• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,713
52,524
Guam
✟5,132,305.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What do you mean by 'grace' please?

GRACE = God's Riches At Christ's Expense.

Actually, I like these definitions:
  • Justice = getting what you deserve.
  • Mercy = not getting what you deserve.
  • Grace = getting what you don't deserve.
Grace is usually defined as "unmerited favor."
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,713
52,524
Guam
✟5,132,305.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But God doesn't offer that gift to everyone, does He? Look at poor Esua. Hated by God even before he was born.

[bible]Romans 9:13[/bible]

Esau shows us that God hates sin --- Jacob shows us that God loves the sinner.
 
Upvote 0

milkyway

Member
Jun 9, 2006
196
18
London
✟22,912.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

GRACE = God's Riches At Christ's Expense.

Actually, I like these definitions:
  • Justice = getting what you deserve.
  • Mercy = not getting what you deserve.
  • Grace = getting what you don't deserve.
Grace is usually defined as "unmerited favor."
OK - but all are human attributes, or in the gift of humans, so there is no need to invoke a god, surely?
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How do you arrive at carboniferous calamite trees fossils, with stems complete with what appears to be perfectly preserved leaves, From vegetation that grew in hot steamy swamps.

Surely the stems and leaves would rotted and been eaten by bacteria long before they would have had a chance to fossilize and then turn into coal.

One answer for this would be that many untold numbers of trees where uprooted and instantly buried, then compressed and eventually became layers of coal. These layers are sometimes hundreds of feet deep and unsullied by other material.

Let me answer this;

The coalification process involves several steps but basically boils down to the vegetation falling into a standing body of water or otherwise being protected from oxidizing conditions.

Generally the possible fates of organic carbon (plant material are) in the environment are:

1. Exposure to atmospheric oxygen (it just decays away into CO2 and H2O and some other gunk, not much left for us to look at)

2. Restricted contact with atmospheric oxygen (rotting, mouldering and humification)

3. Immediate submersion (Peatification)

4. Immersion into a strongly reducing environment (Putrefaction)

(SOURCE)

What it amounts to, generally speaking, is that we can find instances where either limited biological activity occurs on the plant remains and/or oxygen is kept away from them, but ultimately we wind up with something that is depleted in hydrogen and oxygen, and enriched in carbon.

No magic there. Just the stuff that makes up plants.

WHen you look at coal under a microscope you actually often see what looks like almost "intact" plant tissue!
plate11.jpg


In reality these are "appearances". The features of the original plant cells are still there, the cell walls are very much present, and sometimes you can even see the original pores in some of the cell walls! It's amazing. But in reality the chemistry of these materials is greatly changed.

The cellulose is often removed or so altered as to not be recognized as cellulose. The lignin, which is much more resiliant chemically, is itself quite altered. During this and after the initial processes the coal is buried deeper and heated up, which can cause additional changes.

This is a representation of lignin:
lignin.gif


This is what is left over after some amount of coalification (representative only, not a "coal molecule", but an estimation of the types of chemical compounds left):
bituminous_structure.jpg


Keep driving off oxygen and hydrogen and you wind up with Anthracite which chemically looks kinda like this:

anthracite_structure.png



We can look at the chemistry of these cell walls and we can actually back track the kind of chemical processes that probably occurred to make them the way they are.

And none of it necessarily requires some enormous catastrophe. What it does require is, perhaps, a rather rapid burial (but not catastrophically so), or at least some way of sequestering it from atmospheric oxygen. We can see that every single day even today in swampy standing water that has little circulation. And some deeper burial in the geologic column and gradual heating.

We can find the kind of bacteria that can live in reducing environments that can alter materials to make coal. We know a great deal about the heat necessary to alter organic matter in the geologic environment.

So when you look at preserved leaf in a coal seam it is like looking at an impression. You see a leaf, indeed, but what you are looking at has been amazingly chemically altered. But its "form" remained. And the chemistry around how it got from point A to point B to point C is reasonably well know.

