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.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/967192/posts
http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-04/feat...thing-into-oil/
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2004/Chang...ogies4apr04.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anyth...o-Oil1may03.htm
And a chemist-evolutionist rebuttal (claims of fraud): http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2005/C...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.
Full Version: Does Oil Really Take Millions Of Years To Form?
.... 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."
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."
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
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
QUOTE(MRC_Hans @ Oct 23 2006, 05:14 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
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
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.
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Oct 24 2006, 01:41 AM)
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.
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.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.
Background radiation creating C14 in objects will cause their age to be underestimated, not overestimated.
Hans
QUOTE(MRC_Hans @ Oct 27 2006, 02:13 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
Background radiation creating C14 in objects will cause their age to be underestimated, not overestimated.
Hans
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.
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Oct 27 2006, 12:32 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.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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
QUOTE(MRC_Hans @ Oct 27 2006, 04:02 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
Most likely. Contamination with markers of different ages is always an issue in radiometric dating.
Most likely. And?
Hans
Shows this type of dating cannot be relied on for such dating, of such material.
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Nov 6 2006, 03:56 AM)
Shows this type of dating cannot be relied on for such dating, of such material.
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
QUOTE(MRC_Hans @ Nov 7 2006, 04:07 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
Hans
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?
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Nov 7 2006, 01:16 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?
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
QUOTE(MRC_Hans @ Nov 7 2006, 04:25 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
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
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.
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.
QUOTE(MRC_Hans @ Nov 7 2006, 03:25 AM)
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
Hans
I think its old news that oil has formed that is less 6k years old...
QUOTE
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
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
..... Or did they rely on some dating system?
Hans
QUOTE(MRC_Hans @ Nov 9 2006, 09:28 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
..... Or did they rely on some dating system?
Hans
Do you really doubt the age????
Funny, < 5k years sounds allot like something that would have formed around the time of the flood....
Terry
QUOTE(MRC_Hans @ Nov 9 2006, 10:28 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
..... Or did they rely on some dating system?
Hans
Did anyone wittness the old oil decay over millions of years?
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Nov 9 2006, 08:48 PM)
Did anyone wittness the old oil decay over millions of years?
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
QUOTE(MRC_Hans @ Nov 10 2006, 02:33 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
You have to either accept dating methods or reject them.
Hans
That's false.... In some cases they may work, and in some they may not.
Terry
QUOTE(MRC_Hans @ Nov 10 2006, 03:33 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
You have to either accept dating methods or reject them.
Hans
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.
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Nov 10 2006, 06:47 AM)
*snip*
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.
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.
Now, before we go into such detail, let us wait and see if they can actually make that oil as they claim, and if they can, what kind of oil it is. After all, oil is not just oil.
QUOTE
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.
I am not a petrochemical expert. However, the mere claim from somebody that they "can produce excellent grade fuel oil from virtually all kinds of garbage" does not, even it it's true, mean that this process, or its result, is identical to natural mineral oil deposits. .... The scale alone is different.
QUOTE
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).
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).
Uhh, how did the pressure remain, once the water went away? (I'm not going to ask you where the water came from or where it went, that's another thread).
The pressure found in oil deposits comes from the depth of them. Btw, that varies greatly as well. There are petroleum deposits that exist at normal atmospheric pressure.
QUOTE
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?
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?
There is both high pressure and high temperature at those depths.
QUOTE
I guess because this supports creation, it's not scientific questions. Even though the facts speak for themselves.
I guess I can't see how it supports creation.
Hans
I guess you don't read. The plant is already up and running. Link from the OP: http://www.matr.net/article-6837.html
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Nov 7 2006, 03:21 AM)
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is most definitely your prerogative to have faith, but please do not call it science
Inference from evidence is a basic tool of science, we infer things every day in our daily lives. We cannot actually see the Oort cloud (currently) but there is a significant amount of evidence suggesting its existence.
http://spaceguard.esa.int/NScience/neo/neo-what/com-oort.htm
Let me put it another way. You are a juror in a murder trial. You are asked to convict only if it is beyond any reasonable doubt. Did you actually see the alleged crime being committed? Did you actually see the act of murder? Of course you didn't, then by your standards, there is no way to convict someone unless you where actually there witnessing it yourself.
The mechanism in inferring guilt in trails is analious to that of science, we weigh the inferred evidence provided to make a reasonable assessment. This is why the law says "beyond a reasonable doubt." because one can always make an argument that cannot be disproved. e.g. "aliens abducted me and made me do it", that’s why there is always that operative word reasonable .
It’s the same way with science, you want to know why scientists always refer to the theory of gravity and not the law of gravity? Because nothing can be proven, you can confidently say its true with 99.999% certainty, but there is no way you can actually prove it because it is inductive reasoning. Please remember that the meaning of theory in science is vastly different then the definition in regular language.
"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Hence, the theory of gravity explains how an apple falls from a tree. Why the planets circle the sun in the way they do. It is inferring a conclusion from observations. This is the exact same way as inferring a guilty verdict, the existence of the Oort cloud (although existence of the Oort cloud is less certain), and the exact same way scientists inferred evolution.
Now, you can believe that god made the earth to appear millions of years older than it is, but that is faith not science. And is analogous to saying that you cannot be convicted of a murder because aliens abducted you and forced you to do it.
But i do whole heartedly agree with you on one thing, science is not the bearer of truth. science is just a way of exlaining why things work in the natural world. truth is in the realm of religion and faith.
If you ask an evolutionary biologist, who is true to his scientific nature, "what is the meaning of life?". the only real valid response he can give is, "i dont know, go ask a priest".
QUOTE(rubico @ Nov 13 2006, 06:01 PM)
Inference from evidence is a basic tool of science, we infer things every day in our daily lives. We cannot actually see the Oort cloud (currently) but there is a significant amount of evidence suggesting its existence.
Inference from evidence is only science when a cause-and-effect relationship is established via the scientific method.
QUOTE
Let me put it another way. You are a juror in a murder trial. You are asked to convict only if it is beyond any reasonable doubt. Did you actually see the alleged crime being committed? Did you actually see the act of murder? Of course you didn't, then by your standards, there is no way to convict someone unless you where actually there witnessing it yourself.
The mechanism in inferring guilt in trails is analious to that of science, we weigh the inferred evidence provided to make a reasonable assessment. This is why the law says "beyond a reasonable doubt." because one can always make an argument that cannot be disproved. e.g. "aliens abducted me and made me do it", that’s why there is always that operative word reasonable .
The mechanism in inferring guilt in trails is analious to that of science, we weigh the inferred evidence provided to make a reasonable assessment. This is why the law says "beyond a reasonable doubt." because one can always make an argument that cannot be disproved. e.g. "aliens abducted me and made me do it", that’s why there is always that operative word reasonable .
