The Origin of Oil Points to Young Earth

[-Cp]

Good read...

For more than 100 years oil has been the “black gold” that has fueled transport vehicles and powered global economic growth and prosperity. So how does oil form, and what is its origin?

Basic Oil Geology
Oil deposits are usually found in sedimentary rocks. Such rocks formed as sand, silt, and clay grains were eroded from land surfaces and carried by moving water to be deposited in sediment layers. As these sediment layers dried, chemicals from the water formed natural cements to bind the sediment grains into hard rocks.

Pools of oil are found in underground traps where the host sedimentary rock layers have been folded and/or faulted. The host sedimentary or reservoir rock is still porous enough for the oil to accumulate in spaces between the sediment grains. The oil usually hasn’t formed in the reservoir rock but has been generated in source rock and subsequently migrated through the sedimentary rock layers until trapped.

The Origin and Chemistry of Oil
Most scientists agree that hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) are of organic origin. A few, however, maintain that some natural gas could have formed deep within the earth, where heat melting the rocks may have generated it inorganically. Nevertheless, the weight of evidence favors an organic origin, most petroleum coming from plants and perhaps also animals, which were buried and fossilized in sedimentary source rocks. The petroleum was then chemically altered into crude oil and gas.

The chemistry of oil provides crucial clues as to its origin. Petroleum is a complex mixture of organic compounds. One such chemical in crude oils is called porphyrin:

Petroleum porphyrins … have been identified in a sufficient number of sediments and crude oils to establish a wide distribution of the geochemical fossils.
They are also found in plants and animal blood (see sidebar Porphyrins).

The Significance of Oil Chemistry
It is very significant that porphyrin molecules break apart rapidly in the presence of oxygen and heat. Therefore, the fact that porphyrins are still present in crude oils today must mean that the petroleum source rocks and the plant (and animal) fossils in them had to have been kept from the presence of oxygen when they were deposited and buried. There are two ways this could have been achieved:

1. The sedimentary rocks were deposited under oxygen deficient (or reducing) conditions.

2. The sedimentary rocks were deposited so rapidly that no oxygen could destroy the porphyrins in the plant and animal fossils.

However, even where sedimentation is relatively rapid by today’s standards, such as in river deltas in coastal zones, conditions are still oxidizing. Thus, to preserve organic matter containing porphyrins requires its slower degradation in the absence of oxygen, such as in the Black Sea today.9 But such environments are too rare to explain the presence of porphyrins in all the many petroleum deposits found around the world. The only consistent explanation is the catastrophic sedimentation that occurred during the worldwide Genesis Flood. Tons of vegetation and animals were violently uprooted and killed respectively, so that huge amounts of organic matter were buried so rapidly that the porphyrins in it were removed from the oxidizing agents which could have destroyed them.

The amounts of porphyrins found in crude oils vary from traces to 0.04% (or 400 parts per million). Experiments have produced a concentration of 0.5% porphyrin (of the type found in crude oils) from plant material in just one day, so it doesn’t take millions of years to produce the small amounts of porphyrins found in crude oils. Indeed, a crude oil porphyrin can be made from plant chlorophyll in less than 12 hours. However, other experiments have shown that plant porphyrin breaks down in as little as three days when exposed to temperatures of only 410°F (210°C) for only 12 hours. Therefore, the petroleum source rocks and the crude oils generated from them can’t have been deeply buried to such temperatures for millions of years.

The Origin & Rate of Oil Formation
Crude oils themselves do not take long to be generated from appropriate organic matter. Most petroleum geologists believe crude oils form mostly from plant material, such as diatoms (single-celled marine and freshwater photosynthetic organisms) and beds of coal (huge fossilized masses of plant debris). The latter is believed to be the source of most Australian crude oils and natural gas because coal beds are in the same sequences of sedimentary rock layers as the petroleum reservoir rocks. Thus, for example, it has been demonstrated in the laboratory that moderate heating of the brown coals of the Gippsland Basin of Victoria, Australia, to simulate their rapid deeper burial, will generate crude oil and natural gas similar to that found in reservoir rocks offshore in only 2–5 days.

However, because porphyrins are also found in animal blood, it is possible some crude oils may have been derived from the animals also buried and fossilized in many sedimentary rock layers. Indeed, animal slaughterhouse wastes are now routinely converted within two hours into high-quality oil and high-calcium powdered and potent liquid fertilizers, in a commercial thermal conversion process plant (see sidebar Animal Wastes Become Oil).