Coal geochemistry is very interesting. Coal petrology (the field where you look at the coal itself, usually under a microscope) is one of the most fascinating areas of geology I can think of. There's a LOT to learn from coal. It's complex but understandable.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,713
52,524
Guam
✟5,132,305.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

GRACE = God's Riches At Christ's Expense.

Actually, I like these definitions:
  • Justice = getting what you deserve.
  • Mercy = not getting what you deserve.
  • Grace = getting what you don't deserve.
Grace is usually defined as "unmerited favor."

OK - but all are human attributes, or in the gift of humans, so there is no need to invoke a god, surely?

You cannot cloak yourself in divine grace using human attribution.
 
Upvote 0

Avatar

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 26, 2004
549,102
56,600
Cape Breton
✟740,518.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
[bible]Romans 9:13[/bible]

Esau shows us that God hates sin --- Jacob shows us that God loves the sinner.
You skipped Romans 11 and 12, where God decided to hate Esua before ever He was born. He never had a chance for Grace, it was never offered him.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,713
52,524
Guam
✟5,132,305.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You skipped Romans 11 and 12, where God decided to hate Esua before ever He was born. He never had a chance for Grace, it was never offered him.

I disagree ---

Romans 5:18 said:
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Also noteworthy is:

[bible]Hebrews 11:20[/bible]
 
Upvote 0

Avatar

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 26, 2004
549,102
56,600
Cape Breton
✟740,518.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Paul wrote about the lack of flowering plants in Carboniferous coal measures???
No. But I didn't derail, I think it was Tiberius to bait AV, then I responded to AV.

Hey, thread drift.
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
How do you arrive at carboniferous calamite trees fossils, with stems complete with what appears to be perfectly preserved leaves, From vegetation that grew in hot steamy swamps.

Surely the stems and leaves would rotted and been eaten by bacteria long before they would have had a chance to fossilize and then turn into coal.

One answer for this would be that many untold numbers of trees where uprooted and instantly buried, then compressed and eventually became layers of coal. These layers are sometimes hundreds of feet deep and unsullied by other material.

A rather more plausible answer would be that the swamps suffered from anoxia so the bacteria that normally decompose plant material couldn't live there.

Another more plausible suggestion is that many of these well preserved plant fossils are preserved between siltstone bedding planes, suggesting that the leaves fell onto a muddy surface and were covered by more mud before they could decompose.

Both explanations have the force of explaining what is actually there in reality behind them rather than an ad hoc explanation that doesn't explain what we actually see.

Your explanation also doesn't explain the nature of coal beds: we see repeated cycles of swamp/coal and inundation by sea water folowed by swamp again as the sea level fluctuated, this produces not singular coal beds but dozens of them that formed and were destroyed over millions of years.

If you wish to learn how coals were formed rather than make up stories about it you could start with a nice simple wikipedia article and follow the links.

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

Coal is a fossil fuel formed in swamp ecosystems where plant remains were saved by water and mud from oxidization and biodegradation




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

I see Mr Frum has already covered this in rather more depth
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It took millions of years for non-flowering plants to evolved into flowering plants. Indeed, they did this in sync with the evolution of things like bees and birds. So just how long ago do you think Eden was?

That is the reason this obvious answer has eluded bible believers for so long. The present based concept of how long it would have taken if the past was the same. It wasn't, of course, so that is no longer an issue.

But, before making a sweeping statement that flowering plants did indeed evolve from Eden's migration, we better ask what the evidence actually says. How would you know if a plant evolved, or simply did not get there yet at the time the coal formed, precisely??
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So you claim the swampy earth was inhospitable to flowering plants like water lillies, cattails, willows and mangrove trees and all the myriad of other flowering plants that thrive in swamps.
It was inhospitable to man, and everything, if you recall, was made for us. We were in Eden. So, now we need to get the plants of Eden to the far away swamps. That takes some time. Obviously. How you gonna wave that one away?
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
..?!!??

Gen 1:31

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

How does one contort onesself from Very Good into inhospitable?
What He made was largely in the garden, including us, and in the sea there, of course. That was very habitable. Now, I call in an eyewitness, that saw the actual creation, to the stand here, to testify about the rest of the earth.

