Coal mine reveals ancient rain forest

[bevin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070423/sc_livescience/ancientrainforestrevealedincoalmine

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The scientists think a major earthquake about 300 million years ago caused the region to drop below sea level where it was buried in mud. They estimate that within a period of months the forest was buried, preserving it “forever.”

[Taylor]

The only problem is that trees hadn't been created yet, 300 million years ago. Not trying to pick a fight...just my belief.

[Dr. Shane]

Let's have a little fun and reword it a bit.

The scientists think a major earthquake during the great flood caused the region to drop below sea level where it was buried in mud. They estimate that within a period of months the forest was buried, preserving it “forever.”

[Taylor]

:) That would be more accurate.

[bevin]

Lets just fix your wording first...

Quote:

A small percentage of scientists think a major earthquake during the great flood caused the region to drop below sea level where it was buried in mud. They estimate that within a period of months the forest was buried, preserving it “forever.”

Now it might be accurate.

So, if that is what happened, what predictions would it lead to about what one would find when one examined such a forest?

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Well it said this forest is 40 square miles. That is pretty big. Wouldn't one expect to find animal fossils in the forest? Since animals live in the forest and would have been buried along with the vegetation, wouldn't that be a reasonable expectation?

[bevin]

What species of plants and animals?

[Ron Lambert]

Animals can run and evacuate an area, if given just a little time and advance warning. The scientists estimated the process of entombing the area in mud took several months. If fossil remains of animals are found, it would most likely be of little ones that couldn't make it out of harm's way in time. If remains of larger animals are found, that would indicate that the entombing process took place much more rapidly--minutes or hours, as opposed to months. Rapid entombment would tend to be more in harmony with what Creationists would expect. So Creationists might expect that at least remains of a few moderate-sized animals might be found.

It would really be cool to find remains of humans preserved in the site--but antedeluvian humans probably did not hang out in the forests much. (Any forests before the Flood would be lush enough to make modern scientists think they were rain forests. The Bible says there was no rain before the Flood, so there could have been no "rain forests," per se).

In regard to the attempts to reword the quoted sentence, let's be really, really, objectively accurate:

"[study team members of the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS)], think a major earthquake about 300 million years ago caused the region to drop below sea level where it was buried in mud. They estimate that within a period of months the forest was buried, preserving it 'forever.'"

We have no way of knowing presently what percentages of scientists in general believe about this site.

[skyblue888]

The chapter "After The Flood" in Patriarchs and Prophets answers most of these questions, doesn't it? :)

[Gerr]

This reminds me of a passage in PP 108:

"At this time (the Flood & immediately after) immense forests were buried. These have since been changed to coal, forming the extensive coal beds that now exists, and also yielding large quantities of oil."

Gerry

[bevin]

P&P doesn't answer most of these questions, and it raises many more than it answers.

(a) P&P describes a world too like our own, it does not account for things like http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070423/sc_nm/fossil_fungus_dc

( P&P's handwave around coal simply fails to account for the amount of, and the variations within, the coal we see in the world today

© P&P's comments about volcanoes caused by the action of water on limestone is so utterly wrong, it is embarrassing - explained ONLY by going back to the geology books of EGW's day and realizing that she was quoting the incorrect statements of the geologists of a time well before her own - I did this, just for grins, and the investigation was very enlightening

/Bevin

[Ron Lambert]

Bevin, granted EGW was not a geologist. When she said limestone, she probably meant quick lime, which will explode on contact with water. See the following link: http://oikos.com/library/naturalbuilding/lime.html

Note the following excerpt:

Quote:

Heat acting upon calcium carbonate (CaC(3) produces calcium oxide (CaO) plus carbon dioxide (CO2)....Calcium oxide is very reactive and can be dangerous; it is called 'lump-lime' or 'quicklime' and may be left as lumps or ground down into powder. It must be kept dry, as it reacts very quickly with water — even the water in the air or the moisture in your skin — to form calcium hydroxide, which is the first step to reversing the process back to calcium carbonate. Just as making quicklime needed heat, the reverse process produces heat: calcium oxide (CaO) plus water (H2) produces calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) and heat. Quicklime added to water gives us lime putty!....Always add quicklime to water. Never do it the other way around. If you do it backward, it can explode!

So the sequence is that after natural limestone (calcium carbonate) has been formed, heat and pressure underground convert it chemically into quicklime (calcium oxide) giving off carbon dioxide. If water is added to quicklime, it will undergo a chemical reaction that releases heat so violently it can explode.