This is a good example of how to proof something, but its not scientific. Evolution is not science, its a forensic case which is subject to all kind of problems. It may work, it may not work, and that why its not science.
QUOTE
Hence, the theory of gravity explains how an apple falls from a tree. Why the planets circle the sun in the way they do. It is inferring a conclusion from observations. This is the exact same way as inferring a guilty verdict, the existence of the Oort cloud (although existence of the Oort cloud is less certain), and the exact same way scientists inferred evolution.
Gravity, unlike molecules-to-man evolution, is something that is testable via the scientific method.
Forensic cases are not exactly the same as what you can obtain via emperical testing. The failure to understand this has put many people under the death penalty with not enough evidence to justify it.
This type of thinking is a good example of how evolution has damaged not only science, but the ability of people to think in general.
There are 3 basicc systems of perception, rationalism, empericism, and faith. The existance of the oort cloud is somthing that is believed to exist, i.e. its not a product of rationalism, or empericism, or rather its a product of faith. That faith, whether you like it or not, is no different that the faith a Christian has in Christ, or a Muslim in Alla, its just directed at a different object.
QUOTE
If you ask an evolutionary biologist, who is true to his scientific nature, "what is the meaning of life?". the only real valid response he can give is, "i dont know, go ask a priest".
If you ask him how did man come upon planet earth, what would he say?
Terry
QUOTE(92g @ Nov 13 2006, 07:36 PM)
Inference from evidence is only science when a cause-and-effect relationship is established via the scientific method.
This is a good example of how to proof something, but its not scientific. Evolution is not science, its a forensic case which is subject to all kind of problems. It may work, it may not work, and that why its not science.
Gravity, unlike molecules-to-man evolution, is something that is testable via the scientific method.
This is a good example of how to proof something, but its not scientific. Evolution is not science, its a forensic case which is subject to all kind of problems. It may work, it may not work, and that why its not science.
Gravity, unlike molecules-to-man evolution, is something that is testable via the scientific method.
oh really?
i admit, because of the inherent properties of evolutionary theory, it is hard to accurately observe in real time the process occuring. but it is being done...
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm
EXERPT:
"What is most interesting about this species of salamander, is that the two southern most subspecies, eschscholtzi and klauberi, meet in several locations. Near Mount Palomar, these two subspecies meet in a very narrow zone and hybridize infrequently. (Brown, 1974) To the south near Cuyamaca State Park, klauberi and eschscholtzi meet and apparently fail to interbreed under natural conditions even though they are narrowly sympatric. In fact, by analyzing electrophoretic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are different species by every definition. (Wake, Yanev and Brown, 1986) This poses a very interesting problem. Should the species Ensatina eschscholtzi be split into two or more species, or be considered a single species? If the species is to be split, where does one draw the line?
Research on enzymes, nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA, are now being conducted by David Wake at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology in Berkeley. These studies by Wake, show evidence in support of the idea that Ensatina eschscholtzi is a species complex that is now breaking up into two or more species.
later on down...
The Ensatina complex appears to be a classical example of Darwinian evolution by gradualism; an accumulation of micromutations that is now leading to the formation of new species.
how do you go about explaining this?
QUOTE(rubico @ Nov 13 2006, 09:39 PM)
oh really?
Yes, really.....
QUOTE
i admit, because of the inherent properties of evolutionary theory, it is hard to accurately observe in real time the process occuring. but it is being done...
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm
This does not qualify as goo-to-you evolution. You can change salamaders into different species of salamanders all day long, but that is not scientific evidence for goo-to-you evolution.
Creationsism requires the same kind of speciation, do you consder it evidence for creation?
Terry
QUOTE(92g @ Nov 13 2006, 09:09 PM)
Yes, really.....
This does not qualify as goo-to-you evolution. You can change salamaders into different species of salamanders all day long, but that is not scientific evidence for goo-to-you evolution.
Creationsism requires the same kind of speciation, do you consder it evidence for creation?
Terry
This does not qualify as goo-to-you evolution. You can change salamaders into different species of salamanders all day long, but that is not scientific evidence for goo-to-you evolution.
Creationsism requires the same kind of speciation, do you consder it evidence for creation?
Terry
Hmmm, I always thought creationists denied speciation, but agreed with micro evolution. Micro evolution is the changing in frequencies of a trait within a population; macro evolution is speciation into new species that cannot interbreed. By definition, two populations that cannot interbreed are two separate species, which is clearly evident here
please cite where creationism requires speciation, I thought it was contrary to it.
Rubico, if you are a true agnostic. How can you take sides in a debate?
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Nov 13 2006, 10:40 PM)
Rubico, if you are a true agnostic. How can you take sides in a debate?
When it comes to the existence of god yes I am a total agnostic. I do not think that science can or will ever be able to prove or disprove a god. That is simply not its realm. Science is not an assault on faith, many people take it as that, but essentially it’s a mechanism to explain natural phenomena by natural means. I think it takes just as much faith for an atheist to proclaim there is no creator as it does for a preacher to preach a sermon.
Mind you, when I say "creator" I mean "the entity that set things in motion" I have yet to see any evidence that can be verified for a god that intervenes in the physical world. But when you really look at evolution, really study the mechanisms behind it, evolution actually points me to faith, how could a process that creates all variations in life on earth, a process so ingenious by nature, just happen?
So, even though I believe firmly that there is no god that intervenes in our daily lives, I think that there is quite a good chance that a god set everything in motion.
but anyways, im still quite interested in what you mentioned, that creationism requires spectaion, could you answer that?
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Nov 13 2006, 12:18 PM)
I guess you don't read. The plant is already up and running. Link from the OP: http://www.matr.net/article-6837.html
Yes, I read that the pilot plant is turning out an oil-product from, mainly, turkey waste. I didn't read anywhere that they have so far managed to scale it into an economical waste reprocessing system, and I didn't read anywhere that the end-product was identical to fossil oil. That is the main point in this discussion: The fact that you can turn stuff into an oil product does in no way falsify the notion that fossil oil is indeed --- fossil.
Hans
QUOTE(MRC_Hans @ Nov 14 2006, 04:09 AM)
Yes, I read that the pilot plant is turning out an oil-product from, mainly, turkey waste. I didn't read anywhere that they have so far managed to scale it into an economical waste reprocessing system, and I didn't read anywhere that the end-product was identical to fossil oil.
That is the main point in this discussion: The fact that you can turn stuff into an oil product does in no way falsify the notion that fossil oil is indeed --- fossil.
Hans
That is the main point in this discussion: The fact that you can turn stuff into an oil product does in no way falsify the notion that fossil oil is indeed --- fossil.
