UTGamers.com Forum Index

If there was a Great Flood...
Moderators:  UTG Mods
Goto page:  1, 2 Next
Forum index » General Public » Politics
Reply to topic
Author Message
CloakedKilla
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 07 Apr 2002
Posts: 8625
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: 21 Dec 2008 08:22:54 pm    Post subject: If there was a Great Flood... Reply with quote

Then consider this:


1. The Ark itself

The LARGEST modern wooden ships we have today measure about 300 feet, and are held together by iron straps. They leak so terribly that they have to be permanently pumped with hydraulics so that they don't fill with water and sink. Noah's Ark, according to Genesis 6, was 450 feet long. Noah had no iron to keep the ship together and no vehicle with which to pump water from the ship.

2. The animals

Where'd all the animals come from? We have millions of species in the world currently. There's no possible way that Noah could have fit them all into a single boat. Even if we consider that "kind" doesn't mean "species", this leaves millions of current species unaccounted for. We have no record from Genesis that more species were created after the Flood, so for the Flood story to be true there would have to have been a spontaneous generation of millions of new species after the waters receded.

Many animals cannot survive in the same types of climate. Penguins live exclusively in arctic climates and some arthropods can only survive in climates with 100% humidity. How did these animals live and survive together?

3. Fitting them all there

For the purposes of simplicity, we're just going to say "kind" represents a single type of animal. For example, "worm" categorizes all worms. Therefore Noah only needed two worms to satisfy that "kind". Assuming this, we can estimate that there were about 15,000 animals that needed to be loaded on the dock. Loading them in 7 days, as the Bible says that Noah had to gather all the animals, Noah would have had to load one animal every 38 seconds, non-stop for an entire week. No sleeping, resting, or eating.

The Flood is often used as a reason why we have so many extinct animals. But if we assume that Noah fit all "kinds" on there, then there should have been surviving species afterwards. This doesn't explain why there are so many extinct land species, and doesn't even begin to address why there are so many extinct marine species which would have been unaffected by a flood.

4. Taking care of the animals

Many animals have very restrictive diets. Silk worms feast exclusively on mulberry leaves, and koalas only eat eucalyptus leaves. How did Noah collect these plants and how did he care for them?

Many animals aboard must have been carnivores. How did Noah keep them from eating the other animals, and how did he feed them for an entire year assuming they didn't feed off the other animals? There's no way he could have kept fresh meat supplies for an entire year.

The animals on board would have produced thousands of pounds of manure each day. How did Noah and his family keep the ship up, having to dispose of thousands of pounds of manure each day?

Some types of animals require entire colonies to survive. Ants, for example, require an entire nest comprising of hundreds and sometimes thousands of ants to survive. How did these animals survive only existing in pairs?

5. The Flood itself

Where'd the water come from and where'd it go afterwards?

Some propose that modern day oceans were made from these great floodwaters. Our current landmasses were pushed up and the oceans were lowered, leaving land above sea level. This doesn't explain why sediments are more prevalent in mountainous regions, since logically the water would have had to flow from the high points to the low points.

Why are some mountains more eroded than others? The Appalachians show much more erosion than the Rockies.

Ice core data from Greenland shows annual layers dating back 40,000 years. Why do we have no record of any Flood? A worldwide flood would have shown noticeable changes in salinity, sediment makeup, and oxygen isotopes in the ice core data. Yet, there exist none.

A worldwide flood would have produced enough water to float the ice caps and break them apart completely. Our climactic conditions in the past 6,000 years would NOT have provided sufficient time for our current ice caps to exist. Simply put, they couldn't have frozen fast enough.

We have tree ring data that dates back about 10,000 years. Similar to ice core data, there is NO evidence of any Flood. Tree rings should show very noticeable changes from being emerged in saltwater for an entire year. However, tree ring data from around the world all shows a similar lack of evidence for a worldwide flood.

How do we have any fresh water animals today? Fresh water animals cannot live in salt water. In a worldwide flood, ALL freshwater formations would have been mixed with saltwater. Every single freshwater species we have today would have been killed. Where do today's freshwater species come from?

