Jump to content


Photo

Young Earth Age Correlations


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2010 - 02:18 PM

[quote name='bobabelever' date='Mar 31 2010, 11:00 PM']
Wait, so if the Indians had no knowledge of either model then they couldn't have applied young Earth geology.
...

View Post

[/quote]
That's the point, you don't need to apply either model to find oil!

What's wrong with saying "we use geology to find oil"? Why must we tag "old earth" or "young earth" to the science of "geology"? We don't need to!

The true essence of the word "geology" is simply "the study of the earth", it does not require that we attach "old" or "young" to it.

View Post

[/quote]

Because geology points to an old Earth.

#62 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 01 April 2010 - 03:42 PM

Because geology points to an old Earth.

View Post

No. It doesn't "point" to anything, it's just the study of Earth - it's not the study of the origin of the Earth. The only reason you think it "points" to an old Earth is because you presuppose and old Earth. A person could study the Earth; rocks, dirt, minerals, lakes, caves, etc... without caring at all how young/old any of it is.

Science = Discovery

There is no possible way anybody could "discover" the age of the Earth by studying it. When the terms Old/Young Earth Geology are used, they are touted by certain geologists showing evidence of their presupposed belief in the age of the Earth. We can, however, figure out how stuff works - and to keep on topic - we can "discover" where oil is. There is no need to say we're using anything but plain old geology!

What does a brand new rock look like? Would it seem old? Just because it seems old, is that any reason for us to accuse God of misleading us, or worse deceiving us? That is human arrogance! I mean when the Earth was brand new, were all the rocks perfectly formed, like a cement building? :(

#63 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 April 2010 - 02:32 PM

The Earth Should Have Frozen

April 03, 2010 — According to stellar evolution theory, the earth should have frozen solid four billion years ago, because the young sun could not have put out the heat it does in its middle age. Called the “faint young sun paradox,” this problem has puzzled scientists for decades. A new study has failed to solve the puzzle.
Science Now described work by a team at the University of Copenhagen. They studied minerals in rocks in Greenland thought to be 3.8 billion years old – among the oldest claimed on Earth – for hints of carbon dioxide levels:

Too much CO2, and magnetite can’t form, whereas the opposite is true for siderite. Based on the ratio of the minerals, the team reports in tomorrow’s issue of Nature1 that CO2 levels during the Archean could have been no higher than about 1000 parts per million—about three times the current level of 387 ppm and not high enough to compensate for the weak sun.

These “very surprising” results were no comfort to theorists who had hoped that Earth could have avoided a big freeze via greenhouse gases. Now they are toying with other ideas: less land and bigger oceans, which might have allowed water to absorb more warmth; or early life that reduced the kinds of atmospheric gases that help clouds form, allowing more sunlight to reach the surface. Their favorite suggestion was that Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) was lower back then, eliminating the need for greenhouse gases to compensate. Isn’t it amazing, though, how the albedo’s changes were tuned to the sun’s output to keep the temperature stable?

The Earth’s surface environment over the approximately 4 billion years (Gyr) recorded in geologic formations appears to have been maintained within a relatively narrow range in which liquid water was stable. This is surprising because the factors that determine surface temperature have evolved owing to temporal variations of the Sun’s irradiance, the Earth’s albedo and cloud cover, and concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases over geologic time. It is not readily apparent to what extent this apparent thermostasis can be attributed to physico-chemical feedback mechanisms, metabolic interventions from living organisms, or combinations of unrelated secular changes.

The paper by Rosing et al boasted that there is “No climate paradox under the faint early Sun,” but then admitted to quite a few other uncertainties:

# There is little consensus on when the first continents emerged, or the rate of growth since continental nucleation.
# There is no simple relationship between the mass of continental material extracted from the mantle and the surface area of exposed land....
# We have chosen to use the present-day area/volume relationship (Fig. 2a), which probably overestimates the continental area, and in consequence, the albedo for the early Earth.
# Because the timing and rate of growth of the Earth’s continents is a matter of debate, we have included a scenario in which the surface area occupied by continents is constant over geologic time as one end-member in our model (see Methods).


In other words, the temperature compensation works if one makes many ad hoc, arbitrary assumptions about factors or combinations of factors nobody knows anything about.
Others think there is still a need for some greenhouse-induced global warming back then; “Temperatures during the Archean were at least as high as they are today, despite the weaker sun,” claimed James Kasting [Penn State], according to the Science Now article. Rosing shrugged his shoulders and said, “I think that our paper is just one link in a long chain of further refinements of our understanding of the early Earth and of the dynamics of our planet” – a lot of words meaning clueless.

Evolutionary scientists can be such braggarts. They say they know this, and they know that, but you look at their assumptions and methods, and there is no basis for confidence about any of it. The only thing that is rock solid in their mushy opinions is unwavering allegiance to Darwin and the billions of years he needed. Even when it causes insurmountable challenges from other branches of investigation, like stellar evolution, they just chalk it up to future work – a “long chain of further refinements of our understanding.” Did you see much “understanding” in these articles? How about letting some others exhibit their understanding without the requirement of allegiance to Darwin. Look, to have a chain of understanding, you’ve got to have some links – solid links. A chain of spaghetti-O's won’t hold much. This primordial spaghetti-O chain of reasoning needs to be fortified with iron. It’s so insipid, it’s enough to make a young son faint.


http://www.creations...om/crevnews.htm





Enjoy.

#64 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 21 April 2010 - 07:51 PM

Wait, so if the Indians had no knowledge of either model then they couldn't have applied young Earth geology.  So I ask again, can you find hundreds of millions of dollars in oil using young Earth geology.  Even the creationists geologist I work with is an old Earther because you just can't sanely argue it's young.

Seismic data doesn't say there's oil.  It gives you a general idea about subsurface formations and helps geoscientists figure out if there might be oil using the old Earth geology they learned in college.  If it was just as simple as looking at seismic data there wouldn't be the risk of dry holes now would there.

View Post

tharock,
Not to change the subject, but a while back I asked you about forams. You showed a chart showing the organized evolutionary progression of foram worldwide. And I am taking it, this helps you to find oil.