Hans
So I guess it most be producing a waste byproduct that is only good for polluting our rivers and streams?
And why is a fossil needed to produce oil?
And why do not the scientist conduct their own test to disprove this, unless they cannot. Because all I see here is pure speculation on your part, with no evidence to counter what has been brought up. So if the plant is not able to produce actual oil, where is your actual evidence? And if this cannot be done at all, where is the tests to prove it?
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Nov 14 2006, 01:19 AM)
So I guess it most be producing a waste byproduct that is only good for polluting our rivers and streams?
And why is a fossil needed to produce oil?
And why do not the scientist conduct their own test to disprove this, unless they cannot. Because all I see here is pure speculation on your part, with no evidence to counter what has been brought up. So if the plant is not able to produce actual oil, where is your actual evidence? And if this cannot be done at all, where is the tests to prove it?
That is not what I'm saing at all. I'm saying that the oil produced is not the same as fossil oil. It can replace fossil oil in a number of applications, just like mustard seed oil and a number of other renewable oil sources, but it is not identical to fossil oil. And why is a fossil needed to produce oil?
And why do not the scientist conduct their own test to disprove this, unless they cannot. Because all I see here is pure speculation on your part, with no evidence to counter what has been brought up. So if the plant is not able to produce actual oil, where is your actual evidence? And if this cannot be done at all, where is the tests to prove it?
May I remind you that the onus of proof is not on me, in this case. You claimed that the fact that oil can be produced from waste materials (which we may assume resemble the raw material for fossil oil) shows that fossil oil may also be of recent origin. Since your source does in fact not claim this (because it just says that the product resembles crude oil), I am rejecting your claim, and if you want to support it, you need to provide additional evidence.
Hans
QUOTE(MRC_Hans @ Nov 14 2006, 04:29 AM)
That is not what I'm saing at all. I'm saying that the oil produced is not the same as fossil oil. It can replace fossil oil in a number of applications, just like mustard seed oil and a number of other renewable oil sources, but it is not identical to fossil oil.
May I remind you that the onus of proof is not on me, in this case. You claimed that the fact that oil can be produced from waste materials (which we may assume resemble the raw material for fossil oil) shows that fossil oil may also be of recent origin. Since your source does in fact not claim this (because it just says that the product resembles crude oil), I am rejecting your claim, and if you want to support it, you need to provide additional evidence.
Hans
May I remind you that the onus of proof is not on me, in this case. You claimed that the fact that oil can be produced from waste materials (which we may assume resemble the raw material for fossil oil) shows that fossil oil may also be of recent origin. Since your source does in fact not claim this (because it just says that the product resembles crude oil), I am rejecting your claim, and if you want to support it, you need to provide additional evidence.
Hans
And if it did claim it, what would be your next work around to try and deny it?
So tell me, what are they producing from this plant? Snake oil?
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Nov 14 2006, 01:36 AM)
And if it did claim it, what would be your next work around to try and deny it?
So tell me, what are they producing from this plant? Snake oil?
Try? I carefully pointed out that your source did not indicate that hte newly produced oil is identical to fossil oil.So tell me, what are they producing from this plant? Snake oil?
What kind of oil? What do you mean? I do suppose you are aware that the term "oil" covers literally thousands of different substances? Even fossil oils are different; so different that they can often find the perpetrators of oil spills at sea by analyzing the oil.
And exactly therefore does the observation that oil can be produced as new not serve as evidence that fossil oil is not old.
Hans
Okay, I see I have to bring what is said over here for a break down of words.
So here we have the inefficient way of doing this.
Now here is where they fix the problem by by using to main reactors.
So here we have the two reactor fix making the process efficient. And for now, the system only uses turkey offal. But to add other material in the future will expand it's potential for widespread use.
So here we have a MIT chemical engineer, who visited the pilot plant and said that they have produced the products they are claiming. Then further down it says that mother nature can transform the same products. Now what are the same products?
The reason it is called hydrocarbon liquid is because it is not made from, what you called fossils. But then again, you cannot prove that only fossils can make crude oil. And this plant puts that into question. And it also says that they were making the same products as mother nature.
Now the second part is a different plant. And here's what they do:
600 barrels of oil.
The pilot plant was the first plant.
Working in this type of field that deals with oils (synthetic oil distributor). I can tell you that if the finished product can be blended as they are saying, right from the plant, to be burned as fuel. The product produced is already a better grade then the actual crude oil (which you cannot burn without major pollution) that is pumped from the ground. Then it says: Refineries could process this as they do crude oil. Which means it can be put into a functioning tower, heated to specific temps, and separated (cracked) it into different petroleum products. Which would be anything like: Diesel fuel, jet fuel, gas, all type of lubricating oils (oils for your car, and heavy equipment etc...).
Now, here is what refineries do with hydrocarbon base products, to convert to finished petroleum products: http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Oil_refinery
There is even a newer process called hydro-cracking (a oil refining process). But we won't get into that because it does not specifically deal with this subject. But it can be used to refine this plant made product as well.
QUOTE
The first stage of the thermal process has been around since the 1960s as a way to convert organic waste into hydrocarbon liquids. But the process has been inefficient, says Changing World chief technology officer Terry Adams, because it typically employs a single reactor both to heat the organic matter and to convert it into oil.
So here we have the inefficient way of doing this.
Now here is where they fix the problem by by using to main reactors.
QUOTE
That creates nonuniform heating, which breaks down molecules unevenly and results in a low-grade oil. Changing World uses two main reactors that heat and pressurize much more efficiently. And the system handles not only turkey offal but tires, plastics, sludge, municipal waste, paper, and livestock remains—expanding its potential for widespread use.
So here we have the two reactor fix making the process efficient. And for now, the system only uses turkey offal. But to add other material in the future will expand it's potential for widespread use.
QUOTE
“They have certainly produced the products they’ve claimed at a smaller scale,” says MIT chemical engineer Jefferson Tester, who visited a pilot plant in Philadelphia and is intrigued by the larger-scale possibilities. Mother Nature can definitely transform the same products into usable fuel; you’d just have to wait a little longer.
So here we have a MIT chemical engineer, who visited the pilot plant and said that they have produced the products they are claiming. Then further down it says that mother nature can transform the same products. Now what are the same products?
The reason it is called hydrocarbon liquid is because it is not made from, what you called fossils. But then again, you cannot prove that only fossils can make crude oil. And this plant puts that into question. And it also says that they were making the same products as mother nature.
Now the second part is a different plant. And here's what they do:
QUOTE
A $20 million facility at ConAgra's Butterball turkey plant in Carthage, Mo., is undergoing testing and is expected to start using the technique by the end of May, said Terry Adams, chief technology officer for Changing World Technologies. The plant ultimately will grind up, heat, pressurize, and process 200 tons a day of leftover turkey innards, bones, feathers, fats, and grease — enough to produce 600 barrels of oil daily, officials say.