How did coral formations survive? Coral requires very temperature and light specific conditions to survive. A worldwide flood would have kicked up untold amounts of sediment into the water and changed worldwide water temperatures. No coral formations in the world could have survived. We have coral formations today that date back to over a million years old such as the Great Barrier Reef. Why didn't they die out?

How did some forms of diseases survive? Some specific diseases require human or other animal hosts to survive. The eight people on the boat, including Noah, would have had to have been infected with smallpox, polio, typhus, measles, gonorrhea, syphilis, and other diseases specific to humans for these diseases to survive. How were these people infected with such a wide range of diseases and still survive?



This is only scratching the surface...I can post more if you would like.




dude
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i'm crying
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i just put aftershave on my nuts
jesterx99
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 08 Nov 2004
Posts: 1171
Location: Houston, TX

PostPosted: 22 Dec 2008 11:54:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This is only scratching the surface...I can post more if you would like.



no please don't
Maverick
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 26 Jan 2002
Posts: 5756
Location: Miami, FL

PostPosted: 22 Dec 2008 01:39:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So HIV would have had to survive too, right? Does that mean that all of those other diseases were around, skipped Jesus' generation, and came back to haunt us?

You presuppose that everything that exists now MUST have existed back then, and the earth "evolves" too slowly to show otherwise. That a global flood took place 5000 years ago is illogical because the earth could not have changed quickly enough and we'd have overwhelming evidence of it now.

There are a couple problems with Carbon dating, that the amount of C14 (the radioactive isotope used for carbon dating) is the same amount in the atmosphere as it is in plant/animal life (percentage-wise), and therfore the dating takes a measurement of how much is in a dead body as compared to the atmosphere. Fossils are not carbon dated in order to check their age, they compare the age to the sediment in which it was buried. That geological record was arbitrarily created by man.

Now, when carbon dating was invented back in the late 30's, they understood the concept of equilibrium, and through their own scientific ways decided that after 30,000 years the atmosphere would be equalized so that C14 levels would maintain, that assuming nothing changes within the sun or atmosphere, that 30,000 years would pass from the new earth and C14 would remain constant. That's just not what's happening now, we have more C14 in the atmosphere now than we did 40 years ago. Which would lead us to the assumption that the earth is less than 30,000 years old.

Listen, I'm a pilot, not a scientist. It was easier for me than it was for these people, so check out their stories and their evidence:

Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and there are hundreds of others just like them, that take a legalistic point of view in order to try to disprove, only to become believers.

If you don't get it yet, there's such a thing called a Miracle, and if God could create the world by using His words, then He can figure out a way to get the life He wants to get on the Ark. By the way, the ark was in the water for 5 months, not a year. Where did the water come from? It hadn't rained before the flood, and there's a nifty idea out there called a vapor canopy that would be in line with the Bible.

You know they've found Noah's Ark about 18 miles south of Mount Ararat? You know the dimensions said to be of the Ark is used to this day because of the stability it creates? You know Gopher Wood is still one of the best woods to use on boats?

So you want to ignore my post about prophecies?


Nemo me impune lacessit
CloakedKilla
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 07 Apr 2002
Posts: 8625
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: 22 Dec 2008 02:41:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maverick wrote:

There are a couple problems with Carbon dating, that the amount of C14 (the radioactive isotope used for carbon dating) is the same amount in the atmosphere as it is in plant/animal life (percentage-wise), and therfore the dating takes a measurement of how much is in a dead body as compared to the atmosphere. Fossils are not carbon dated in order to check their age, they compare the age to the sediment in which it was buried. That geological record was arbitrarily created by man.

Now, when carbon dating was invented back in the late 30's, they understood the concept of equilibrium, and through their own scientific ways decided that after 30,000 years the atmosphere would be equalized so that C14 levels would maintain, that assuming nothing changes within the sun or atmosphere, that 30,000 years would pass from the new earth and C14 would remain constant. That's just not what's happening now, we have more C14 in the atmosphere now than we did 40 years ago. Which would lead us to the assumption that the earth is less than 30,000 years old.