Now I have a creationist friend who holds a political position now, but used to be a geologist for Exxon. His main job was to be able to run and interpret the equipment which found the forminefera. He did not explain a nice organized layering, but rather curvy and complex lenses of forminefera. He told me this long before you ever gave us the uniformintarian chart--so it was not a reactionary testimony.

So, I'm basically asking if this is what you see. And if so, why would it be presented otherwise?

#65 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 07 June 2010 - 05:05 AM

Ofcoarse, the indians were harvesting oil from the drake well as far back as 1410 AD and they had no knowledge of either model.

http://www.priweb.or...nnsylvania.html

The only thing that helps us find more oil now is seismic, and drill core samples. Which enable us to see or find buried oil that is'nt visible by seepage.

View Post

Wait, so if the Indians had no knowledge of either model then they couldn't have applied young Earth geology.  So I ask again, can you find hundreds of millions of dollars in oil using young Earth geology.  Even the creationists geologist I work with is an old Earther because you just can't sanely argue it's young.

Seismic data doesn't say there's oil.  It gives you a general idea about subsurface formations and helps geoscientists figure out if there might be oil using the old Earth geology they learned in college.  If it was just as simple as looking at seismic data there wouldn't be the risk of dry holes now would there.

View Post


Actually there are instances where seismic data can be used in the direct detection of hydrocarbons. "Bright spots" or high amplitude anamolies may indicate the presence of hydrocarbons as do "flat spots" which may indicate fluid contacts in a reservoir such as gas or oil on water, or gas on oil. In the trends I work 3D seismic data locates where a well should encounter a fault plane within a tolerance of plus or minus 50 feet, and the tops of reservoirs to a precision of often under 10 feet even at well depths of a couple of miles below the surface. Subsurface methods other than seismic interpretation can be used to site successful wells, but this is no longer the norm. However, quite a bit other than seismic interpretation goes into finding a successful play including geologic correlation and geochemistry.

An "old earth model" is usually implicitly assumed in the process of exploration and development of oil and gas. All the various aspects of the hydrocarbon system relate to timing. A source must be present and mature at the correct time when an available reservoir has a trap and seal. Basin modeling relies upon being able to postulate how long source rocks have been deep enough and hot enough to generate hydrocarbons. Subsidence rates of basins can be measured using various means, and then calculations show that long periods of time, far beyond a few thousand years are usually necessary to reach the maturity level needed. Rocks in basins often show a history of burial and uplift in various unconformities and episodes of faulting that indicate many stages of history taking place through quite a long period of geologic time.

#66 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 June 2010 - 02:12 PM

Actually there are instances where seismic data can be used in the direct detection of hydrocarbons. "Bright spots" or high amplitude anamolies may indicate the presence of hydrocarbons as do "flat spots" which may indicate fluid contacts in a reservoir such as gas or oil on water, or gas on oil. In the trends I work 3D seismic data locates where a well should encounter a fault plane within a tolerance of plus or minus 50 feet, and the tops of reservoirs to a precision of often under 10 feet even at well depths of a couple of miles below the surface. Subsurface methods other than seismic interpretation can be used to site successful wells, but this is no longer the norm. However, quite a bit other than seismic interpretation goes into finding a successful play including geologic correlation and geochemistry.

An "old earth model" is usually implicitly assumed in the process of exploration and development of oil and gas. All the various aspects of the hydrocarbon system relate to timing. A source must be present and mature at the correct time when an available reservoir has a trap and seal. Basin modeling relies upon being able to postulate how long source rocks have been deep enough and hot enough to generate hydrocarbons.  Subsidence rates of basins can be measured using various means, and then calculations show that long periods of time, far beyond a few thousand years are usually necessary to reach the maturity level needed. Rocks in basins often show a history of burial and uplift in various unconformities and episodes of faulting that indicate many stages of history taking place through quite a long period of geologic time.

View Post


Yes, but with all the data gathered, there is still the possibility of a dry hole. Even if you locate a possible trap there's no guarantee of oil or gas, and even if you get positive hydrocarbon indicators there's no guarantee it's economically recoverable.

Are you a geologist or a geophysicist???

#67 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 10 June 2010 - 06:24 PM

Yes, but with all the data gathered, there is still the possibility of a dry hole.  Even if you locate a possible trap there's no guarantee of oil or gas, and even if you get positive hydrocarbon indicators there's no guarantee it's economically recoverable.  

Are you a geologist or a geophysicist???

View Post


Well, yes, that is of course true. I just thought it was appropriate to add that occasionally seismic data can be used for more than just sorting out subsurface structure and stratigraphy

I am a development geolgist who has generally been partnered with geophysicists in teams planning well programs. Out of hundreds of wells in the past 30 years I have never proposed a totally dry hole, they all had at least one or two oil or gas reservoirs in them. However, when all was said and done perhaps 5-10% were not fully economic wells.

A few times in the past my geophysical partners have proposed planning wells so as to hit flat spots or very bright amplitude anamolies in a shallow part of the well that was where I thought we would be above the pay section. They were sure that we would find gas, but every time my prediction was unfortunately correct and the sands were water-bearing. The geophysicists I have worked with almost always are more optimistic regarding direct detection, and new partners often have assured me that an amplitude event was so bright that it had to be gas. I have known that in the area I work that these events are often representing sands, but the correlation to gas is not good. It only takes about 5% dissolved gas in the water to give the same high amplitude response.

#68 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 June 2010 - 08:18 PM

Well, yes, that is of course true. I just thought it was appropriate to add that occasionally seismic data can be used for more than just sorting out subsurface structure and stratigraphy

I am a development geolgist who has generally been partnered with geophysicists in teams planning well programs. Out of hundreds of wells in the past 30 years I have never proposed a totally dry hole, they all had at least one or two oil or gas reservoirs in them. However, when all was said and done perhaps 5-10% were not fully economic wells.

