The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

lithotypes, a single lithofacies picture was sketched for the top of the coal bed. Lithofacies analysis depicted in Figure 3 shows that marine limestone and shelly coquina lithotypes intertongue horizontally with bright, well-laminated coal lithotypes. Also, bright coaly sheets (the lithotype called vitrain) occur within and upon the upper bench of the coal. The vitrain sheets in shale have a flat surface that displays the unmistakable impression of lycopod bark. Microspores and tissue fragments of lycopods and tree ferns occur without vertical penetration of the coal vitrain sheets, without disruption of clarain lamination, and without breaking carbonaceous shale partings, appearing to falsify the peat swamp model for Paradise Coal Bed. These were some of the same petrographic observations of Gresley on the Pittsburgh Coal Bed. Encouraged by Gresley’s interpretation, Austin proposed living lycopod trees composed a marine floating mat: “...lycopods were more tolerant to saline conditions and were capable of building stronger mats in the more wave-influenced areas....” (Austin 1979, pp. 346, 347). Not elaborating further on the ecology of lycopods living upon a floating mat, he simply supposed a variety of plants grew on the mat, mostly lycopods (especially Lepidophloios ) and tree ferns (especially Psaronius ). The coal bed formed as the floating mat moved and shed vegetable detritus that sank as particles onto the submerged surface as granular peat (as described by Gresley, not deposited en masse by sinking or beaching of the mat, as suggested by Breton and Kuntze). Austin (1979, pp. 334- 347) introduced the term “floating mat model” for the origin of coal and left the terminology broad enough to include either living or dead mats. After graduate school, Austin continued study on the newly-formed, dead-conifer floating log mat at Spirit Lake north of Mount St. Helens (Austin 1991, Coffin 1987). He also studied the size and shape of bark sheets (the lithotype vitrain) in the top of the coal bed and in the overlying shale (Austin 1980). LATEST DISCUSSIONS OF FLOATING MAT MODEL A model of living Carboniferous floating forests in a creationist context was offered by paleontologist Joachim Scheven (1981, 1996). He proposed that lepidodendralean trees floated “on the surface of vast but shallow bodies of water” (Scheven 1981, p. 40) and “the floating coal forest communities stood on freshwater only” (Scheven 1996, p. 77). That is the marine floating forest biome developed by Kuntze. Scheven added to Kuntze that the tree trunks and rooting systems contained continuous cylindrical air cavities between the internal wood cylinder and the bark and, therefore, would be buoyant enough to float with the trunks upright in the air. Scheven’s explanation has waters retreating as mats landed en masse . It differs from Austin’s explanation of the Kentucky coal bed where the mat rose with the advancing marine condition as the mat shed detrital plant fragments. Building from Austin and Scheven’s ideas, paleontologist Kurt Wise (2003) enlarged the floating forest to be a part of a more inclusive Middle to Upper Paleozoic ecosystem. He says, “In a fashion analogous to the plants of a quaking bog, it is suggested that the floating forest biome grew out over the ocean through an ecological succession of rhyzomous plants of steadily increasing size generating and thriving upon an increasingly thick mat of vegetation and soil” (p. 371). Furthermore, Wise suggests, “… the floating forest biome may have floated atop marine waters and may have generated a fresh-water water table in the mat” (p. 377). Wise argues: “Nor does [evolutionary theory] provide explanation for the rhyzomous nature of arborescent lycopod ‘roots’ which do not seem as if they could penetrate traditional soils” (p. 377). So, presumably, the arborescent lycopsids either floated on a freshwater lens atop the mats surface or were enmeshed in very loose, freshwater-saturated surface of mud or peat. The concept of a living floating mat habitat has received further favorable review. Wesley Bruce (2002) proposed how fresh water would stratify from salt water and be stable within the proposed marine floating mat. Joanna Woolley (2010, 2011a, 2011b) conducted mathematical modeling of the rhizomorph architecture, and believes that Stigmaria were very long, and through intertwining, substantially strengthened the mat. Like Scheven, Woolley believes a mat landed en masse to form a coal bed. Geologist Tim Clarey (2015) is an advocate of the floating mat model for the origin of Carboniferous coal because he believes that dead lycopods were assembled into rafts and floated through the Flood (resembling the coal explanation of Nelson, 1931, p. 88). Understandably, Clarey has difficulty with the mechanical and ecological feasibility of the floating forest biome of Kuntze, Austin, Scheven and Wise. Clarey (2015) offers his model: These unique flora [i.e., lycopod forests] may have filled Austin and Sanders ◀ Historical survey of floating mat model ▶ 2018 ICC 283 Figure 3. Austin’s floating mat model for the Kentucky coal bed illustrated lithofacies associated with coal. Notice rising water produces intertonguing organic-rich mud (that became marine roof shale and limestone) with top of the detrital peat (that became bright coal lithotypes at the top of coal bed). Block diagram has extreme vertical exaggeration that greatly distorts the flatness of the boundary between peat and organic-rich mud.