Why are you talking about carbon dating? Fossils and old rocks, including meteorites and other things, are measured using strontium-rubidium decay or uranium-lead decay. Carbon dating is one of the least used dating methods for anything related to evolution. And even accepting criticism, it's extremely reliable. Carbon dating doesn't assume short-term constancy, it assumes a long-term constancy of carbon 14 data. And since it's only relevant to specimens geologically young, we can corroborate the data with climate data from the past 60,000 years to see if they match up. Ice core data from across the world dates climate changes and stores atmospheric makeup. This climate data supports long-term constancy. Sure there can be corruptions with specimens but that doesn't mean carbon dating is unreliable, since means of corruption are known and can be discarded and adjusted.

The geologic record wasn't arbitrarily created, because we can take our measurements that have been subject to weathering and erosion and find how they compare to uncorrupted objects like meteors in orbit. I was having a discussion about this with a friend of mine not long ago, and he insisted that all the measurements were corrupted since they would have all been changed by the flood. I then asked him why it is that these measurements line up exactly with measurements we take from meteors which weren't on Earth at all. There are plenty of other less reliable dating methods that match up such as soil-sediment layers in river basins that actually date back millions of years.

The idea of a vapor canopy is completely bunk. It sounds good on paper until you understand thermodynamics. For Earth's atmosphere to support a vapor canopy of that magnitude it would have to be superheated and boiling...everything on Earth would have been killed by the heat. And if we assume the vapor canopy existed for a time before the flood, it would increase atmospheric pressure by more than 50 times. All efforts to explain this scientifically have failed. Argue miracles all you want, I know how convenient it is to have an argument that can't be argued against. But in the end you can make whatever claim in the world, that doesn't make it legitimate.

The idea that the Ark was found is still a myth...there's absolutely no confirmation. There's a satellite image of something that looks like a ship but nobody has actually found it.




dude
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i'm crying
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i just put aftershave on my nuts
Maverick
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 26 Jan 2002
Posts: 5756
Location: Miami, FL

PostPosted: 22 Dec 2008 03:37:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Circular discussions now.

You can't prove to me that the earth is more than 6000 years old because all of the measurements you're taking you made, there is no such thing as an incorruptible scale, even a thermometer is arbitrary (Celsius, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin). You also can't prove to me that life came from nothing. The primordial soup is a conconction that humans would like to think was around back then but there's no evidence that it was exactly like that either.

The simple fact is, I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist. There are too many guesses that you have to make, it's much easier and there's more evidence that there is a deity that created us.

Once you come to that conclusion then it's your responsibility to find out what that deity wants from you, and why he bothered to create you to begin with.


Nemo me impune lacessit
CloakedKilla
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 07 Apr 2002
Posts: 8625
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: 22 Dec 2008 03:48:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maverick wrote:

The simple fact is, I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist. There are too many guesses that you have to make, it's much easier and there's more evidence that there is a deity that created us.


Why is evolution and creation antithetical to you? For me, God's creation is discovered through our understanding of evolution. Anyway, I gotta run to work so we'll continue this discussion later. Wink




dude
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i'm crying
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i just put aftershave on my nuts
Maverick
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 26 Jan 2002
Posts: 5756
Location: Miami, FL

PostPosted: 22 Dec 2008 04:04:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because evolution espouses chance, and I don't believe in chance.

Furthermore, it doesn't make sense that God would take so much time to create everything. Furthermore, if you actually read the story of Genesis, the Hebrew words are words of literal 24 hour days, not longer. Unless for some reason a day was not 24 hours back then, but that wouldn't make sense.


Nemo me impune lacessit
Maverick
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 26 Jan 2002
Posts: 5756
Location: Miami, FL

PostPosted: 22 Dec 2008 04:21:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found something really interesting. The Methuselah Tree, oldest living organism on the earth today. So that bunks your theory on the oldest living organism being older than when the flood occurred. Oldest living thing isn't even 5000 years old. It began growing shortly after the flood.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/methuselah/

Here's another great link in which Peruvians drew on Ica stones, Dinosaurs!

http://www.crystalinks.com/icastones.html


Nemo me impune lacessit
CloakedKilla
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 07 Apr 2002
Posts: 8625
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: 23 Dec 2008 04:18:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maverick wrote:
I found something really interesting. The Methuselah Tree, oldest living organism on the earth today. So that bunks your theory on the oldest living organism being older than when the flood occurred. Oldest living thing isn't even 5000 years old. It began growing shortly after the flood.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/methuselah/

