Jump to content


Photo

Does Oil Really Take Millions Of Years To Form?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
18 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 09 November 2007 - 04:40 AM

I have posted before where a company is making oil in one day. Which I will leave the info to this here:
http://www.changingw...m/who/index.asp

We have been told by evolutionist for years that oil takes millions of years to be made from decaying biomass and dead dinosaurs. But what they claimed was based soley on age dating methods. It was never tested. So now one campany is able to prove this wrong. But now nature itself is doing the same thing.

The process in which nature does this is called hydrothermal oil. Hydrothermal oil is oil the is produced naturally using black smokers as the heat source. This super heated water, which can be 400 F degree or hotter, is pushed through the biomass that exist in deep oceans. Currently everyday oil is being produced in the California Guaymas Basin as a black smoker (under water volcanic vent) produces enough heat to do this.

Now some might say that water boils at just a little over 200 degrees F. That's true. But when you go under water, every 33 feet you go down. Equals one atmosphere. One atmosphere is 14.7 psi. Anytime you apply pressure to water, the boiling point of it increases. This black smoker is located just a little over 6,000 feet.
  • How deep: 6,000 feet
  • Pressure: 60 atmospheres (1800inHg or 840 psi).
  • Temperature: 300-350°C. or 572-662°F
  • Objects present: Water, black smoker, organic sediments, green algae.
When oil is drilled for and found. The temperature is around 400 °F.
When oil is man made in one day, the temperature is around 500-1000 °F.
When oil is made hydrothermally, the tempature is 572-662 °F.

Do you see how close the temps are for each process?

When oil is drilled for and found. The pressure is around 3,000-30,000 psi.
When oil is man made, the pressure is around 715 psi.
When oil is hydrothemally made, the pressure is 840 psi.

Do you see that pressure is required, but not as much as how we find it in the ground (drilled for). Now why would the pressure in the ground be so much higher than the other two? The flood.

The flood had to be at least 12 miles of water. This includes the water that was in the deepest seas. So from the top of the highest mountain, to the bottom of the deepest sea. There was 12 miles of water or more. What kind of pressure did that produce?

There is 5,280 feet in a mile. 5,280 times 12 (the least amount of depth of the global flood to cover the highest mountain. No one knows how far above the mountain the water went.) 5280 x 12 = 63360 feet. 63360 feet divided by 33 equals 1920 atmospheres. 1920 x 14.7 = 28,216.2066837 psi. This is near the same pressures that the highest pressure oil wells are found. Around 3/4 of a mile more and you would get 30,000 psi (highest pressure oil wells). So the pressures caused by the flood almost match the highest pressure oil wells.

So the difference between the pressure oil wells are found at, and what the least amount the flood would produce is only 2000 psi (only 3/4 of a mile more of water was needed to match current oil well highest pressures). This maybe very well how high the flood waters went. 3/4 of a mile over the highest mountain.

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. Reference: http://www.nature.co...s/342065a0.html


Geologists maintain that most of the oil they pump out of the ground was formed tens and hundreds of millions of years ago from biological debris. But in the Guaymas Basin, in the Gulf of California, the oil seeping out of the sediments is only 4240 years old! Actually, it could be even 500-3000 years younger than that for two reasons: (1) The organic debris that was C-14-dated may have taken many years to become incorporated in the sediments; and (2) The dating may be skewed by older material in the sediments. By subtraction, the oil might be as young as 1240 years!

The picture geologists draw of the Guaymas Basin is that of a spreading center covered by perhaps a half kilometer of sediments. Spewing up from the spreading center is hot water at 300-350°C, which "cracks" the organic material in the sediments, converting it into petroleum only 10-30 meters below the sea floor. (Hecht, Jeff; "Youngest Oil Deposit Found below Gulf of California," New Scientist, p. 19, April 6, 1991.)
http://www.science-f...76/sf076g09.htm


The newly formed oil dates to over 4,000 years old because the biomass in which it is made from is old. Which shows that material source age affects the final product age.