A few times in the past my geophysical partners have proposed planning wells so as to hit flat spots or very bright amplitude anamolies in a shallow part of the well that was where I thought we would be above the pay section. They were sure that we would find gas, but every time my prediction was unfortunately correct and the sands were water-bearing. The geophysicists I have worked with almost always are more optimistic regarding direct detection, and new partners often have assured me that an amplitude event was so bright that it had to be gas. I have known that in the area I work that these events are often representing sands, but the correlation to gas is not good. It only takes about 5% dissolved gas in the water to give the same high amplitude response.

View Post

I have a friend who was a petroleum geologist in Louisiana. He says the success rate here is about 10 %. That doesn't sound too good, considering the claims that the old earth science is what helps get the job done.

How do you know how long it would take for oil to form? We have had a Robert Gentry video on here that shows hot ocean vents forming small drops oil by 'cooking' phytoplankton.

I don't to hijack the thread, but it would seem to me, for as much chalk and limestone there are worldwide, that there was at one time enough resources to cause massive blooming of phytoplankton. The purity of chalk vouches for this.

Posted Image
A white bloom near ENGLAND in 1999.

Posted Image
Satellite image of a large coccolithophore bloom in the Bering Sea in 1998.

If it the chalk/limestone was slow forming the earth could not have had any major movements for millions of years. But you need the earth to move to account for all the limestone on the continents and mountains. So which one was it-- calm and still for the forming chalk and limestone, or tectonic lift to bring it up from the oceans?


This is not a problem for a deluge model, which predicts water covering the earth, and massive volcanic and tectonic activity--and this was long before Hutton or Lyell.

You can't have both--the chalk sits as a wax seal if you choose old earth. It would have had to be an unchanging environment with plenty of resources for millions of years, which means no tectonic upheaval.

Posted Image

Why is this limestone not cracked or broken if it rose out of the seas?

#69 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 10 June 2010 - 09:01 PM

Escaping natural gas. Oil and gas are usually located in a porous and permeable rock like sandstone or limestone. Fluids and gas can easily travel through the containing rock, but more slowly pass out through the impermeable rock cap. The rate of gas escape has been found far too rapid to agree with long ages. If the theory were true, all the natural gas would now be escaped.

Oil seepage. If much oil seepage had occurred from out of the ocean floors, all the oil in offshore wells would be gone if the earth were 20,000 years old.

Lack of anciently destroyed reservoirs. All the oil in the world must have been placed there in relatively recent times. If long ages had elapsed, the oil reservoirs would be gone, and we would only find the cavities where they had been. But such locations are never found.

Volcanic eruptions. There are many extinct volcanoes, but evidence indicates that volcanic activity has only continued a relatively short time since the world began. Otherwise, there would be far more lava than now exists.

View Post


By definition fluids do not pass through impermeable rock. Do you have a reference on where this claim about escaping gas and other claims are made? These claims do not jive at all with what I have found in the geologic basins in which I have worked.

Oil and gas sometimes flows easily though reservoir rock, but sometimes this flow is very slight and restricted. Sometimes the permeability is too low to allow anything but slight flow. That is a problem we face daily in the development and production of hydrocarbons.

How was a calculation done for escaping gas? How much had to escape to limit geologic time as noted here?

It is possible for oil and gas to escape or seep into oceans, but how can one come up with a calculation of all oil in place seeping out if 20,000 years is allowed? One would need to know how much oil is in place and how much is seeping. Neither is easily estimated. However, we do know that seeps are realtively rare. How many oil slicks of any note have been recorded in the Gulf of Mexico? The current BP well causing so much trouble was estimated by the company at about 5,000 barrels a day, yet they recently started recovering 10,000 bbls/day as only a portion of the total.

Reservoirs with residual oil are found all the time. I guess these might be considered "destroyed reservoirs" if I understand what is being stated. This is what is left if oil is produced in wells or leaks through time. All of it is not ever removed. Leaking oil would not create a "cavity" as implied. Basically void space, or porosity within rocks is usually filled with water, oil or gas. If oil and gas is not present the voids are occupied by water. Production of oil commonly causes water to fill most of the porosity, with residual oil left in some pores. Sometimes as pressure drops below the bubble point gas evolves from the oil and gas fills the voids that had been oil-bearing. One would not expect to find "cavities" lacking fluids. The overburden of rock would never allow them to form in the first place.

I have even seen outcrops with beds of a mineral named gilsonite that was once liquid oil that has become a solid which must be mined to be used. This is basically "destroyed" oil.

A lot of lava exists throughtout the geologic record. Volcanism and the resulting lava flows were not restricted to a short period of time after the creation of the world, but has occured throughout geologic time to the present.

#70 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 June 2010 - 09:52 PM

I have a friend who was a petroleum geologist in Louisiana.  He says the success rate here is about 10 %.  That doesn't sound too good, considering the claims that the old earth science is what helps get the job done.

How do you know how long it would take for oil to form?  We have had a  Robert Gentry video on here that shows hot ocean vents forming small drops oil by 'cooking' phytoplankton.

I don't to hijack the thread, but it would seem to me, for as much chalk and limestone there are worldwide, that there was at one time enough resources to cause massive blooming of phytoplankton.  The purity of chalk vouches for this.

Posted Image
A white bloom near ENGLAND in 1999.

Posted Image
Satellite image of a large coccolithophore bloom in the Bering Sea in 1998.

If it the chalk/limestone was slow forming the earth could not have had any major movements for millions of years.  But you need the earth to move to account for all the limestone on the continents and mountains.  So which one was it-- calm and still for the forming chalk and limestone, or tectonic lift to bring it up from the oceans? 
 

This is not a problem for a deluge model, which predicts water covering the earth, and massive volcanic and tectonic activity--and this was long before Hutton or Lyell.

You can't have both--the chalk sits as a wax seal if you choose old earth.  It would have had to be an unchanging environment with plenty of resources for millions of years, which means no tectonic upheaval.

Posted Image

Why is this limestone not cracked or broken if it rose out of the seas?

View Post


That video is wrong on so many counts, but there isn't any universal amount of time it takes for oil to form. If you want to account for the amount of time it takes for a giant oil reservoir to form, well you're looking at a long, long time.

As for the limestone, it didn't rise out of the water, the water receded.