Here's another great link in which Peruvians drew on Ica stones, Dinosaurs!

http://www.crystalinks.com/icastones.html


The tree ring data is from petrified forests, so whether or not they're currently alive is irrelevant. And those Peruvians drawings are interesting but too bad they're a hoax perpetrated by a guy named Javier Cabrera. The guy that Cabrera got the stones from was a local who claimed to have found them in a cave and was later arrested for selling forged artwork to tourists.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

^ There's a creationist website showing the same pictures and crediting them to Cabrera.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-09/strange-world.html

^ There's a link showing Cabrera is a fraud.




dude
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i'm crying
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i just put aftershave on my nuts
Maverick
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 26 Jan 2002
Posts: 5756
Location: Miami, FL

PostPosted: 23 Dec 2008 02:17:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did you even look at any of the other evidence from that first link? Yeah, he was claimed to have found them, that's not a secret or a crime.

And your second link references the previous website you gave me! The one that quotes Acharya S on Horus! Now I know that some goof made that second webpage up!

You know I can't find one example of where they've been able to take ring data from am petrified tree, or where it's all kept so that we know where and how old, the oldest petrified tree is.

Here's your petrol link which you claimed to be bunk, as true:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/768672.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece

Those are two ways that petrol could have been created in a matter of months, not hundreds of thousands of years.


Nemo me impune lacessit
Maverick
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 26 Jan 2002
Posts: 5756
Location: Miami, FL

PostPosted: 23 Dec 2008 02:31:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CloakedKilla wrote:
And even accepting criticism, it's extremely reliable. Carbon dating doesn't assume short-term constancy, it assumes a long-term constancy of carbon 14 data. And since it's only relevant to specimens geologically young, we can corroborate the data with climate data from the past 60,000 years to see if they match up.


No, we can't, and no, it isn't accurate to any degree. We don't know what the climate was 200 years ago, let alone 6000 years ago.

http://www.et.byu.edu/~adw45/Carbon%20Dating.htm

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/LifeScience/PhysicalAnthropology/EvolutionFact/Radioactive/Radioactive.htm


Nemo me impune lacessit
CloakedKilla
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 07 Apr 2002
Posts: 8625
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: 23 Dec 2008 03:44:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maverick wrote:
CloakedKilla wrote:
And even accepting criticism, it's extremely reliable. Carbon dating doesn't assume short-term constancy, it assumes a long-term constancy of carbon 14 data. And since it's only relevant to specimens geologically young, we can corroborate the data with climate data from the past 60,000 years to see if they match up.


No, we can't, and no, it isn't accurate to any degree. We don't know what the climate was 200 years ago, let alone 6000 years ago.

http://www.et.byu.edu/~adw45/Carbon%20Dating.htm

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/LifeScience/PhysicalAnthropology/EvolutionFact/Radioactive/Radioactive.htm


We do know what the climate was 200 years ago from historical records and we know what the climate was 6000 years ago from ice core data taken from around the world. I'm sorry to say Nick but you are talking about stuff you obviously know nothing about. Yearly melts and freezing get recorded in ice samples and we have samples showing these yearly layers dating back hundreds of thousands of years. Each year there are new layers created when they melt in the summer and freeze again in the winter. They melt and freeze differently each year and lock in the climate conditions each year. The climate conditions make changes in terms of oxygen isotope ratios in the ice core data. Temperature makes these ratios different as well as the amount of cosmic radiation (that is, solar output). They also record things like particulate makeup. You can see what year Krakatoa erupted by looking at ice core data to see when there was a large amount of particulate matter in the air. In the Volstok ice cores we can see the effects of chlorofluorocarbons on the ozone by the massive swings in isotope ratios caused by increased solar radiation reaching the surface.

The link you provide is garbage. The first one simply explains the ways subjects can become contaminated. This doesn't mean that the process is fundamentally flawed, it means that the preservation of certain specimens is flawed and that we know how to control for it. We don't just arbitrarily use carbon dating on anything we find. It has to meet very specific criteria to make sure it is a viable specimen for dating. The fact that we can measure random things and get absurd dates doesn't mean that carbon-14 dating is flawed, it means that people are purposefully distorting valid science by using a dating method on subjects that they know are flawed.

