Wired: How to Date the Grand Canyon: Go With the Flow

[Baggins]

You all are telling me, Shocking, that you revreate in the lab how lthification (sp) of sediment into sedimentary rock has happened.

It may be a shock to you, butthat is because you don't know anything about geology as you have already demonstrated very ably.

Well then if so it must of been a fast thing.

You don't really understand scalability and modelling do you. You can speed things up in the lab so it happens over a period of hours, days or weeks, instead of years, decades or millenia. You can do this by scaling up the pressure and heat from what is seen in nature to greater but scaled values.

So it shows creationism models accurate.

You really are the eternal optimist aren't you.

I christian you Robert Pangloss

Otherwise how could you have the time to show time is a part of the recipe?

We use magic, dangerous voodoo called scaling. We make things hotter and more pressurised than they are in nature so the process speeds up.

This is further evidence of the impossibility of creationist models, not evidence for them

Evidence for your claims on sediment into rock has not been presented here.

Don't start lying. I posted loads of links containing evidence that you refused to read and then you asked people not to post links but use their own words.

Only bore results of a moment in time and presuming a process is going on.

If you drill through rock you drill through time and you can see the process of lithification happening. You don't look at one piece of sediment for a thousand years, you drill through a thousand years of sediment and look atthe core now.

I would have thought that would have been obvious even to you, but no matter how many times I have to say this it just doesn't seem to sink into that bonce of yours.

Creationism predicts relic or aborted stages in lithification from the flood year. I would add in episodes after.

Creationism can predict pink faeries in my attic, but until it produces some evidence its predictions are worthless.

We've had a good discussion but you guys still see field evidence thru your geology school lens. Not what is acyually there i insist.

That is fairly insulting since I can't imagine you have ever even looked at a rock formation in the field, and yet you have the hubris to tell us you know what the rocks out there are saying and we don't.

You can say what you want and insult all you want, until you provide evidence you are the one who is looking like a blowhard fantasist and we are the ones looking cool with the evidence

Even if, I don't see it yet, there is right now somewhere weight pressing down on sediment and actually creating a few inches of rock it would be a coincedence of the area.

So even if you saw the evidence with your own eyes that lithification happened it would be a coincidence.

Your mind is just wide open to new information isn't it.

A few thousand years since the flood has not the time,

Good job the world is 4.6 billion years old and there was no flood then.

in a stable pace, to make rock by your theories.
Perhaps somewhere it is but you didn't show it.

No, you didn't read it. Once again I am not to blame for your laziness or lack of comprehension.

If you make sandstone in the lab well thats fine with creationism. We welcome quick rock. Thats the point.

Not when you see the heats and presures needed.

I still see geology has missed the obvious point in the field.

Of course, over the last 200 years only stupid people have done geology, they just needed an internet savant like you to come along and put us all straight.

Tell the oil companies, you'll save them millions, perhaps they'll give you a cut.

They don't see what the first answer should be when seeing sedimentary rock of any type or depth laying about. This is sediment suddenly turned into rock , with all flora/fauna, by a great pressure .

Have you ever considered that 200 years of study by hundreds of thousands of geologists, mostly Christians, has not turned up this result because it didn't happen?

No of course you haven't, you know better than all of us don't you.

The forse that rounded up the sediment also compacted it.

I agree, gravity.

I believe geology didn't think this because WHAT possible pressure could there be in nature. Also other reasons.

Um.... piles of sediment acted on by gravity seems to do the job.

No I can't prove my ideas in the lab.

Or the field for that matter

Neither do you . I insist.

Insist all you want you are wrong

Why are you saying you test your ideas in the lab?

Because it happens to be true.

It comes down to evidence of what happened and what could happen aside from the eyewitness account in scriture.

Eyewitness accounts of lithification in the bible. I must have missed that bit.

You still fail through lack of evidence, bad luck.

 

[RobertByers]

Baggins
There is sequence issues with the postings on the forum. Found you.
Oh scaling. Well that doesn'r count as its control by the researchers. Its not the real thing in nature.

You bring up the subject again about digging sown reveals the past. It , in our eyes, shows the floor layers of a sudden evemt. Any lithification PERCEIVED need not be seen as any thing other then an aborted process that since has had no more change. Or all most.

It would be hard for your side to show what is being asked by definition.
If your right perhaps in further research I do I'll find it. However I did run a close arguement on evidence. WHAT is actually going on as opposed to reasonable . but wrong, conclusions from data.

