Jump to content


Photo

Does Oil Really Take Millions Of Years To Form?


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 October 2006 - 10:33 PM

When the subject of dinosaurs is talked about in length. One of the things often brought up is the supposed fact that decaying dinosaurs, plus bio mass. Makes oil deposits we have now. And that these oil deposits take millions of years to form. Which by old earth standards, prove how old the earth is.

But hold on. Where did the scientist get the information on how long it takes for this decay to turn into oil? What was this evidence based on? Ask one, and you will get nothing as far as evidence goes. And nothing as far as any tests for either. So the only way scientist-evolutionists could have come up with this idea, was to base this on the theory of how long ago dinosaurs lived. So it leads me to believe that this deception was thought up just to sell the old earth theory.

So here's how I see this coming about:
1) Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.
2) We have oil, so it most have taken millions of years to decay. Even though the conditions in the ground were never re-done in a lab to find out.

Just one idea, made up to support another idea. One with no scientific testing, or evidence of what is claimed. One that can't even be backed up. So how much times does it take for bio-mass and dinosaurs to decay and make oil?

Science has found, but is unwilling to admit, that oil can be made in one day. How?

You take turkey or chicken parts (like decayed dinosaurs). Pressurize to 50 atmospheres (50x14= 700psi). Heat it up twice to 500 f degrees. And you have oil in one day.

When we drill for oil, the pressure is much higher (several times higher: 3,000-30,000 psi) then making it the way it is done by man (700 psi). And the temperature is only 100 degrees less (400 f instead of 500 f degrees). A 100 degrees cool off in 6,000 years seems more feasible than 100 degrees cool off in several million years.

Here is an example of old school: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/fossilfuels.htm

Here is an example of what is new:

http://www.freerepub...ws/967192/posts

http://www.discover....thing-into-oil/


http://www.mindfully...ogies4apr04.htm
http://www.mindfully...o-Oil1may03.htm

And a chemist-evolutionist rebuttal (claims of fraud): http://www.mindfully...almer9apr05.htm

Notice the claims about this being fraudulent are claims that are only mere opinions. Did the chemist actually test this to see if it worked? Nope. Just claims that this is a snake oil sales idea. And the person behind it is a snake oil salesman. Problem with his opinion is, plant is already up and running.

http://www.matr.net/article-6837.html

I guess the plant must be producing nothing, if we believe the chemist claims of fraud. And nothing most have a bad smell, as the people in town around the plant complained about.

Seaches on google:
Oil from garbage.

This type of information, that it takes millions of year to form oil from the decay of living matter, is still in every school text book, even though it is wrong. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for them to correct this, or remove the claim.

If it's like the Ernest Haeckel idea, it will take over 100 years. And with the excuse that it takes a while to remove such info, even though books are always updated with new info all the time. The excuse here will be just as lame.

#2 D R

D R

    Mole troll. AKA dbs944

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Respectfully Withheld

Posted 19 October 2006 - 02:16 AM

.... and then there is the fact that empty oil fields are somehow refilling ( I guess the dinosaurs are still dying today in large numbers....)

I couldn't find the link to the original article so I posted it below.... sorry about the length.

Oil Fields Are Refilling...
Naturally - Sometimes Rapidly
There Are More Oil Seeps Than All The Tankers On Earth
By Robert Cooke
Staff Writer - Newsday.com
4-10-5


Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly.

Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.

Recent measurements in a major oil field show "that the fluids were changing over time; that very light oil and gas were being injected from below, even as the producing [oil pumping] was going on," said chemical oceanographer Mahlon "Chuck" Kennicutt. "They are refilling as we speak. But whether this is a worldwide phenomenon, we don´t know."

Also not known, Kennicutt said, is whether the injection of new oil from deeper strata is of any economic significance, whether there will be enough to be exploitable. The discovery was unexpected, and it is still "somewhat controversial" within the oil industry.

Kennicutt, a faculty member at Texas A&M University, said it is now clear that gas and oil are coming into the known reservoirs very rapidly in terms of geologic time. The inflow of new gas, and some oil, has been detectable in as little as three to 10 years. In the past, it was not suspected that oil fields can refill because it was assumed the oil formed in place, or nearby, rather than far below.

