Oopart dinosaurs? ideas please..

[Mallon]

Baloney! What you say even sounds idiotic. "Some move to the right......... others to the left......" And so bacteria sprouts arms, legs, eyes and gets larger ---- until we have a man.... Yeah! That works....... NOT!

Suffice it to say, you don't get it.
Not that I'm going to let that bother me, and I'm not going to waste my time uprighting the strawmen you've knocked over. I encourage our other readers to dig a little deeper than LittleNipper did. I'll even get the ball rolling as far as learning about the left wall of minimal complexity goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/gould_11-26.html
http://brembs.net/gould.html
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135

 

[LittleNipper]

-

Suffice it to say, you don't get it.
Not that I'm going to let that bother me, and I'm not going to waste my time uprighting the strawmen you've knocked over. I encourage our other readers to dig a little deeper than LittleNipper did. I'll even get the ball rolling as far as learning about the left wall of minimal complexity goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/gould_11-26.html
http://brembs.net/gould.html
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135

I'm not interested in "getting" contradiction. Either man evolved from single celled organisms or he did not. To suggest that man is only as sophisticated as bacteria is highly questionable. To then suggest that some single celled organism didn't move or continue a move in a more sophisticated direction is pure double talk. It is impossible to hold a discussion with people who cling to some man-made theory that is impossible to nail down and yet claim the term scientific only for themselves and their rambling.....

 

[Mallon]

I'm not interested in "getting" contradiction. Either man evolved from single celled organisms or he did not.

I'm arguing that he probably did. The evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming, regardless of whether you buy into it or not. The people who are familiar with the evidence -- who work with it every day -- do buy into it. That means something to me.
I'll also point out that the evolution of life from single-celled organisms did not come about by the sudden sprouting of arms and legs in bacteria, as you appear to imply. This is a strawman, and is not at all how evolutionary scientists describe the evolutionary history of life.

To suggest that man is only as sophisticated as bacteria is highly questionable.

Who ever said that? I certainly did not. You're putting words into peoples' mouths.

To then suggest that some single celled organism didn't move or continue a move in a more sophisticated direction is pure double talk.

Again, I've made no such claim. You're putting words into my mouth to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. No one organism moves away from the left wall of minimal complexity with time. Lineages do. Again, I would encourage you to do a little reading on the subject before you reject it out of hand. At least make an attempt to understand that which you deride.

It is impossible to hold a discussion with people who cling to some man-made theory that is impossible to nail down and yet claim the term scientific only for themselves and their rambling.....

Settle down, big guy. Everthing is going to be okay.
What exactly do you feel I am being ambiguous about?

 

[juvenissun]

Based on the hydrocarbon permeability of the cap rock, some or all of the hydrocarbon will leak out. In a highly impermeable cap rock, it would take billions of years for the hydrocarbon to leak out.

Hence why I used the term permeability.

There are only a few cases of those highly impermeable cap rocks.

So, most of hydrocarbon deposits will leak away in 10E8 years. Why do we still have so much Mesozoic or older oil around?

 

[Molal]

There are only a few cases of those highly impermeable cap rocks.

So, most of hydrocarbon deposits will leak away in 10E8 years. Why do we still have so much Mesozoic or older oil around?

Only a few cases?? Really? Almost every none structural play I have worked on has had highly impermeable cap rocks.

So, I think you will find you are wrong.

I have also worked on structural plays. Hydrocarbons in folds and hydrocarbons collected against fault lines. In the case of faults, it is the rock flour created then a fault is formed that holds in the hydrocarbons. This fault breccia, in most cases, has highly impermeable characteristics.

In addition, how about compartmentalization of plays? Slight permeability variations in the reservoir can compartmentalize storage conditions. Making it profoundly difficult to extract and very costly.

I have no idea where you are getting your information from, but I recommend changing sources and trying again.

 

[LittleNipper]

I have done research, I currently perform research, I have worked on oil and gas rigs and explored for minerals and ores.

So, we come back to the question of peer reviewed, published data to back up your assertion. Clearly, if what you suggest is true, you would have evidence. What is the evidence?

So you cannot imagine that GOD desired or intended when HE originally created the Universe that it would be TOTALLY established with the earth having a completely established ecological system. That if you were taken back to that time you could not possibly see it appear to the educated eye as seeming to have taken eons to establish, and that this would in no way effect how fossils would appear if there was a FLOOD in such an environment?