Many always come back about all these geologists being wrong all these years is unlikely.
Yet this is a constant in any geology book that old ideas are replaced, to some extent, by new. So people were wrong before they were more right.
Geology is about past unobserved events.
Creationism is confident in the accuracy of the bible and so super analyitical about interpretation of data.
We think we are right.

There is so much that could be done in geology for each side to undercut the others conclusions.
Just what?
Robert Byers
Toronto,Ontario

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationism is confident in the accuracy of the bible and so super analyitical about interpretation of data.
We think we are right.

And yet, when the rubber meets the road creationism is completely useless while standard geology is all the rage.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

Glenn Morton's story

Why does creationism fail so spectacularly in the real world?

 

[Molal]

To the three posters here that posted to me. lots of stuff.

You all are telling me, Shocking, that you revreate in the lab how lthification (sp) of sediment into sedimentary rock has happened.
Well then if so it must of been a fast thing. So it shows creationism models accurate. Otherwise how could you have the time to show time is a part of the recipe?

Evidence for your claims on sediment into rock has not been presented here. Only bore results of a moment in time and presuming a process is going on. not evidence it is. Creationism predicts relic or aborted stages in lithification from the flood year. I would add in episodes after.

We've had a good discussion but you guys still see field evidence thru your geology school lens. Not what is acyually there i insist.

Even if, I don't see it yet, there is right now somewhere weight pressing down on sediment and actually creating a few inches of rock it would be a coincedence of the area. A few thousand years since the flood has not the time, in a stable pace, to make rock by your theories.
Perhaps somewhere it is but you didn't show it.

If you make sandstone in the lab well thats fine with creationism. We welcome quick rock. Thats the point.

I still see geology has missed the obvious point in the field. They don't see what the first answer should be when seeing sedimentary rock of any type or depth laying about. This is sediment suddenly turned into rock , with all flora/fauna, by a great pressure . The forse that rounded up the sediment also compacted it.
I believe geology didn't think this because WHAT possible pressure could there be in nature. Also other reasons.

No I can't prove my ideas in the lab. Neither do you . I insist.
Why are you saying you test your ideas in the lab?

It comes down to evidence of what happened and what could happen aside from the eyewitness account in scriture.
Robert Byers

Robert,
We test our ideas in the lab and observe lithification in the field - we are safe in the knowledge that we have it right. We know that your assertion is wrong - it is demonstrably wrong.

I am also pleased that you state you cannot evidence your assertion in the lab.

And loudmouth makes an excellent point - geology works . The methodologies of geology finds oil and gas, ore and minerals. It helps identify areas of interest on other planets - no small feat.

 

[Baggins]

Even though I believe you are a parody, I will reply because even parodys have their uses.

Oh scaling. Well that doesn'r count as its control by the researchers. Its not the real thing in nature.

No it is a model of the real thing in nature, explain why that isn't valid.

You bring up the subject again about digging sown reveals the past. It , in our eyes, shows the floor layers of a sudden evemt. Any lithification PERCEIVED need not be seen as any thing other then an aborted process that since has had no more change. Or all most.

We can see process continuing in the rocks we drill up, processes like diagenesis. We can track ethe diagenesis and alterations in reservoir rocks over the years. We can model these changes in lithificationin the lab.

You simply do not understand what you are talking about. This is a subject that oil companies spend millions in research on every year, they are not in the business of wasting money.

It would be hard for your side to show what is being asked by definition.

If your right perhaps in further research I do I'll find it.

No you won't you'll ignore it because you cannot except it because of your religion, it is impossible for you to be honest with the evidence because theevidence must be made to fit in the box of your dogma. You are incapable of following teh evidence to any logical conclusion in those circumstances.

However I did run a close arguement on evidence. WHAT is actually going on as opposed to reasonable . but wrong, conclusions from data.

I'm afraid you'll have to translate that into common English for me.

I don't wish to be cruel but I don't know how someone who cannot make themselves understood in their mother tongue ( I assume English is the mother tongue of a Canadian called Byers ) can be taken seriously as an expert in anything. It doesn't say a lot for your intellect that you write like this. It is one of the reasons I believe you are a parody.

Many always come back about all these geologists being wrong all these years is unlikely.
Yet this is a constant in any geology book that old ideas are replaced, to some extent, by new. So people were wrong before they were more right.