600 barrels of oil.
QUOTE
Appel recently showed off the techniques at a pilot plant at the Philadelphia Naval Business Center.
The pilot plant was the first plant.
QUOTE
In one end went tires, ground to quarter-inch bits by a giant industrial shredder. Out the other end came a caramel-colored liquid that resembles crude oil. The plants can sell the oil to fuel blenders for use in home heating or power-generating fuel. Refineries could process it as they do crude oil. Utilities could burn it for power. The process will digest just about anything: garbage, medical waste, hog manure, old tires.
Working in this type of field that deals with oils (synthetic oil distributor). I can tell you that if the finished product can be blended as they are saying, right from the plant, to be burned as fuel. The product produced is already a better grade then the actual crude oil (which you cannot burn without major pollution) that is pumped from the ground. Then it says: Refineries could process this as they do crude oil. Which means it can be put into a functioning tower, heated to specific temps, and separated (cracked) it into different petroleum products. Which would be anything like: Diesel fuel, jet fuel, gas, all type of lubricating oils (oils for your car, and heavy equipment etc...).
Now, here is what refineries do with hydrocarbon base products, to convert to finished petroleum products: http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Oil_refinery
There is even a newer process called hydro-cracking (a oil refining process). But we won't get into that because it does not specifically deal with this subject. But it can be used to refine this plant made product as well.
QUOTE(rubico @ Nov 13 2006, 10:37 PM)
Hmmm, I always thought creationists denied speciation, but agreed with micro evolution. Micro evolution is the changing in frequencies of a trait within a population; macro evolution is speciation into new species that cannot interbreed. By definition, two populations that cannot interbreed are two separate species, which is clearly evident here
please cite where creationism requires speciation, I thought it was contrary to it.
please cite where creationism requires speciation, I thought it was contrary to it.
Fred's comments sum it up pretty well.
QUOTE
The term evolution often takes on several meanings in today's scientific circles, often in very misleading ways. A 1999 undergraduate college textbook on Biology states: "Evolution is a generation-to-generation change in a population's frequencies of alleles or genotypes. Because such a change in a gene pool is evolution on the smallest scale, it is referred to more specifically as microevolution"1 [emphasis in original]. This type of "evolution" is widely accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike and is not in dispute. It really amounts to minor genetic variation that may result from selective breeding such as found in the different varieties of dogs, or from placing stress on a population resulting in adaptation to an environment (i.e. the peppered moth in England, or drug-resistant bacteria). Microevolution is a misnomer, since it is not evolution as most people understand the word, but instead is adaptation and variation within a kind of organism - lizards are still lizards, dogs are still dogs, and peppered moths are still peppered moths! Evolutionists invariably appeal to this kind of "evolution" as "proof" for their theory.
Fred's Commentary
Terry
QUOTE(92g @ Nov 14 2006, 03:35 PM)
apparently you dont know the definition of Speciation, which is when two populations have evolved though micro-evloution to the point where they can no longer interbreed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
speciation is the barrier between micro and macro evloution, spectation means that two populations diverged genetically to the point where they cannot interbreed and have beome two new species, which baiscally means macro evolution, which of course you disagree with.
ill repeat my example of it for you of speciation being observed in real time....
"i admit, because of the inherent properties of evolutionary theory, it is hard to accurately observe in real time the process occuring. but it is being done...
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm
EXERPT:
"What is most interesting about this species of salamander, is that the two southern most subspecies, eschscholtzi and klauberi, meet in several locations. Near Mount Palomar, these two subspecies meet in a very narrow zone and hybridize infrequently. (Brown, 1974) To the south near Cuyamaca State Park, klauberi and eschscholtzi meet and apparently fail to interbreed under natural conditions even though they are narrowly sympatric. In fact, by analyzing electrophoretic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are different species by every definition. (Wake, Yanev and Brown, 1986) This poses a very interesting problem. Should the species Ensatina eschscholtzi be split into two or more species, or be considered a single species? If the species is to be split, where does one draw the line?
Research on enzymes, nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA, are now being conducted by David Wake at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology in Berkeley. These studies by Wake, show evidence in support of the idea that Ensatina eschscholtzi is a species complex that is now breaking up into two or more species.
later on down...
The Ensatina complex appears to be a classical example of Darwinian evolution by gradualism; an accumulation of micromutations that is now leading to the formation of new species.
how do you go about explaining this?"
QUOTE(rubico @ Nov 14 2006, 08:31 PM)
apparently you dont know the definition of Speciation, which is when two populations have evolved though micro-evloution to the point where they can no longer interbreed.
Oh, I'm quite aware of that definition, but appatently you still don't understand the creationist view of speciation.
QUOTE
how do you go about explaining this?"
There's nothing to explain.....
Speciation, even to the point where two populations can no longer interbeed, is accepted by creationists, and fits with what is needed to explain the diversity of life since the flood. It does not demonstrate goo-to-you evolution, and that's what we are debating on this Forum.
Do you really believe that turning salamanders into salamanders is proof that you can turn a microbe into a human being?
Terry
oh wow, id thought id never see the day. but ok i didnt not know that speciation was accepted among some creationists, im sorry about that misunderstanding
whats "needed to explain"? sounds alot like pre-concevied notions to me
You over simplify it, there is no theory that suggests a blob of primordial goop turned into a human spontaneously
if you accept speciation, then tell me what mechanism is keeping you from extrapolating that... say... a few hundred thousand years, is it not inconceivable to suggest, that because these populations can no longer interbreed, and live in different habitats, that traits specific to the populations will continue building? These salamanders already look different only after a couple hundred years; and they have already split far enough to where they cannot interbreed. Is it impossible that you can magnify this to a hundred thousand, or a million years?? What would they look like then?
Probably a lot defend than they do now
QUOTE(92g @ Nov 14 2006, 09:07 PM)
Oh, I'm quite aware of that definition, but appatently you still don't understand the creationist view of speciation.
There's nothing to explain.....
Speciation, even to the point where two populations can no longer interbeed, is accepted by creationists, and fits with what is needed to explain the diversity of life since the flood.
There's nothing to explain.....
Speciation, even to the point where two populations can no longer interbeed, is accepted by creationists, and fits with what is needed to explain the diversity of life since the flood.
whats "needed to explain"? sounds alot like pre-concevied notions to me
QUOTE
Do you really believe that turning salamanders into salamanders is proof that you can turn a microbe into a human being?
