Radiometric Dating: Just how good is it?

Zaius137 said:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossil-fuels-without-the-fossils

The fundamental problem with the old earth origin of petroleum is that it required billions of years to accumulate from life that originated from abiogenesis. The odds of life happening on their own over long periods of time can be ruled out entirely. Also given that the early suns output was insufficient to warm the earth above freezing (faint sun paradox) prevented enough organic matter from being deposited to form the observed oil deposits harvested in recent times. Modern oil discoveries have happened with the abiotic theory of oil production and it is consistent with young earth hypothesis. Check out the link at the end.

abyssal, abiotic petroleum is gaining momentum again.


"Statistical thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon molecules which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their spontaneous formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of diamond. In that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high-pressure polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon. Any notion which might suggest that hydrocarbon molecules spontaneously evolve in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the near-surface of the Earth, which are the regimes of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction, does not even deserve consideration."
Professor Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, at All-Union Conference on Petroleum and Petroleum Geology, Moscow, 1968.

"The eleven major and one giant oil and gas fields here described have been discovered in a region which had, forty years ago, been condemned as possessing no potential for petroleum production. The exploration for these fields was conducted entirely according to the perspective of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins. The drilling which resulted in these discoveries was extended purposely deep into the crystalline basement rock, and it is in that basement where the greatest part of the reserves exist. These reserves amount to at least 8,200M metric tons of recoverable oil and 100B cubic meters of recoverable gas, and are thereby comparable to those of the North Slope of Alaska. It is conservatively estimated that, when developed, these fields will provide approximately thirty percent of the energy needs of the industrial nation of Ukraine."
Professor Vladilen A. Krayushkin, Chairman of the Department of Petroleum Exploration, Institute of Geological Sciences, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev, and leader of the project for the exploration of the northern flank of the Dnieper-DonetsBasin, at the VII-th International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust Through Drilling, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1994.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html

I would like to talk about the faint sun paradox.

Click to expand...

The Scientific American article does not support a young earth at all. Yes, non-biogenic oil can form from organic hydrocarbons, however, the amount is extremely small and absolutely none that is of commercial importance. The Russian article is heavily flawed and is essentially garbage, it is not supported by the scientific community in the least.

Concerning the comment, "The fundamental problem with the old earth origin of petroleum is that it required billions of years to accumulate from life that originated from abiogenesis", no scientist makes any such claim.

Do you have a link to any legitimate critical articles for the Russian paper or are you saying the oil field does not exist? Why is it flawed and in what way?


The Scientific American article was in no way any support for a creationist point of view… that was not my purpose.

To razwontherock:

It was recently hypothesized that there was an excess in green house gases in the earlier atmosphere that kept the earth warm with a dimmer sun. But recent research has shown that there is no evidence for that type of early atmosphere.
Here is a earlier article that did not include that evidence.


http://earthsky.org/?p=2526

Some of them were really good diggers.

Zaius137 said:

How did fossil fuels get 5-6 miles underground?

Click to expand...

O well that is easy. There was water underground. But during Noah's flood the water vaporized and came to the surface. Then after the flood the water drifted off into space. So then the dino's got turned into oil by bacteria and then the oil filled in where the water use to be. It is all so obvious I am surprised that you had to ask.

Zaius137 said:

The fundamental problem with the old earth origin of petroleum is that it required billions of years to accumulate from life that originated from abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

That is not a problem. Oil production from organic rich marine sediments does not require abiogenesis. It never did. The fundamental problem seems to be your understanding of how science works.

You probably accept the scientific theory that germs cause diseases, right? Do you trot out abiogenesis as a problem for this theory as well? Should we discard germ theory because it requires abiogenesis of germs? Do we throw out all of the observations of germs causing diseases because science has not figured out abiogenesis?

Modern oil discoveries have happened with the abiotic theory of oil production and it is consistent with young earth hypothesis.

Click to expand...

Even scientists in the oil business who were trained creationists can not name one thing that they were taught at ICR that turned out to be true. Not one.