Even new ideas have to explain the old evidence. YEC ideas have explained nothing for 200 years now because geology explains the evidence better and it produces results; in the oil and mineral wealth that following the modern geological paradigm has provided.

Geology is about past unobserved events.

So is History and so is Christianity.

All of those things left evidence.

Creationism is confident in the accuracy of the bible and so super analyitical about interpretation of data.

Wrong, creationism is confident in the accuracy of the Bible and so doesn't undertake any analysis of the data, because they already know what the answer will be.

We think we are right.

Yes you do, but the evidence shows otherwise.

There is so much that could be done in geology for each side to undercut the others conclusions.
Just what?

Well you could start providing evidence for your proposals instead of just asserting them, but that would require work, which you don't appear to like.

 

[RobertByers]

Baggins
Amen. History and christianity are not scientific subjects. Neither is geology largely. Historical geology as testing isn't donr.

For the first time you said you track diogenesis changes in areas.
Well if there is such changes then that is evidence of change.
Yet still minor changes and evidence that today sediment is or could change into rock. Not evidence.
Rob Byers

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Baggins
Amen. History and christianity are not scientific subjects. Neither is geology largely. Historical geology as testing isn't donr.

For the first time you said you track diogenesis changes in areas.
Well if there is such changes then that is evidence of change.
Yet still minor changes and evidence that today sediment is or could change into rock. Not evidence.
Rob Byers

1. He just gave you an example of sediment being changed into rock (diagenesis, which I have posted here before, yet you ignored), and you agreed that yes, this is evidence of sediment being changed into rock today.

2. You then turn around and say that this is a small piece of evidence that does not prove that rock is being formed today.

3. Then you say it's not evidence at all.

Am I reading this correctly?
You've gotta be a fake, but fake or not, you're epically hilarious. +1

 

[Molal]

Baggins
Amen. History and christianity are not scientific subjects. Neither is geology largely. Historical geology as testing isn't donr.

For the first time you said you track diogenesis changes in areas.
Well if there is such changes then that is evidence of change.
Yet still minor changes and evidence that today sediment is or could change into rock. Not evidence.
Rob Byers

Geology isn't science?? That made me laugh out loud. It is good you admit that christianity isn't science - by extrapolation the bible is not a book of science, but a book of theology.

I'll ask of you what I have asked of Juvenissun. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

 

[Baggins]

Baggins
Amen. History and christianity are not scientific subjects. Neither is geology largely. Historical geology as testing isn't donr.

For the first time you said you track diogenesis changes in areas.
Well if there is such changes then that is evidence of change.
Yet still minor changes and evidence that today sediment is or could change into rock. Not evidence.
Rob Byers

Testing is indeed donr, the fact that you don't realise that testing is donr just goes to show how little you know.

Seriously anyone who would deny geology is a science is clearly foolish in the extreme. They either do not understand what geology is, or what science is, or both.

Watching diagenetic changes is evidence, we can add evidence to the list of words you clearly do not understand.

 

[RobertByers]

I think we're done here. We can't persuade each other on basic points. I see that biogenesis can watch something change into something else but I see no evidence that this happens in nature today. I mean sediment into/on its way into rock. Its all Extrapolation and guessing.
Historical geology is not open to most or all of its conclusions by the scientific method. Other geology stuff may be. I don't know.
Its not science if no science is done. Origin subjects don't deal with science but steal the prestige of the word.

I mean that biogenesis might be made to work in a controled test but it doesn't show it going on in the field relative to our discussion. The folks here are struggling to understand pinpoint evidence. Saying oil companies do this or that is saying nothing. I submitt you closer at what they do and separate it from presumptions behind what they do which make difference anyways.
Oil is only be found and not created today. Nor are they looking by these methods to figure where oil will be in fifty years but isn't there now.
Split the atom here.
Rob Byers

 

[Molal]

I think we're done here. We can't persuade each other on basic points. I see that biogenesis can watch something change into something else but I see no evidence that this happens in nature today. I mean sediment into/on its way into rock. Its all Extrapolation and guessing.
Historical geology is not open to most or all of its conclusions by the scientific method. Other geology stuff may be. I don't know.
Its not science if no science is done. Origin subjects don't deal with science but steal the prestige of the word.

I mean that biogenesis might be made to work in a controled test but it doesn't show it going on in the field relative to our discussion. The folks here are struggling to understand pinpoint evidence. Saying oil companies do this or that is saying nothing. I submitt you closer at what they do and separate it from presumptions behind what they do which make difference anyways.
Oil is only be found and not created today. Nor are they looking by these methods to figure where oil will be in fifty years but isn't there now.
Split the atom here.
Rob Byers

This is a most confusing post.

