>So Glenn, I do accept your statement that there are drifting vegetation
>mats in the Okefenokee; I do not accept your implication that these
>drifting vegetation mats in any way explain the coal seams we see in the
>eastern US. But maybe I have missed something here. Can you or Jonathan
>or Michael or anyone reconcile the empirical observations, as seen in the
>photos you have posted for me, with the swamp model for coal formation?
Sorry we didn't have more time to debate but I told you I had to leave
today. As to the above, statement, All I see is that you actually made my
case for me about the Okefenokee being capable of replicating the features
you describe. I fail to see how you miss it. You wrote prior to the above:
>If this hypothetical swamp were then buried due to land subsidence and
>marine flooding, the trees growing in the swamp would be preserved in
>growth position, with their roots attached. The organics from the swamp
>might eventually become coal, and the sediments might become rock. We
>would then have a coal seam which was derived from a swamp. What would
>be the features of this sequence?
>Here are features commonly found associated with eastern US coal seams:
>A) General lack of stigmarian axial root systems beneath the coal seams;
>B) General lack of either tree stumps or roots in partings;
>C) General lack of vertical tree stumps/trunks in the sediment overlying
>coal seams, and general lack of attached roots where vertical tree
>stumps/trunks are found;
>D) Generally consistent total coal seam thickness between areas
>containing splits and those that contain no splits;
>E) Commonly extensive, continuous nature of thin partings;
>F) Generally consistent thickness of coal seams draped over
>We would not expect to see any one of these features in a swamp deposit,
>yet you get all six in coal seams.
>P.S: Have fun in Florence!
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 26 2002 - 14:57:37 EDT