Jazer said:

O well that is easy. There was water underground. But during Noah's flood the water vaporized and came to the surface. Then after the flood the water drifted off into space. So then the dino's got turned into oil by bacteria and then the oil filled in where the water use to be. It is all so obvious I am surprised that you had to ask.

Click to expand...

Don't start mentioning ground water. Zaius will start asking us how rainclouds can form underground.

You have no sense of humor… the Dinosaur thing was tongue in cheek.

It is quite interesting that you can neglect problems that precede your conclusions. Problems being the geodynamo, the origin of the life, compositional issues between life and oil and depth of oil deposits not even to mention how oil fields can hold huge pressure over millions of years.

The old earth argument can only be sustained if there is support from all quarters of the evidence. To connect all the dots would be helpful.

a) Is radio metric dating valid under non uniformitarianism? No
b) Does oil only originate from fossils? No
c) Can an earth dynamo model operate within Earths observed parameters? No
d) Can life spontaneously form and thus be a source of the oil. No
e) Can an oil company locate oil? Yes

Connection the dots…does a+b+c+d+e= an old earth?
Empirically NO…

Zaius137 said:

"Statistical thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon molecules which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their spontaneous formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of diamond. In that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high-pressure polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon. Any notion which might suggest that hydrocarbon molecules spontaneously evolve in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the near-surface of the Earth, which are the regimes of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction, does not even deserve consideration."

Click to expand...

Based on this logic, the long-chain alkanes that are common in oil deposits throughout the world would break down as they migrated toward the surface and temperature and pressure decreased. So we should see a gross decrease in molecular complexity of petroleum with decreased depth. We do not. In fact, we see the opposite trend, with complex molecules characterizing shallower reservoirs and an overall decrease in complexity with increasing depth. This trend favors the burial and thermal cracking scenario that is used by the petroleum industry and is supportive of old earth processes.

Zaius137 said:

"The eleven major and one giant oil and gas fields here described have been discovered in a region which had, forty years ago, been condemned as possessing no potential for petroleum production. The exploration for these fields was conducted entirely according to the perspective of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins. The drilling which resulted in these discoveries was extended purposely deep into the crystalline basement rock, and it is in that basement where the greatest part of the reserves exist. These reserves amount to at least 8,200M metric tons of recoverable oil and 100B cubic meters of recoverable gas, and are thereby comparable to those of the North Slope of Alaska. It is conservatively estimated that, when developed, these fields will provide approximately thirty percent of the energy needs of the industrial nation of Ukraine."
Professor Vladilen A. Krayushkin, Chairman of the Department of Petroleum Exploration, Institute of Geological Sciences, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev, and leader of the project for the exploration of the northern flank of the Dnieper-DonetsBasin, at the VII-th International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust Through Drilling, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1994.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html

Click to expand...

Apparently the wells in this discovery are completed in both basement and sedimentary cover, making the distinction between basement reservoirs and traditional sedimentary reservoirs difficult. Nevertheless, the basement rocks are associated with sedimentary source rocks, so there is no reason to assume a basement-sourced origin for the petroleum contained in the crystalline rocks.

Unless you can provide a geochemical argument for why this petroleum must have an abiotic source, there is no reason to assume anything other than a biotic source.

http://www.geoscience.co.uk/assets/file/Reservoirs in Fractured Basement Ver 9_JCG.pdf
You'll be looking for page 11.

Zaius137 said:

a) Is radio metric dating valid under non uniformitarianism? No

Click to expand...

Define 'uniformitarianism'. Define 'non-uniformitarianism'. Explain why this difference invalidates radiometric dating and provide evidence for which system best represents the biological, physical, chemical, and geological characteristics of the known universe.

b) Does oil only originate from fossils? No

Click to expand...

Define 'oil'. Define 'fossils'. Explain why oil CANNOT originate from fossils. Explain quantitatively (volumetrically) how abiotic sources can account for the abundance of complex hydrocarbons found in the subsurface. Include a discussion of the chemical reactions necessary for production of complex organic molecules via abiotic processes, and where we can find these processes in action.

c) Can an earth dynamo model operate within Earths observed parameters? No

Click to expand...