So what does all this show us?

1) That oil does not take millions of years to form.
2) That evolutionists made these claims soley based on trying to find evidence to support their theory.
3) Even though they have been proven wrong, their claim will take over 100 years to change. Just like the fraud Piltdown man did. After Piltdown man was proven fraud, it took over 100 years to change this in our text books. You see this has been known about since at least since 1991 (Hecht, Jeff; "Youngest Oil Deposit Found below Gulf of California," New Scientist, p. 19, April 6, 1991.).


Want to see this hydrothermal process taking place?

It's the video that says: The young age of the earth.
http://www.halos.com...g-video.htm#yae
The footage of this process is 19 minutes and 50 seconds into the video. Video is in windows media format.

It shows the heat from the black smoker going up through the biomass, and droplets of oil coming out the other side.

Even though all of this is scientific, as evolutionists would require the YECs to do. Just watch how it will be rejected anyway.

#2 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 15 November 2007 - 01:18 AM

Basically, this is, of course, great news. Gives us hopes for not running out of oil. Unfortunately, the amounts produced and the energies involved in producing it does not hold promise for any immidiate solution to the world's energy supply.

As for the evolution and Earth age discussion, it is basically moot. We have been able to synthezise oil for over half a century (the Germans did it a lot during WW2). Obviously, the fact that oil can be made in a short time does not prove that all oil was made that way.

The idea that most oil deposits are ancient does not really stem from dating methods, although it is supported by them. However, oil deposits are also almost invariably found where geological studies indicate that vast amounts of fossil material has been buried in geologically ancient times.

The calculation of the pressures during the Flood is very neat at first glance, but there are a few difficulties:

1) The temperatures needed are not accounted for. Since water is incompressible, pressure alone does not produce high temperatures.

2) For the sea level to rise to the hights indicated, more water is required that ever existed on Earth. .. And indeed current creationist attempts to make the Flood scientifically feasible have included a rearrangement of both water depths and mountain hights that will defuse the pressure arguments. You can't eat your cake and keep it.

3) Actual oil deposits are very often found on land, where no Flood theory could account for sufficient pressure.

ETA: And, of course, most oil from fossil deposits date as much older than 4-5000 years.

Hans

#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 15 November 2007 - 03:18 AM

Obviously, the fact that oil can be made in a short time does not prove that all oil was made that way.


That's like saying: Just because the oil dates old does not meant that it is old.

The idea that most oil deposits are ancient does not really stem from dating methods, although it is supported by them. However, oil deposits are also almost invariably found where geological studies indicate that vast amounts of fossil material has been buried in geologically ancient times.

The calculation of the pressures during the Flood is very neat at first glance, but there are a few difficulties:

1) The temperatures needed are not accounted for. Since water is incompressible, pressure alone does not produce high temperatures.


You would be correct, except you do not consider that there is also air that is found in oil deposits as well. Air, as compressed, can generate a lot of heat. The perfect example is a diesel engine. It ignites it's fuel by compressing air to the point that it heats up hot enough to melt lead. At this point the fuel is injected, and ignited.

So while the biomass is covered in the flood, heat from air compression or lava flows heats this biomass up and it converts into oil in just a matter of hours.

2) For the sea level to rise to the hights indicated, more water is required that ever existed on Earth. .. And indeed current creationist attempts to make the Flood scientifically feasible have included a rearrangement of both water depths and mountain hights that will defuse the pressure arguments. You can't eat your cake and keep it.


There has already been found that there is enough water in the earth's upper mantle to fill 30 of our oceans.

Frost says that solidified lava that has erupted at mid-ocean ridges contains glass that can be analyzed for water content. His research team has calculated how much water the lava's parent material in the mantle must have contained. "It ends up being between 100 and 500 parts per million," he says. And if the whole mantle contained 500 parts per million of water, Frost calculates that would be the equivalent of 30 oceans of water.
http://www.ldolphin....deepwaters.html


3) Actual oil deposits are very often found on land, where no Flood theory could account for sufficient pressure.


Finding enough water from the above post, solves the problem of this question. Because only fifty atmospheres is needed. Only 5.5 miles of water is needed to cover the highest mountain. How much pressure is in 5.5 miles? I'll leave the math so you can figure it out.

Scuba diving books state that every 33 feet you descend in water equals one atmosphere. One atmosphere is a little over 14 psi. There are 5,280 feet in a mile. Time that times 5.5 miles. Then divide by 33 and you will have how many atmospheres there are in 5.5 miles of water. Now times that time 14.3 psi and you will have the pressure at that depth.

ETA: And, of course, most oil from fossil deposits date as much older than 4-5000 years.

Hans

View Post


It dates old because the earth was created with age already added.

Example: If a plant feeds on soil that dates millions of years old, it will cross contaminate the age of the plant. Take that same plant and have a flood. The old dating plant decays and forms oil. Now how old is the oil going to date? As old as the plant did.

#4 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 15 November 2007 - 08:40 AM

That's like saying: Just because the oil dates old does not meant that it is old.


No, it is not.

You would be correct, except you do not consider that there is also air that is found in oil deposits as well. Air, as compressed, can generate a lot of heat. The perfect example is a diesel engine. It ignites it's fuel by compressing air to the point that it heats up hot enough to melt lead. At this point the fuel is injected, and ignited.


Except that:

- In the diesel engine the volume of air is several times the volume of oil.
- There is no combustion taking place (the oil would contain combustion products).

So while the biomass is covered in the flood, heat from air compression or lava flows heats this biomass up and it converts into oil in just a matter of hours.


Assuming a source of heat (lava is the most likely), where does the biomass come from? Remember, the evolution version works with the accumulated deposits of millions of years of biomass, you have, what? a thousand years?

There has already been found that there is enough water in the earth's upper mantle to fill 30 of our oceans.


It is bound chemically to the rocks. The energy needed to boil it out of them would fry the Earth.

It dates old because the earth was created with age already added.


That is pure speculation.

Example: If a plant feeds on soil that dates millions of years old, it will cross contaminate the age of the plant. Take that same plant and have a flood. The old dating plant decays and forms oil. Now how old is the oil going to date? As old as the plant did.


Incorrect. The (C14) dating comes from the carbon that plants absorb from the air. That is the trick of the whole thing. The carbon in the atmosphere (in CO2) has a (fairly) stable content of C14, and this is reflected in the plant (and other life-form) as long as it is metabolizing (alive). Once it dies, C14 is no longer absorbed, and the content decays with the half-life of C14. The age of the soil is entirely irrelevant.

Hans

#5 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 01 December 2008 - 03:34 AM

Oil Creation Theory Challenged by Fuel-Making Fungus

A newfound fungus living in rainforest trees makes biofuel more efficiently than any other known method, researchers say.

In fact, it's so good at turning plant matter into fuel that researchers say their discovery calls into question the whole theory of how crude oil was made by nature in the first place.

While many crops and microbes can be combined to make biofuels — including the fungi that became infamous as jungle rot during WWII — the newfound fungus could greatly simplify the process, its discoverers claim. Researchers have suggested that billions of acres of fallow farmland could be used to grow the raw material of biofuels. But turning corn stalks or switchgrass into fuel is a painstaking process and the end product is expensive and not entirely friendly to the environment.

The fungus, which has been named Gliocladium roseum, stands out in the crowd.

"This is the only organism that has ever been shown to produce such an important combination of fuel substances," said researcher Gary Strobel from Montana State University. "The fungus can even make these diesel compounds from cellulose, which would make it a better source of biofuel than anything we use at the moment."

The scientists are now working to develop its fuel producing potential, according to a paper published in the November issue of the journal Microbiology.

The fungus grows inside the Ulmo tree in the Patagonian rainforest in South America. "When we examined the gas composition of G. roseum, we were totally surprised to learn that it was making a plethora of hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon derivatives," the stuff of diesel, Strobel said. The fuel it produces has been dubbed "myco-diesel."

Cellulose, lignin and hemicellulose make up the cell walls in plants. They makes the stalks, sawdust and woodchip and cannot be digested by most living things. Some 400 million tons of this plant waste is produced ever year just from farmland, Strobel and his colleagues say. In current biofuel production, this waste is treated with enzymes called cellulases that turn the cellulose into sugar. Microbes then ferment this sugar into ethanol that can be used as a fuel.

If G. roseum can be used commercially to make fuel, a step could be skipped.

"We were very excited to discover that G. roseum can digest cellulose. Although the fungus makes less myco-diesel when it feeds on cellulose compared to sugars, new developments in fermentation technology and genetic manipulation could help improve the yield," Strobel explained. "In fact, the genes of the fungus are just as useful as the fungus itself in the development of new biofuels."


The discovery also questions assumptions about how fossil fuels are made.

"The accepted theory is that crude oil, which is used to make diesel, is formed from the remains of dead plants and animals that have been exposed to heat and pressure for millions of years," Strobel said. "If fungi like this are producing myco-diesel all over the rainforest, they may have contributed to the formation of fossil fuels."


#6 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 01 December 2008 - 05:55 AM

On Hannity tonight fox channel, they are supposed the deal with making oil out of shell. This method is supposed to give us the same quality crude as we get from the Saudis. And the quanity is more than they have all together.

#7 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 01 December 2008 - 07:55 AM

On Hannity tonight fox channel, they are supposed the deal with making oil out of shell. This method is supposed to give us the same quality crude as we get from the Saudis. And the quanity is more than they have all together.

View Post

That would certainly be great news! :)

Hans

#8 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 December 2008 - 06:08 PM

Heres a new paper from Answers Research Journal.

http://www.answersin...1/origin-of-oil

The dominant view of the origin of oil amongst western oil companies until 1969 was that it was due to the decay of living matter. Now other views are making themselves heard. To try and resolve the issue whether oil is biogenic (derived from living matter) or abiogenic (built up from primordial matter and therefore not from living matter) a Hedberg Conference recently took place. The issue was not resolved. This suggests that a third alternative is needed, especially as neither model fits into a young-earth scenario.

Enjoy.

#9 Jon Bigbeautei

Jon Bigbeautei

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 02 January 2009 - 08:35 PM

I was watching some documentary about oil and they had a theory about the origins of oil and it goes something like this: However many years ago, the oceans became poisoned and all the marine life died and fell to the seafloor. The dead marine animals did not decompose because of the lack of oxygen in the oceans so after however many more years those dead bodies were buried under the tectonic plates, that moved over them, and under extreme pressures from tectonic plate friction and the earth's heat the dead bodies turned into light sweet crude.

So instead of dinosaur oil we have fish oil now. How long has this been going on?

#10 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 02 January 2009 - 09:36 PM

Hi jon Bigbeautei,Welcome.

I was watching some documentary about oil and they had a theory about the origins of oil and it goes something like this: However many years ago, the oceans became poisoned and all the marine life died and fell to the seafloor. The dead marine animals did not decompose because of the lack of oxygen in the oceans so after however many more years those dead bodies were buried under the tectonic plates, that moved over them, and under extreme pressures from tectonic plate friction and the earth's heat the dead bodies turned into light sweet crude.


Compress all of that into a timeframe of a few months and it sounds like the flood model.

Look at it this way;When peatbogs in low oxygen are producing methane gas without rotting first,how long is that peat going to sit in that water before it's completely replaced by minerals and fossilizes?

Surely not millions of years.



Thanks.

#11 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 02 January 2009 - 09:50 PM

Hi jon Bigbeautei,Welcome.
Compress all of that into a timeframe of a few months and it sounds like the flood model.

Look at it this way;When peatbogs in low oxygen are producing methane gas without rotting first,how long is that peat going to sit in that water before it's completely replaced by minerals and fossilizes?

Surely not millions of years.
Thanks.

View Post


I often ponder why people always assume it has to take millions of years to compress carbon matter into oil. I look at this way... how long does it take our bodies to convert carbon into useable burnable energy such as methane gas??? Surely not millions of years... Laxatives would surely speed the process up to only a few thousand years I'd hope....

Because I sure wouldn't want to be constipated for a million years.

#12 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 03 January 2009 - 02:35 AM

I was watching some documentary about oil and they had a theory about the origins of oil and it goes something like this:  However many years ago, the oceans became poisoned and all the marine life died and fell to the seafloor.  The dead marine animals did not decompose because of the lack of oxygen in the oceans so after however many more years those dead bodies were buried under the tectonic plates, that moved over them, and under extreme pressures from tectonic plate friction and the earth's heat the dead bodies turned into light sweet crude.

So instead of dinosaur oil we have fish oil now.  How long has this been going on?

View Post


Basically what happened was: The old earthers needed support evidence for their theory. So they claimed oil and coal takes millions of years to form. And only the really old extenct animals did this. Now because there was no way to actually test how long it takes for oil to be made at that time. They decided to make an assumption. And that assumption has held up for several years, and has been printed in our text books as truth and fact.

But now it's been proven wrong. And the old earthers do not want to give up their assumption without a fight. So the strategy is to come up with new ways to explain it in hopes that it keeps people from looking at the big mistake they made. And that they broke their own rules of the scientific method to make it, and is the very reason they now have one foot in their mouth. If they would have followed their own rules, and not made such an assumption. We would not be having this discussion.

#13 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 January 2009 - 11:08 PM

On Hannity tonight fox channel, they are supposed the deal with making oil out of shell. This method is supposed to give us the same quality crude as we get from the Saudis. And the quanity is more than they have all together.

View Post


The word is Shale, and yes the US has more of it than pretty much all of OPEC. This is soemthing Shell was working on decades ago. It's very expensive to produce and it requires a lot of energy.

Which brings me to your original point. Yes, oil has been synthesized without needing millions of years, but it did need a substantial amount of additional energy input which is why it currently isn't being used on a large scale. So for the trillions of barrels of crude oil locked away in our world to have been formed you'd need a massive amount of energy. Where did it come from???

I often ponder why people always assume it has to take millions of years to compress carbon matter into oil. I look at this way... how long does it take our bodies to convert carbon into useable burnable energy such as methane gas??? Surely not millions of years... Laxatives would surely speed the process up to only a few thousand years I'd hope....


Methane doesn't begin to approach the energy concentration found in oil.

#14 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 January 2009 - 12:20 AM

The word is Shale, and yes the US has more of it than pretty much all of OPEC.  This is soemthing Shell was working on decades ago.  It's very expensive to produce and it requires a lot of energy.

Which brings me to your original point.  Yes, oil has been synthesized without needing millions of years, but it did need a substantial amount of additional energy input which is why it currently isn't being used on a large scale.  So for the trillions of barrels of crude oil locked away in our world to have been formed you'd need a massive amount of energy.  Where did it come from???
Methane doesn't begin to approach the energy concentration found in oil.

View Post


When the fountains of the deep broke up to flood the earth, it had to bring up some of the mantle with it. Water being compressed by several miles of water above it, raises the boiling point to produce enough heat energy for that to happen. Pressure, plus heat, plus the material needed = oil. Is not that the process? So what's the problem, God did it?

#15 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 January 2009 - 11:16 AM

When the fountains of the deep broke up to flood the earth, it had to bring up some of the mantle with it. Water being compressed by several miles of water above it, raises the boiling point to produce enough heat energy for that to happen. Pressure, plus heat, plus the material needed = oil. Is not that the process? So what's the problem, God did it?

View Post


Fair enough, if this is your explanation you need to expand on it, but I have the following questions.

1. Why didn't the heat of the mantle incinerate the biomass??? The geothermal gradient for the Earth is something like 15F/1000 ft. So the mantle is significantly hotter than crustal formations 2-3 miles down. Temperatures would undoubtedly move outside the "oil window" if mantle material came to the surface.

2. Where did the necessary biomass come from to provide the carbon to form the petroleum???

3. Compressing water does not raise the temperature of anything. The pressure at that depth is higher than the vapor pressure so it does raise the boiling point. What you're saying is clearly wrong because otherwise the bottom of the ocean would be hotter than the surface.

4. "God did it" IS a problematic explanation because it does nothing to further our understanding. You asked in another thread why doesn't science consider alternate explanations yet put forth explanations that science cannot test.

#16 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 25 January 2009 - 02:51 PM

Fair enough, if this is your explanation you need to expand on it, but I have the following questions.

1.  Why didn't the heat of the mantle incinerate the biomass???  The geothermal gradient for the Earth is something like 15F/1000 ft.  So the mantle is significantly hotter than crustal formations 2-3 miles down.  Temperatures would undoubtedly move outside the "oil window" if mantle material came to the surface.


Oxygen is required to incinerate. Water in liquid state does not provide this. If it did, firemen could never put out fires with it because it would be like throwing gasoline on it.

2.  Where did the necessary biomass come from to provide the carbon to form the petroleum???


Sudden bursts of water coming from under ground would wash the biomass into one direction and one place. And the hot mantle would cook the biomass. And the pressure of the flood would allow the biomass to get hot enough to create the oil quickly.

3.  Compressing water does not raise the temperature of anything.  The pressure at that depth is higher than the vapor pressure so it does raise the boiling point.  What you're saying is clearly wrong because otherwise the bottom of the ocean would be hotter than the surface.


You misunderstand my post. I never said the pressure itself caused the temps to rise. I said it raised the boiling point of water so that it could rise. Hot enough to make the oil. How hot can it get?

Temps of black smokers:
http://www.whoi.edu/...icle.do?id=2400
http://www.nature.co...l/403880a0.html

300-400 degrees C? That's around 800 degrees F. Ever cook something at those temps? It would not take long would it?

4.  "God did it" IS a problematic explanation because it does nothing to further our understanding.  You asked in another thread why doesn't science consider alternate explanations yet put forth explanations that science cannot test.

View Post


Can you test the "process" for millions of years of claimed evolution? No, because you cannot control time in order to do this. So science more or less gets a get out of the scientific method pass because of this. So they have a "time god did it" excuse. How? If I used the xcuse that the reaso I cannot produce God is because it would take to much time. Because God only showed Himself in the Old testament. What would you think of that excuse? A cop out right? Now you know what I think of the time excuse.

And if I really thought about it, I could probably come up with about 5 or more god did it type excuses that science uses on major issues all the time. So it's not a one sides issue where you can point your finger and say: You believe in God, so you have God did it excuses. This is because anytime a god type situation is invoke as an answer that is in no way scientific. And cannot meet anything in the scientific method. Then the answer by default becomes an excuse. And an excuse is an untruth that is cloaked in reason.

Reason does not make truth. It can make a lie sound true.

Example: when you were younger and you got caught doing something yu were not supposed to do. And you get asked the question: Why did you do it. What is the first thing you do? You try and reason your way out of trouble by making it sound like you did not know what you were doing, or you had no alternative.

But, since you knew better, does the reasoning make what you did a lie or a truth?

So since science uses a lot of reasoning, you have to determine in which direction is the reasoning going. If it's covering up, it's a lie twisted to sound true. If it actually answer a question, then it can be considered a possible truth. So reasoning does not always equal truth.

So when I'm told that I refuse to listen to reason, I know not all reasoning is for truth. But the person who says this thinks that it is.

#17 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 January 2009 - 03:11 PM

Boy that was fast. Usually the Goldilocks false dichotomy drags out a little longer.

Post 13: too cold

Post 15 too hot

The assumption that just right couldn't be the case? Well, why make such an assumption? Implications?

#18 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 January 2009 - 08:08 PM

Oxygen is required to incinerate. Water in liquid state does not provide this. If it did, firemen could never put out fires with it because it would be like throwing gasoline on it.


An oxidizing agent is required for combusion, I specifically avoided saying burned or combusted for that reason alone. Not that there isn't elemental oxygen in water or in the mantle. Perhaps thermal decomposition of organic compounds.

Sudden bursts of water coming from under ground would wash the biomass into one direction and one place. And the hot mantle would cook the biomass. And the pressure of the flood would allow the biomass to get hot enough to create the oil quickly.


I'm currently working on a project right now with a formation at about 3km. At that depth the pressure is around 900atm. How much water do you need to produce that kind of pressure? Even if it is possible, why didn't the oil float to the surface as it does in water??? How did oil come to be distributed around the world the way it currently is?? Also, how did coal come to exist??? I ask this because it consists almost entirely of terrestrial plants. Why weren't they turned into oil as well??? I'd like to hear what you have to say about natural gas as well.

Also, how what broke the water lose from the mantle and what put it back in???


You misunderstand my post. I never said the pressure itself caused the temps to rise. I said it raised the boiling point of water so that it could rise. Hot enough to make the oil. How hot can it get?

Temps of black smokers:
http://www.whoi.edu/...icle.do?id=2400
http://www.nature.co...l/403880a0.html

300-400 degrees C? That's around 800 degrees F. Ever cook something at those temps? It would not take long would it? 


Fair enough.
That's too hot for significant oil formation. There's a specific set of conditions required for it to happen, and 300 degrees C is higher than what's needed. In fact when temperatures get higher than whats needed for oil you get natural gas instead. If your idea about the mantle coming up and "cooking" the biomass were correct we would likely see far less oil since it's rarely found at temperatures seen in the upper mantle.



Can you test the "process" for millions of years of claimed evolution? No, because you cannot control time in order to do this. So science more or less gets a get out of the scientific method pass because of this. So they have a "time god did it" excuse. How? If I used the xcuse that the reaso I cannot produce God is because it would take to much time. Because God only showed Himself in the Old testament. What would you think of that excuse? A cop out right? Now you know what I think of the time excuse.



We're not talking about evolution. I don't want to derail this topic. If you want to discuss it in the other forum I'd be happy to do so. Saying "God did it" explains nothing.

#19 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 04 February 2009 - 09:36 PM

I'm currently working on a project right now with a formation at about 3km.  At that depth the pressure is around 900atm.  How much water do you need to produce that kind of pressure?  Even if it is possible, why didn't the oil float to the surface as it does in water???  How did oil come to be distributed around the world the way it currently is??  Also, how did coal come to exist???  I ask this because it consists almost entirely of terrestrial plants.  Why weren't they turned into oil as well???  I'd like to hear what you have to say about natural gas as well.

Also, how what broke the water lose from the mantle and what put it back in???
We're not talking about evolution.  I don't want to derail this topic.  If you want to discuss it in the other forum I'd be happy to do so.  Saying "God did it" explains nothing.

View Post


Lets think about this a little, when Noah's Flood happened, it covered the entire earth. Now, it wasn't just water that covered the land, no, it was also lots of sediment as the fossils show. Now, oil is basically compressed carbon. Compression creates heat, but how deep does the sediment have to be to actually create the amount of heat needed to create oil.

You also have to consider how rapid the water and sediment was moving, thus it would create air pockets. Imagine giant tsunami's covering entire land masses at once. This would also create massive air pockets for which the heat from the compression could use as fuel.

We must also take into account how deep man has only dug. About 7 miles. Now how much further until we get to no oil, or carbon deposits???




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users