The second link is even worse. "that the minerals in full quantity were there in the rocks for millions and millions of years in a closed system or ideal system. However, that is not possible in the rocks."

That is not possible in the rocks? What rocks? We have rocks that have been closed systems for billions of years. Meteorites that we date have been closed systems most assuredly, since they've been in a vacuum in orbit untouched.

"Third assumption - radioactive decay rates never vary. This is unfeasible and untrue from a physics perspective! Decay rates will and do vary!"

The assumption isn't that decay rates never vary. Decay rates do vary from atom-to-atom. However, the long-term decay rates of a large sample (large meaning a few million atoms, in actual terms an extremely small particle) are stable, and the different forms of radioactive decay remain constant. Your link mentions that cosmic radiation can affect decay rates, which is only half true. It can affect the rate of beta decay positron emission but it does NOT affect the rate of alpha decay. And, through ice core data, we have a clear picture of cosmic radiation reaching the surface which allows us to control for major swings in radiation that would affect these decay rates. And the only way cosmic radiation CAN affect decay rates is if it's being exposed to an open system! Only closed systems are viable subjects (which apparently are impossible since your link made the flatly untrue and unsubstantiated claim that it is so).

Another dishonest distortion of facts. Before you attempt to make a critique of scientific methods, at least take a class on them and understand how they work in the first place. You can't critique something you don't know about.




dude
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i'm crying
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i just put aftershave on my nuts
Maverick
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 26 Jan 2002
Posts: 5756
Location: Miami, FL

PostPosted: 23 Dec 2008 04:28:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carbon dating, my friend, cannot be done on objects that did not once live. Carbon dating cannot be done on rocks.

The assumptions made by scientists are ridiculous.

What about:

Lunar Recession, found by Edmund Halley?
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit4/tides.html
The earth could not have been as old as they say.

Helium diffusion from Precambrian Zircons?
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf
There's too much Helium!

Subterranean Fluid Pressure?
http://www.gotquestions.org/young-earth-evidence.html wrote:
When a drill rig strikes oil, it sometimes gushes out in huge fountains. This is because the oil is often under huge amounts of pressure from the sheer weight of the rock sitting on top of it. Other subterranean fluids kept under pressure include natural gas and water. The problem is, the rock above many pressurized subterranean fluid deposits is relatively permeable. The pressure should escape in less than 100,000 years. And yet these deposits remain highly pressurized. Once again, because of the supposed antiquity of these deposits and their location throughout the Geologic Column, this observation calls into question some of the interpretations which have led to the formulation of the column.


The claim that the Global Flood changed literally *everything* cannot be disproved, just because scientists create a scale. There is evidence in the Bible about people worshiping other gods, that doesn't make them real gods.


Nemo me impune lacessit
CloakedKilla
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 07 Apr 2002
Posts: 8625
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008 12:32:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maverick wrote:
Carbon dating, my friend, cannot be done on objects that did not once live. Carbon dating cannot be done on rocks.

The assumptions made by scientists are ridiculous.

What about:

Lunar Recession, found by Edmund Halley?
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit4/tides.html
The earth could not have been as old as they say.

Helium diffusion from Precambrian Zircons?
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf
There's too much Helium!

Subterranean Fluid Pressure?
http://www.gotquestions.org/young-earth-evidence.html wrote:
When a drill rig strikes oil, it sometimes gushes out in huge fountains. This is because the oil is often under huge amounts of pressure from the sheer weight of the rock sitting on top of it. Other subterranean fluids kept under pressure include natural gas and water. The problem is, the rock above many pressurized subterranean fluid deposits is relatively permeable. The pressure should escape in less than 100,000 years. And yet these deposits remain highly pressurized. Once again, because of the supposed antiquity of these deposits and their location throughout the Geologic Column, this observation calls into question some of the interpretations which have led to the formulation of the column.


The claim that the Global Flood changed literally *everything* cannot be disproved, just because scientists create a scale. There is evidence in the Bible about people worshiping other gods, that doesn't make them real gods.


