Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)

I have some questions:1) DID Emiliani claim to have evidence for a global flood ?2) How could he jump from local evidence to the conclusion that the whole world was flooded ?

The linked page only mentions Lyell, and it offers no references to the writings of Lyell - let alone Boelsche or Buffon.Perhaps you meant to offer a different link ?

Please give the volume and chapter number where Lyell discusses coal and the age of the Earth.Also can you explain the reason for including the link when it offered only an unsupported and unreferenced assertion ?

It seems to me that all we have here is a book about coal discussing Buffon's views on the formation of coal. I do not see anything which can reasonably be interpreted as indicating that the time taken for vegetable matter to turn to coal is a significant factor - rather it Buffon is quoted as talking of the time required to produce so much plant material. It does not even go on to argue a significant connection with Buffon's ideas about the age of the Earth. [Emphasis mine]

So lookign at this quote.Firstly it STARTS with an old Earth view.Then it states that ideas of the formation of coal fit into this view.Then it refers not to Lyell's Principles of Geology but to "Lyell's school" and refers not to the time to convert plant matter to coal but the time taken for the environmental changes required to explain the geological sequences where coal is commonly found.But lets emphasise the major point. Neither quote states that the formation of coal was very important to estimates of the age of the Earth. The emphasis on coal seems to have more to do with the subject of the book, rather than its importance to geological thought (which is not explicitly stated in either quote).This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-22-2005 12:12 PM

Rereading does not change my opinion that a book on coal is going to be talking about...coal. Thus it discusses the views of Lyell's school (that phrase itself implying that Lyell's views - including an old Earth - already had a following in geolgy) on the formation of coal.Now if those ideas WERE very important for the then current estimates of the age of the Earth I would certainly expect a modern author to explicitly say so. I will allow the possibility that an author writing 100 years ago might be more reticent, but even if the lack of an explicit statement does not allow us to reasonably assume the contrary it hardly represents support for your claim.As for your claim that there is "overwhelming" evidence that the Earth is less than a million years old I have to say that it represents a complete disconnection form reality.