Jump to content


Photo

Natural Gas Formation Can Be Augumented By Bacteria


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
13 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5498 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 July 2012 - 06:48 PM

Who says gas takes millions of years to form? ;)

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

#2 SomchaiA

SomchaiA

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangkok, Thailand
  • Interests:Movies. music, science.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 29 July 2012 - 02:14 AM

Who says gas takes millions of years to form? Posted Image

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".

#3 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 993 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 July 2012 - 04:58 AM

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

#4 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5498 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 06 August 2012 - 11:10 PM

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.

#5 SomchaiA

SomchaiA

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangkok, Thailand
  • Interests:Movies. music, science.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 18 August 2012 - 12:56 AM

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.

#6 SomchaiA

SomchaiA

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangkok, Thailand
  • Interests:Movies. music, science.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 18 August 2012 - 01:03 AM

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.

#7 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 18 August 2012 - 06:55 AM

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.

#8 SomchaiA

SomchaiA

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangkok, Thailand
  • Interests:Movies. music, science.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 19 August 2012 - 12:18 AM

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.

#9 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 19 August 2012 - 06:36 AM

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

#10 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 19 August 2012 - 07:34 AM

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.

#11 SomchaiA

SomchaiA

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangkok, Thailand
  • Interests:Movies. music, science.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 08 September 2012 - 01:52 AM

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.

#12 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 11 September 2012 - 05:57 AM

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.

#13 SomchaiA

SomchaiA

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangkok, Thailand
  • Interests:Movies. music, science.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 15 September 2012 - 01:08 AM

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.

#14 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 September 2012 - 07:42 AM

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?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users