 

[Molal]

So you cannot imagine that GOD desired or intended when HE originally created the Universe that it would be TOTALLY established with the earth having a completely established ecological system. That if you were taken back to that time you could not possibly see it appear to the educated eye as seeming to have taken eons to establish, and that this would in no way effect how fossils would appear if there was a FLOOD in such an environment?

For me (my opinion) that makes God out to be a liar. If you are to take genesis as literally true, God tells us, broadly, how he makes everything and then makes everything with apparent age. An unsuspecting person comes along, looks at the earth and see's billions of years.

Evidence that the earth is at least 4.6 Gya, and that the universe is older is well tested. Using an allegorical approach to genesis allows one to understand how God created the universe, the earth and how He created diverse life on earth. Allegory allows to extract the maximum theological truth out of genesis without being constantly tripped up by a literal interpretation.

 

[juvenissun]

Only a few cases?? Really? Almost every none structural play I have worked on has had highly impermeable cap rocks.

So, I think you will find you are wrong.

I have also worked on structural plays. Hydrocarbons in folds and hydrocarbons collected against fault lines. In the case of faults, it is the rock flour created then a fault is formed that holds in the hydrocarbons. This fault breccia, in most cases, has highly impermeable characteristics.

In addition, how about compartmentalization of plays? Slight permeability variations in the reservoir can compartmentalize storage conditions. Making it profoundly difficult to extract and very costly.

I have no idea where you are getting your information from, but I recommend changing sources and trying again.

So, is a normal shale good enough to be a cap rock or a interstrata barrier (diagenetic trap)?

 

[Molal]

So, is a normal shale good enough to be a cap rock or a interstrata barrier (diagenetic trap)?

It depends on the permeability of the shale, which depends on the its hydrothermal history, mineralogy, etc.

So a tight mudstone, shale, etc. may be a very good cap rock if it has low permeability, a relatively high permeable shale would be a poor cap rock.

During exploration we came across structures, depositional environments, etc that exhibit characteristics of a play; however, upon analysis of the cap rock, it was found to have a permeability which exceeded the rate of hydrocarbon formation. Therefore, the play was empty.

There are many variables that come into play when evaluating the viability of a cap rock; permeability, mineralogy, hydrothermal alteration, fracturing, stress, isostasy, compartmentalisation, etc. etc.

 

[LittleNipper]

For me (my opinion) that makes God out to be a liar. If you are to take genesis as literally true, God tells us, broadly, how he makes everything and then makes everything with apparent age. An unsuspecting person comes along, looks at the earth and see's billions of years.

Evidence that the earth is at least 4.6 Gya, and that the universe is older is well tested. Using an allegorical approach to genesis allows one to understand how God created the universe, the earth and how He created diverse life on earth. Allegory allows to extract the maximum theological truth out of genesis without being constantly tripped up by a literal interpretation.

You call GOD a liar by placing the determinations of man's calulations ABOVE exactly what GOD tells you. GOD did what HE had to create the world as HE wanted it to be. To change various chemical mixtures, He would have ended up with a different world with a different environment. When an artist paints a picture of a tree in his mind, the artist doesn't start with drawing a sapling in order to satisfy presumptuous children. It is what it is. GOD says, "I AM who I AM." It would seem to me that you are trapped by your expectations of human calculations.

 

[juvenissun]

It depends on the permeability of the shale, which depends on the its hydrothermal history, mineralogy, etc.

So a tight mudstone, shale, etc. may be a very good cap rock if it has low permeability, a relatively high permeable shale would be a poor cap rock.

During exploration we came across structures, depositional environments, etc that exhibit characteristics of a play; however, upon analysis of the cap rock, it was found to have a permeability which exceeded the rate of hydrocarbon formation. Therefore, the play was empty.

There are many variables that come into play when evaluating the viability of a cap rock; permeability, mineralogy, hydrothermal alteration, fracturing, stress, isostasy, compartmentalisation, etc. etc.

The same kind of reaction when a TE is pushed to a corner about a specific issue in evolution.

I will respect you more if you simply say: I don't know.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'd respect you better, juvenissun, if you understood your own questions.

Clearly, Molal has outlined that to get a specific answer you need to specify a set of conditions.

That is, any given set of conditions gets you a different answer.

Understand?

*sheesh*

 

[Mick116]

How convenient for you to say such a thing Shernren. All you evos do is make up fairy stories to fit what you see, but you claim to be scientific in all areas... what hogwash! I have always heard that dinos and man could never have lived together according to the evolutionary belief system. But now they can? So, instead of changing your view, you change your interpretation, which is, funnily enough, contrary to the majority of evo opinions on the matter.
Give all of us the evolutionary predictive scenario in this matter then... go on, what is it?
Your reasoning in this case tells us that whatever may come along, the evolution model would still not be affected... Oh boy, are you in deep!