According to marine geologist Harry Roberts, at Louisiana State University, "petroleum geologists don´t accept it as a general phenomenon because it doesn´t happen in most reservoirs. But in this case, it does seem to be happening. You have a very leaky fault system that does allow it to migrate in. It´s directly connected to an oil and gas generating system at great depth."

What the scientists suspect is that very old petroleum -- formed tens of millions of years ago -- has continued migrating up into reservoirs that oil companies have been exploiting for years. But no one had expected that depleted oil fields might refill themselves.

Now, if it is found that gas and oil are coming up in significant amounts, and if the same is occurring in oil fields around the globe, then a lot more fuel than anyone expected could become available eventually. It hints that the world may not, in fact, be running out of petroleum.

"No one has been more astonished by the potential implications of our work than myself," said analytic chemist Jean Whelan, at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Massachusetts. "There already appears to be a large body of evidence consistent with ... oil and gas generation and migration on very short time scales in many areas globally," she wrote in the journal Sea Technology.

"Almost equally surprising," she added, is that "there seem to be no compelling arguments refuting the existence of these rapid, dynamic migration processes."

The first sketchy evidence of this emerged in 1984, when Kennicutt and colleagues from Texas A&M University were in the Gulf of Mexico trying to understand a phenomenon called "seeps," areas on the seafloor where sometimes large amounts of oil and gas escape through natural fissures.

"Our first discovery was with trawls. We knew it was an area of massive seepage, and we expected that the oil seeps would poison everything around" the site. But they found just the opposite.

"On the first trawl, we brought up over two tons of stuff. We had a tough time getting the nets back on board because they were so full" of very odd-looking sea floor creatures, Kennicutt said. "They were long strawlike things that turned out to be tube worms.

"The clams were the first thing I noticed," he added. "They were pretty big, like the size of your hand, and it was obvious they had red blood inside, which is unusual. And these long tubes -- 3, 4 and 5 feet long -- we didn´t know what they were, but they started bleeding red fluid, too. We didn´t know what to make of it."

The biologists they consulted did know what to make of it. "The experts immediately recognized them as chemo-synthetic communities," creatures that get their energy from hydrocarbons -- oil and gas -- rather than from ordinary foods. So these animals are very much like, but still different from, recently discovered creatures living near very hot seafloor vent sites in the Pacific, Atlantic and other oceans.

The difference, Kennicutt said, is that the animals living around cold seeps live on methane and oil, while the creatures growing near hot water vents exploit sulfur compounds in the hot water.

The discovery of abundant life where scientists expected a deserted seafloor also suggested that the seeps are a long-duration phenomenon. Indeed, the clams are thought to be about 100 years old, and the tube worms may live as long as 600 years, or more, Kennicutt said.

The surprises kept pouring in as the researchers explored further and in more detail using research submarines. In some areas, the methane-metabolizing organisms even build up structures that resemble coral reefs.

It has long been known by geologists and oil industry workers that seeps exist. In Southern California, for example, there are seeps near Santa Barbara, at a geologic feature called Coal Oil Point. And, Roberts said, it´s clear that "the Gulf of Mexico leaks like a sieve. You can´t take a submarine dive without running into an oil or gas seep. And on a calm day, you can´t take a boat ride without seeing gigantic oil slicks" on the sea surface.

Roberts added that natural seepage in places like the Gulf of Mexico "far exceeds anything that gets spilled" by oil tankers and other sources.

"The results of this have been a big surprise for me," said Whelan. "I never would have expected that the gas is moving up so quickly and what a huge effect it has on the whole system."

Although the oil industry hasn´t shown great enthusiasm for the idea -- arguing that the upward migration is too slow and too uncommon to do much good -- the search for new oil and gas supplies already has been affected, Whelan and Kennicutt said. Now, companies scan the sea surface for signs of oil slicks that might point to new deposits.

"People are using airplane surveys for the slicks and are doing water column fluorescence measurements looking for the oil," Whelan said. "They´re looking for the sources of the seeps and trying to hook that into the seismic evidence" normally used in searching for buried oil.

Similar research on known oil basins in the North Sea is also under way, and "that oil is very interesting. There are absolutely marvelous pictures of coral reefs which formed from seepage [of gas] from North Sea reservoirs," Whelan said.

