Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[thaumaturgy]

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.

But, Little Nipper, we aren't talking about coalifying the flowers, but rather the flowering plants.

A flowering plant, even when the flowers are stripped off is still a flowering plant.

The structures preserved in coals include ways to identify whether a plant was angiospermous or gymnospermous.

Seyler (1928, 1929) as well a Hickling and Marshall (1932, 1933) have studied various microstructures of vitrinite of European Carboniferous coals and identified even the species of plants from which the coals were derived. In the Gondwana coals, little work has been done on similar lines. However, Ganju (1955) has noted that bark formed an important constitutent of vitrinites of Indian coals in which he a observed well-preserved secondary bark tissue. He also observed wood, mainly of gymnospermous origin, as a dominant constituent of vitrinites of Indian coals and has described well-preserved woody structures including bordered pits characterisitcs of gymnospermous wood (Coal Petrology, 3rd Ed., 1982, Stach et al.)

(Emphasis added)

Those should be found in abundance in Carboniferous coal swamps if they were present at the time in the same abundance.

Sure some things are going to prefer some environments over others, but if a Flood-Literalist wishes to argue this point, you have to explain why some swampy areas have flowers today but not then.

But further, swamps are the only places where coal formed. Forest swamps and raised bogs also formed coal deposits. A variety of climates could support coal-forming conditions, however humidity helped. Standing water with the proper anoxic conditions was important.

But also important to remember is that some coal is allochthonous. That means it is made up of plant materials that have been transported some distance from where they originally grew. Usually these are too rich in mineral matter to be good seams for mining, but they also indicate that just because you have a coal does not mean you have it where the plants originally grew. (There are apparently driftwood deposits from Siberia that are in Spitsbergen today.)

Coal forms in 4 "swamp" types usually:

1. Open water areas
2. Open reed swamps
3. Forest swamps
4. Moss swamps

Forest swamps that can produce coal are usually tropical in nature. I think you can imagine the number of flowering plants in a tropical region.

Coals tell us a lot about what was where and when.

Now we can find angiospermous (flowering) plant material in younger coals, like this one.

So we need to know why some earlier "times" in the geologic record don't show any angiospermous wood.

 

[dad]

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?

Material, natural, physical, present universe fabric, more or less.

2. What is your definition of spiritual? What are spiritual components responsible for?

There are none in our universe, so only if they visit here are they responsible for anything.

3. What is the difference between a physical component and a spiritual component?

A spirit and a flesh person illustrates that.

4. How old is the Earth?

6000 some odd years.

5. How old is the Universe?

A few days less, if you mean the stars. The same, if you mean empty space.

6. How long ago did the Flood occur? How many people and how many plants/animals/etc survived?

4500 some odd years, 8 people, and a kind of each animal survived.

7. How long ago did the 'Split' occur? What caused the split and what happened during it and why?

About a century after the flood, God apparently changed the universe temporarily. Why? Possibly to limit the lifespan of man, and a few other things to do with man. We are the reason the universe is the way it is today.

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?

[/QUOTE]
Take your pick, I think they are all based on the original material? I like the KJV, but it requires a bit of time to develop a taste for the old english.

 

[dad]

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.

Your soon to be extinct dark age nonsense, can remain unsupported, far as I care.

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.

Hey, my book ALSO covers the old bronze age, and this bonzo age.

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 exists in a fishbowl, and it doesn't get more stagnant than that. Mine looks to Infinity and Beyond.

Science relies on evidence’ religion relies on ignorance.

But it has no evidence, for the future and far past state, so it relies, precisely on a baseless assumption.

Here’s some evidence for Carboniferous glaciation.





