Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[dad]

Of course it’s a story, but one based on evidence and observation. Cyclothems are found in many Carboniferous sedimentary deposits and they show quite clearly that there was relative sea level change many times during this period.

As I said, a mist sea level flux. So??

• Given the error margins of time scales these still fall within the upper end of the Milankovitch band!!..... eccentricty of the Earth's orbit.

Given you have no clue what the time scales are, or margins, you have nothing to say about it. Really. Your claims of what the orbit of the earth did are fantasy, and quite wobbly.

To make such a inference suggests that astronomic variables were the modulators of late Paleozoic ice sheet fluctuations as during the late Pliocene-Pleistocene. Would such be the case in the Paleozoic world?

Well, one way to find out pronto!!! Show us here and now, precisely how you claim to know about the so called astronomic variables!!!! Busted.

The cyclothems were caused by sea level transgressions and regressions, which were the result of fluctuations in the Ice cap which at that time covered the southern half of the Earth.

That's nice. Prove it. So far, all we have is a flux in water levels!!!!!! Whoopee do.

Based on application of area volume relationships developed for Quaternary ice sheets
estimates derived for Westphalian (305Ma)
Three estmates made with different ice extent configurations

How are the estimates arrived at exactly??? Or do you just like to chatter on, to hear your story drool on?

All Based On Evidence, Not Magic

Oh, goody. Then show it to us. The time for storytelling is over.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Can anyone tell me what “mist sea level flux” is

 

[dad]

Can anyone tell me what “mist sea level flux” is

I can. The water that came up was referred to as a mist. The waters that it produced, in some areas, we could call seas. Those seas had rising and falling levels, apparently. Get it??

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

As I said, a mist sea level flux. So??


Given you have no clue what the time scales are, or margins, you have nothing to say about it. Really. Your claims of what the orbit of the earth did are fantasy, and quite wobbly.

Well, one way to find out pronto!!! Show us here and now, precisely how you claim to know about the so called astronomic variables!!!! Busted.







That's nice. Prove it. So far, all we have is a flux in water levels!!!!!! Whoopee do.



How are the estimates arrived at exactly??? Or do you just like to chatter on, to hear your story drool on?



Oh, goody. Then show it to us. The time for storytelling is over.

Given you have no clue what the time scales are, or margins, you have nothing to say about it. Really. Your claims of what the orbit of the earth did are fantasy, and quite wobbly.

The time scales are of the order of 10s of thousands of years, pretty good for 350 million years ago.
Quote:

Well, one way to find out pronto!!! Show us here and now, precisely how you claim to know about the so called astronomic variables!!!! Busted.

Milankovitch cycles please read
Milankovitch_cycles
That's nice. Prove it. So far, all we have is a flux in water levels!!!!!! Whoopee do.
Along with mountains of evidence for a prolonged Ice Age during the late Carboniferous

How are the estimates arrived at exactly??? Or do you just like to chatter on, to hear your story drool on?
Estimates are arrived at by comparing the massive amounts of evidence from the Quaternary Ice Age.

Oh, goody. Then show it to us. The time for storytelling is over.

The literature on the Carboniferous is extensive, in Britain the Carboniferous is the best known and most extensively map geological period. Read around the subject matter.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I can. The water that came up was referred to as a mist. The waters that it produced, in some areas, we could call seas. Those seas had rising and falling levels, apparently. Get it??

Give me a link to this phenomenon, so I can have a read around it before commenting.

Hope it's not the flood again

 

[dad]

The time scales are of the order of 10s of thousands of years, pretty good for 350 million years ago.

Prove it.

Milankovitch cycles please read
Milankovitch_cycles

Right, what about it? Talk about the evidence. That is horse droppings.

Along with mountains of evidence for a prolonged Ice Age during the late Carboniferous

Great. Where is it???? Hiding? Don't talk the talk, walk the walk.

Estimates are arrived at by comparing the massive amounts of evidence from the Quaternary Ice Age.

Which are?? precisely, what? Some lines on a graph, that you somehow think look a bit similar in some way?

The literature on the Carboniferous is extensive, in Britain the Carboniferous is the best known and most extensively map geological period. Read around the subject matter.

Point? What about the literature, or supposed era is it you think is evidenced, or relevant?? Focus.

 

[dad]

Give me a link to this phenomenon, so I can have a read around it before commenting.

Hope it's not the flood again

OK, here it is.

Ge 2:6 - But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

OK, here it is.

Ge 2:6 - But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

I thought it would be a Bronze Aged text.

Magical mysticism at it’s best.

 

[dad]

I thought it would be a Bronze Aged text.

Magical mysticism at it’s best.

If you have some science to dismiss it, do so. You don't. Why pretend? The bible spans all ages of man from creation, till eternity. Your mundane, melancholy, misleading, malicious, made up myths merely mirror manufactured material of the most morbid man made mix imaginable.

 

[Patashu]

Hey, dad.

Just so we're all clear, can I ask the following of you:

1. What is your definition of physical? What are physical components responsible for?
2. What is your definition of spiritual? What are spiritual components responsible for?
3. What is the difference between a physical component and a spiritual component?

4. How old is the Earth?
5. How old is the Universe?
6. How long ago did the Flood occur? How many people and how many plants/animals/etc survived?
7. How long ago did the 'Split' occur? What caused the split and what happened during it and why?

And finally

8. Which edition/interpretation of the bible should I be using and which sect of Christianity should I be listening to and why?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

If you have some science to dismiss it, do so. You don't. Why pretend? The bible spans all ages of man from creation, till eternity. Your mundane, melancholy, misleading, malicious, made up myths merely mirror manufactured material of the most morbid man made mix imaginable.

If you have some science to dismiss it, do so.