Analysis of the ancient oil that seems to be coming up from deep below in the Gulf of Mexico suggests that the flow of new oil "is coming from deeper, hotter formations" and is not simply a lateral inflow from the old deposits that surround existing oil fields, she said. The chemical composition of the migrating oil also indicates it is being driven upward and is being altered by highly pressurized gases squeezing up from below.

This upwelling phenomenon, Whelan noted, fits into a classic analysis of the world´s oil and gas done years ago by geochemist-geologist John Hunt. He suggested that less than 1 percent of the oil that is generated at depth ever makes it into exploitable reservoirs. About 40 percent of the oil and gas remains hidden, spread out in the tiny pores and fissures of deep sedimentary rock formations.

And "the remaining 60 percent," Whelan said, "leaks upward and out of the sediment" via the numerous seeps that occur globally.

Also, the idea that dynamic migration of oil and gas is occurring implies that new supplies "are not only charging some reservoirs at the present time, but that a huge fraction of total oil and gas must be episodically or continuously bypassing reservoirs completely and seeping from surface sediments on a relatively large scale," Whelan explained.

So far, measurements involving biological and geological analysis, plus satellite images, "show widespread and pervasive leakage over the entire northern slope of the Gulf of Mexico," she added.

"For example, Ian MacDonald at Texas A&M has published some remarkable satellite photographs of oil slicks which go for miles in the Gulf of Mexico in areas where no oil production is occurring." Before this research in oil basins began, she added, "changes in reservoired oils were not suspected, so no reliable data exists on how widespread the phenomenon might be in the Gulf Coast or elsewhere."

The researchers, especially the Texas team, have been working on this subject for almost 15 years in collaboration with oil industry experts and various university scientists. Their first focus was on the zone called South Eugene Island block 330, which is 150 miles south of New Orleans. It is known as one of the most productive oil and gas fields in the world. The block lies in water more than 300 feet deep.

As a test, the researchers attempted to drill down into a known fault zone that was thought to be a natural conduit for new petroleum. The drilling was paid for by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Whelan recalled that as the drill dug deeper and deeper, the project seemed to be succeeding, but then it abruptly ended in failure. "We were able to produce only a small amount of oil before the fault closed, like a giant straw," probably because reducing the pressure there allowed the fissure to collapse.

In addition to the drilling effort and the inspection of seeps, Whelan and her colleagues reported that three-dimensional seismic profiles of the underground reservoirs commonly show giant gas plumes coming from depth and disrupting sediments all the way to the surface.

This also shows that in an area west of the South Eugene Island area, a giant gas plume originates from beneath salt about 15,000 feet down and then disrupts the sediment layers all the way to the surface. The surface expression of this plume is very large -- about 1,500 feet in diameter. One surprise, Whelan said, was that the gas plume seems to exist outside of faults, the ground fractures, which at present are the main targets of oil exploration.

It is suspected that the process of upward migration of petroleum is driven by natural gas that is being continually produced both by deeply buried bacteria and from oil being broken down in the deeper, hotter layers of sediment. The pressures and heat at great depth are thought to be increasing because the ground is sinking -- subsiding -- as a result of new sediments piling up on top. The site is part of the huge delta formed over thousands of years by the southward flow of the massive Mississippi River. Like other major deltas, the Mississippi´s outflow structure is continually being built from sands, muds and silts washed off the continent.

Analysis of the oil being driven into the reservoirs suggests they were created during the so-called Jurassic and Early Cretaceous periods (100 million to 150 million years ago), even before the existing basin itself was formed. This means the source rock is buried and remains invisible to seismic imaging beneath layers of salt.

In studying so-called biomarkers in the oil, Whelan said, it was concluded that the oil is closely related to other very old oils, implying that it "was probably generated very early and then remained trapped at depth until recently." And, she added, other analyses "show that this oil must have remained trapped at depths and temperatures much greater than those of the present-day producing reservoirs."

At great depth, where the heat and pressure are high enough, she explained, methane is produced by oil being "cracked," and production of gas "is able to cause sufficient pressure to periodically open the fracture system and allow upward fluid flow of methane, with entrapment of oil in its path."

