Dr. A says: But thin layers of coal are not. This is why the Ocean Drilling Project never finds any coal.Language problem and all, the guy is making the perfectly reasonable point, in defense of the Flood as the explanation for the coal layers, that we don't see peat beds (coal in formation) in the world right now that cover such a huge flat territory as would have to have been the case if coal formation WERE the result of the normal processes the evos assume.
Russian guy: Because these layers are tightened by tectonic conveyor into the mantle. Coal shall remain only on the continents.Dr. A, being disingenuous and refusing to understand what the guy is saying: Why? Is there some sort of probability theory relating to the size of peat swamps of which I was previously unaware?
So the guy explains: Reality is a such theory. Where in the modern world there are such large homogeneous marshes with perfectly flat terrain how on Donbass?
Then in Post 66, Dr. A raises the sort of issue I always want geologists to explain, that so far he hasn't in his Geology Course:
But that doesn't say what you think it does. It says that tectonic events caused subsidence in the Carboniferous, not uplift. And then "Subsequent subsidences ended with uplift during the Sakmarian" --- which is in the Permian (which is just where the diagram I showed you puts it). So if they are right, then the Carboniferous deposits are due to repeated episodes of subsidence caused by rifting, not by alternating episodes of uplift and subsidence.This is a typical INTERPRETATIVE statement that assumes Old Earth theory, that sees the strata in terms of millions of years of time and describes them as "landscapes."
What needs to be answered is, "How do you know" that subsidence or uplift occurred in any given time period? That is: Please describe the actual phenomena that lead to that conclusion.