You over simplify it, there is no theory that suggests a blob of primordial goop turned into a human spontaneously
if you accept speciation, then tell me what mechanism is keeping you from extrapolating that... say... a few hundred thousand years, is it not inconceivable to suggest, that because these populations can no longer interbreed, and live in different habitats, that traits specific to the populations will continue building? These salamanders already look different only after a couple hundred years; and they have already split far enough to where they cannot interbreed. Is it impossible that you can magnify this to a hundred thousand, or a million years?? What would they look like then?
Probably a lot defend than they do now
QUOTE(rubico @ Nov 14 2006, 01:44 AM)
When it comes to the existence of god yes I am a total agnostic. I do not think that science can or will ever be able to prove or disprove a god. That is simply not its realm. Science is not an assault on faith, many people take it as that, but essentially it’s a mechanism to explain natural phenomena by natural means. I think it takes just as much faith for an atheist to proclaim there is no creator as it does for a preacher to preach a sermon.
Mind you, when I say "creator" I mean "the entity that set things in motion" I have yet to see any evidence that can be verified for a god that intervenes in the physical world. But when you really look at evolution, really study the mechanisms behind it, evolution actually points me to faith, how could a process that creates all variations in life on earth, a process so ingenious by nature, just happen?
So, even though I believe firmly that there is no god that intervenes in our daily lives, I think that there is quite a good chance that a god set everything in motion.
but anyways, im still quite interested in what you mentioned, that creationism requires spectaion, could you answer that?
Mind you, when I say "creator" I mean "the entity that set things in motion" I have yet to see any evidence that can be verified for a god that intervenes in the physical world. But when you really look at evolution, really study the mechanisms behind it, evolution actually points me to faith, how could a process that creates all variations in life on earth, a process so ingenious by nature, just happen?
So, even though I believe firmly that there is no god that intervenes in our daily lives, I think that there is quite a good chance that a god set everything in motion.
but anyways, im still quite interested in what you mentioned, that creationism requires spectaion, could you answer that?
If evolution points you to a Creator. Then you are a theistic evolutionist. Agnostic means that you don't know, period. Because the moment you take sides, is the very moment you are not agnostic. And the only side I see you take is all that supports evolution. And the only time you really speak about God or faith, is when someone pins you down about it.
Example:
1) How much of creation do you ponder, or believe? 1% maybe?
2) How much of science and it's theory of evolution do you believe? 95%?
This is what I get from your posts, I see a mind already made up. I do not see a mind that is in question about what the truth is. You have already decided. How do I know? I have debated all types for almost 5 years. I have only seen two actual agnostics. They do not debate anywhere near the way you do. And they do not debate like any other person I have ever seen.
A person who vitually knows everything about one side of the issue, but knows virtually nothing about the other side. Nor do they really want to know. Is not agnostic.
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Nov 14 2006, 11:06 PM)
If evolution points you to a Creator. Then you are a theistic evolutionist. Agnostic means that you don't know, period. Because the moment you take sides, is the very moment you are not agnostic. And the only side I see you take is all that supports evolution. And the only time you really speak about God or faith, is when someone pins you down about it.
Example:
1) How much of creation do you ponder, or believe? 1% maybe?
2) How much of science and it's theory of evolution do you believe? 95%?
This is what I get from your posts, I see a mind already made up. I do not see a mind that is in question about what the truth is. You have already decided. How do I know? I have debated all types for almost 5 years. I have only seen two actual agnostics. They do not debate anywhere near the way you do. And they do not debate like any other person I have ever seen.
A person who vitually knows everything about one side of the issue, but knows virtually nothing about the other side. Nor do they really want to know. Is not agnostic.
Example:
1) How much of creation do you ponder, or believe? 1% maybe?
2) How much of science and it's theory of evolution do you believe? 95%?
This is what I get from your posts, I see a mind already made up. I do not see a mind that is in question about what the truth is. You have already decided. How do I know? I have debated all types for almost 5 years. I have only seen two actual agnostics. They do not debate anywhere near the way you do. And they do not debate like any other person I have ever seen.
A person who vitually knows everything about one side of the issue, but knows virtually nothing about the other side. Nor do they really want to know. Is not agnostic.
I think you are misunderstanding my responses let me clarify them. Evolutionary theory, in its present form, is the best and most logical way to explain our natural world though natural mechanisms, that I firmly believe. I also believe that sciences only deals with the natural world, and makes no judgment on the existence or non-existence of god, I see science is independent of faith, not to be bent by the will of faith, or the other way around, so in this instance, yes you may call me what you will, an "evolutionist," a "scientist", whatever.
But when I comes to religion, it’s an entirely separate realm, here, science can’t observe, can’t test, can’t falsify results. Science has no bearing, neither does evolution. Evolution is the explanation of natural selection from the moment life came into being (abiogenists is highly speculative, even in science circles, at least the mechanisms involved), until present. I believe that like science, it has no bearing or religion.
With that said, you might ask, "if you think faith has no bearing on science, then why are you against creationism?" because creationism, by definition, relies on the actions of god to create. Therefore it is religion intruding into science.
It also goes the other way, most atheists believe that science (more specifically evolution) is a firm disproof of the existence of god, this in fact, requires as much faith as any other religion, and you cannot impart naturalistic ideas and limitations on a supernatural being. Thus science intruding into religion.
So therefore, I am totally agnostic about the existence of a god, and we will most likely never know it to any degree of certainty.
I hope this helps
QUOTE(rubico @ Nov 15 2006, 02:33 AM)
I think you are misunderstanding my responses let me clarify them. Evolutionary theory, in its present form, is the best and most logical way to explain our natural world though natural mechanisms, that I firmly believe. I also believe that sciences only deals with the natural world, and makes no judgment on the existence or non-existence of god, I see science is independent of faith, not to be bent by the will of faith, or the other way around, so in this instance, yes you may call me what you will, an "evolutionist," a "scientist", whatever.
But when I comes to religion, it’s an entirely separate realm, here, science can’t observe, can’t test, can’t falsify results. Science has no bearing, neither does evolution. Evolution is the explanation of natural selection from the moment life came into being (abiogenists is highly speculative, even in science circles, at least the mechanisms involved), until present. I believe that like science, it has no bearing or religion.
With that said, you might ask, "if you think faith has no bearing on science, then why are you against creationism?" because creationism, by definition, relies on the actions of god to create. Therefore it is religion intruding into science.
It also goes the other way, most atheists believe that science (more specifically evolution) is a firm disproof of the existence of god, this in fact, requires as much faith as any other religion, and you cannot impart naturalistic ideas and limitations on a supernatural being. Thus science intruding into religion.
So therefore, I am totally agnostic about the existence of a god, and we will most likely never know it to any degree of certainty.