#71 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 11 June 2010 - 02:36 AM

That video is wrong on so many counts, but there isn't any universal amount of time it takes for oil to form.  If you want to account for the amount of time it takes for a giant oil reservoir to form, well you're looking at a long, long time.

As for the limestone, it didn't rise out of the water, the water receded.

View Post


Then you are saying the earth was covered by water? That is what creationists believe.

There are Cambrian (marine) fossils in mountains.

Where is the video wrong? Simply making a statement does not discount it.

#72 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 11 June 2010 - 04:08 AM

I have a friend who was a petroleum geologist in Louisiana.  He says the success rate here is about 10 %.  That doesn't sound too good, considering the claims that the old earth science is what helps get the job done.


The 10% rate of success most likely pertains to exploration drilling. I was talking earlier about development drilling where the success rate is far higher because more of the hydrocarbon system is known. Risk is lessened as knowledge in gained. Accepted geologic principles allow for predictions to be made as additional data is acquired. When an exploration well is drilled rock, fluid, and pressure data is obtained that can be compared with similar data that has been evaluated elsewhere with either success of a lack of success. "Flood geology" does not tend to have a unifying concept outside of all the rocks and structures being due to flood events. Since there is vast variation in lithology and structure, basing all of them on hypothetical flood events does not allow for the use of analogues in the same way, and thus does not provide much of a basis for predicting what will be found in new field trends. Conventional geology does allow for this and the ability to predict individal aspects of an oil play are usually pretty good. But a number of factors must all come together, and in the correct timing. This timing aspect also cannot be determined from flood concepts, which basically push everything into a small window of constraint.

How do you know how long it would take for oil to form?  We have had a  Robert Gentry video on here that shows hot ocean vents forming small drops oil by 'cooking' phytoplankton.


Oils can form rapidly and very slowly. Analyis of some crude oil show a complex history that took a long time. In the area I work oil and gas started forming a long time ago as shown by where it has accumulated and the way it migrated in a stair-step fashion through sands as they juxtpose across faults. Oil and gas are found much shallower in some fault blocks than others as a result, with the rate of movement on the fautst giving a sense to the timing of the migration and accumulation over a fairly long time, in the frame of hundreds of thousands of years.

Movement on the faults sometimes took place as sediments were deposited. We call these growth faults. Beds are thicker on one side of the fault compared to the other. This allows for the timing of movement to be determined.

I don't to hijack the thread, but it would seem to me, for as much chalk and limestone there are worldwide, that there was at one time enough resources to cause massive blooming of phytoplankton.  The purity of chalk vouches for this.


Of course there was an increase in the organisms forming such deposits during the time of their creation when such lithogies are more common worldwide. But if a universal flood existed, why is there not a worldwide continuous chalk deposit?

If it the chalk/limestone was slow forming the earth could not have had any major movements for millions of years.  But you need the earth to move to account for all the limestone on the continents and mountains.  So which one was it-- calm and still for the forming chalk and limestone, or tectonic lift to bring it up from the oceans? 
 


Plate tectonics allows for passive margins of continents where there are stable areas for long periods of geologic time, easily long enough to form thick chalk or limestone deposits through relatively slow deposition.

Geologic time allows for slow deposition followed later by either tectonic uplift or eustatic sea level drops that expose the resulting rock formations above sea level.

This is not a problem for a deluge model, which predicts water covering the earth, and massive volcanic and tectonic activity--and this was long before Hutton or Lyell.


Would your deluge model not predict volcanic rocks to be mixed with any limestone or chalk that now is exposed in cliffs or mountains? Why is this not what we typically find in outcrops?

You can't have both--the chalk sits as a wax seal if you choose old earth.  It would have had to be an unchanging environment with plenty of resources for millions of years, which means no tectonic upheaval.


Why is an "old earth" model limited in this way? Tectonic upheavals were part and parcel in the geology known to Hutton and Lyell as was deposition in ocean basins subsiding slowly. These are not in conflict in an "old earth" model. Unlike the flood model these do not happen simultaneouly. This is supported by what the study of rocks in outcrop.

Posted Image

Why is this limestone not cracked or broken if it rose out of the seas?

View Post


First of all it probably does show cracks or faults if you saw enough of the outcrop or a big enough picture to show detail. "Arm chair" geology can often lead to erroneous conclusions. A geologist actually has to do the field work to properly evaluate what evidence is present.

But what in the action of being raised out of the seas requires rock to be all busted up? Regional uplift can raise strata with many units comparatively intact. Also, as noted in a different reply some rocks are exposed by changes in sea level caused by reasons other than tectonics.

#73 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 June 2010 - 01:29 PM

Then you are saying the earth was covered by water?  That is what creationists believe.

There are Cambrian (marine) fossils in mountains.

Where is the video wrong?  Simply making a statement does not discount it.

View Post


I'm saying that sections of Earth which are presently dry were covered in water. The limestone very would could have formed then uplifted when there was no longer water.

I've posted my objections to that video. There are a several scenarios more likely than refineable crude oil being formed on the spot. The most likely of which is seepage into the water below the sea floor.

Even if it was crude being formed, you still have the entire issue of how you have reservoirs of billions of barrels of oil. How did they get there. None of that oil being formed is being trapped.

#74 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 11 June 2010 - 06:37 PM

I'm saying that sections of Earth which are presently dry were covered in water.  The limestone very would could have formed then uplifted when there was no longer water. 

I've posted my objections to that video.  There are a several scenarios more likely than refineable crude oil being formed on the spot.  The most likely of which is seepage into the water below the sea floor. 

Even if it was crude being formed, you still have the entire issue of how you have reservoirs of billions of barrels of oil.  How did they get there.  None of that oil being formed is being trapped.

View Post


There is vast evidence of dry land that was once covered by water, including the presence of the limestone shown. Having rock formed underwater certainly is not proof of the entire surface of the planet being covered by water.

I don't think I have not seen the video in question, but does it purport to show oil being generated on the sea floor? Velikovsky proposed that oil rained down from the tail of Venus when it was a comet on a close encounter with earth. That left the serious problem of getting it into traps since the density of most oil is lighter than water. It usually can seep up, but not down. This appears to be the same problem the video has. Only very heavy oil can do that.