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 October 2006 - 01:18 PM

Found some links to the article:

Yahoo.

#4 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 23 October 2006 - 02:14 AM

I'm sure oil can be generated in a short time, from various biological materials. In fact, various oils, like olive oil, have been produced for several thousand years, so this is hardly news.

However, there are different kinds of oils. The petroleum oil (petroleum literally means stone oil) is a different composition from the various bio oils that can be produced.

The dating of oil is not circular as the opening post alleges. The dating of oils from oil fields is determined by verious dating methods, mostly isotope-based (including, but not limited to, C14 analysis). I realize that creationists do not accept such dating methods as valid, but the scientific community does, so the claim that the dating is without basis is wrong. You may challenge the dating methods, but you can't just claim they don't exist.

Hans

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 October 2006 - 01:41 AM

I'm sure oil can be generated in a short time, from various biological materials. In fact, various oils, like olive oil, have been produced for several thousand years, so this is hardly news.

However, there are different kinds of oils. The petroleum oil (petroleum literally means stone oil) is a different composition from the various bio oils that can be produced.

The dating of oil is not circular as the opening post alleges. The dating of oils from oil fields is determined by verious dating methods, mostly isotope-based (including, but not limited to, C14 analysis). I realize that creationists do not accept such dating methods as valid, but the scientific community does, so the claim that the dating is without basis is wrong. You may challenge the dating methods, but you can't just claim they don't exist.

Hans

View Post


Can you show me where c-14 dating was used to date the age of oil? I have never see such a test performed. or it's results. All that I have ever seen is the claim that oil is so many years old because the breakdown process required takes that long.

In fact, after doing some searches. I found c14 dating to be in question as far as dating anything beyond 50,000 years. I even found a atheist site (talk origins) saying that background radiation makes more c14 exist in objects that should not have it. That in itself shows how flawed it really is.

#6 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 26 October 2006 - 11:13 PM

Can you show me where c-14 dating was used to date the age of oil? I have never see such a test performed. or it's results. All that I have ever seen is the claim that oil is so many years old because the breakdown process required takes that long.

In fact, after doing some searches. I found c14 dating to be in question as far as dating anything beyond 50,000 years. I even found a atheist site (talk origins) saying that background radiation makes more c14 exist in objects that should not have it. That in itself shows how flawed it really is.

View Post

I suggest you google it. Since, assuming a fossil origin, the age of the materials forming any given sample of oil will fall in a wide range, tens of millions of years, you cannot precisely date it. However, that is not the point. 50,000 years is, obviously, quite sufficient to falsify a thesis of recent creation, unless you want to claim (as some do) that it was created with an apparant age.

Background radiation creating C14 in objects will cause their age to be underestimated, not overestimated.

Hans

#7 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 October 2006 - 12:32 AM

I suggest you google it. Since, assuming a fossil origin, the age of the materials forming any given sample of oil will fall in a wide range, tens of millions of years, you cannot precisely date it. However, that is not the point. 50,000 years is, obviously, quite sufficient to falsify a thesis of recent creation, unless you want to claim (as some do) that it was created with an apparant age.

Background radiation creating C14 in objects will cause their age to be underestimated, not overestimated.

Hans

View Post


I wonder how old will the instant oil date? I think that would be an interesting test.

A question. If oil is in a dating layer that dates much older than the oil is. Would the dating markers of the layer make the oil date older?

Example: If I dug a hole down to a layer that dates 1 million years old. Then I took some of the instant oil and poured it in. Left it there for a thousand years. Would the dating markers from the layer around it make it date older?

And yes, I do believe God created things with age, but without time. Because we were in eternal time until the first sin.

#8 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 27 October 2006 - 01:02 AM

I wonder how old will the instant oil date? I think that would be an interesting test.


It would probably date in a way reflecting the age of its raw materials.

A question. If oil is in a dating layer that dates much older than the oil is. Would the dating markers of the layer make the oil date older?


Most likely. Contamination with markers of different ages is always an issue in radiometric dating.

Example: If I dug a hole down to a layer that dates 1 million years old. Then I took some of the instant oil and poured it in. Left it there for a thousand years. Would the dating markers from the layer around it make it date older?


Most likely. And?