Biogenesis - diagenesis? Are you confusing terms here? How can you not see sediment being turned into rock - it's all around you......you sim ply need to go into the field and observe.

I think you are actually misleading yourself concerning oil companies. Oil companies do indeed know how to explore for oil, they know where it formed, how it formed and where it will form. Oil is being created today - their are source rocks still in the window of maturation.

Robert, you have blinded yourself to the reality you live in.

 

[Baggins]

.Saying oil companies do this or that is saying nothing. I submitt you closer at what they do and separate it from presumptions behind what they do which make difference anyways.

As an exploration geophysicist I work with oil companies every day of my working life, I submit that I could not possibly be better acquainted with what they do and how they do it.


On the other hand, the closest you get to an oil company is filling your car up at the Texaco garage.

So don't lecture me on observing what oil companies do, I do that for my living thank you very much.

Oil is only be found and not created today.

Wrong as well, oil kitchens are still active below many oil fields today

Nor are they looking by these methods to figure where oil will be in fifty years but isn't there now.

That would be pointless as oil is created at much slower rates than it can be extracted from teh ground, so any oil being generated today is not going to be commercially viable in 50 years time.


I think we can add the oil industry to the list of subjects that you clearly don't understand but don't mind spouting off about as if you were some sort of world expert.

 

[RobertByers]

As an exploration geophysicist I work with oil companies every day of my working life, I submit that I could not possibly be better acquainted with what they do and how they do it.


On the other hand, the closest you get to an oil company is filling your car up at the Texaco garage.

So don't lecture me on observing what oil companies do, I do that for my living thank you very much.


Wrong as well, oil kitchens are still active below many oil fields today

That would be pointless as oil is created at much slower rates than it can be extracted from teh ground, so any oil being generated today is not going to be commercially viable in 50 years time.


I think we can add the oil industry to the list of subjects that you clearly don't understand but don't mind spouting off about as if you were some sort of world expert.

It seems some of my posts were lost anyways.

I don't think there are oil kitchens today but perhaps I'm wrong. I see oil as the result of squeezing living matter and only see episodes in nature as capable of doing this. I see oil therefore as also a post flood event and not just a flood year event.
We both would agree pressure (and I think heat0 are needed to make organic into oil. Therefore I would need to know if pressure/heat is actually turning old or new organic material into oil RIGHT NOW.
This might be like the last idea and just presumed because of the model and not actual evidence.
I know peat is a real thing but oil probably just due to events and no long processes.
Its about evidence and analysis. Not degrees on the wall.
Degreed folk should be able to prove their points without recource to expertism claims.
This is a discussion forum and not about ones studies in their late teens and early twenties.

 

[Baggins]

I don't think there are oil kitchens today but perhaps I'm wrong.

You are, there are many places where you can see oil being produced from source rocks atthe surface.

One I am familiar with is Kimmeridge Bay in Dorset England.

There you can see oil oozing out of teh source rock, it is produced where the source rock is deeper and hotter and is obviously continuing right now, this is the source for the Wytch Farm oil field.

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

I see oil as the result of squeezing living matter and only see episodes in nature as capable of doing this.

Well you'd be wrong then. Oil is the result, mainly, of heat on organic matter in sediments such as the Kimmeridge clay.

You don't get much living matter in rocks anyway, apart from bacteria it is all dead.

I see oil therefore as also a post flood event and not just a flood year event.

You may see it as what you want, it won't stop you from being wrong.

We both would agree pressure (and I think heat0 are needed to make organic into oil.

Heat mainly

Therefore I would need to know if pressure/heat is actually turning old or new organic material into oil RIGHT NOW.

Buy yourself a bit of land over a producing source rock, a drilling rig, the mineral license and some logging tools and you'll be able to find out for yourself that it is.

Or you could try reading a bit of the geological literature available on the subject.

This might be like the last idea and just presumed because of the model and not actual evidence.

None of your ideas are backed by evidence, everything I say is.

I know peat is a real thing but oil probably just due to events and no long processes.

What is the difference between events and processes?

Its about evidence and analysis. Not degrees on the wall.

True, but I have both evidence and degrees on the wall, and you have neither.

Degreed folk should be able to prove their points without recource to expertism claims.