#75 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 12 June 2010 - 06:10 AM

The 10% rate of success most likely pertains to exploration drilling. I was talking earlier about development drilling where the success rate is far higher because more of the hydrocarbon system is known. Risk is lessened as knowledge in gained.

View Post


Yes, he was talking about exploration. I understand what you are saying now.

Accepted geologic principles allow for predictions to be made as additional data is acquired. When an exploration well is drilled rock, fluid, and pressure data is obtained that can be compared with similar data that has been evaluated elsewhere with either success of a lack of success. "Flood geology" does not tend to have a unifying concept outside of all the rocks and structures being due to flood events. Since there is vast variation in lithology and structure, basing all of them on hypothetical flood events does not allow for the use of analogues in the same way, and thus does not provide much of a basis for predicting what will be found in new field trends.

View Post


You are working in a paradigm. My mentioned friend is a creationist, and was schooled in standard geology. He had no problem doing his job in that paradigm. Though he personally doesn't accept the idea of slow processes, the lithogy is the lithogy. It's there however it got there. He accounts the complex litholgy as evidence for the flood, not a mark against it.

Conventional geology does allow for this and the ability to predict individal aspects of an oil play are usually pretty good. But a number of factors must all come together, and in the correct timing. This timing aspect also cannot be determined from flood concepts, which basically push everything into a small window of constraint.

View Post

If the necessary ingredients are on my table, I can make a cake in an hour. But if there is a wheat shortage, and no flour in the stores for a month, it will take me a month to make my purposed cake.

Concrete without quicklime is just wet sand and gravel. It will remain sand and gravel forver, but with quicklime it sets in a day.

You have to have everything mixed right for things to happen, and that is what happened in the deluge via the water, moving sediment, detritus and phytoplankton, volcanism and tectonic movement--the fountains of the earth being "broken up."

Oils can form rapidly and very slowly.

Thanks for cofirming it can form rapidly. Most people wouldn't know this.

Analyis of some crude oil show a complex history that took a long time.

Only because you accept slow sedimentation.

In the area I work oil and gas started forming a long time ago as shown by where it has accumulated and the way it migrated in a stair-step fashion through sands as they juxtpose across faults. Oil and gas are found much shallower in some fault blocks than others as a result, with the rate of movement on the fautst giving a sense to the timing of the migration and accumulation over a fairly long time, in the frame of hundreds of thousands of years.


We know that an oil well can have alot built up of pressure which lasts a long period of time. Unfortunately, we see evidence of this in the gulf now. There is no proof that this 'stair step' migration isn't a result of pressurized oil simply finding the easiest path to migrate.

It seems much more likely to me that the original biological composition was trapped and sealed by sediment, and the resulting gasses of decomposition caused the pressure, rather than a slow gradual mix of detritus mixing with the slowly accumulating sediments, which would have allowed the gasses to escape into the air or water (mostly water) during decay on the surface/ ocean bottom/ sea bed.

Movement on the faults sometimes took place as sediments were deposited. We call these growth faults. Beds are thicker on one side of the fault compared to the other. This allows for the timing of movement to be determined.


Thank you Geode. The following is an example of what I question in modern geology.

Posted Image

Why would the lower sediments of the hanging wall not be brittle and unbending? Or cracked? Unless you had evidence of intrusions or plutons that would confirm the standard explanation of heat and pressure. In my opinion, this lack is ignored by modern geology, but better explained by wet sediment.

Of course there was an increase in the organisms forming such deposits during the time of their creation when such lithogies are more common worldwide. But if a universal flood existed, why is there not a worldwide continuous chalk deposit?


Why would this be a necessary evidence for the deluge. Coccoliths multiply in colonies and would have colonized in their habitat, just like other algae colonize in their habitat.

Chalk deposits, up to a thousand meters thick, exist in many parts of the world, including Europe (from Ireland to Russia) and on to the Middle East (Egypt and Israel), the USA (Texas, Alabama, etc.) and Australia (Ager 1993).
Source

It is a worldwide phenomenon, and chalk is surficial, suggesting a recent event. They also contain preserved fossils, which supports rapid deposition. The deluge would have provided megatons detritus as resources for large blooms.

I would remind you that limestone and evidence for phytoplankton is everywhere, how much limestone is in the mountains? How many coccoliths and other phytoplankton in coal seams, keragins, and shales.

Would your deluge model not predict volcanic rocks to be mixed with any limestone or chalk that now is exposed in cliffs or mountains? Why is this not what we typically find in outcrops? 


Not necessarily, there were different phases of the flood. Naturally the violent nature of the flood was mostly at the beginning.

Futhermore, why would algae and phytoplankton colonize near a volcanic area? Massive blooms would have occurred where there was plenty of dead biological material, not near poisonous ash and lava.

First of all it probably does show cracks or faults if you saw enough of the outcrop or a big enough picture to show detail. "Arm chair" geology can often lead to erroneous conclusions. A geologist actually has to do the field work to properly evaluate what evidence is present.

But what in the action of being raised out of the seas requires rock to be all busted up? Regional uplift can raise strata with many units comparatively intact. Also, as noted in a different reply some rocks are exposed by changes in sea level caused by reasons other than tectonics.
Posted Image


This limestone is in central Tennesee (Wikipedia; 'limestone' -- bottom of page) where I lived for five years. I used to drive through these passes. If you look you will see drilling marks, which were done to dynamite the road passes. What you see in the picture is indicative of all the passes.

Posted Image

Furthermore, the limestone is deposited in hills in layered form like you see. The only explanation you could have is that the hills were not a result of orgeny, but erosion. The hills of central TN are juxtposed to the Appalachian mountains which are a result of orgeny.

If the hills are a result of mountain building, then there should not be horizontal, and unbroken limestone in them.

#76 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 13 June 2010 - 09:34 AM

Yes, he was talking about exploration.  I understand what you are saying now.