I hope this helps
But when I comes to religion, it’s an entirely separate realm, here, science can’t observe, can’t test, can’t falsify results. Science has no bearing, neither does evolution. Evolution is the explanation of natural selection from the moment life came into being (abiogenists is highly speculative, even in science circles, at least the mechanisms involved), until present. I believe that like science, it has no bearing or religion.
With that said, you might ask, "if you think faith has no bearing on science, then why are you against creationism?" because creationism, by definition, relies on the actions of god to create. Therefore it is religion intruding into science.
It also goes the other way, most atheists believe that science (more specifically evolution) is a firm disproof of the existence of god, this in fact, requires as much faith as any other religion, and you cannot impart naturalistic ideas and limitations on a supernatural being. Thus science intruding into religion.
So therefore, I am totally agnostic about the existence of a god, and we will most likely never know it to any degree of certainty.
I hope this helps
It does, which brings me to another question. If science is what you believe about origins, and Science cannot disprove God. And yet cannot find God either. Then how do you expect to ever find the truth on God, when science is actually your obstacle? And yet is the only way you will take information as being proven, is if it comes through what science will approve of. Which will "never" be anything that includes God.
It's like you accept the obstacle because you don't want to know.
QUOTE(rubico @ Nov 14 2006, 11:08 PM)
You over simplify it, there is no theory that suggests a blob of primordial goop turned into a human spontaneously
That's what NDT suggests, and if you don't realize that, then you really need to do some studying.
QUOTE
if you accept speciation, then tell me what mechanism is keeping you from extrapolating that... say... a few hundred thousand years, is it not inconceivable to suggest, that because these populations can no longer interbreed, and live in different habitats, that traits specific to the populations will continue building?
This type of genetic variation does not build "information" into the genome.
Furthermore; its been calculated and demonstrated in the lab, there there are boundaries to how much variation can take place in DNA before the protiens it codes for are usless. IOW, its your imagination that says there are no limits, but math, and lab experimenation say otherwise. You can read about that here.
QUOTE
The numerical concreteness of Sauer's and Yockey's results is breathtaking. When a skeptic sees a drawing of Mesonychid next to the Zeuglodon whale he intuitively realizes that the transformation is highly improbable. But how improbable? There is no way to put a quantitative measure on the difference between a dog-like animal and a whale, and believers in the relentless application of physical law take advantage of this by verbally minimizing the differences. The situation is otherwise with proteins. Because there is a discrete set of amino acids and a finite number of positions in a given protein, the odds of attaining a folded, functional protein can be calculated quite closely, but only if the tolerance of proteins to amino acid substitution is known. Thanks to Sauer and Yockey we now have such quantitative data.
It is important to realize that Sauer's and Yockey's results hold whether or not the system can replicate and is subject to Darwinian selection. The odds against finding a new functional protein structure remain astronomical in either case. This is because Darwinian selection can only discriminate based on function and, with the exception of those found in living organisms, virtually all protein sequences are functionless. An amino acid sequence can be replicated and mutated in living organisms till the cows come home and the odds are still 1 in 10&% that a new functional protein class will be produced.
The problem of the isolation of functional protein sequences is a vivid illustration of the truth of the symposium thesis,
Darwinism and neo-Darwinism as generally held and taught in our society carry with them an a priori commitment to metaphysical naturalism, which is essential to make a convincing case in their behalf.
The skeptic can accept Sauer's and Yockey's results with equanimity because his world is not necessarily limited to those phenomena that can be explained by naturalism. Furthermore, the skeptic can happily concede that many biological phenomena are explained by natural laws. He can agree that beak shape and wing color can change under selective pressure, or that different proteins in the same structural class, such as the alpha and beta chains of hemoglobin, may have arisen through Darwinistic mechanisms. But the believer in the universal application of physical law is stuck. He must maintain, against the evidence, that different protein classes, like cytochromes and immunoglobulins, found their way by raw luck through the vast, dark sea of nonfunctional sequences to the tiny islands of function we observe experimentally. He must maintain, without any evidence, that Mesonychid gave birth over time to the whale. And why, we ask, must he maintain these positions against impossible odds and without supporting evidence? Because, he replies, I can only measure material phenomena, and therefore nothing else exists.
It is important to realize that Sauer's and Yockey's results hold whether or not the system can replicate and is subject to Darwinian selection. The odds against finding a new functional protein structure remain astronomical in either case. This is because Darwinian selection can only discriminate based on function and, with the exception of those found in living organisms, virtually all protein sequences are functionless. An amino acid sequence can be replicated and mutated in living organisms till the cows come home and the odds are still 1 in 10&% that a new functional protein class will be produced.
The problem of the isolation of functional protein sequences is a vivid illustration of the truth of the symposium thesis,
Darwinism and neo-Darwinism as generally held and taught in our society carry with them an a priori commitment to metaphysical naturalism, which is essential to make a convincing case in their behalf.
The skeptic can accept Sauer's and Yockey's results with equanimity because his world is not necessarily limited to those phenomena that can be explained by naturalism. Furthermore, the skeptic can happily concede that many biological phenomena are explained by natural laws. He can agree that beak shape and wing color can change under selective pressure, or that different proteins in the same structural class, such as the alpha and beta chains of hemoglobin, may have arisen through Darwinistic mechanisms. But the believer in the universal application of physical law is stuck. He must maintain, against the evidence, that different protein classes, like cytochromes and immunoglobulins, found their way by raw luck through the vast, dark sea of nonfunctional sequences to the tiny islands of function we observe experimentally. He must maintain, without any evidence, that Mesonychid gave birth over time to the whale. And why, we ask, must he maintain these positions against impossible odds and without supporting evidence? Because, he replies, I can only measure material phenomena, and therefore nothing else exists.
Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other
QUOTE
These salamanders already look different only after a couple hundred years; and they have already split far enough to where they cannot interbreed. Is it impossible that you can magnify this to a hundred thousand, or a million years?? What would they look like then?
Probably a lot defend than they do now
Probably a lot defend than they do now
This is where science turns into imagination. You can imagine that they will turn into birds or something, but scientific evidence is that they will just turn into other salamanders, or in the case of the Collecant, even after a supposed 350 million years, just another Collecanth.....
Terry
I have been looking into methods of directly dating natural oil samples, as most explanations are summaries of the status quo of how oil is formed, e.g. this from the wiki.
Or this from ‘live science’
However from this article from Stanford University direct methods for dating natural oil deposits are being researched
QUOTE
Most geologists view crude oil and natural gas, as the product of compression and heating of ancient organic materials over geological time. According to this theory, oil is formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae which have been settled to the sea bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions. (Terrestrial plants tend to form coal) Over geological time this organic matter, mixed with mud, is buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure cause the remains to metamorphose, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis. Because most hydrocarbons are lighter than rock or water, these sometimes migrate upward through adjacent rock layers until they become trapped beneath impermeable rocks, within porous rocks called reservoirs. Concentration of hydrocarbons in a trap forms an oil field, from which the liquid can be extracted by drilling and pumping.