Prov 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, [SIZE=-1][/SIZE] nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass [SIZE=-1][/SIZE] upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.


You didn't really think I made this stuff up, did you??
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Do you see the problem with that explanation?

There are some mighty swampy places on earth today, many of them tropical, and those are dominated by flowering plants, just as almost any other terrestrial habitat.
Today is not yesterday. Now, if you can prove that plants were not mostly created, and planted in the garden, why, you would have a point. Until then, of course, you certainly do not in any way, shape or form. See the problem with that?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,713
52,524
Guam
✟5,132,305.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Seems Roman 5:18 disagress with 9:11-13.

Hmmm.

Could that be a Paul problem?
.
Adam Clarke's Commentary to Romans 9:12 said:
That these words are used in a national and not in a personal sense, is evident from this: that, taken in the latter sense they are not true, for Jacob never did exercise any power over Esau, nor was Esau ever subject to him. Jacob, on the contrary, was rather subject to Esau, and was sorely afraid of him; and, first, by his messengers, and afterwards personally, acknowledged his brother to be his lord, and himself to be his servant; see Ge 32:4; 33:8,13. And hence it appears that neither Esau nor Jacob, nor even their posterities, are brought here by the apostle as instances of any personal reprobation from eternity: for, it is very certain that very many, if not the far greatest part, of Jacob's posterity were wicked, and rejected by God; and it is not less certain that some of Esau's posterity were partakers of the faith of their father Abraham.

[bible]Genesis 32:4[/bible][bible]Genesis 33:8[/bible][bible]Genesis 33:13[/bible]
 
Upvote 0

ChordatesLegacy

Senior Member
Jun 21, 2007
1,896
133
65
✟25,261.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
.

[bible]Genesis 32:4[/bible][bible]Genesis 33:8[/bible][bible]Genesis 33:13[/bible]

So this is how you destroy a perfectly good thread, I am sure there a place for such religious rhetoric, but it’s not this thread.

If you want to add something meaningful, perhaps you could enlighten me to why no flowering plants are found in the Carboniferous coal measures.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,713
52,524
Guam
✟5,132,305.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So this is how you destroy a perfectly good thread, I am sure there a place for such religious rhetoric, but it’s not this thread.


Excuse me? Are you talking to just me, or the ones who are asking me questions? If the latter, please don't tack this accusation on to my post. I'm only answering questions.

If you want to add something meaningful, perhaps you could enlighten me to why no flowering plants are found in the Carboniferous coal measures.

I don't know why Carboniferous plants aren't found in coal. Nor do I really care. I'm sure it's documented in an expensive "science" book somewhere.
 
Upvote 0

ChordatesLegacy

Senior Member
Jun 21, 2007
1,896
133
65
✟25,261.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Today is not yesterday. Now, if you can prove that plants were not mostly created, and planted in the garden, why, you would have a point. Until then, of course, you certainly do not in any way, shape or form. See the problem with that?


Today is not yesterday.

You are right, today is not yesterday, that’s one of the premises of geology and evolution.

Today flowering plants

350 million years ago non-flowering plants.


Now, if you can prove that plants were not mostly created

What the hell is mostly created, either they were or there were not created.

What we see today were not created they evolved from simpler plant life, such as found in the Carboniferous coal measures.

If you make the statement “plants were created” then you have to back it up with evidence, and seeing how creationists put so much sucker on their sudo-science, let’s see their evidence.

and planted in the garden,

Was god the gardener, or did he have is minions to do it.

why, you would have a point. Until then, of course, you certainly do not in any way, shape or form. See the problem with that?

The problems are all with creationists.

Amongst the entire vast Carboniferous coal reserves world wide not a single, seed, blade of grass, twig, trunk, bark or any other part of a flowering plant has been found. By creationists own admissions these coal reserves are a product of the flood. Therefore <4000 years ago there were no flowering plants, no bees, humming birds, no crops for people to grow and eat etc.

Remember all human crops are flowering plant, and none are found in the so called creationist flood deposits.

The problems are all creationists, which is funny when they actually created these problems in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheOutsider
Upvote 0