamite tree. Note how the leaves themselves (which are thin and elongate) are arranged in whorls on the stems.



Trunk of giant lycopsid, probably Lepidodendron. Lycopsid trees could get huge. In this photo, you see Howard Falcon-Lang (University of Bristol) and John Nelson (Illinois State Geological Survey) standing below a tree trunk lying just above the contact of the coal bed with the roof shale (of course, the coal has been mined out to reveal the roof!). Their raised hands mark the edges of the trunk. This trunk was more than 6 feet wide (nearly 2 m) and more than 120 feet long (over 30 m) and we did not see the crown! Who knows how much bigger it was in life.


Link to images

see? Absolutely no flowers there, incontrivertible proof that the devil hid them.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

see? Absolutely no flowers there, incontrivertible proof that the devil hid them.

Thanks for that, I think I now also know where he hides his stump? Hope it does not hurt.

 

[Naraoia]

I have read many explanations put forward by creationist about the formation of coal. But there is one thing that all their explanations cannot explain, and that is there are no Carboniferous coal measures anywhere in the world that contain flowering plants and/or grasses. What they do contain are ferns, conifers and lycopods, all of which had simple root structures.

Not to be anal but grasses are flowering plants

Apart from that, well yeah. And while we are at apple trees and the Adam and Eve story, where are the snakes in those primordial forests? (Or any other modern animal, for that matter)

 

[MrGoodBytes]

see? Absolutely no flowers there, incontrivertible proof that the devil hid them.

Careful there, you'll end up in the top 100 again.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

see? Absolutely no flowers there, incontrivertible proof that the devil hid them.

Careful there, you'll end up in the top 100 again.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Not to be anal but grasses are flowering plants

Apart from that, well yeah. And while we are at apple trees and the Adam and Eve story, where are the snakes in those primordial forests? (Or any other modern animal, for that matter)

Yes I know grasses are flowering plants, but they evolved later than many flowering plants, and their growth mechanisms are different to other flowering plants, so I separated them for this thread.

I see there has been very little input from the creationists on this thread, does this mean they accept that in their view of the history of the earth, finding no flowering plant including grass fossils in the Carboniferous undermines their entire supposition.

Come on creationists, your so called scientists must have come up with some outlandish idea to overcome this massive and glaring problem with your young Earth view of the world.

I really would like to hear it.