Conclusion
All the available evidence points to a recent catastrophic origin for the world’s vast oil deposits, from plant and other organic debris, consistent with the biblical account of earth history. Vast forests grew on land and water surfaces in the pre-Flood world, and the oceans teemed with diatoms and other tiny photosynthetic organisms. Then during the global Flood cataclysm, the forests were uprooted and swept away. Huge masses of plant debris were rapidly buried in what thus became coal beds, and organic matter generally was dispersed throughout the many catastrophically deposited sedimentary rock layers. The coal beds and fossiliferous sediment layers became deeply buried as the Flood progressed. As a result, the temperatures in them increased sufficiently to rapidly generate crude oils and natural gas from the organic matter in them. These subsequently migrated until they were trapped in reservoir rocks and structures, thus accumulating to form today’s oil and gas deposits.

Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consultant research geologist to organizations in both Australia and America. Dr. Snelling is a professor at the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, California, and has written numerous scientific articles.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil&vPrint=1

[Gaffer]

More junk science. From a pseudo-scientist.

There was NO great flood.

[-Cp]

More junk science. From a pseudo-scientist.

There was NO great flood.

And I'm sure your credentials easily surpass his eh?

Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consultant research geologist to organizations in both Australia and America. Dr. Snelling is a professor at the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, California, and has written numerous scientific articles.

[avatar4321]

Interesting. Im not going to reach any conclusions about anything based on it, but interesting none the less. it makes sense to me.

[Missileman]

The amounts of porphyrins found in crude oils vary from traces to 0.04% (or 400 parts per million). Experiments have produced a concentration of 0.5% porphyrin (of the type found in crude oils) from plant material in just one day, so it doesn’t take millions of years to produce the small amounts of porphyrins found in crude oils. Indeed, a crude oil porphyrin can be made from plant chlorophyll in less than 12 hours. However, other experiments have shown that plant porphyrin breaks down in as little as three days when exposed to temperatures of only 410°F (210°C) for only 12 hours. Therefore, the petroleum source rocks and the crude oils generated from them can’t have been deeply buried to such temperatures for millions of years.



If this guys conclusions were accurate, the oil reserves haven't been there for millions of years, or thousands of years, but for only a few days...his conclusions are obviously out of whack.

[Missileman]

And I'm sure your credentials easily surpass his eh?

Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consultant research geologist to organizations in both Australia and America. Dr. Snelling is a professor at the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, California, and has written numerous scientific articles.


I'm not familiar with this guys credentials, but I have read that some of these creation scientists have bogus degrees from bogus universities and are no more qualified to offer a scientific opinion than Oprah.

[darin]

I'm not familiar with this guys credentials, but I have read that some of these creation scientists have bogus degrees from bogus universities and are no more qualified to offer a scientific opinion than Oprah.

You're not even TRYING now....lol :)

[Missileman]

You're not even TRYING now....lol :)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

[darin]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

Pseudo-facts from a biased, unreliable source.


(geesh! Y'alls way of arguing is EASY!)

[Gaffer]

Dr. Snelling is a professor at the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, California, and has written numerous scientific articles.
[/I]

This is where his credibility goes down the toilet. Institute for Creation Research in Santee, California.

Creation research is just an attempt to prove a mythology. His unproven theory is just a fundimentalist attempt to prove the bible is real history. Again.

[darin]

His unproven theory...

Is having a 'proven theory' the litmus test to credibility? If so....you know where i'm going, don't ya? :)

[Mr. P]

Better read.:D

The geological time scale is used by geologists and other scientists to describe the timing and relationships between events that have occurred during the history of the Earth. The table of geologic periods presented here is in accordance with the dates and nomenclature proposed by the International Commission on Stratigraphy, and uses the standard color codes of the United States Geological Survey.

Evidence from radiometric dating indicates that the Earth is about 4,570 million years old (expressed with m.y.a., i.e. million years ago, or "Ma" as in "it dates from 4570 Ma"). The geological or deep time of Earth's past has been organized into various units according to events which took place in each period. Different spans of time on the time scale are usually delimited by major geological or paleontological events, such as mass extinctions. For example, the boundary between the Cretaceous period and the Paleogene period is defined by the extinction event that marked the demise of the dinosaurs and of many marine species. Older periods which predate the reliable fossil record are defined by absolute age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

[Mr. P]

Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consultant research geologist

Well then surly he's familiar with the geologic time line.:D

[Missileman]

Pseudo-facts from a biased, unreliable source.