You are working in a paradigm.  My mentioned friend is a creationist, and was schooled in standard geology.  He had no problem doing his job in that paradigm.  Though he personally doesn't accept the idea of slow processes, the lithogy is the lithogy.  It's there however it got there.  He accounts the complex litholgy as evidence for the flood, not a mark against it. 
If the necessary ingredients are on my table, I can make a cake in an hour.  But if there is a wheat shortage, and no flour in the stores for a month, it will take me a month to make my purposed cake.

Concrete without quicklime is just wet sand and gravel.  It will remain sand and gravel forver, but with quicklime it sets in a day.

You have to have everything mixed right for things to happen, and that is what happened in the deluge via the water, moving sediment, detritus and phytoplankton, volcanism and tectonic movement--the fountains of the earth being "broken up."
Thanks for cofirming it can form rapidly.  Most people wouldn't know this.

Only because you accept slow sedimentation. 

We know that an oil well can have alot built up of pressure which lasts a long period of time.  Unfortunately, we see evidence of this in the gulf now. There is no proof that this 'stair step' migration isn't a result of pressurized oil simply finding the easiest path to migrate.

It seems much more likely to me that the original biological composition was trapped and sealed by sediment, and the resulting gasses of decomposition caused the pressure, rather than a slow gradual mix of  detritus mixing with the slowly accumulating sediments, which would have allowed the gasses to escape into the air or water (mostly water) during decay on the surface/ ocean bottom/ sea bed.
Thank you Geode.  The following is an example of what I question in modern geology.

Posted Image

Why would the lower sediments of the hanging wall not be brittle and unbending? Or cracked?  Unless you had evidence of intrusions or plutons that would confirm the standard explanation of heat and pressure.  In my opinion, this lack is ignored by modern geology, but better explained by wet sediment.
Why would this be a necessary evidence for the deluge. Coccoliths multiply in colonies and would have colonized in their habitat, just like other algae colonize in their habitat.

Chalk deposits, up to a thousand meters thick, exist in many parts of the world, including Europe (from Ireland to Russia) and on to the Middle East (Egypt and Israel), the USA (Texas, Alabama, etc.) and Australia (Ager 1993).
Source

It is a worldwide phenomenon, and chalk is surficial, suggesting a recent event.  They also contain preserved fossils, which supports rapid deposition.  The deluge would have provided megatons  detritus as resources for large blooms.

I would remind you that limestone and evidence for phytoplankton is everywhere, how much limestone is in the mountains?  How many coccoliths and other phytoplankton in coal seams, keragins, and shales.

Not necessarily, there were different phases of the flood.  Naturally the violent nature of the flood was mostly at the beginning.

Futhermore, why would algae and phytoplankton colonize near a volcanic area? Massive blooms would have occurred where there was plenty of dead biological material, not near poisonous ash and lava.

This limestone is in central Tennesee (Wikipedia; 'limestone' -- bottom of page) where I lived for five years.  I used to drive through these passes.  If you look you will see drilling marks, which were done to dynamite the road passes.  What you see in the picture is indicative of all the passes. 

Posted Image

Furthermore, the limestone is deposited in hills in layered form like you see.  The only explanation you could have is that the hills were not a result of orgeny, but erosion.  The hills of central TN are juxtposed to the Appalachian mountains which are a result of orgeny.

If the hills are a result of mountain building, then there should not be horizontal, and unbroken limestone in them.

View Post


There seems to be a problem with the reply feature, and all my quotes have disappeared. It is late, I am tired and so I will simply post my comments in a bunch.

1)Yes, petroleum geologists work within an established paradigm, yet attempt to break out of it when it gives us an advantage with a competitive edge. There is resistance to changed established concepts yet we do it when it is shown to be more effective. The aspect of lithology is not where an old earth and young earth model diverge to the greatest extent. I think it is the timing of structural events and the like where there is the greatest difference. There is not a set of geologic principles in the creationist beliefs that allows for predictions to be made. It really is too ad hoc to be of much use. Your friend is a rarity in my experience. I have never knowingly encountered an earth scientist in my entire 30+ in the in the industry. I know some exist from a letter or two to the AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) some years ago and from a friend who worked in an Oklahoma City office. He said a couple of workers would go silent at some moments around the water cooler when he came up, and the drift was that they we discussing something about YEC. They walked the walk and talked the talk of old earth, but apparently were closet creationists.

2)I was talking more about events that do not happen simultaneously and are done in stages with a hiatus or two in between, which would take far more time than part of a year. I don't see volcanism, sedimentation, and various life forms as being interdependent with each other in the same fashion as are hydrocabon generation, expulsion and migration, trapping and sealing. Your analogy of a recipe leaves out the important element of time. Once you have the various ingredients, whether in an hour of a month, you can place your cake batter in the oven, but if you only give it a couple of minutes to bake instead of the time necessary for the cake to rise and bake properly, it will not resemble the outcome expected. You can crank the temperature up to twice the usual rating and this will not compensate, the cake will still not materialize as expected.

3)In talking about complex crude oils I actually was thinking about geochemistry, and the analysis which indicates mixing of oils from different source rocks that came together through different migration paths and the degradation of some elements in the oil and not in others. Geochemists can use biomarkers o do such determinations. These imprints show an involved history. I don't see how this is really related much to the speed of sedimentation.

4)I didn't reference pressure when I talked about migration through faults, but it is an integral part of this migration process. The migration through faults can be limited by sealing on the faults caused by gouge (clay smears). To overcome this seal, the hydrocarbon column must overcome the capillary pressure limits at the seal. There is also evidence of vertical migration through the fault plane caused by pressure. When the containment limit is reached, the fault is thought to be forced open or to dialate in the segment proximal to the reservoir and then migrate up into the next shallowest permeable sand. This simply adds another element to the migration which is dependent on time as the pressure builds. In the area I work gas and oil is still migrating, in other areas this is now interpreted to be static. In my area the pressures are a function of temperature and source rock quality (amount of kerogen in the rocks). Unlike the Gulf of Mexico, the generation of gas appears to cause the over-pressure, and is an indication of such generation taking place when the pressure begins to exceed the hydrostatic (normal) gradient. This only occurs when the rocks subside to about 6,000' at which the temperatures are high enough to generate gas from the source material. This makes the timing dependent upon the rate of subsidence which can be roughly determined by biostratigraphy. The time indicated is not a few thousand years.