Or this from ‘live science’
QUOTE
So how long does this process take?
Scientists aren't really sure, but they figure it's probably on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.
Scientists aren't really sure, but they figure it's probably on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.
However from this article from Stanford University direct methods for dating natural oil deposits are being researched
QUOTE
Their dating system measures the relative amount of an organic compound, oleanane, in the oil. Oleanane is highly associated with the angiosperms, flowering plants that have evolved and spread since the early Cretaceous. Many flowering plants produce derivatives of oleanane, called oleanoids, that are toxic to predators.
Because angiosperms become more plentiful as time progresses, younger organic deposits that are converted into oil are likely to contain more angiosperms. Because the geological processes involved convert the oleanoids in the angiosperms into oleanane, the more oleanane found in a given oil sample, the more recent it is likely to be.
The method is not a very precise yardstick. Oils of any age can lack oleanane if flowering plants were not part of the material from which it formed. But lack of oleanane is a significant clue that the oil may have formed in the Jurassic or older times, before angiosperms evolved. If the compound is present in relatively small amounts, the crude is almost certainly Cretaceous or younger. If it contains large amounts of the organic substance, on the other hand, its pedigree most likely dates from the post-Cretaceous or Tertiary Age (65 million to 5 million years ago).
Because angiosperms become more plentiful as time progresses, younger organic deposits that are converted into oil are likely to contain more angiosperms. Because the geological processes involved convert the oleanoids in the angiosperms into oleanane, the more oleanane found in a given oil sample, the more recent it is likely to be.
The method is not a very precise yardstick. Oils of any age can lack oleanane if flowering plants were not part of the material from which it formed. But lack of oleanane is a significant clue that the oil may have formed in the Jurassic or older times, before angiosperms evolved. If the compound is present in relatively small amounts, the crude is almost certainly Cretaceous or younger. If it contains large amounts of the organic substance, on the other hand, its pedigree most likely dates from the post-Cretaceous or Tertiary Age (65 million to 5 million years ago).
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Nov 15 2006, 01:40 AM)
Then how do you expect to ever find the truth on God, when science is actually your obstacle?
It's like you accept the obstacle because you don't want to know.
It's like you accept the obstacle because you don't want to know.
Science is neither an obstacle nor a help, it has no influence on the existence or non-existence of a non-interfering god. It is totally separate from the question, because by the definition of science, it tries to solve natural problems by natural means. Where if any supposed creator exists, it is supernatural, therefore is not in any way within the realm of science, and vice versa.
Believe me, it would be allot easier to just accept literal biblical interpretation and submit to creationism, everything is already worked out for you; there is no real reason to question anything because it can all be found in the bible. I tried that once, but for some reason my conscience could not allow it, I could not really deep down make myself believe that the world was created in 6000 years. so I questioned, did allot of thinking and learning on my own, and finally came to the conclusion that no, overwhelming evidence, from several independent areas researching independently of one another in science, geology, cosmology, atomic theory, biology, physics, all converged on the same conclusion, that the world much older than previously thought.
QUOTE(92g @ Nov 15 2006, 04:40 AM)
That's what NDT suggests, and if you don't realize that, then you really need to do some studying.
Nay, I think it is you who does not understand the situation, notice the operative word "spontaneously"; many creationists misunderstand this and think that those silly scientists believe that somehow randomly we went from goup to human just like that. No one believes this I can confidently say, it is non-sensual because the probabilities explained my many creationists have thrown that the probabilities are astronomically small.
in a quite short(which I know you’ll disagree with), random mutations occur in the gene pool making variations in the population, nature favors a certain segment of the population because that trait allows them to more easily reproduce, therefore, a once minor variation in the genetic makeup becomes the norm.
This process is called natural selection witch is TOTALLY non-random
this then happens, over and over and over again, changing the look and nature of the creature, populations get separated because of natural means and no longer interbreed, these separate populations then diverge genetically and form new species that cant interbreed.
QUOTE
This type of genetic variation does not build "information" into the genome.
Furthermore; its been calculated and demonstrated in the lab, there there are boundaries to how much variation can take place in DNA before the protiens it codes for are usless. IOW, its your imagination that says there are no limits, but math, and lab experimenation say otherwise. You can read about that here.
Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other
This is where science turns into imagination. You can imagine that they will turn into birds or something, but scientific evidence is that they will just turn into other salamanders, or in the case of the Collecant, even after a supposed 350 million years, just another Collecanth.....
Terry
Furthermore; its been calculated and demonstrated in the lab, there there are boundaries to how much variation can take place in DNA before the protiens it codes for are usless. IOW, its your imagination that says there are no limits, but math, and lab experimenation say otherwise. You can read about that here.
Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to be Highly Isolated from Each Other
This is where science turns into imagination. You can imagine that they will turn into birds or something, but scientific evidence is that they will just turn into other salamanders, or in the case of the Collecant, even after a supposed 350 million years, just another Collecanth.....
Terry
i dont have the time at the monent(english paper), and im not well versed in this i admit, ill will take a look at it later and respond, but from the surface reading looks quite interesting to say the least
QUOTE(rubico @ Nov 15 2006, 08:01 PM)
Science is neither an obstacle nor a help, it has no influence on the existence or non-existence of a non-interfering god. It is totally separate from the question, because by the definition of science, it tries to solve natural problems by natural means. Where if any supposed creator exists, it is supernatural, therefore is not in any way within the realm of science, and vice versa.
Believe me, it would be allot easier to just accept literal biblical interpretation and submit to creationism, everything is already worked out for you; there is no real reason to question anything because it can all be found in the bible. I tried that once, but for some reason my conscience could not allow it, I could not really deep down make myself believe that the world was created in 6000 years. so I questioned, did allot of thinking and learning on my own, and finally came to the conclusion that no, overwhelming evidence, from several independent areas researching independently of one another in science, geology, cosmology, atomic theory, biology, physics, all converged on the same conclusion, that the world much older than previously thought.
Believe me, it would be allot easier to just accept literal biblical interpretation and submit to creationism, everything is already worked out for you; there is no real reason to question anything because it can all be found in the bible. I tried that once, but for some reason my conscience could not allow it, I could not really deep down make myself believe that the world was created in 6000 years. so I questioned, did allot of thinking and learning on my own, and finally came to the conclusion that no, overwhelming evidence, from several independent areas researching independently of one another in science, geology, cosmology, atomic theory, biology, physics, all converged on the same conclusion, that the world much older than previously thought.