Hans

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 November 2006 - 03:56 AM

It would probably date in a way reflecting the age of its raw materials.
Most likely. Contamination with markers of different ages is always an issue in radiometric dating.
Most likely. And?

Hans

View Post


Shows this type of dating cannot be relied on for such dating, of such material.

#10 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 07 November 2006 - 01:07 AM

Shows this type of dating cannot be relied on for such dating, of such material.

View Post

Depends on what you need the dating for. You can't determine that "this oil was created 268 million years ago". You can determine that it is of great age, even on the geological scale. In fact the use of fossil fuel presents quite a challenge for certain kinds of radiometric dating. For instance, if a sample has been contaminated with soot from road traffic, it will date too old in a C14 test. Of course, this can be overcome through careful sample selection and handling.

Hans

#11 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 November 2006 - 01:16 AM

Depends on what you need the dating for. You can't determine that "this oil was created 268 million years ago". You can determine that it is of great age, even on the geological scale. In fact the use of fossil fuel presents quite a challenge for certain kinds of radiometric dating. For instance, if a sample has been contaminated with soot from road traffic, it will date too old in a C14 test. Of course, this can be overcome through careful sample selection and handling.

Hans

View Post


If carbon dating were used by creationists, because it dated things much younger. Would you accept so much leeway that mistakes can happen on a high precentage level? Or are these mistakes only acceptable because most of these test would confirm old earth instead?

#12 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 07 November 2006 - 01:25 AM

If carbon dating were used by creationists, because it dated things much younger. Would you accept so much leeway that mistakes can happen on a high precentage level? Or are these mistakes only acceptable because most of these test would confirm old earth instead?

View Post

Tolerance is tolerance. Any given method of measuring, whether it's a tape measure or radiometric dating, has a finite precision, no matter who uses it or who argues by it.

However, your argument seems to be "Since we cannot determine whether a sample of oil is two hundred or three hundred million years old, it might as well be 4,000 years old". This does not compute. The fact is that you either have to reject radiometric dating as totally invalid or accept that it is solid and consistent evidence that Earth is many orders of magnitude older than the app. 6,000 years that a strict Biblical interpretation points to.

Hans

#13 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 November 2006 - 02:21 AM

Tolerance is tolerance. Any given method of measuring, whether it's a tape measure or radiometric dating, has a finite precision, no matter who uses it or who argues by it.

However, your argument seems to be "Since we cannot determine whether a sample of oil is two hundred or three hundred million years old, it might as well be 4,000 years old". This does not compute. The fact is that you either have to reject radiometric dating as totally invalid or accept that it is solid and consistent evidence that Earth is many orders of magnitude older than the app. 6,000 years that a strict Biblical interpretation points to.

Hans

View Post


The variance in dating is much greater than you or science wants to admit.

But it does not matter because I believe everything was created with age already added to it. And whether science wants to understand, or disagree, has no bearing. Science, and it's theories, are not the ones who dictate truth. If they were, their theories would no longer be theories.

Unlike unprovable theories, God has no problem admitting that anything that is not provable takes faith. And God requires that you have faith. But, science says that even if something has no evidence, if it can be theorized, you can believe it if you like.

jn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


Example is the Oort cloud. No one has seen it. Only that some sort of supposed test proves that what is theorized is probably there. Which even by religious standards is faith or takes faith. Because for something to require not even 1% faith means it has become an absolute. The Oort cloud is a 98% non-absolute. So in order to believe it exists, takes 98% faith.

Many atheist say they require to see God in order to believe in God. Funny that no one has seen the Oort cloud. But yet in the minds of most atheists, it exists. :rolleyes:

And not everyone believes what they see anyway:

jn 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

Belief is a choice made by the person who decides to do it. Whether what is seen or heard is true or not. For I can believe a lie as well as believe a truth. Just as you can. But to believe in something that cannot be proven requires faith, which goes beyond a theory.

You can make the excuse that this does not compute. All that this tells me is that anything out side the relative reality of a theory, is not feasible. And therefore does not warrant your time to look into. And you would rather remain confused then to try and understand it.