As for the fossil fungus, I don't see the problem. In the moist darkness beneath forests of giant trees, probably with three or more canopy layers of interlocking branches, why shouldn't there be growths of fungus? The Genesis model of the earth also specifies some form of water above the atmosphere--which would effectively block out solar ultraviolet light, which tends to kill fungus. So a moist environment without any ultraviolet would provide an ideal growing medium for fungus.

[Rodney Willard]

It would be very helpful to see the material the newly elected GC officers saw and heard on the GC sponsored geology field trip last August. Your conclusions might be different.

[Jeannieb43]

What I think is interesting about this news is that it happened in Illinois -- in the USA. Several contemporary Biblical students have tried to limit the area of the Great Flood to that of the known world during Noah's day.

[Ron Lambert]

And of course, the big drawback to that theory is that God would have just told Noah to migrate, not build a boat, if the Flood would not be global. Nor would there have been any need to load representatives of each land animal species onto the Ark.

By the way, how do we know how much of the world was known to the Antedeluvians in Noah's day? They may have been much better informed that we might think.

[Jeannieb43]

True.

[melvin mccarty]

Of course Ron God could have simply created more animals after the flood and saved Noah and his family some other way. Why build that boat at all?

mel

[Taylor]

He could have but that isn't what the Bible teaches. He could have "beamed them up" destroyed the earth and "put them back down as well, but he had Noah build the boat. Not sure why but I am sure when we get to heaven we will understand.

[bevin]

We know there have been huge floods in the Med/Babylon area.

We know the Med and the Black Sea's both filled in after being populated open plains.

We know the kinds of transformations legends get.

We know the OT books date back at least to the Babylonian Captivity - and that there is no strong evidence of their existence in current form before that time.

We know that the archaelogy in Egypt and Israel is not strongly supporting the Exodus account.

We know that archaelogy and science do not strongly support Genesis.

Maybe a legend, started when a family escaped a flood with their farm animals in a boat, propogated orally for thousands of years, memorably embellished into a world-wide flood with all the animals, and written down in Babylon by Israelite radicals keen on establishing an intellectually and emotionally appealing and yet conservative religion provides a better explanation...

/Bevin

[Taylor]

True it could be a legend if it were written up in any other book. However, since it is in the Bible and "All scripture is given by inspiration." II Tim 3:16 and since God knows infinately more than an adult knows more than a small child, it isn't a legend. It is incredible in this world of doubts, and lack of direction that we do have something that we can stake our life to. The Bible is God's message to man kind, not only for past generations but for today's society. Conservatism has no merit neither does liberalism. What does have merit, weight, and truth, is God's Word. If one does not believe that the Bible is truth, then everything in the Bible could be picked apart till there is nothing left. OR it can be accepted for what it is, the truth, God's word, relavant for today's society just as much as for ancient times.

[bevin]

Yes, the truths in God's word are as important today as when they were first penned in Babylon

but that does not mean that every word that was penned about history and science is correct - it just means that God wasn't in the business of teaching science and history.

/Bevin

[Taylor]

I think God, the master of creation, the one who has the infinite knowledge of how our bodies work, who can heal the human heart as well as the physical body can be completely trusted in science. So far as history, he is the only one who knows the end from the beginning so his knowledge of history is far more accurate than any human historian could ever be.

That is my 2 cents. (And BTW even though I strongly disagree with you Bevin I don't dislike you. I just think it is incredible that we do have something we can completely trust, and for me that is the Bible.)

[Beryl]

True, Taylor. Really, it all comes down to trust. Who do I trust?

The Bible says it is inspired by God, The infidel laughs at it.

The Bible says that this world was created in 6 days, followed by a day of rest. Some scientists say that we evolved -- and the time span that is quoted, in my youth, was much shorter than the astronomical figures that they quote today -- in other words, they don't know.

The Bible tells me of a Saviour Who loved me enough that He came and died for me. The unbeliever tells me that is a fable.

The Bible tells me that Moses wrote the story of the Exodus. Now unbelievers say that is wrong, it was all written in Daniel's time.

The Bible tells me that very soon this world is coming to an end, and, if I believe in God, I will be saved for eternity.

The unbeliever wants me to think that this old world is going on forever -- that is, if we don't kill ourselves with the pollution that we are creating. In other words, we have no hope for the future.

The Bible tells me that I must have faith in order to accept Him.

The unbeliever tells me that God doesn't exist.

If I believe the Bible, and what God tells me -- and I am wrong, then I have lost nothing.

If I believe in what the unbelieving scientists tell me, and I am wrong -- then I have lost EVERYTHING!

So-o-o-o-o!

"Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we can't see. It was their faith that made our ancestors pleasing to God. Because of our faith, we know that the world was made at God's command. We also know that what can be seen was made out of what can't be seen." Hebrews 11:1-3 CEV.

Beryl

[Taylor]

Well said Beryl.