It is not for me to dismiss your Bronze Aged stand point, it is up to you to produce evidence to support it.

This you have not done

You don't. Why pretend? The bible spans all ages of man from creation, till eternity.

Nope you are wrong: At best it spans the Bonze Age to the Enlightenment for most, but for fundies it’s the Bronze Age to the present.

Your mundane, melancholy, misleading, malicious, made up myths merely mirror manufactured material of the most morbid man made mix imaginable.

Now now, no need to get your knickers in a twist, science is progressive and forward looking, whereas you religion is stagnant and backward looking.

Science relies on evidence’ religion relies on ignorance.


Here’s some evidence for Carboniferous glaciation.

Deep sriations cut in soft sand by ice sheets during the Permian-Carboniferous Gondwana glaciation, Oorlogskloof
Link

Dropstone structures are among the most telling indicators of former glaciation, in this case Late Proterozoic glaciation in Namibia. Dropstones are formed when icebergs release debris into laminated sediments of the sea or lake floor. These dropstones near Narachaamspos in the Kaokoveld have been used to promote the ‘Snowball Earth’ hypothesis as a global refrigeration event, while the overlying pink and orange carbonate rocks are indicative of the succeeding hot phase. MH

Link
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/earth_icy_planet/glaciers15-en.html?id=7

Rocks of glacial origin (tillites), if they have not been tectonically deformed, sometimes weather in such a way that the stones can be removed easily. If the stones have been glacially transported, as this example from Late Proterozoic strata in Mauritania, they may retain striations, indicating abrasion as they were transported on the underside of a sliding glacier. MH

Link
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/earth_icy_planet/glaciers15-en.html?id=3

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Evidence from China

China has abundant evidence of Late Proterozoic glaciations, spanning at leats three time intervals. Not only are there are extensive tillites, but there are grooved and striated pavements underlying them, as here in Henan Province. MH

Link

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Sorry posted images from wrong Ice Age i.e. Proterzoic instead of Late Paleozoic

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Logic needs all the facts,

Nope. Probability is only ever calculated out of ignorance: if we know whether or not something is true, then how can it have a non-integer probability? The whole point of gathering evidence and rationale is to bolster the probability of one argument, and that in itself shows that probabilities change with new facts. Theories can be refuted in an instant in light of new data.

Logic doesn't need all the facts to calculate probabilities, since this defeats the whole point of probabilistic calculation.

There is a world of evidence for it,

By all means, present this evidence.

Ask some witch that is in the higher levels, if you doubt me.

Witches don't come in levels, foo'.

I have met one or two. They know all about the spiritual.

So does the Church of Scientology. So?

The Physical Only is all you can have with no spiritual. Focus.

On what? We aren't talking about your crackpot PO nonsense. We're talking about god knows what.

Well, then, go ahead, and make a point of some kind, and we shall see.

I already have. You kept silent. I chastised this.
Focus.

 

[LittleNipper]

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”.

One might also consider that the plants that became coal seem to be found in swampy areas. The last I heard is that most flowering plants like dry soil conditions. Plants found in the swamps or along riverbeds likely were buried in such a way to become coal. It doesn't prove flowering plants did not exist.

 

[atomweaver]

One might also consider that the plants that became coal seem to be found in swampy areas. The last I heard is that most flowering plants like dry soil conditions. Plants found in the swamps or along riverbeds likely were buried in such a way to become coal. It doesn't prove flowering plants did not exist.

Google Image search 'swamp flowers" ~159,000 hits

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=swamp+flowers&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

One might also consider that the plants that became coal seem to be found in swampy areas. The last I heard is that most flowering plants like dry soil conditions. Plants found in the swamps or along riverbeds likely were buried in such a way to become coal. It doesn't prove flowering plants did not exist.

Claude Monet would have certainly been surprised to hear this one. I guess you never heard of water lilies. Swamps are full of flowering plants as has been pointed out already. A few of them from one particular swamp are listed HERE.

 

[LittleNipper]

Claude Monet would have certainly been surprised to hear this one. I guess you never heard of water lilies. Swamps are full of flowering plants as has been pointed out already. A few of them from one particular swamp are listed HERE.

That is very true; however, I would imagine that ferns are a far studier plant then say a water lily. I would suggest that you visit a garden after a torrential rainstorm with hail and high winds. It isn't a pretty sight. The flowers are gone. What survived as fossils are the sort of things that were not delicate. Pine cones and needles are not as delicate as flowers and leaves. They would look like something and not a mashed ground up mass.

 

[Vene]

That is very true; however, I would imagine that ferns are a far studier plant then say a water lily. I would suggest that you visit a garden after a torrential rainstorm with hail and high winds. It isn't a pretty sight. The flowers are gone. What survived as fossils are the sort of things that were not delicate. Pine cones and needles are not as delicate as flowers and leaves. They would look like something and not a mashed ground up mass.

There are trees in swamps.

[source]

By the way, just so you can't claim ignorance, trees are flowering plants.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That is very true; however, I would imagine that ferns are a far studier plant then say a water lily. I would suggest that you visit a garden after a torrential rainstorm with hail and high winds. It isn't a pretty sight. The flowers are gone. What survived as fossils are the sort of things that were not delicate. Pine cones and needles are not as delicate as flowers and leaves. They would look like something and not a mashed ground up mass.

The flowers might be gone but many flowering plants that live in swamps are much hardier than ferns and certainly as hardy as conifers. Swampy areas near where I grew up had what we called bear brush, a mixture of blackberry bramble and vine maple. Having cleared it I can tell you that it takes a good bulldozer and a lot of sweat. Other swamp flowing plants such as swamp sumac are also deeply rooted and hard to get rid of. There are also trees which have been mentioned. There is simply no way to make the plants of Carboniferous coal deposits fit with "flood geology".