So you believe that everybody has to reinvent the wheel for themselves. No wonder you aren't getting anywhere.

This is a discussion forum and not about ones studies in their late teens and early twenties.[/

You don't make the rules.

 

[Molal]

It seems some of my posts were lost anyways.

May have been.....lots of site changes recently.

I don't think there are oil kitchens today but perhaps I'm wrong.

Yes, you are wrong. A simple journal search would show why you are wrong. I suggest going to the library.

I see oil as the result of squeezing living matter and only see episodes in nature as capable of doing this. I see oil therefore as also a post flood event and not just a flood year event.

How is this relevant? It is only relevant if you can evidence your claims - which you can't. So why bring it up?

We both would agree pressure (and I think heat0 are needed to make organic into oil. Therefore I would need to know if pressure/heat is actually turning old or new organic material into oil RIGHT NOW.

Baggins example of the kimmeridge clay is a wonderful example and very well researched. There are literally hundreds of examples across the world. Yet again, I suggest you pop down to your local library and research your claims BEFORE you state them.

This might be like the last idea and just presumed because of the model and not actual evidence.

Evidence and data is everything. Baggins and I have both experience (baggins has more than me in the oil industry) and education. SO far only Baggins and I have provided actually, verifiable evidence. You have not.....

I know peat is a real thing but oil probably just due to events and no long processes.

Evidence?

Its about evidence and analysis. Not degrees on the wall.

Evidence - which you have failed to provide. You can't even hold yourself up to your own standard.....

And, I worked very hard to get my degree's - your denegration of education leaves much to be desired.

Degreed folk should be able to prove their points without recource to expertism claims.

As Baggins and I have.....

Does this mean that non-degreed folk do not need to evidence their claims?

This is a discussion forum and not about ones studies in their late teens and early twenties.

It matters not when the study was performed, only that it is verifiable and reproducible. The hall mark of science.

So, where is your evidence for your claims....we are waiting.

 

[RobertByers]

Baggins
I read that useless link. Thats why I don't like them.

You provide no evidence oil is being made but only its being pumped up. In fact its declining. Surely no oil is being made new like you told me.????!!!!

Oil is from organic material collected up suddenly and pressurized and/or heated suddenly to create instantly the goo.\No long time processes took place or probably would work.

All oil today has already been created and , I think, no oil today is newly created.
Oil is a favourite subject of , other, creationists.
It is evidence of sudden collection events.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Baggins
I read that useless link. Thats why I don't like them.

You provide no evidence oil is being made but only its being pumped up. In fact its declining. Surely no oil is being made new like you told me.????!!!!

Oil is from organic material collected up suddenly and pressurized and/or heated suddenly to create instantly the goo.\No long time processes took place or probably would work.

All oil today has already been created and , I think, no oil today is newly created.
Oil is a favourite subject of , other, creationists.
It is evidence of sudden collection events.

As always, provide source for supposed quick formation of oil. Kthx.

 

[Baggins]

Baggins
I read that useless link. Thats why I don't like them.

You provide no evidence oil is being made but only its being pumped up. In fact its declining. Surely no oil is being made new like you told me.????!!!!

Go to Kimmeridge Bay, oil is oozing out of the source rock as we speak. That is the source rock we are talking about not the reservoir rock.

I'm sure others grasped that important point even if you didn't.

Oil is from organic material collected up suddenly and pressurized and/or heated

It is the heat that is the important part and it isn't sudden levels of intense heat, it is continuous levels of moderate heat over long periods that produces good crude oil.

suddenly to create instantly the goo.\No long time processes took place or probably would work.

Simple reality proves you wrong

All oil today has already been created

Duh!

and , I think, no oil today is newly created.

Think what you like, you are wrong as a day trip to Kimmeridge Bay would show, may take longer than a day in your case.

Oil is a favourite subject of , other, creationists.

I'm sure it is, it is also a favourite subject of oil companies, and they use and old world/uniformitarian model to find it.

Fancy that!

It is evidence of sudden collection events.

Any number of papers dealing with real oil fields show you to be wrong.

Even simple common sense, something I prefer not to use as it is usually not common or sense, should make you realise that the collection of oil in reservoirs is a slow process, it is a viscous liquid travelling through solid rock of variable permeability .

Think about that

 

[RobertByers]

Baggins
I did miss the point about it being source rock. So what? Its still oil from the place it was first stored during a single event. why not?
Moderate heat over time is speculation. Not witnessed and not tested.