You're right, uranium-lead decay is used on rocks. Who ever said carbon dating is used on rocks?

About lunar recession:

The link you give makes no claims that lunar recession gives any sort of low-end estimate for the age of the Earth. First, the rate of lunar recession is not static. It changes over time as the orbit around the Earth becomes larger and larger. Paleontological evidence of tidal rhythmites confirms the expected age of the Earth-Moon system, showing tidal frequencies over 2.5 billion years ago. Nothing you've shown indicates a young earth from lunar recession. The actual facts confirm what is expected.

About helium diffusion:

The study you've linked was done in Fenton Hill right? Are you aware of the bedrock that is in Fenton Hill? Fenton Hill is near the Valles Caldera, which lays on a fault plane and is used to produce geothermal heat and has a history of volcanism. That means that the rocks there have been constantly fractured, exposed, and subjected to metamorphosis. To make assumptions based on bedrock from this area is, who would have guessed, completely dishonest.

Further, if the rate of radioactive decay actually happened that they are claiming happened, it follows that all other forms of radioactive decay were happening at the same time as well. Correspondingly, so much heat would have been released during this radioactivity that no life on the Earth would be sustained. This concern is actually contained within the report from Humphreys, yet for some reason gets no mention in your link. Why is that?

And I especially like the section where it claims "lead diffusion supports our case". Really? Uranium doesn't decay directly into lead as they seem to be assuming. To test whether or not the rate of diffusion matches, you have to test for EVERY step in the radioactive decay process. And it seems to be making the fundamental error in assuming lead is trapped inside of the zircons. That's not how it happens. "Judging from their experimental error, their results mean that more than 90% of the lead generated by "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay has remained in even the deepest, hottest zircons." Nope, sorry. They're making completely false assumptions. They're saying that the amount of lead in the sample indicates that it has remained "trapped" in the sample instead of diffusing out. What it ACTUALLY shows is that a very high amount of the uranium content in the zircon crystals has decayed completely into lead...showing a complete radioactive decay process that takes billions of years to happen. And the unusually high amount of lead in the sample indicates that it was not a closed system, explaining why the rate of decay for this sample was so fast AND why there is such an unusually high amount of helium.

Their "evidence" actually proves them wrong.




dude
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i'm crying
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i just put aftershave on my nuts
CloakedKilla
Unstoppable
Unstoppable


Joined: 07 Apr 2002
Posts: 8625
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008 12:43:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, and about the subterranean fluid:

The "100,000 years" claim does not take into account the type of reservoirs that oil and natural gas are trapped in. Gas and oil reservoirs typically are VERY impermeable rock, meaning they are capable of holding high amounts of pressure for extremely long periods of time. If the assumption that the pressure would have been released during that time were true, then it doesn't explain how the pressure was created in the first place. This interpretation states that the pressure is released at a relatively fast rate...a rate fast enough where no pressure would have been created at all.

Also, oil and gas aren't necessarily in static reservoirs. As plates shift, the reservoirs shift as well. Oil that has been trapped under the surface for hundreds of millions of years may have moved into a reservoir created a few thousand years ago. So just because the reservoir containing the oil is young, it does not mean the oil itself is young. You can have a geologically young oil field created in the past 100,000 years housing oil that's been there for 500 million years.

Further, this assumes that there is no INWARD pressure on the reservoir, only OUTWARD pressure from the trapped oil and gas. This is, once again, a completely false assumption. The inward pressure exerted from the millions of tons of rock on top of the reservoir is high enough to make an extremely slow rate of seepage even though the internal pressure of the reservoir is great. Look up what a "pressure gradient" is and you'll get a much better picture of what I'm talking about. Your link assumes no pressure gradient, which on its head is completely false.

If you'd like to throw some more stuff at me you've read in creationist "science" literature, go ahead. I'll disprove all of it. Bring up moon dust, Cambrian explosion, Archaeopteryx, whatever. I'm keen on all of it. Wink




dude
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i'm crying
Sephirrrrrrrrrroth says:
i just put aftershave on my nuts
Display posts from previous:   
Forum index » General Public » Politics

Page 1 of 2 [25 Posts]
Goto page:  1, 2 Next
All times are GMT
Reply to topic
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group