From: ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Coffin Creation Seminar Part II
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:34:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpmcaa.1992Apr08.013445.4413
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR


  Well, here is the summary of the second (and last) session of Harold 
Coffin's "Seminar on Science and Creation".  I hope you find it useful.

Dan Ford
email:  ford@mcm.hp.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary
Harold Coffin's Seminar on Science and Creation, Part II
by 
Dan Ford

Time:		Saturday, April 5, 1992, 3:00pm
Location:	McMinnville SDA Church

1.	For several hundred years before Darwin, geologists believed in a 
worldwide flood.  These geologists were called Deluge Geologists.  
These geologists rested their conclusions on the basis of large coal 
deposits around the world.  Later geologists questioned this evidence 
because one can see upright trees (petrified) in coal beds.  It seemed 
like impressive evidence.  Because of this, gradually, the ideas about 
production of coal changed, and with it, the ideas about 
geochronology.
	The distinct impression was given, by Dr. Coffin, that the 
cornerstone of modern geology somehow rests on the fact that 
upright trees have been found in coal beds, and that these trees 
appeared to be in their original place of growth.  
Furthermore, if these claims are true, says Dr. Coffin, a global deluge 
could not be used to explain these formations.

2.	He made the strong statement that if you discount the flood, you 
remove the only means of explaining the geological column.  Remove 
the flood, he said, and you must be left with a non-literal creation 
week, possibly representing millions of years.
	At this point he returned to the upright trees problem.  Talking for 
several minutes about their importance to conventional geology.  He 
showed slides of several upright trees, some in coal beds some not.  
[I distinctly got the impression that he was deliberately setting up the 
problem; so that the impression that would be left with an 
unsophisticated audience would be that if he could successfully 
demonstrate that catastrophes could be reasonably be invoked to 
explain the upright petrified trees, then most of conventional geology 
would be refuted!]

3.	He then launched into his main body of evidence, which briefly 
consisted of the following arguments:
a) Many if not all of the upright trees appear to be missing root 
systems.
b) Many of the trees are hollow, and filled with sediment (which 
does not match the sediments in which the trees are buried.
c) Many of the hollow trees have marine organism in them.  It was 
not clear what that was supposed to demonstrate (possibly to support 
a global deluge).
d) Often the rings of trees at the same level do not match.  Instead, 
they found trees with the same ring sequences (called ring 
signatures) at different levels!  This argues that the trees did not grow 
where they are currently standing.
e) Some vertical trees are actually upside down.

4.	He then showed quite a few slides of Mt. St. Helens in Washington, 
USA.  Some interesting shots taken (not by him) actually during the 
eruption.  He goes on the show that the surface of Spirit Lake (which 
at first had been thought to have been obliterated by the volcano) was 
covered by thousands of floating logs, carried down by the blast and 
mud slides of the eruption.  He showed many photographs of logs 
and stumps floating vertically in Spirit lake.  Many were standing 
vertically on the bottom of the lake (sticking up towards the surface).
	Using SCUBA divers and sidescan sonar to explore the lake, they 
estimated between 19 and 20 thousand upright stumps on the bottom 
of the lake.  He claimed that what they had there was a transported, 
submerged forest.  In effect, he made what appeared to be a good 
case that there were many upright trees in Spirit Lake as a result of 
the eruption, and that therefore catastrophes could possibly explain 
the existence of other similar occurrences in the geologic record.  
[I'm tempted to editorialize here about the significance of all this, but 
I will restrain myself.  :-)  ]

5.	He closed this section by making his main case:  That if another 
eruption were to occur, these trees would be buried, and they would 
be indistinguishable from other similar formations, which geologists 
attribute to long periods of deposition.
	He claimed that what is present in Spirit Lake is a small scale model 
for the worldwide deluge.

6.	Along the way he interspersed comments about other features of the 
Mt. St. Helens eruptions that is "changing the way geologists think", 
such as:
a) Rapid erosion occurred, sometimes major canyons were produced 
in a matter of hours or days.
b) Claimed that there were other geological processes that occurred 
so quickly, that they would "fool current geologists" if they did not 
know their catastrophic and rapid creation.