Sorry to jump in late in the piece, but I was curious, why would evolutionary theory forbid the recent existence of dinosaurs? Crocodiles still exist, and have in one form or another since well before the age of dinosaurs.

In fact, you've probably eaten "dinosaur" eggs yourself... birds are not far distant from their dinosaur ancestors.

 

[Molal]

The same kind of reaction when a TE is pushed to a corner about a specific issue in evolution.

I will respect you more if you simply say: I don't know.

Goodness me J. I am led to believe from your comment that you have no idea what you are asking. You fail to understand the simplest of variables and expect life, the earth and the universe to hit into a tidy little box of your own creating.

You fail to provide any evidence, just mere speculation and assertion, you fail to provide any reasoning and you fail to understand geology in any way shape or form.

 

[Molal]

You call GOD a liar by placing the determinations of man's calulations ABOVE exactly what GOD tells you. GOD did what HE had to create the world as HE wanted it to be. To change various chemical mixtures, He would have ended up with a different world with a different environment. When an artist paints a picture of a tree in his mind, the artist doesn't start with drawing a sapling in order to satisfy presumptuous children. It is what it is. GOD says, "I AM who I AM." It would seem to me that you are trapped by your expectations of human calculations.

LIttleNipper - it's not about who calls God a liar (remember, I stated my opinion), it's about your biblical interpretation, how you evidence your interpretation and how you use your interpretation to enhance your relationship with God.

Since God created everything, He obviously used a method to that. I believe that humanity has discovered that methodology. We have discovered some of the many mechanisms of creation. God never said we could not know, He never said we would never know.

BUt, yet again, you are unable to provide any evidence of why you interpret genesis literally, you fail to understand my view point and you accuse me of being trapped by human calculations.

LittleNipper, if you are unable to evidence your view point, then why do you debate?

 

[LittleNipper]

LIttleNipper - it's not about who calls God a liar (remember, I stated my opinion), it's about your biblical interpretation, how you evidence your interpretation and how you use your interpretation to enhance your relationship with God.

Since God created everything, He obviously used a method to that. I believe that humanity has discovered that methodology. We have discovered some of the many mechanisms of creation. God never said we could not know, He never said we would never know.

BUt, yet again, you are unable to provide any evidence of why you interpret genesis literally, you fail to understand my view point and you accuse me of being trapped by human calculations.

LittleNipper, if you are unable to evidence your view point, then why do you debate?

GOD spoke HIS creation into being. HE certainly didn't manufacture it with pre-existing materials. Can I prove that? ---- biblically yes. Can you disprove that? No, actually you have no way to prove what you say unequivocally. You must place your values above GOD's revelation. If one cannot honestly explain GOD HIMSELF using your methodology, there is little hope in really discovering how GOD created using that same process. To begin with, it leaves out GOD. That is the biggest part of the picture, and one you cannot get around...

 

[Molal]

GOD spoke HIS creation into being. HE certainly didn't manufacture it with pre-existing materials. Can I prove that? ---- biblically yes. Can you disprove that? No, actually you have no way prove what you say without placing your values above GOD's revelation.

Go ahead, evidence your claim. I suspect you will fall back upon your literal interpretation of genesis, forsaking historical context, and hebrew grammar.

First you need to provide evidence for a literal interpretation....

 

[juvenissun]

Frequently in oil and gas exploration and in coal mining (both open-cast and mining), we find the source rocks interbedded with sediments. The sediments are coarse grained and fine grained interbeds that depict a fluctuating sea level. The palaeoenvironment is indicative of low energy transgress:regression sequences and not a one-time global flood.

I am going to push you on this one and see how far can you go without starting to throw junks into the argument:

How do you know there were no transgressions and regressions in the event of global flood?

 

[Molal]

I am going to push you on this one and see how far can you go without starting to throw junks into the argument:

How do you know there were no transgressions and regressions in the event of global flood?

In a literal interpretation of genesis, none are mentioned.

 

[LittleNipper]

Go ahead, evidence your claim. I suspect you will fall back upon your literal interpretation of genesis, forsaking historical context, and hebrew grammar.

First you need to provide evidence for a literal interpretation....

John 1:1-5

In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with GOD, and the WORD was GOD. He was with GOD in the beginning. Through HIM all things were made; without HIM nothing was made that has been made. In HIM is life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

(New Testament - Greek)