(geesh! Y'alls way of arguing is EASY!)

Do you have any information to dispute the claims of the link or are you, in true creationist fashion, going to make believe they don't exist?

[Gaffer]

Is having a 'proven theory' the litmus test to credibility? If so....you know where i'm going, don't ya? :)

He has a theory. Its not proved in anyway. When he has real scientist that are not fundimentally motivated support his theory then he will have some credibility. And I say he has a unproven theory because its fundimentally based, not scientically based, and is not even a true scientific theory.

I find these guys to be offensive. They attempt to spin science to achieve their particular agenda of making the bible appear literally true when it is not. It's simply a blueprint for civilization.

This guy has as much credibility as al gore.

[darin]

He has a theory. Its not proved in anyway. When he has real scientist that are not fundimentally motivated support his theory then he will have some credibility. And I say he has a unproven theory because its fundimentally based, not scientically based, and is not even a true scientific theory.

I find these guys to be offensive. They attempt to spin science to achieve their particular agenda of making the bible appear literally true when it is not. It's simply a blueprint for civilization.

This guy has as much credibility as al gore.


Dude - EVERY scientist goes about proving a hypothesis the same way - they presume. They start with a particular point of view, and seek to prove it. Macro-evolution violates a HUGE portion of the scientific method, yet it's somehow MORE plausible than what the guy in quesiton suggest? You're likely well-versed in science; So were popular scientists who shouted from the rooftops 'the world is FLAT!'. It took a man of FAITH to show it was, indeed, NOT-flat, right?

:)

Open your mind and read the guy's claims...chew on 'em...study and see if he's right. IF he's right...it certainly changes things, right?

[darin]

Do you have any information to dispute the claims of the link or are you, in true creationist fashion, going to make believe they don't exist?

Do you have any information to dispute the claims of the article in the originating post? Do you have any specific information to refute the claims of 'expertise' listed for the piece's author?

[jillian]

Do you have any information to dispute the claims of the article in the originating post? Do you have any specific information to refute the claims of 'expertise' listed for the piece's author?

How's this? The bible isn't science and the fundie types should stop trying to muck up science by tryng to pretend that religion and science are interchangeable. Scientific method and peer-reviewed work are far different from the type of thing you're talking about.

[darin]

How's this? The bible isn't science and the fundie types should stop trying to muck up science by tryng to pretend that religion and science are interchangeable. Scientific method and peer-reviewed work are far different from the type of thing you're talking about.


You aren't even reading, are you? It seems like you MUST Have had that reply waiting in your bag for JUST the right time to use it. Please, do me a favor - don't clutter up my convo with Gaffer with your rants, Jillian. He and I are discussing things fine - Even me and Missleman - whom I respect. You simply wish to demean and insult. "You fundie types" - why not say what you mean? "You niggers."

[jillian]

You aren't even reading, are you? It seems like you MUST Have had that reply waiting in your bag for JUST the right time to use it. Please, do me a favor - don't clutter up my convo with Gaffer with your rants, Jillian. He and I are discussing things fine - Even me and Missleman - whom I respect. You simply wish to demean and insult. "You fundie types" - why not say what you mean? "You niggers."

Piss up a rope, love. Or buy a thicker skin. You believe what you believe. Most of us know it ain't science. And, btw, there are Christian folk like Jeff who I respect just fine.

And tough! :thumb:

[5stringJeff]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

Dr. Snelling, interestingly enough, isn't on that list.

[Insein]

Better read.:D

The geological time scale is used by geologists and other scientists to describe the timing and relationships between events that have occurred during the history of the Earth. The table of geologic periods presented here is in accordance with the dates and nomenclature proposed by the International Commission on Stratigraphy, and uses the standard color codes of the United States Geological Survey.

Evidence from radiometric dating indicates that the Earth is about 4,570 million years old (expressed with m.y.a., i.e. million years ago, or "Ma" as in "it dates from 4570 Ma"). The geological or deep time of Earth's past has been organized into various units according to events which took place in each period. Different spans of time on the time scale are usually delimited by major geological or paleontological events, such as mass extinctions. For example, the boundary between the Cretaceous period and the Paleogene period is defined by the extinction event that marked the demise of the dinosaurs and of many marine species. Older periods which predate the reliable fossil record are defined by absolute age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

According to creationist scientists, radiometric dating holds no weight. They don't say exactly why. They simply say in too many words that some measurements are innaccurate therefore all measurements are inaccurate. Thus that makes creationism right, right?

