13 replies to this topic

[gilbo12345]

Who says gas takes millions of years to form?

http://www.technolog...ating-microbes/

[SomchaiA]

Who says gas takes millions of years to form?

http://www.technolog...ating-microbes/

I think it's well known that natural gas can be created in a short time span. In garbage buried in the ground it commonly comes to be. I read that termites create methane in large amounts. I don't think it is claimed by anyone that it must take millions of years. I think it is called "biogenic gas".

[MarkForbes]

But it is often insinuated that it would take "millions of years". And that it is in face "millions of years" old.

[gilbo12345]

What this does is leaves the claim that "gas takes millions of years to form" in doubt since these microbes could have produced the gas reservoirs in a much shorter space of time. If the potential is there then that leaves reasonable doubt.

[SomchaiA]

What this does is leaves the claim that "gas takes millions of years to form" in doubt since these microbes could have produced the gas reservoirs in a much shorter space of time. If the potential is there then that leaves reasonable doubt.

I have not seen any claims that it takes natural gas millions of years to form. I have read that it is thought it takes some oils a long time.

[SomchaiA]

But it is often insinuated that it would take "millions of years". And that it is in face "millions of years" old.

I think you are mixing this up with oil. It is well known that methane can form in a matter of days, or even hours.

[JayShel]

I think you are mixing this up with oil. It is well known that methane can form in a matter of days, or even hours.

Oil can be produced rapidly as well.

[SomchaiA]

Oil can be produced rapidly as well.

Yes, I am quite aware of that. That is why I said "some oils" in my last post. Simple oils can be formed rather rapidly like gas, but I have read that some crude oils have complex history, showing an origin from multiple sources that are different in age.

[JayShel]

Yes, I am quite aware of that. That is why I said "some oils" in my last post. Simple oils can be formed rather rapidly like gas, but I have read that some crude oils have complex history, showing an origin from multiple sources that are different in age.

It is not unthinkable that a crude oil with a complex past would have been made over thousands of years instead of millions, considering a crude oil can be made rapidly. http://creation.com/...st-can-oil-form

[AFJ]

I think it's well known that natural gas can be created in a short time span. In garbage buried in the ground it commonly comes to be. I read that termites create methane in large amounts. I don't think it is claimed by anyone that it must take millions of years. I think it is called "biogenic gas".

Actually it is claimed in the article that, "Most natural gas is the product of heat and pressure over millions of years. But Scott...helped show that a significant fraction of natural gas is constantly being produced by microorganisms that feed on coal."

Yeah, part of the so called actualist practice is to include true observational processes as "a significant fraction" of their model. We had a claimed geologist on here who used to use this strategem to deflect obvious counter evidence. He would claim that geologists were already aware of things like catastrophic evidence in rocks and that even pancake layering can be produced rapidly. But he would then absorb the evidence into an old earth model, inserting the catastrophic and rapid data into geotime. The interesting thing is he could never produce a sure ruler in the matter of sedimentation rates.

So at any rate, the model rules in their mind. Evidence that doesn't happen slowly is just inserted into millions of years.

[SomchaiA]

Actually it is claimed in the article that, "Most natural gas is the product of heat and pressure over millions of years. But Scott...helped show that a significant fraction of natural gas is constantly being produced by microorganisms that feed on coal."

Yeah, part of the so called actualist practice is to include true observational processes as "a significant fraction" of their model. We had a claimed geologist on here who used to use this strategem to deflect obvious counter evidence. He would claim that geologists were already aware of things like catastrophic evidence in rocks and that even pancake layering can be produced rapidly. But he would then absorb the evidence into an old earth model, inserting the catastrophic and rapid data into geotime. The interesting thing is he could never produce a sure ruler in the matter of sedimentation rates.

So at any rate, the model rules in their mind. Evidence that doesn't happen slowly is just inserted into millions of years.

I have been told that geologists work using analogues. If geologists observe present process at work, why not assume that the same operated in the past? I read a book by the American politician, Al Gore where he said a very significant amount of methane gas being created today came from the action of termites. Who is to say how much rapid generation vs. longer generation occurs in terms of amounts.I think that report was talking about trapped natural gas and that on balance a greater portion of gas that can be produced from subsurface reservoirs is of relatively ancient age. But this was not a very good scientific report from what I have been taught. Heat is the factor in producing natural gas, not pressure. It is what I was taught to avoid in the study of science, a sweeping generality. That is what I find in some debates, far too often from the creationist side that all rocks formed rapidly. The standard viewpoint of geology is to follow the evidence. I read some posts like what you are talking about here. The argument that we can observe rocks forming rapidly and slowly at the present time and therefore it is likely that this happened in the past is hard to dismiss easily. It seems logical to allow for slow accumulation of rocks through time in some instances.

[JayShel]

That is what I find in some debates, far too often from the creationist side that all rocks formed rapidly. The standard viewpoint of geology is to follow the evidence. I read some posts like what you are talking about here. The argument that we can observe rocks forming rapidly and slowly at the present time and therefore it is likely that this happened in the past is hard to dismiss easily. It seems logical to allow for slow accumulation of rocks through time in some instances.

You seem to imply that "the standard viewpoint of geology" follows the evidence but YEC doesn't. This is an old insult used against YEC which has been rebutted many times. Just because scientists back their assertions with evidence does not mean that they have asserted the truth, rather they have said what they believe is the truth based on their experiences. We see many geographical features that we thought to take thousands to millions of years forming in just 10 years at Surtsey Island. There has been evidence of cataclismic formation of geologic features that had previously been thought to have formed over millions of years. I would say yes, some rock formations may have taken awhile. There have been at least thousands of years of earth history, I just don't concede millions of years because I see no convincing evidence for it.

[SomchaiA]

You seem to imply that "the standard viewpoint of geology" follows the evidence but YEC doesn't. This is an old insult used against YEC which has been rebutted many times. Just because scientists back their assertions with evidence does not mean that they have asserted the truth, rather they have said what they believe is the truth based on their experiences. We see many geographical features that we thought to take thousands to millions of years forming in just 10 years at Surtsey Island. There has been evidence of cataclismic formation of geologic features that had previously been thought to have formed over millions of years. I would say yes, some rock formations may have taken awhile. There have been at least thousands of years of earth history, I just don't concede millions of years because I see no convincing evidence for it.

I did not intend to give any insult. But I think it is only stating the way things are that the viewpoint of most geologists could be called "standard" since it is the prevailing viewpoint. That does not mean it is correct.

Please post more about these Surtsey Island features. I have never heard of this.

[JayShel]

http://kgov.com/bel/20120810 is the Real Science Friday show that Fred Williams and Bob Enyart discuss Surtsey Island. It is a bit more in depth than they have on the website found here: http://youngearth.co...atures-10-years. Also read more at http://creation.com/...-that-looks-old, and http://creation.com/...still-surprises.

Can you please post some examples of rock accumulations that must have taken a long time to accumulate?