#14 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 November 2006 - 02:47 PM

However, your argument seems to be "Since we cannot determine whether a sample of oil is two hundred or three hundred million years old, it might as well be 4,000 years old". This does not compute. The fact is that you either have to reject radiometric dating as totally invalid or accept that it is solid and consistent evidence that Earth is many orders of magnitude older than the app. 6,000 years that a strict Biblical interpretation points to.

Hans

View Post


I think its old news that oil has formed that is less 6k years old...

PETROLEUM-LIKE hydrocarbons have been detected in thermally altered Recent sediments of Guaymas Basin1−5 and petroleum-like hydrocarbon impregnations were found in hydrothermal mounds on the sea floor and associated with hydrothermal vent emissions5−9. Here we report the evaluation of such a hydrothermal oil, which we find to be similar to conventionally exploited crude oils. Its young geological age (< 5,000 yr, 14C) 10 indicates that a significant fraction of the organic carbon in the oil has completed the transformation from biomass to migrating oil in less than 5,000 years, thus limiting the oil generation, explusion and migration processes to a geologically short timescale. We estimate the generation potential of such hydrothermal oil and discuss its implications to our understanding of the petroleum generation, expulsion and migration mechanisms.


Young Oil

Terry

#15 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 09 November 2006 - 07:28 AM

Ehrm, how do they know that this young oil is indeed recently created? Did anybody witness its creation?

..... Or did they rely on some dating system?

Hans

#16 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 November 2006 - 02:23 PM

Ehrm, how do they know that this young oil is indeed recently created? Did anybody witness its creation?

..... Or did they rely on some dating system?

Hans

View Post


Do you really doubt the age????

Funny, < 5k years sounds allot like something that would have formed around the time of the flood.... :rolleyes:

Terry

#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 November 2006 - 08:48 PM

Ehrm, how do they know that this young oil is indeed recently created? Did anybody witness its creation?

..... Or did they rely on some dating system?

Hans

View Post


Did anyone wittness the old oil decay over millions of years?

#18 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 10 November 2006 - 12:33 AM

Did anyone wittness the old oil decay over millions of years?

View Post

No. Both the observation of old oil and new oil are based on the same dating methods. Thus, if you reject the notion of old oil, you have also lost the reference for the age of new oil.

You have to either accept dating methods or reject them.

Hans

#19 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 November 2006 - 03:32 AM

No. Both the observation of old oil and new oil are based on the same dating methods. Thus, if you reject the notion of old oil, you have also lost the reference for the age of new oil.

You have to either accept dating methods or reject them.

Hans

View Post



That's false.... In some cases they may work, and in some they may not.

Terry

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 November 2006 - 06:47 AM

No. Both the observation of old oil and new oil are based on the same dating methods. Thus, if you reject the notion of old oil, you have also lost the reference for the age of new oil.

You have to either accept dating methods or reject them.

Hans

View Post


You may think creationists are stuck in one way thinking. Your feeble attempt to try and make a case about oil still being old, when the conditions to make oil are practically the same. Which puts into question how old the supposed old oil really is. But you would never see that, even though the question is scientifically feasible.

New oil condition vs. old oil conditions.

Pressure:
New oil has applied to it, 50 atmospheres. Which is over 700 psi.
Supposed old oil is found at pressures from 3,000-30,000 psi. Which is more than enough pressure.

Heat:
New oil is heated twice to 500 degrees F, while under 700 psi.
Old oil is found at 400 degrees F, while found under pressures at 3,000 psi plus.

Though the pressure is very different, the temps are not. So would you still say that the oil found in the ground took millions of years to form? And on what lab testing would you base this on? When you can actually see that it has been done with similar conditions.

Also, the pressure oil is found at, would match the conditions of a world wide flood.

Flooding the earth to a total of 14 miles of water (to the highest mountain, and the deepest sea). Would equal 2000 atmospheres (every 33 feet equals 1 atmosphere), or 28-30,000 psi (looks familiar to the pressure we find old oil at).

Now how do you get:
Flood produced: 28-30,000 psi
Old oil is found at: 3-30,000 psi

And the supposed old oil still has high pressure, and high heat after millions of years?

I guess because this supports creation, it's not scientific questions. Even though the facts speak for themselves.

Added: For the sake of doing the math, 1 atmosphere equals a little over 14 psi.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users