Scientific proof of flood.

[John16:2]

Right. Keep beating that strawman.

Can you point us to the geology book you pulled this from?

Can you even describe the geology of an oil find? What do we find there? How does it show any 'wave' action?

For the learning impaired, I'll repeat what constitutes evidence of wave involvement in vast oil deposits; Vast volume of oil only in specific places, some with no vegetation to support the process of biogenic decomposition, like Saudi Arabia. It isn't random biogenic decomposition of nature, or oil would be everywhere but mountains and deserts.

Dinosaur "fossil fuel" is the old teaching on it; clusters of buried at once dinosaurs oozing their oil, rather than decomposing or getting ate above ground. Vast amounts of oil being condensed biogenic matter means MANY dinosaurs etc per lode.

 

[Tomk80]

The random decomposition hypothesis means the only place that shouldn't have oil is oil rich Saudi Arabia, for lack of foliage to convert.

Why would you assume that Saudi Arabia always has been a desert region? That's nonsense.

And for good measure, why have you still not answered these questions by Notto:

You say that it looks like waves clustered them. What leads you to that conclusion? How does your model explain the types of rocks above and below oil sands and deposits?

Please pick an oil deposit and fully explain the geology we find there using your model. I'm guessing you can't even come close to even telling us what the geology of an oil deposit looks like. That would be a good step before claiming that they look like they were formed a particular way.

What is the geology of oil sands and deposits? What type of rock do we find above and below them? How thick are the deposits? What are the geological features we use to identify a probably source of oil? What evidence is there of these waves you speak of?

Come on, show us that you really know what you are talking about. The floor is all yours.

 

[Tomk80]

For the learning impaired, I'll repeat what constitutes evidence of wave involvement in vast oil deposits; Vast volume of oil only in specific places, some with no vegetation to support the process of biogenic decomposition, like Saudi Arabia. It isn't random biogenic decomposition of nature, or oil would be everywhere but mountains and deserts.

How does this explain the sediments surrounding the oil deposits?

Dinosaur "fossil fuel" is the old teaching on it; clusters of buried at once dinosaurs oozing their oil, rather than decomposing or getting ate above ground. Vast amounts of oil being condensed biogenic matter means MANY dinosaurs etc per lode.

This is a decidedly different account from what other people have been telling you on these threads. Can you point us to respectable geological sources that give this account, in stead of the ones of other people. If you can't, I'll have to assume that you are ignoring other people's posts, which is very bad form.

 

[notto]

For the learning impaired, I'll repeat what constitutes evidence of wave involvement in vast oil deposits; Vast volume of oil only in specific places, some with no vegetation to support the process of biogenic decomposition, like Saudi Arabia. It isn't random biogenic decomposition of nature, or oil would be everywhere but mountains and deserts.

So prior to 'the flood', Saudi Arabia was desert, then the flood came, and it returned to 'desert'.

You would think that all that water, silt, and organic material would have helped it out and transformed it.

What a silly scenario you suggest.

You do understand that places that are now desert were not always desert and places that were once desert are no longer desert, right?

Places that were once swamp are no longer swamp. Places that are swamp today were not swamp in the past.

If this is your 'evidence', I think you will need to do better. Like explaining the geology of an oil find and in particular the rocks above and below it and how it is evidence of a flood.

You seem to be clinging to a childlike understanding of geology that is rather simplistic. Add on top of that your selective memory of what you were taught in school and it explains why you keep repeating a strawman.

 

[John16:2]

So prior to 'the flood', Saudi Arabia was desert, then the flood came, and it returned to 'desert'.

You would think that all that water, silt, and organic material would have helped it out and transformed it.

What a silly scenario you suggest.

You do understand that places that are now desert were not always desert and places that were once desert are no longer desert, right?

Places that were once swamp are no longer swamp. Places that are swamp today were not swamp in the past.

If this is your 'evidence', I think you will need to do better. Like explaining the geology of an oil find and in particular the rocks above and below it and how it is evidence of a flood.

You seem to be clinging to a childlike understanding of geology that is rather simplistic. Add on top of that your selective memory of what you were taught in school and it explains why you keep repeating a strawman.

I've heard the term "fossil fuel" so many times, I don't know where I got it. The dinosaur logo of Sinclair referred to dinosaurs comprising oil. I'm talking OLD ACCEPTED theory of origin of oil. Clusters enough to produce such vast amounts of oil, but few places, has wave deposits for a logical explanation. Random decomposition of biogenic matter doesn't account for the volume & rarity of oil deposits.