[Mr. P]

Dude - .... So were popular scientists who shouted from the rooftops 'the world is FLAT!'. It took a man of FAITH to show it was, indeed, NOT-flat, right?

:)


No, it took an Italian with big BALLS to PROVE he was right.

[darin]

Piss up a rope, love. Or buy a thicker skin. You believe what you believe. Most of us know it ain't science. And, btw, there are Christian folk like Jeff who I respect just fine.

And tough! :thumb:


Translation: "I tried to insult you/make you look dumb in a convo between you and another person. Instead of being woman enough to admit it, I'll hurl MORE instult in your direction..."

:confused:

[darin]

No, it took an Italian with big BALLS to PROVE he was right.

lol :)

:D

[-Cp]

According to creationist scientists, radiometric dating holds no weight. They don't say exactly why. They simply say in too many words that some measurements are innaccurate therefore all measurements are inaccurate. Thus that makes creationism right, right?

Try not to assume... and go to the source.. :)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

[Mr. P]

According to creationist scientists, radiometric dating holds no weight. They don't say exactly why. They simply say in too many words that some measurements are innaccurate therefore all measurements are inaccurate. Thus that makes creationism right, right?

Yep, it must be 100% for them. Funny that even they can’t agree 100% on the bible though. :)

[Insein]

No, it took an Italian with big BALLS to PROVE he was right.

Also not to be a downer on DMP, it was known by many scientists as early as 6th century BC that the world was round. Pythagorus hypothesized that the Earth was round but his theory didnt gain momentum till about the 3rd century BC. According to history though, everyone was relatively positive that the Earth was round by the 1st century AD based upon the way constellations would rotate in the sky depending on the time of the year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Ironically, it was a Fiction book in the 19th century according to the wikipedia article that gave the popular notion that Many people thought the world was flat during Columbus' time. Much like what we're dealing with here.

[Insein]

Try not to assume... and go to the source.. :)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

That was my source from the other thread when i read it there. He states that because 3 individual studies on the lava flows of a volcano in New Zealand yielded bad results, then ALL results are therefore faulty.

[-Cp]

That was my source from the other thread when i read it there. He states that because 3 individual studies on the lava flows of a volcano in New Zealand yielded bad results, then ALL results are therefore faulty.


You didn't even go to that link did you? I count at LEAST 30+ articles on there regarding how c14 - and other forms of radioactive dating - are dubious at best..

[Gaffer]

Dude - EVERY scientist goes about proving a hypothesis the same way - they presume. They start with a particular point of view, and seek to prove it. Macro-evolution violates a HUGE portion of the scientific method, yet it's somehow MORE plausible than what the guy in quesiton suggest? You're likely well-versed in science; So were popular scientists who shouted from the rooftops 'the world is FLAT!'. It took a man of FAITH to show it was, indeed, NOT-flat, right?

:)

Open your mind and read the guy's claims...chew on 'em...study and see if he's right. IF he's right...it certainly changes things, right?

He starts with the hypothesis that god created the world and the universe in 6 days. And goes from there. First he needs to explain to me how days were measured when there was no time. Time is a measurement developed by man. It is the revolution of the earth and the movement about the sun.

It wasn't scientists that said the world was flat. It was fundimentalists who refused to believe the world was round and not the center of the universe. It took explorers who were not afraid to go out beyond what was known of the world and see what lay beyond the horizon. It had nothing to do with faith as you put it.

Fundimentalism, of any kind, is restrictive and limits your ability to observe what is really going on. Like looking at a room through a tube. You only see what you point the tube at. Too really see the room you have to put aside the tube. And in doing so you discover the room is bigger and filled with many more things than you thought.

[Insein]

i read the one on Radiometric dating in particular. Stop fucking accusing me of not reading your bullshit when someone discredits it.

[Insein]

He starts with the hypothesis that god created the world and the universe in 6 days. And goes from there. First he needs to explain to me how days were measured when there was no time. Time is a measurement developed by man. It is the revolution of the earth and the movement about the sun.

It wasn't scientists that said the world was flat. It was fundimentalists who refused to believe the world was round and not the center of the universe. It took explorers who were not afraid to go out beyond what was known of the world and see what lay beyond the horizon. It had nothing to do with faith as you put it.