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

Moving ice over an exposed Carboniferous deposit means what??? That the ice was there in the deep past, or that the deposit later got scraped. I mean, where is this, ice land or somewhere!!? You'll need details, and deep down, I suspect you know you'll flunk the attempt anyhow.
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...es?q=carboniferous+glaciation&um=1&hl=en&sa=N

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

[URL="http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/earth_icy_planet/icons-15/10-kaokoveld-namibia-small.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/earth_icy_planet/glaciers15-en.html&h=99&w=142&sz=8&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=zSLjX0emhMfsHM:&tbnh=66&tbnw=94&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcarboniferous%2Bglaciation%2Btillites%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN"]Link

[/URL]

Well, a picture from the kooks field is one thing, showing where the field is is another. Was the site involved in continental transport violence? For example, since possibly, the separation of the continents was at the split, could the Carboniferous deposit have seen some boulders get on it any other way, before that?? Or after?? What about the droprocks as you call them?? What are they made of??
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...oniferous+glaciation+tillites&um=1&hl=en&sa=N

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

So, prove that the rock got scratched in a deep past glaciation, rather than a more recent one?

 

[dad]

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

That rock almost looks to me from here, as if it were near the surface!!! That means a lot of scratching potential existed since the days of the coal swamps. get serious. You prove my case for me.

 

[thaumaturgy]

...

 

[Mockingbirdred]

6000 some odd years.

A few days less, if you mean the stars. The same, if you mean empty space.

Dinosaurs?

 

[dad]

Dinosaurs?

Some suggest some water dinos may have lived even after the flood. But it seems by and large, to me, they died before the flood?

 

[Nitron]

water dinos

No such thing. Great sources you got there!

 

[dad]

No such thing. Great sources you got there!

I wasn't being technical. Plesiosaurs, and such. They lived at the same time.

 

[Patashu]

Material, natural, physical, present universe fabric, more or less.

Uh, so anything that exists is physical?

There are none in our universe, so only if they visit here are they responsible for anything.

So anything that doesn't exist is spiritual?
I think you need to refine this definition. Given an object X, how do I determine if it is physical or spiritual in nature? How are physical and spiritual objects different? Are there subclassifications?

A spirit and a flesh person illustrates that.

Go on?

6000 some odd years.

Based on what, Ussher's chronology?

4500 some odd years, 8 people, and a kind of each animal survived.

Define a 'kind'.
How many pairs of beetles, flies and aquatic creatures were taken on the ark?
How did plants survive?
If only 8 people were taken over the flood, how is there more genetic diversity observable today then 8 sets of genes and a few thousand years of mutations can account for?

About a century after the flood, God apparently changed the universe temporarily.

Based on what evidence/reasoning?

Why? Possibly to limit the lifespan of man, and a few other things to do with man. We are the reason the universe is the way it is today.

Can you list everything you know he changed (plus your reasoning/evidence for such) and everything you suspect he changed?
Do you know why he did it then and not any earlier or later?

Take your pick, I think they are all based on the original material? I like the KJV, but it requires a bit of time to develop a taste for the old english.

Sure, they're all based on the original but are different with respect to each other. The KJV and NIV both have phrases and extra words the other does not, for example. Can I trust, say, the ancient hebrew?

 

[dad]

Uh, so anything that exists is physical?

Natural, as we call natural. Part of our present universe fabric.

So anything that doesn't exist is spiritual?

No, the spiritual does exist, it is just separate from our present temporary universe. Unless visiting here, then spirits can assume bodies.

I think you need to refine this definition. Given an object X, how do I determine if it is physical or spiritual in nature? How are physical and spiritual objects different? Are there subclassifications?

It is all natural, all physical. Far as you could tell.

Go on?

One you can touch, the other is a ghost.

Based on what, Ussher's chronology?

Bible lifespans of sons of Adam. That brings us up to recorded history.

Define a 'kind'.

The sort of thing that existed on the ark. It is not defined at present, because the present is so different. For example we have something like 33 different species of tiger. Obviously, not all were on the ark.

How many pairs of beetles, flies and aquatic creatures were taken on the ark?

I don't know. Far as I can tell, it was the animals. sea creatures had it made in the shade.

How did plants survive?

If trees could grow in a week, all that need survive is seeds.

If only 8 people were taken over the flood, how is there more genetic diversity observable today then 8 sets of genes and a few thousand years of mutations can account for?

How is that diversity determined? For example, if there is a present mutation rate, toss that out the window, it doesn't apply! Show us the core reasons, and I will show you where you go wrong.

