A- A A+

Article from:

Creation  Volume 8Issue 3 Cover

Creation 8(3):20–21
June 1986

Free Email News
The Genesis Flood: Fact or Fiction?
by Dr Tas Walker

US $3.50
View Item
Noah's Flood: Evidence In Australia

US $13.00
View Item
The Geologic Column
by John K Reed, Michael J Oard

US $15.00
View Item
Biblical Geology

US $6.50
View Item
Grand Canyon: A different view
by Various

US $17.00
View Item
Editor’s note: As Creation magazine has been continuously published since 1978, we are publishing some of the articles from the archives for historical interest, such as this. For teaching and sharing purposes, readers are advised to supplement these historic articles with more up-to-date ones suggested in the Related Articles and Further Reading below.

Coal beds and Noah’s Flood


Water sprayed on an exposed seam settles dust and prevents a fire hazard with explosive coal dust.

Coal beds formed from plant debris catastrophically buried by Noah’s Flood about 4,500 years ago? Evolutionists believe that the material in coal beds accumulated over millions of years in quiet swamp environments like the Everglades of Florida. Evolutionary geologists often object to the creationists’ explanation of coal bed formation, so what are their arguments and what answers do we give to them?

Some geologists have claimed that even if all the vegetation on earth was suddenly converted to coal this would make a coal deposit only 1-3% of the known coal reserves on earth. Hence at least 33 Noah’s Floods are needed, staggered in time, to generate our known coal beds. Therefore a single Noah’s Flood cannot be the cause of coal formation.

This argument is based on valid estimates of the volume of vegetation currently on today’s land surfaces. But it assumes that at least 12 metres of vegetation are needed to produce one metre of coal (eg. Holmes, 1965). Modern research shows that less than two metres of vegetation are needed to make one metre of coal. Some observations made by coal geologists working in mines (e.g. the compaction of coal around clay ‘balls’ included in some coal beds) suggest that the compaction ratio is probably much less than 2:1 and more likely very close to 1:1. These observations destroy this objection to coal bed formation during Noah’s Flood, since instead of today’s vegetation volume only compacting down to 1-3% of known coal reserves, today’s vegetation volume would compact down to at least 30% of the known coal reserves. But where did the remainder come from?

Two other factors are very relevant here. The evolutionists’ argument based on the volume of vegetation on today’s land surface ignores the fact that 60% of today’s land surface is covered by deserts or only sparse vegetation. In addition, there are the vast icy wastes of Antarctica beneath which are rock layers containing thick coal beds. So if all of today’s land surface was covered with the lush vegetation suggested by Antarctica’s coal beds, then the volume of such vegetation on today’s land surface would be sufficient to produce at least another 50% of the known coal reserves. So what about the remaining 10%?

But this all assumes that the area of land surface available for vegetation growth has always been the same.

But this all assumes that the area of land surface available for vegetation growth has always been the same. This assumption simply is not correct. In Genesis 1:9-10 we are told of God’s work at the outset of the third day of Creation Week, when He gathered the waters (which initially covered the entire globe) into one place so as to let the dry land appear. God called the waters ‘seas’ (plural), but they were gathered together in one place. This implies that, instead of land masses surrounded by seas (today’s world), in the pre-Flood world there was one sea surrounded by one large land mass. The language used in Scripture also implies that there was probably more land area then on the face of the globe than ‘seas’ (see Taylor, 1982). This being the case therefore, it is likely that there was at least twice as much land area available for vegetation growth in the pre-Flood world compared with today’s world (i.e. at least 60% land versus 40% sea in the pre-Flood world compared with today’s roughly 30% land versus 70% oceans). If then this vast land area was under lush vegetation, then we can account for 100% of the known coal reserves.

A better way

But there is another way of comparing vegetation growth and volume with the known coal beds, a way that is probably far more reliable, and that is by comparing the stored energy in vegetation with that in coal. International authority on solar energy, Mary Archer, has stated that the amount of solar energy falling on the earth’s surface in 14 days is equal to the known energy of the world’s supply of fossil fuels. She also said that only . 03 % of the solar energy arriving at the earth’s surface is stored as chemical energy in vegetation through photosynthetic processes. (Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, Vol. 5, 1975, p. 17) From this information we can estimate how many years of today’s plant growth would be required to produce the stored energy equivalent in today’s known coal reserves:

Divide 14 days by .03%
i.e. (14 x 100)/.03 days equals 46,667 days or 128 years of solar input via photosynthesis.

So we can conclude that only 128 years of plant growth at today’s rate and volume is all that is required to provide the energy equivalent stored in today’s known coal beds! There was, of course, ample time between Creation and Noah’s Flood for such plant growth to occur—1600 years, in fact.


Either way, whether by comparison of energy stored in vegetation growth and in coal (i.e. the time factor), or by vegetation growth, climate, geography, land area and compaction ratio (i.e. the volume factor), we can show conclusively that the evolutionist’s objection is totally invalid. There was ample time, space and vegetation growth for one Noah’s Flood to produce all of today’s known coal beds.


Holmes, A., 1965. Principles of Physical Geology, Nelson, London.
Taylor, C., 1982. ‘Linguistics, Genesis and Evolution, Part Three: the Seas’, Creation 4(4):49–50, 1982;

Related Articles

Further Reading

Anthony P said “Thanks for your … website, it’s really easy to navigate and it is a massive bonus to be able to read back-issues of your magazines … without your ministry I probably wouldn’t be a Christian today. Thank you so much and keep up the good work.” So help us do just that! Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Hans G., Australia, 19 June 2015

I am sure God worked everything out when He created the earth, even that mankind has enough energy sources to the end, until everything is made new. Rev. 21/5

Lachlan W., Australia, 18 June 2015

With the vast majority of energy needed to drive this modern world of ours coming from fossil fuels, it is instructive to ponder upon the fact that our modern world exists only because of the destruction of the ancient world.

John Z., Canada, 17 June 2015

I appreciate your article, it helps me. But regarding the 128 years of solar energy captured by plants... it is important to remember that organic decay and fires remove much/most of that energy before it is captured in coal or oil. It would be good to include that in the equation.

Other than that, keep up the good work!

Tas Walker responds

The calculation is what we would refer to as 'back-of-the-envelope'. 128 years is much, much shorter than the 1700 years between Creation and the Flood. That is all that is needed for this exercise—to show that the amount of energy could easily have been produced.

David B., United States, 17 June 2015

These calculations and ideas are great, but seem to be speculative and lead to a just so conclusion. They leave out the biomass of animals and aquatic vegetation. Shallow seas would produce vast aquatic vegetation. I believe that we just need to trust and obey the Word of God and leave the speculation to the Atheists. I love and appreciate your thoughts, ideas and efforts. Have a blessed day.

Tas Walker responds

Yes, these sorts of calculations are speculative, as are all conclusions about what happened in the past when we have no eyewitness reports. But no, it is not enough to leave the speculation to atheists because they are using their speculation to undermine the Word of God. So we need to provide a counter to help people realise that with different assumptions there is no problem for believing the Word of God.

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Copied to clipboard
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.