Fundimentalism, of any kind, is restrictive and limits your ability to observe what is really going on. Like looking at a room through a tube. You only see what you point the tube at. Too really see the room you have to put aside the tube. And in doing so you discover the room is bigger and filled with many more things than you thought.


Again, the world being round was fundamentally understood long before man sailed across the oceans.

[-Cp]

i read the one on Radiometric dating in particular. Stop fucking accusing me of not reading your bullshit when someone discredits it.

Not hard to "accuse" you when it's obvious you didn't go to the link by this quote:


He states that because 3 individual studies on the lava flows of a volcano in New Zealand yielded bad results, then ALL results are therefore faulty.

That tells me - and any other reasonable person - that you did NOT go to the link I linked.... had you done so, you'd see there are obviously a LOT more than 3 studies on there...

You ape-men (evolution kool-aid drinkers) sure get defensive when called out... jeesh..

[Mr. P]

You didn't even go to that link did you? I count at LEAST 30+ articles on there regarding how c14 - and other forms of radioactive dating - are dubious at best..

Carbon dating has been disputed by fundies for at least 30 years that I know of. Its been replaced and still ain’t good enough..Oh well, time will tell. :)

[darin]

He starts with the hypothesis that god created the world and the universe in 6 days. And goes from there. First he needs to explain to me how days were measured when there was no time. Time is a measurement developed by man. It is the revolution of the earth and the movement about the sun.

It wasn't scientists that said the world was flat. It was fundimentalists who refused to believe the world was round and not the center of the universe. It took explorers who were not afraid to go out beyond what was known of the world and see what lay beyond the horizon. It had nothing to do with faith as you put it.

Fundimentalism, of any kind, is restrictive and limits your ability to observe what is really going on. Like looking at a room through a tube. You only see what you point the tube at. Too really see the room you have to put aside the tube. And in doing so you discover the room is bigger and filled with many more things than you thought.

That's a reply. Thanks! Good reading your (wrong) viewpoints.

:p:

:D

:beer:

[darin]

Also not to be a downer on DMP, it was known by many scientists as early as 6th century BC that the world was round. Pythagorus hypothesized that the Earth was round but his theory didnt gain momentum till about the 3rd century BC. According to history though, everyone was relatively positive that the Earth was round by the 1st century AD based upon the way constellations would rotate in the sky depending on the time of the year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Ironically, it was a Fiction book in the 19th century according to the wikipedia article that gave the popular notion that Many people thought the world was flat during Columbus' time. Much like what we're dealing with here.

I know others thought the world was round, too - I was simply using that example to help illustrate a point. :)

[Gaffer]

Again, the world being round was fundamentally understood long before man sailed across the oceans.

I know but I couldn't remember those greek names.

[Insein]

Not hard to "accuse" you when it's obvious you didn't go to the link by this quote:

I went to your bullshit link and read your bullshit articles. I said that on the VOLCANO IN NEW ZEALAND STUDY, the 3 experiments that they ran on that ONE study, they determined that the results were inaccurate. Their conclusion then ON THAT ONE STUDY, was that ALL results are inaccurate and therefore that proves their theory to be right.




That tells me - and any other reasonable person - that you did NOT go to the link I linked.... had you done so, you'd see there are obviously a LOT more than 3 studies on there...

You ape-men (evolution kool-aid drinkers) sure get defensive when called out... jeesh..

That tells me that you havent read a fucking post ive made on the issue. Post a link of the exact location where i believe in evolution. All ive been arguing is that the theory of a young Earth is based solely upon discrediting the theory of an old Earth. It offers NO evidence to prove why the Earth is young. It offers lots of conjecture as to why the methods for determining the Earth to be old are flawed.

[Gaffer]

Carbon dating has been disputed by fundies for at least 30 years that I know of. Its been replaced and still ain’t good enough..Oh well, time will tell. :)

Any form of dating, no matter how acturate, is going to be disputed by the fundies.

[Insein]

Any form of dating is not going to be 100% accurate by basic human error. However, they have yet to show me any form of dating that suggests that the Earth is 6000 years old. All they have done is attempt to discredit other forms and call that discrediting their proof.

[-Cp]

I went to your bullshit link and read your bullshit articles. I said that on the VOLCANO IN NEW ZEALAND STUDY, the 3 experiments that they ran on that ONE study, they determined that the results were inaccurate. Their conclusion then ON THAT ONE STUDY, was that ALL results are inaccurate and therefore that proves their theory to be right.