Based on what evidence/reasoning?

The earth was divided in the days of Peleg. Lifespans dived, and some say continents separated rapidly. Just before that, there was a spiritual level nearby as well (Babel) Angels even married women here. Also, the fast plant growth and evolving ability had to be in place for the flood to be actually possible.

Can you list everything you know he changed (plus your reasoning/evidence for such) and everything you suspect he changed?
Do you know why he did it then and not any earlier or later?

Wrong thread.
But this site has a capsule look at it.
http://www.geocities.com/lovecreates

Sure, they're all based on the original but are different with respect to each other. The KJV and NIV both have phrases and extra words the other does not, for example. Can I trust, say, the ancient hebrew?

I do. To a point.

 

[Patashu]

So, how fast were Noah and his family mutating in the first 100 years after the flood?

I'll give you a hint; it'd have to be hundreds of times faster than being at a nuclear fallout site (ie Chernobyl) would do to you. Present-day variation has to be accounted for, you can't wave this away.

And why does 'the Earth was divided' mean the laws and very structures of physics were radically and bizarrely altered as opposed to, say, different nations ruling different parts of the Earth, which makes a lot more sense?

 

[dad]

So, how fast were Noah and his family mutating in the first 100 years after the flood?

Why, how fast would they need to be??? precisely???

I'll give you a hint; it'd have to be hundreds of times faster than being at a nuclear fallout site (ie Chernobyl) would do to you. Present-day variation has to be accounted for, you can't wave this away.

So, in english, this means what?

And why does 'the Earth was divided' mean the laws and very structures of physics were radically and bizarrely altered as opposed to, say, different nations ruling different parts of the Earth, which makes a lot more sense?

Well, there was that too. There were several divisions. The one that affected us the most would have to be the split, of course.

 

[Patashu]

Well, think about it. Any gene you can see in the current population is a copy of the same gene in one of his/her parents (possibly with a slight amount of mutation). In the human population we can see up to 59 different alleles for a certain loci; that is, 59 distinct coding sequences that can be seen at a certain specific spot in the genome. Noah and all the humans take on the ark could have no more than 8 alleles for any given loci, and that's assuming that none of them are related in any way, which obviously can't be true.

http://paleo.cc/ce/ark-gene.htm

Turning one allele into another will take at least one mutation, so we're getting one mutation for every extra allele at every loci in the human genome.
And that's not all, either; most mutations are neutral or deleterious, so multiply that number by 100.

Where did all these mutations come from, why and how?

 

[Naraoia]

One you can touch, the other is a ghost.

Anything I cannot touch is a ghost?

Are computer programs ghosts?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, think about it. Any gene you can see in the current population is a copy of the same gene in one of his/her parents (possibly with a slight amount of mutation). In the human population we can see up to 59 different alleles for a certain loci; that is, 59 distinct coding sequences that can be seen at a certain specific spot in the genome. Noah and all the humans take on the ark could have no more than 8 alleles for any given loci, and that's assuming that none of them are related in any way, which obviously can't be true.

http://paleo.cc/ce/ark-gene.htm

Turning one allele into another will take at least one mutation, so we're getting one mutation for every extra allele at every loci in the human genome.
And that's not all, either; most mutations are neutral or deleterious, so multiply that number by 100.

Where did all these mutations come from, why and how?

Cool info!

Of course, you do realize Dad will hide his ignorance in some goofy "hypermutational rate" in the time after the Flood or some such.

He always crams those things which he can't explain into the "unobserved" or "unknown" past. When that fails he will cram in some "Spiritual matter" to ease any transitions.

Mind you, this is the same guy who constantly demands everyone around him address the topic at hand or produce evidence for their claims.

Watch. It is a wonder to behold.

 

[dad]

Well, think about it. Any gene you can see in the current population is a copy of the same gene in one of his/her parents (possibly with a slight amount of mutation). In the human population we can see up to 59 different alleles for a certain loci; that is, 59 distinct coding sequences that can be seen at a certain specific spot in the genome. Noah and all the humans take on the ark could have no more than 8 alleles for any given loci, and that's assuming that none of them are related in any way, which obviously can't be true.