I have never studied for a answer to oil seeping thru rock and so to its final rest. I know however that there was no time and so processes can be found that speeded things up.
I'm not a oil interest person and only know basic creationists ideas on it.
It just is obvious and should be the first conclusion that a liquid from living matter must of come from a sudden event that changed its composition. Long processes are unlikely.
Organic collection and pressure squeezing, whixh probably is the source of the heat, fits better with great events.
I doubt oil anywhere on earth is being created even on embryonic form.

I don't understand why you say oil is being made in this english place?
Rob byers

 

[Baggins]

Baggins
I did miss the point about it being source rock. So what? Its still oil from the place it was first stored during a single event. why not?
Moderate heat over time is speculation. Not witnessed and not tested.

The fact that it is the source rock is important because you can go there a physically view the oil being created with your own eyes. this is oil oozing out of the rock that it is created from. Therefore it is oil being produced from a source rock infront of your very eyes. Thus rubbishing all your unevidenced assertions that oil isn't being created these days.

It is and in Kimmeridge bay it is happening before your very eyes. You are looking at an outcrop of Kimmeridge Clay that a few miles away is deep under the Wytch farm oil field and merrily producing crude oil as it is still in an oil window, some of that oil escapes into the Wytch farm reservoir, some of it travels along the Kimmeridge clay until it seeps out in Kimmeridge bay.

Why make statements that are flatly contradicted by reality? It isn't hard to find information about Wytch Farm, Kimmeridge Bay or the Kimmeridge Clay so why sit in front of your computer naysaying reality?

As I said if you are really difficult to please you could fly to the UK hire a car drive down to teh Dorset coast and physically rub your hands across the rock pull them away and be amazed that the rock has just deposited a bit of oil on your hand. You cannot get much more real than that.

Moderate heat over time can be, and is, tested and modelled in the lab. If you heat the source rock to highly you get gas produced not oil, increase the heat and you burn away the hydrocarbon leaving just soot. What makes oil is keeping the kerogen cooking at moderate temperatures for long periods of time.


I

have never studied for a answer to oil seeping thru rock and so to its final rest. I know however that there was no time and so processes can be found that speeded things up.

That's your whole problem, you are wedded to the non-sensical idea that the earth is a young planet, so you have to cram everything in to a ridiculously short timescale.

Anyone should be able to grasp the factthat moving a viscous liquid through solid rock of variable permiabilities and porosities cannot be a quick process.

And you will ignore the fact that you cannot think of a process that could speed this process up. There are a few that I can think of but I'm not handing out clues, and anyway they in no way speed things up to thelevels that you need.

I'm not a oil interest person and only know basic creationists ideas on it.

Which means you know nothing. I actually work in teh oil industry. At the moment I am on a seismic survey vessel off teh west coast of africa 32 minutes from starting another pass of seismic data across a new prospect.

It just is obvious and should be the first conclusion that a liquid from living matter must of come from a sudden event

Why should this be obvious, it isn't obvious to me and I have studied oil source rocks.

If you cannot think of any ideas as to why it should be obvious beyond a simple statement that it must be, I propose that you have lost the argument before you have even started it. You cannot even think of an ad hoc explanation, how poor is that?

Living matter needs to be broken dowm. I know from studying the organic material in the Kimmeridge clay where it is unheated that the material that produces the oil is AOM ( amorphoes organic material ), this is the left over material when the bodies of microfauna break down in anoxic conditions, This in itself is not a quick process or a sudden event. The animal must dies fall to the muddy anoxic bottom of a shallow ocean with a restricted input of new water ( like the Black Sea today). That shale must then be buried and lithified.

Do you know what the Kimmeridge Clay is composed of, how long a meter of it takes to accumulate? Of course you don't, you just sit at your computer terminal and make things up based on your religious dogma.

that is about as far away from doing real science as you can possibly get.

that changed its composition. Long processes are unlikely.

They are if you believe the world is 6000 years old, but since there is no reason to believe that at all, I'd say you were wrong.

Organic collection and pressure squeezing, whixh probably is the source of the heat, fits better with great events.

The simple increase in pressure and heat at depth will account for the changing of organic material to oil given enough time, and we have more than enough time.

I doubt oil anywhere on earth is being created even on embryonic form.

And reality and Kimmeridge bay show you to be wrong.

I don't understand why you say oil is being made in this english place?

Because it self evidently is, you can go there and get it on your hands.