5) In terms of the decomposition of organic material I think I agree with some of what you state here, but I can’t quite grasp your point. Biological elements in the sediments that become source rocks do not decompose due to a lack of oxygen. If the decomposition does occur it creates what is termed biogenic gas due to the action of bacteria. This does create some pressure, but since it only happens in the upper few hundred feet below the surface the sediments are unconsolidated and the gas bubbles up and escapes. There is seldom a trap and seal present.

6) The diagram looks like an attempt to show a growth fault. However, it is not as I would have drawn it. The thickness of the beds in the footwall and hanging appear too similar considering the angle of dip that is shown in the sediments in beds in the hanging wall. Also the thinning of the beds in the hanging wall away from the fault compared to those near the fault is subtle when in fact it would be usually be more pronounced in my opinion. The fault plane also appears to be too planar, as growth faults commonly are listric and show a curved surface that is concave upward. I agree that the sediments in question would still be very water saturated when they formed in the positions shown in the diagram and would not really become lithified until later after the beds came to be much deeper through subsidence. The heat from standard geothermal gradients is often great enough without proximity to any plutonic activity to effect the changes we see in forming rock.

But aside from growth faults, rocks will react in a ductile fashion with depth due to the heat and pressure, and rocks will deform plastically instead of fracturing. They are not brittle with depth.

7) The existence of chalk and limestone deposits was brought up as proof of a creationist model. If one does not invoke something different than the explanation of standard geology, I really don’t understand why this is done.

I don’t understand your point here about limestones and mountains, or plankton in coal seams, etc. But no, limestone and evidence of plankton is not everywhere. There are vast terrigenous deposits that these are not found in.

Chalk is not only found at the surface, there are chalk deposits at great depth in the subsurface. This is not evidence for a recent event. Time and time again I see a misunderstanding by almost all creationists about fossils and the requirements for fossilization. Rapid deposition is not needed to preserve most of the fossils we find in rocks. They are the hard parts that remain after all the soft parts have decomposed. Look at outcrops of such deposits and you will see what I mean. The preserved fossils are made of the same of similar material to the rock. When softer parts are preserved it is often due to sedimentation taking place in deep, stagnant anoxic water.

8) I don’t think you would find such occurrence of algae etc. near volcanic ash and lava, yet limestones are associated with lava flows.

9)It is always dangerous to postulate only one explanation. Why do you rule out the presence of the limestone being due to uplift in an orogeny? Are you saying that the entire Appalachian Mountain chain is present simply due to erosion even with all the folds that are present? I have seen outcrops with beds that are very horizontal that are actually overturned. One must be very careful in evaluating the dips of rocks. I’ll bet a geologic map of the quadrangle where this are present with all the strikes and dips would tell a story very consistent with uplift.

#77 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 17 October 2010 - 11:05 AM

Our oceans are young

The empirical rate of sodium being deposited into our oceans gives them a maximum age of only ~60 million years. This is clear evidence of a massive erosion event during a global flood.

http://www.tccsa.tc/...ean_sodium.html

OCEAN CONCENTRATIONS—We have a fairly good idea of the amount of various elements and salts that are in the oceans, and also how much is being added yearly by rivers, subterranean springs, rain water, and other sources. A comparison of the two factors points to a young age for the ocean and thus for the earth.
Of the 51 primary chemical elements contained in sea water, twenty could have accumulated to their present concentrations in 1,000 years or less, 9 additional elements in no more than 10,000 years, and 8 others in no more than 100,000 years.
As but one example of these various elements, let us consider nitrates: The nitrates in the oceans could have accumulated in 13,000 years. Compounds of nitrogen in the ocean, largely in the form of nitrates, are increasing in amount. The excess of input from rivers and rain is estimated at 77 million tons (69.8 million mt) per year, and the total oceanic content at about 1,000 billion tons [907 billion mt]. Dividing the content by the annual input, we obtain 13,000 years as the apparent age of the oceans. This is especially significant in view of the fact that nitrates are quite stable in the ocean: once they get into the world's oceans, they do not tend to leave. In addition, there originally had to be a sizable amount of nitrates in the ocean to begin with, for phytoplankton (the microscopic photosynthetic ocean plants which are the bottom of the food chain) require nitrates for their growth. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, who are trying to figure a way to explain away that 77 million tons (69.8 million mt) per year, blue-green algae in the oceans spend their time absorbing nitrogen from the atmosphere and changing it into ocean nitrates.



Enjoy.

#78 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 12 February 2011 - 11:52 AM

Our oceans are young:

The empirical rate of salt and minerals deposited into our oceans gives them a maximum age of only ~60 million years. This is clear evidence of a massive erosion event during a global flood.

http://www.tccsa.tc/...ean_sodium.html
Enjoy.

View Post


First of all, an age of 60 million years would be very old coming from a YEC point of view that usually only accepts a maximum of 10,000 years for the age of anything in the universe.

There is some empirical data noted in the article you have linked from Steve Austin and Russell Humphreys but many assumptions have been made regarding its use in making conclusions. A letter written by Glenn Morton goes through calculations of his own, using many of the same sources of empirical data but reaches conclusions that are quite different. He also makes assumptions. Quite frankly I don't think the actual evidence cited gives a clear indication of the age of the oceans in either article, and there is no evidence at all given for a "massive erosion event during a global flood" even in the paper by Austin and Humphreys.