 

[Tomk80]

I've heard the term "fossil fuel" so many times, I don't know where I got it. The dinosaur logo of Sinclair referred to dinosaurs comprising oil. I'm talking OLD ACCEPTED theory of origin of oil.

Well, since what we usually deal with is current accepted theory of origin of oil, and the OLD ACCEPTED theory of origin of oil is just that, old, why not talk about the current one?

Clusters enough to produce such vast amounts of oil, but few places, has wave deposits for a logical explanation. Random decomposition of biogenic matter doesn't account for the volume & rarity of oil deposits.

Why not? You got calculations? Why don't you answer Notto's questions for once?

 

[John16:2]

Well, since what we usually deal with is current accepted theory of origin of oil, and the OLD ACCEPTED theory of origin of oil is just that, old, why not talk about the current one?


Why not? You got calculations? Why don't you answer Notto's questions for once?

The current theory IS by seed.sib.com quote; "Most scientists agree that oil is made of biogenic matter, both plants and animals". (Like dinosaurs).

The biogenic matter won't turn to oil after decomposing above ground, so it was buried, if to produce such vast wells of oil. Your model of no meat in the mix hardly don't account for volume of oil found. Decomposing vegetation should produce oil everywhere, by your model. Clusters of buried dinosaur bodies explains it all nicely, though.

 

[Tomk80]

The current theory IS by seed.sib.com quote; "Most scientists agree that oil is made of biogenic matter, both plants and animals". (Like dinosaurs).

As has been already explained to you, most of these animals and plants would have been microscopic, and the process would have taken place in swamps or seas, so they wouldn't have taken place above ground but under water.

The biogenic matter won't turn to oil after decomposing above ground, so it was buried, if to produce such vast wells of oil. Your model of no meat in the mix hardly don't account for volume of oil found. Decomposing vegetation should produce oil everywhere, by your model. Clusters of buried dinosaur bodies explains it all nicely, though.

No, because, as has already been explained to you, the current theory states that oil would have formed in seas or swamps. So it would not have taken place above ground.

And no, decomposing vegetation should not produce oil everywhere, because a lot of vegatation and animals do not die in the specific conditions necessary for oil formation.

However, if oil deposits are the results of a global flood, we should find oil deposits litterally everywhere, since the conditions would have been the same all over the world. So not only is the current model perfectly capable of explaining oil deposits, your model really does worse than the current model because it would predict oil deposits to be everywhere, in stead of only in specific formations all over the world.

 

[John16:2]

As has been already explained to you, most of these animals and plants would have been microscopic, and the process would have taken place in swamps or seas, so they wouldn't have taken place above ground but under water.


No, because, as has already been explained to you, the current theory states that oil would have formed in seas or swamps. So it would not have taken place above ground.

And no, decomposing vegetation should not produce oil everywhere, because a lot of vegatation and animals do not die in the specific conditions necessary for oil formation.

However, if oil deposits are the results of a global flood, we should find oil deposits litterally everywhere, since the conditions would have been the same all over the world. So not only is the current model perfectly capable of explaining oil deposits, your model really does worse than the current model because it would predict oil deposits to be everywhere, in stead of only in specific formations all over the world.

I see, no dinosaurs allowed in your oil now, though oil deposits are clusters, not available at every swamp. My model only predicts clusters of dead dinosaurs etc left by waves to produce vast amounts of oil. Oil is found in deposits, not under every swamp you can name. I'm with dead dinosaurs buried by waves here, not oil under every swamp.

 

[Tomk80]

I see, no dinosaurs allowed in your oil now, though oil deposits are clusters, not available at every swamp.

This sentence doesn't make sense in any way. Could you please write something grammatically or logically coherent? Your sentence reads like one big non-sequitur.

My model only predicts clusters of dead dinosaurs etc left by waves to produce vast amounts of oil. Oil is found in deposits, not under every swamp you can name. I'm with dead dinosaurs buried by waves here, not oil under every swamp.

How does this in any way reflect what I said?

 

[John16:2]

This sentence doesn't make sense in any way. Could you please write something grammatically or logically coherent? Your sentence reads like one big non-sequitur.


How does this in any way reflect what I said?

Just for laughs...deny that there was a flood when the Yukatan crater happened, in the dinosaur era.

 

[notto]

Just for laughs...deny that there was a flood when the Yukatan crater happened, in the dinosaur era.