"Mutation is the main source of genetic variability, and for neutral sequence it is the driving force5. The rarity of mutation events, however, generally prohibits analyses of how genetic change from one generation to another contributes to molecular evolution.."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v24/n4/full/ng0400_400.html

The present life process genetic changes are mostly due to mutation. This brings to mind a question. Was mutation also involved, per se, in the former life processes, as the way live evolved, adapted, and changed?? If so, how do we know? If not, then it is merely the way things now come down.
Now if mutating was also in place, but happened hyper fast, pre present state, then, the present rates of mutation are meaningless!
Either way, your point is totally neutered.

Turning one allele into another will take at least one mutation, so we're getting one mutation for every extra allele at every loci in the human genome.

As brought out, that is how it now works.

And that's not all, either; most mutations are neutral or deleterious, so multiply that number by 100.

No. There is no indication I have yet seen that mutations, if there were any, in the former state, were less than beneficial, in today's percentage rates.

Where did all these mutations come from, why and how?

Well, hyper evolution meant that things almost adapted on the fly. No long ages were needed. How fast it could happen, I don't think we now know. I suspect if a little critter came to a wet and watery area, maybe swampy, that it could adapt in short order, to simply carry on!!! Maybe in days, weeks, or months. Certainly years.
I look at the serpent in Eden, and see that it was changed awfully fast, and evolved negatively, having to crawl on the ground. How long did that take???? I don't think we know. Maybe it took all day? Maybe it took months?? Maybe hours?? But not millions of years.
Therefore, we cannot look to present degraded man, and his present temporary universe laws, and life processes, to see how it used to work.

Not unless, of course, you first prove that all was in the same state back then. That can't be done.

That is nice.

 

[dad]

Anything I cannot touch is a ghost?

Are computer programs ghosts?

No. There are forces in this universe we cannot touch per se, like electricity, and wind, etc. that are part of this physical universe nevertheless. Like gravity, and light.
The spiritual is different altogether. It has a different set of laws from our PO rules. Gravity does not hold an angel or ghost down. Our light does not light it up. Our wind cannot blow it, and our electricity cannot shock it.
But, it is true you cannot touch angels, or ghosts. Not unless they are permitted to assume a physical body of some sort. Even then, I don't recall people touching them. Look at Sodom. The men gathered outside wanted to touch them, and do a lot more than that. They were not permitted.

 

[thaumaturgy]

"Mutation is the main source of genetic variability, and for neutral sequence it is the driving force5. The rarity of mutation events, however, generally prohibits analyses of how genetic change from one generation to another contributes to molecular evolution.."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v24/n4/full/ng0400_400.html

The present life process genetic changes are mostly due to mutation. This brings to mind a question. Was mutation also involved, per se, in the former life processes, as the way live evolved, adapted, and changed?? If so, how do we know? If not, then it is merely the way things now come down.
Now if mutating was also in place, but happened hyper fast, pre present state, then, the present rates of mutation are meaningless!
Either way, your point is totally neutered.


As brought out, that is how it now works.

No. There is no indication I have yet seen that mutations, if there were any, in the former state, were less than beneficial, in today's percentage rates.

Well, hyper evolution meant that things almost adapted on the fly. No long ages were needed. How fast it could happen, I don't think we now know. I suspect if a little critter came to a wet and watery area, maybe swampy, that it could adapt in short order, to simply carry on!!! Maybe in days, weeks, or months. Certainly years.
I look at the serpent in Eden, and see that it was changed awfully fast, and evolved negatively, having to crawl on the ground. How long did that take???? I don't think we know. Maybe it took all day? Maybe it took months?? Maybe hours?? But not millions of years.
Therefore, we cannot look to present degraded man, and his present temporary universe laws, and life processes, to see how it used to work.

Not unless, of course, you first prove that all was in the same state back then. That can't be done.

That is nice.

Told ya. I'm a prophet!

 

[Tiberius]

*Worships Thaumaturgy*