Elaborate, citing evidence both in support of your position and against the reliability of the earth dynamo model.

d) Can life spontaneously form and thus be a source of the oil. No

Click to expand...

Why does the validity (or invalidity) of abiogenesis invalidate the processes of deposition, burial, degradation, and maturation of organic matter into hydrocarbons? Provide evidence for this position.

e) Can an oil company locate oil? Yes

Click to expand...

Can an oil company locate oil using an old earth model? What are the three largest companies that employ this model? Please outline the geologic model employed by each company.
Can an oil company locate oil using a young earth model? What are the three largest companies that employ this model? Please outline the geologic model employed by each company.

Unless you can provide a geochemical argument for why this petroleum must have an abiotic source, there is no reason to assume anything other than a biotic source.


No I cannot make that argument… I have assumed that the reference I have cited contained some authority in that area. I do find the comments in that first citation about the composition of the oil and its necessity to form deep to be interesting. I have no formal graduate training in chemistry but it holds great interest to me.


http://www.geoscience.co.uk/assets/file/Reservoirs in Fractured Basement Ver 9_JCG.pdf
You'll be looking for page 11.[/quote]

Orogeny…

You know you could use a bit of facial hair it would add to your “look of authority”. My dense facial hair is a great asset but I often have to shave the palms on my paws.

Zaius137 said:

It is quite interesting that you can neglect problems that precede your conclusions.

Click to expand...

So you reject germ theory, right? I would also assume that you reject atomic theory because it requires a theory to explain where the original energy in the universe came from. Lacking such a theory for the origin of atoms we can not determine how atoms interact, correct?

The old earth argument can only be sustained if there is support from all quarters of the evidence.

Click to expand...

We can measure the age of a rock on a lifeless planet, so I really don't understand what abiogenesis has to do with it.

a)

Click to expand...

Is radio metric dating valid under non uniformitarianism? No

Click to expand...

Are historical changes in the fundamental laws of nature supported by the evidence? No.

b)

Click to expand...

Does oil only originate from fossils? No

Click to expand...

Can it originate from buried marine sediments? Yes. In fact, the evidence points to the majority of petroleum deposits coming from these sources.

c)

Click to expand...

Can an earth dynamo model operate within Earths observed parameters? No

Click to expand...

You have not presented any evidence to support this claim.

d)

Click to expand...

Can life spontaneously form and thus be a source of the oil. No

Click to expand...

You haven't supplied evidence for this claim. Nowhere did you show that abiogenesis did not occur.

e)

Click to expand...

Can an oil company locate oil? Yes

Click to expand...

Do they use young earth creationism to do it? No. Do they use standard geology which includes an old earth and biological sources for petroleum? Yes.

Zaius137 said:

No I cannot make that argument.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your honesty. Also, since you did not respond to my thermodynamic argument, I'll claim this one for old earth geology.

I have assumed that the reference I have cited contained some authority in that area.

Click to expand...

Your citation does not address it, though geochemistry is a critical tool for determining hydrocarbon provenance.

I do find the comments in that first citation about the composition of the oil and its necessity to form deep to be interesting. I have no formal graduate training in chemistry but it holds great interest to me.

Click to expand...

While it is true that hydrocarbons can form abiotically, it is incredibly difficult to defend the position that all, a majority, or even a significant fraction of hydrocarbons did.

Zaius137 said:

Orogeny…

You know you could use a bit of facial hair it would add to your “look of authority”. My dense facial hair is a great asset but I often have to shave the palms on my paws.

Click to expand...

Worry not, for I am participating in No Shave November. My Look of Authority grows daily.

Zaius137 said:

Do you have a link to any legitimate critical articles for the Russian paper or are you saying the oil field does not exist? Why is it flawed and in what way?

Click to expand...

Yup! Sure do.

Abiogenic oil is an abandoned hypothesis. The hypothesis predicted the kind(s) of formations in which it would be found, but drilling has produced nothing. Furthermore, the conditions needed to convert methane in the mantle to petroleum do not exist, nor do the modes of transport to the surface. A few wells that did appear to produce turned out to be of biogenic origin.