Describe a oil deposit that you think was a result of it. Where is it located? What evidence do you have that it was caused by the Yukatan meteor?

Just for laughs . . . actually address a real oil field and match it to your claims and describe it in detail including the rocks above it and below it.

 

[John16:2]

Describe a oil deposit that you think was a result of it. Where is it located? What evidence do you have that it was caused by the Yukatan meteor?

Just for laughs . . . actually address a real oil field and match it to your claims and describe it in detail including the rocks above it and below it.

The Yukatan crater is hundreds of miles across, & no doubt caused extreme wave action DURING the time of dinosaurs. That would logically deposit dinosaur carcasses unevenly in the world. Add that to scattered incidence of oil deposits now, rather than evenly available in the earth.

A large object passing near WOULD cause a flood just as the Bible described, half the world at a time, causing erupting fountains and rains as the Bible described. I don't need an extra Sumerian interpreter to say that.

UR is not overgrown by vegetation, it's buried under desert, in Sumeria.

 

[Tomk80]

Just for laughs...deny that there was a flood when the Yukatan crater happened, in the dinosaur era.

This has nothing to do with oil formation or my post. Please stay on topic.

 

[John16:2]

This has nothing to do with oil formation or my post. Please stay on topic.

I thought the Yukatan crater WAS "Scientific proof of a Flood" as the thread implies. We can't deny dinosaurs went extinct then. Where did the vast oil deposits get all those dinosaurs?

 

[nvxplorer]

Just for laughs...deny that there was a flood when the Yukatan crater happened, in the dinosaur era.

When was the dinosaur era?

 

[A4C]

I believe that the Yukatan crater is a giant "sink hole" whereby masses of sediment deposits including vegetable and animal matter was literally sucked back into the earth to fill the void left by the absence of the "waters of the deep"

 

[notto]

The Yukatan crater is hundreds of miles across, & no doubt caused extreme wave action DURING the time of dinosaurs. That would logically deposit dinosaur carcasses unevenly in the world. Add that to scattered incidence of oil deposits now, rather than evenly available in the earth.

Please point us to a real oil deposit that you believe was created this way and describe how the geology of the find came about under your model. Where is the evidence of this oil deposit being formed by stacked up dinosaurs?

 

[leccy]

I've heard the term "fossil fuel" so many times, I don't know where I got it. The dinosaur logo of Sinclair referred to dinosaurs comprising oil. I'm talking OLD ACCEPTED theory of origin of oil. Clusters enough to produce such vast amounts of oil, but few places, has wave deposits for a logical explanation. Random decomposition of biogenic matter doesn't account for the volume & rarity of oil deposits.

I haven't read this thread for a few months but just looking at the past couple of pages you seem to be labouring under some sort of misconception about how oil accumulates. There are a multitude of sources on the internet, some of which have been pointed out to you, which describe the current models for how oil forms and is trapped. Believe me, it's a very big business and the thousands of geoscientists working in the field do not use a global flood model in order to find the oil and gas that runs your car, heats your home and makes the plastic that you are typing on. If your model of wave concentration of oil were feasible and allowed us to make predictions then you would be a multibillionaire.

You need to get away from dinosaurs. The rocks which make up many oil fields date from wel before any dinosaur ever walked on the earth.

Oil chiefly comes from the thermal maturation of organic matter- specifically kerogen- contained in microscopic plants. The different types of kerogen, the speed at which they are buried and the length of time they remain at certain levels in the sediment determine the type of oil or gas formed. The best source rocks for the formation of oil are marine shales containing high proportions of those tiny marine plankton, accumulated over long periods of time and with low oxygen concentration at the bottom of the ocean.

The conditions required for producing a source rock for oil and gas are quite specific. Recognition of the chemical fingerprint of those different types of organic matter and determination of their burial history are some of the techniques that geoscientists use in searching for commercially viable oil and gas reservoirs.

Here's a simple animation showing a few basics of oil formation and trapping suitable for the most lay of laymen.

http://www.wwnorton.com/earth/egeo/animations/ch12.htm#1

That describes two of the key components of a successful oil field- a source rock and a trap. When you've appreciated that then feel free to progress onto some of the more technical links.

 

[A4C]

Is it not a fact that fossil fuel deposits when carbon dated all return a value of about 4500 years the exact time of the Flood of Noah .

Perhaps it is for this reason that carbon dating is not considered "reliable " any more .
I wonder why?