1) There is nothing easy about creation, unless you allow someone else to do all the work for you. And then accept his opinions on what he has done.
2) I have been studying creation for more than four years. My website reflects the different directions I have gone. Why do the stuff myself? I was not satisfied with what was being said by other creationist. A lot of their views sounded more like guesses. I wanted something that really meshed with the word of God. And something that would help me understand God's power in creation.
3) The God did it, was not enough. I have the faith to believe God did it, but I wanted to know how. And then relate that to other people.
4) My studies have brought views that even most creationist did not agree with. Or have never heard.
5) And most all of it is backed up in the word of God. Which is what was lacking in other views
Accepting information from only the natural side of creation, excludes God automatically. So by doing this, you have made a decision not to want to know God, by shutting out the only way He can speak to you.
Accepting old earth, by natural means only. Denies the existence of eternity. And the power of God to create through this realm of eternity. Do you believe there is a possibility of a parallel universe? What do you think heaven and hell is? They are not parallel as in a sense as being the same as our realm. But they do exist.
Question:
When time was created (in the beginning). What made time different before sin, and then after?
Sin is what gave us the curse of death. So if there was no death before the first sin. What does that make time like between Genesis 1 until Eve sinned? It made time eternal. For time without death = time eternal. Once death was part of the picture, time was as we see it now.
So what this means is that there is a time in which eternity exists, but we can't test it because of sin. But, all of creation was created within this eternal time period. Which explains why something can be created with age (of old) but without the passage of time.
Psalm 102:25 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
How do you lay an old foundation, unless age was added to it? So what we see here is that eternal time, which was before the first sin, enables a creation of age with no passage of time. But, this type of creation is never repeated after the first sin.
So we have a creation of earth, which was a foundation made of old (age without passage of time). Because time before the first sin was eternal. Just as all animals were made fully formed, and of age to multiply. And Adam and Eve were made fully formed and with age.
So not only was earth made with foundation of old. But the first created man and woman were made the same way. In fact, all of creation was made the same way.
Sin is the reason man was made last. If man would have been made first, and sinned before creation was over. How would have that affected a creation where one part could be made old (age without passage of time), then another part made young because time is no longer eternal?
Lets look at this in a natural sense so that you may understand better.
How would a universe, where everything dates the same work together?
1) Could we live on a 6 thousand year old planet? Nope, it would be to hot.
2) Could we orbit and live next to a 6 thousand year old sun? Nope, it would be unstable.
3) Could we live among other planets that were 6 thousand years old? Nope, their gravity would vary, which could mess up our orbit as well.
So to make all of these things not a problem. God created, and laid, a foundational age, of each created object, so that they will work together.
So what is the creation formula of God?
1) The earth laid with a foundational age of 4.5 billions years was required to create life.
2) A star laid with the foundational age that would make it stable, is required to sustain life.
3) And a solar system that has a foundational age laid for each object, is required for earth to maintain it's orbit, so it can maintain the life created upon it.
How else do you explain varying ages among things that actually came about 18 billion years ago?
QUOTE(rubico @ Nov 15 2006, 07:19 PM)
in a quite short(which I know you’ll disagree with), random mutations occur in the gene pool making variations in the population, nature favors a certain segment of the population because that trait allows them to more easily reproduce, therefore, a once minor variation in the genetic makeup becomes the norm.
What living thing was supposedly the starting point for all that life came from? A bird, a snake, what?????
Terry
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Nov 15 2006, 05:58 PM)
1) There is nothing easy about creation, unless you allow someone else to do all the work for you. And then accept his opinions on what he has done.
Which, I'm afraid, is what most creationists do. But then, we all stand on the shoulders of others.
QUOTE
2) I have been studying creation for more than four years. My website reflects the different directions I have gone. Why do the stuff myself? I was not satisfied with what was being said by other creationist. A lot of their views sounded more like guesses. I wanted something that really meshed with the word of God. And something that would help me understand God's power in creation.
Certainly commendable. However, not a scientific approach.
QUOTE
Accepting information from only the natural side of creation, excludes God automatically. So by doing this, you have made a decision not to want to know God, by shutting out the only way He can speak to you.
Are you saying that God is only able to speak through scipture? How do you get that idea?
QUOTE
Accepting old earth, by natural means only. Denies the existence of eternity. And the power of God to create through this realm of eternity.
I disagree. The fact that the universe seems to function according the the laws of physics does not exclude a creator.
QUOTE
Do you believe there is a possibility of a parallel universe? What do you think heaven and hell is? They are not parallel as in a sense as being the same as our realm. But they do exist.
Correction: You belive they exist.
QUOTE
Question:
When time was created (in the beginning). What made time different before sin, and then after?
When time was created (in the beginning). What made time different before sin, and then after?
I have no idea. I don't think sin has anything to do with time at all.
QUOTE
So we have a creation of earth, which was a foundation made of old (age without passage of time). Because time before the first sin was eternal. Just as all animals were made fully formed, and of age to multiply. And Adam and Eve were made fully formed and with age.
Yes, creationism appears to imply that. At least if you want it to make logical sense.
QUOTE
How would a universe, where everything dates the same work together?
1) Could we live on a 6 thousand year old planet? Nope, it would be to hot.
2) Could we orbit and live next to a 6 thousand year old sun? Nope, it would be unstable.
3) Could we live among other planets that were 6 thousand years old? Nope, their gravity would vary, which could mess up our orbit as well.
So to make all of these things not a problem. God created, and laid, a foundational age, of each created object, so that they will work together.
1) Could we live on a 6 thousand year old planet? Nope, it would be to hot.
2) Could we orbit and live next to a 6 thousand year old sun? Nope, it would be unstable.
3) Could we live among other planets that were 6 thousand years old? Nope, their gravity would vary, which could mess up our orbit as well.
So to make all of these things not a problem. God created, and laid, a foundational age, of each created object, so that they will work together.
Or, He created the universe 18 billion years ago, and things really have their apparant age.
Hans
QUOTE(MRC_Hans)
Or, He created the universe 18 billion years ago, and things really have their apparant age.
If I say that God created things with age, but without time. The usual evolutionist response is that God lies because He made a deceptive creation, correct?
But evolutionists say that even though everything came from an exploding object 18 billion years ago. That it is ok for all objects to have varying ages? Even though none of them will date back to the original object they came from?
So in one sense, the explaination for varying ages is accepted, even though there is really no explaination.
In the other sense, one is rejected on the sole reason that it includes a super natural Creator. And it is only for that reason, even though how things date, fits a Creator who had a formula to make it all work as one.
And there is no scientific law that can explain how each object just happens to be just right, for the whole solar system to allow one planet to sustain life. When everything that is around it, can change and destroy all life as we know it. And everything is always changing, which proves my point even more.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.