Selections from Morton:

Your 1990 paper lists 11 input processes to the ocean. These are

Rivers: sea spray 5 x 10^10 kg/yr
Rivers: weathering 6.2 x 10^10 kg/yr
Rivers: Chloride solution 7.5 x 10^10 kg/yr
Ocean Floor Sediments 6.2 x 10^10 kg/yr
Glacial Silicates 0 kg/yr
Atmospheric and Volcanic Dust 0.1 x 10^10 kg/yr
Marine Coastal erosion .074 x 10^10 kg/yr
Glacier Ice 0 kg/yr
Volcanic Aerosols 0.09 x 10^10 kg/yr
Ground water continents 9.3 x 10^10 kg/yr
Hydrothermal vents 1.1 x 10^10 kg/yr Total 35.6 x 10^10 kg/yr

The 7 outputs

Sea spray 6.7 x 10^10 kg/yr
Cation Exchange 5.2 x 10^10 kg/yr
Burial of pore water 3.9 x 10^10 kg/yr
Halite deposition 4.0 x 10^10 kg/yr
Alteration of Basalt .4 x 10^10 kg/yr
Albite formation 0 kg/yr
Zeolite Formation .2 x 10^10 kg/yr Total 20.6 x 10^10 kg/yr

Obviously if you are correct there is a major problem with current
cosmology. But you are not correct.


First in reply to Steve's letter of April 8, 1996.

Steve, you said that my book (Morton, 1995, p. 16) implied that there
was a sodium removal process that you all had ignored in your 1990 ICC
paper (Austin and Humphreys, 1990). Actually I hope I did more than imply
that. I wrote (Morton, 1995, p. 16):

" Austin and Humphreys update with more detail Whitcomb's and Morris's
argument and conclude that the earth's oceans could be no older than 62
million years old. Table 2 (p. 19) shows that plankton concentrate sodium
in their bodies and when they die, salt is removed from the ocean. Austin
and Humphreys do not mention this mechanism!"

That seems to be more than an implication to me. And as shown below there
are actually 16 other processes you ignore in your calculations.


Steve, you said in your unpublished paper you sent me that there is
no evidence of biological removal of sodium from the sea. The diatomaceous
sediments above is certainly a process you overlooked. Your 1990 paper
refers to Holland (1984). You should look on page 509 of that book. On
that page he shows a chart of the sodium/carbonate ratio in fossilized
Tertiary foraminifera. The interesting thing is that for the past 10
million years the six one-thousandths of the atoms deposited with
carbonate has been sodium. By weight this calculates to .0016 of carbonate
is sodium. The lack of sodium in the forams prior to 10 million years ago
is believed to be due to the diagenesis of the rocks leaching the sodium
out of them. Lorens and Bender (1980, p. 1270) shows that the shell fish
Mytilus edulis incorporates 15 atoms of sodium for every thousand atoms of
calcium. By weight this is .4% of the calcium carbonate. There are 10^12
kilograms of calcium carbonate deposited each year in the ocean (Goody and
Walker, 1972, p. 127). If the sodium/calcium atom ratio of that is .015
(.41% by weight) as it is in the case of edulis, then this is another
4.1 x 10^9 kilograms of sodium removed from the oceans.

Thus the total biogenic removal of sodium is 7.3 x 10^9 kg/yr. Since this
is larger than some of the input processes you cite (.09 x 10^10), it
seems only fair that you should also cite output processes which are of a
similar magnitude. Or do we only mention small inputs without mentioning
small outputs. 


You state that the alteration of basalt by hydrothermal activity only
removes .4 x 10^10 kg/yr of sodium. You must have missed the table in
Holland (1978,p. 199). He says that the removal of sodium by the
Mid-Oceanic ridge basalts is 14 x 10^10 kg/yr. According to Holland, this
is 23% of the sodium input. This is significantly higher than what you
claim. Since your paper refers to this book and fails to discuss that
value, it would seem that you might have ignored Holland's data and
shopped around for values which support your thesis. One thing is
certain, there is a lot of uncertainty about the values for all of these
processes and shopping for values can be easily done.

You state (Austin and Humphreys p. 26) that there are 1.47 X 10^19 kg of
sodium in the oceans. In the Miocene 4% was deposited in the
Mediterranean basin according to calculations I made from data in (Hsu,
1974, p 140). This represents an additional 5.88 x 10^17 kg. Spread over
the entire Miocene this is 3.3 x 10^10 kg/yr. There is additional Miocene
salt to be found in Jordan, Syria, Turfan basin of China and the
Carpathian range in Bulgaria. Thus the 4.0 x 10^10 kg/yr value is not too
far wrong.

To revise your output table:

Sea spray 6.7 x 10^10 kg/yr
Cation Exchange 5.2 x 10^10 kg/yr
Burial of pore water 3.9 x 10^10 kg/yr
Halite deposition 4.0 x 10^10 kg/yr
Alteration of Basalt 14 x 10^10 kg/yr
Albite formation 0 kg/yr
Zeolite Formation .2 x 10^10 kg/yr
Biogenic output .5 x 10^10 kg/yr
Collective Small outputs 3.6 x 10^10 kg/yr Total 38.1 x 10^10 kg/yr.

Given that the influx of sodium that you use is 35.6 x 10^10 kg/yr. and
that these two figures are so close and within the range of experimental
error, it is quite reasonable to believe that the Miocene was a period of
balance for sodium in the oceans. But if you want to believe the numbers,
then the Miocene was a time of sodium removal from the seas to the tune of
2.5 x 10^10 kg/yr. This would mean that the oceans were 4% lower in salt
content at the end of the Miocene than at the beginning.


Morton rebuttal

#79 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 March 2011 - 01:54 PM

I deleted an entire page of conversation. If were going to get off topic here, let's at least stick to debating evidence.



Thanks.

#80 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 March 2011 - 02:14 PM

There is additional Miocene
salt to be found in Jordan, Syria, Turfan basin of China and the
Carpathian range in Bulgaria.



First of all, no evidence is provided that these salts are evaporites. If they are marine evaporites, they will contain macro fossils.

Does Salt Come From Evaporated Sea Water?

Secondly, the more sea water that gets evaporated the more percipitation that falls into rivers, which only increases the amount of sodium output back into the oceans. Evaporites do not significantly reduce the average amount of sodium increase and the measured removal rate by evaporites was already calculated in the original output calculation.

Thirdly, the flood model predicts inland seas; Not the OE model. As the continents slowly move (~1-10 cm per year), the seas recede with them, which provides no mechanism for massive evaporite deposits inland.




Thanks.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users