The Question and Answer Session

	Again, I was not able to write down the questions, but I have the 
salient points from his responses.  Very few of the questions had anything 
to do with the upright logs.  
Some of these comments were made by him after the session, and a small 
group gathered around him to ask questions.

1.	I asked if he had published his research in any professional, referred 
journals, and if so which ones?  His answer was that he had written 3 
technical papers and that they had been published in professional 
journals, but he did not give the names of the journals or the 
professional associations, or even the title of the papers.  I did not 
have an opportunity to follow the question up.

2.	When asked what he thought of continental drift he said a number of 
semi-conflicting things:
a) It is a revolutionary idea and still somewhat immature.
b) However he did say "we think something dynamic has happened".
c) Claimed that there was a great deal of controversy currently in the 
field.  He mentioned theories of "microplates";  where supposedly 
single mountains have moved long distances independently of the 
continents that they are currently embedded in.
d) Claimed that there was currently much contradictory data in that 
field of study (but he did not volunteer any hints as to what that data 
might have been).
e) Despite that however, he claimed that the "major concept is still 
probably correct".  He stated that the similarity of geological 
formations in South America and Africa and in particular their good 
fit could not be satisfactorily explained any other way than to say 
that they were connected at one time.  However, he asserted that he 
believed that all of the major plate motion occurred during or shortly 
after the flood.
f) Also mentioned a small but influential group of geologists that are 
proposing the theory of the expanding earth, which supposedly 
would explain much of the same data.

	On this same topic he expressed his skepticism about the 
"uniformitarian assumptions" that conventional geologists make.  
Reiterated his idea that Uniformitarianism is using the present as the 
key to the past, an since he believes that the past was different, the 
basic assumptions are invalid. 
	He had an argument that he claimed could easily disprove the steady 
slow continental drift rates; it goes like this:
	It is possible to measure the width and length of the rift that is 
opening up between the continents down the center of the Atlantic.  
Using these measurements one can calculate the volume necessary to 
refill the rift.  He claimed that the yearly amount of material carried 
into the Atlantic ocean by erosion was more than double the yearly 
volume opened up by continental drift.  Therefore, he claimed that if 
these processes have been going on for a very long time, there would 
be no ocean, it would be completely filled up by erosion from the 
continents.  He made no mention of subduction!

3.	He discussed ocean sediments, claiming that if evolution is true, we 
should find deep sediments in the middle of the oceans, but none are 
found.

4.	When asked about other SDA scholars who accept evolutionary 
biology, he said that he believed that these were errors introduced by 
Satan.  Very simple.

5.	Later (in a small group), I was able to ask him about the Marsupial 
problem, to which he responded:  That is a question that we don't 
have an answer for yet.  But there is significant research from fossils 
in the Sahara indicating that species that today have a very limited 
ecosystem might have had broader ranges in the past.  His conclusion 
was that the Marsupials once inhabited very large ranges of the 
globe.
	He then made a curious statement:  "But of course it is also just as 
big a problem for the evolutionists too, since they can't find any 
fossils of the Marsupials anywhere else either."

6.	I asked him if he was aware of any research where someone had 
calculated the amount of energy required to move the continents 
around wildly during and shortly after the flood, and what would 
prevent the heat generated from vaporizing the oceans.  He said that 
he was unaware of any research, or anyone ever making those 
calculations.  He did say, however that he had evidence that the 
oceans were much warmer back then.

7.	He concluded by saying that all of the cruel and "bad" things in 
nature, such as carnivorous creatures, parasites, viruses, pests, thorns, 
etc. were the product of Satan.  He claimed that Satan would be an 
excellent molecular biologist and genetic engineer, who could have 
easily produced the necessary changes in nature.  He also described 
what Seventh-Day Adventists refer to as the Great Controversy 
between Christ and Satan.  Using this kind of apocalyptic 
terminology he characterized all evolutionary views, and all views 
dissenting with the Bible as of Satanic origin.