[/b]

That tells me that you havent read a fucking post ive made on the issue. Post a link of the exact location where i believe in evolution. All ive been arguing is that the theory of a young Earth is based solely upon discrediting the theory of an old Earth. It offers NO evidence to prove why the Earth is young. It offers lots of conjecture as to why the methods for determining the Earth to be old are flawed.


K... here are a few pieces of EVIDENCE for a Young Earth - for you out there who claim "junk science' - you'd better be able to back up your refutes to these issues and not just toss out random insults.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.” The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.

2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
http://www.icr.org/i/articles/imp/imp-384c.jpg
Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic subduction can remove it.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers8 and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
Electrical resistance in the earth’s core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth’s magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.

The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes. The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.

8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years. DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale. “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.

10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape. Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years. This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.

14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

[avatar4321]

I'm not familiar with this guys credentials, but I have read that some of these creation scientists have bogus degrees from bogus universities and are no more qualified to offer a scientific opinion than Oprah.

While Id be seriously skeptical if there was some obscure university, but the University of Sydney sounds pretty unbogus to me. Especially since its one of the leading research universities in Austrailia. http://www.usyd.edu.au/

[avatar4321]

He has a theory. Its not proved in anyway. When he has real scientist that are not fundimentally motivated support his theory then he will have some credibility. And I say he has a unproven theory because its fundimentally based, not scientically based, and is not even a true scientific theory.

I find these guys to be offensive. They attempt to spin science to achieve their particular agenda of making the bible appear literally true when it is not. It's simply a blueprint for civilization.

This guy has as much credibility as al gore.

See the problem with finding "scientists that are not fundamentally motivated" is if they proved it, they would convert to some judeo Christian religion, and thus youd disqualify them as fundamentally motivated. Its an impossible standard.

[Mr. P]

Oh Stop with the 'THUMPER' site, CP. Get some real science. Geeeezzzz

[-Cp]

Oh Stop with the 'THUMPER' site, CP. Get some real science. Geeeezzzz

You mean some http://blog.dirkschuetze.de/wp-content/Kool-AidMan.jpg ?


Evidently nothing is "science" unless it upholds your biased views eh?

[Insein]

All sums up my point. Everyone elses theories are wrong in certain isolated instances so ours must be right.

How then does the 6000 year old universe account for the slow movement of planets and stars? How does the 6000 year old universe even account for an entire race of species that no longer exist becoming the dominant beings on the planet and then dieing out all in less time then it took man to go from Christ to modern times? Or did dinosaurs truly walk with Homo-Sapiens until their extinction? If so then how come their are no written records of dinosaurs or even cave drawings of dinosaurs? Dinosaurs had to have existed, we've found their bones. But they never were alive during the time of man since nothing was ever written down?

The bible is a book of stories. It offers ways to live your life as a good person. It is NOT a chronological book of events because it didnt begin to be written until the 2nd Century BC. How could 4000 years worth of events be summed up in the year 200BC? Its the same as someone begining today and writing the history of time based on what we know.

Approximate date of original Bible writing.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm

[-Cp]

The bible is a book of stories. It offers ways to live your life as a good person. It is NOT a chronological book of events because it didnt begin to be written until the 2nd Century BC. How could 4000 years worth of events be summed up in the year 200BC? Its the same as someone begining today and writing the history of time based on what we know.



You believe this because it seems you can't accept that fact that it was GOD who wrote the Bible - sure man penned it.. but it was God who told them what to write.... since he is the beginning and the end - it's not hard for a Christian to accept that the Bible IS (at times) a chronological book of events - furthermore, your stating that shows your ignorance of what's in the Bible. There is Chronological stuff in the Bible... Try reading the first chapter of Matthew (called the begats) if you don't believe that..

[Gaffer]

K... here are a few pieces of EVIDENCE for a Young Earth - for you out there who claim "junk science' - you'd better be able to back up your refutes to these issues and not just toss out random insults.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Nothing in this is cooborated with any scientific proof. Some say, scientist say, evolutionsts wrongly think, are not sientific proof of anything. There is nothing in any of that to show any scientific proof of anything. Its just one persons speculation. And not a very good one.

[Gaffer]

You believe this because it seems you can't accept that fact that it was GOD who wrote the Bible - sure man penned it.. but it was God who told them what to write.... since he is the beginning and the end - it's not hard for a Christian to accept that the Bible IS (at times) a chronological book of events - furthermore, your stating that shows your ignorance of what's in the Bible. There is Chronological stuff in the Bible... Try reading the first chapter of Matthew (called the begats) if you don't believe that..

That's just the way the muslims view things only in their case they believe god dictated to mohamad.

The bible is not a chronilogical book of events. Its a bunch of stories designed to show people how to live and in some cases attempting to explain the unexplainable. Like where the world came from.

[Missileman]

Do you have any information to dispute the claims of the article in the originating post?

How about EVERY geology book ever written for starters.

[jillian]

That's just the way the muslims view things only in their case they believe god dictated to mohamad.

The bible is not a chronilogical book of events. Its a bunch of stories designed to show people how to live and in some cases attempting to explain the unexplainable. Like where the world came from.

See... that's exactly right! Yet, some think *their* version of the bible should take the place of common sense and science. Under this "young earth" stuff there's no dinosaurs. So I'd have to guess that the bones I saw at the museum on Saturday simply were a figment of my imagination.

I've never quite figured out why the need to obscure scientific research when belief and science are perfectly compatible...... as long as one doesn't pretend the bible is science, of course.

[TheSage]

See... that's exactly right! Yet, some think *their* version of the bible should take the place of common sense and science. Under this "young earth" stuff there's no dinosaurs. So I'd have to guess that the bones I saw at the museum on Saturday simply were a figment of my imagination.

I've never quite figured out why the need to obscure scientific research when belief and science are perfectly compatible...... as long as one doesn't pretend the bible is science, of course.



And how does the bible teach people to live? To kill babies and institute totalitarianist racial supremacy?

[The ClayTaurus]

You mean some http://blog.dirkschuetze.de/wp-content/Kool-AidMan.jpg ?


Evidently nothing is "science" unless it upholds your biased views eh?Do you have anything beyond that one site, or something that wasn't linked to by that site??

[Insein]

You believe this because it seems you can't accept that fact that it was GOD who wrote the Bible - sure man penned it.. but it was God who told them what to write.... since he is the beginning and the end - it's not hard for a Christian to accept that the Bible IS (at times) a chronological book of events - furthermore, your stating that shows your ignorance of what's in the Bible. There is Chronological stuff in the Bible... Try reading the first chapter of Matthew (called the begats) if you don't believe that..

God didnt write the Bible. A bunch of men wrote the Bible. Your "belief" is that God spoke to them about what to write. Thats a perfectly acceptable "belief." That is NOT a basis for scientific fact. As Jillian (of all people) stated in this thread, Science and Religion are not at odds with one another. Both can coexist. Its when hard heads on both sides insist on completely unprovable theories being true (Like there being no god or that the world/universe is only 6000 years old) that you run into problems with one another. Why can't God have created all that there is and science be the human attempt to explain that existence? Why does all of science that man has established for millenia have to be thrown away to ultimately prove that a book of stories is the actual history of man?

Also, the "begats" is nothing more then a family tree. I've seen plenty of them. It records the family line back to Abraham who wasnt the original life form on this planet. He was the original Jew on this planet. He was the oldest known member of the Tribes of the Jews. This retelling of a family tree offers nothing to chronology except for that particular family tree.

And for the last fucking time, when someone disagrees with your theories, don't call them ignorant.

[jillian]

And how does the bible teach people to live? To kill babies and institute totalitarianist racial supremacy?

Anyone ever tell you you're a putz?

[Grumplestillskin]

Anyone ever tell you you're a putz?

Plenty of times...probably why he hates Jews...

[jillian]

Plenty of times...probably why he hates Jews...

Might be true. I just always thought he was dumped by a Jew-girl and harbors all this resentment. :p

[manu1959]

How's this? The bible isn't science and the fundie types should stop trying to muck up science by tryng to pretend that religion and science are interchangeable. Scientific method and peer-reviewed work are far different from the type of thing you're talking about.

science has never been wrong?

[jillian]

science has never been wrong?

So that means that we should take something that has absolutely no scientific value and pretend it's science? The bible is about faith.... religious faith... moral faith. It has nothing to do with science, nor is it supposed to.

[manu1959]

So that means that we should take something that has absolutely no scientific value and pretend it's science? The bible is about faith.... religious faith... moral faith. It has nothing to do with science, nor is it supposed to.

nope.....as a person that of science you should know better that to draw cross conclusions like that....but i surmise you were being disingenuous:dunno: