So I am taking up the debunking of Fly's list where I think Louis is planning to leave off. By my count "The pressure in modern day oil fields is too high for them to be very old. Current estimates indicate that the longest a rock layer could keep oil under pressure would be 100,000 years. Oil is simply not as old as evolutionists' claim.30" is claim number 11 of 20, so I will be covering the list starting with #11 and going to the end. Here is my first installment.
11) The pressure builds up because the oil cannot easily escape from the reservoir. For the same reason, where there is high pressure, the oil cannot be coming into the reservoir very quickly either. Oil is produced deep into the earth due to pressure and heat. This oil then goes through a primary migration to the reservoirs which we drill into (often there are secondary migrations between different reservoirs). Fluid motion through the earth is extremely slow. Water is estimated to move through dense "impermeable" clay somewhere around 2 to 3 million years per kilometer. THe shales associated with oil reservoirs are 1/1000 times as permeable as "impermeable" clay, so the time it takes for oil to get from the depths where it is created to the deposits we find would be much greater than your estimated 6000 year age of the earth. Even worse, the source rock when the oil is first formed averages out to be about 100 million years. THe very existance of oil indicates that the earth is fairly old. And the pressure will not always build up forever and break the reservoir. "Leaks" are very common, some oil is lost from reservoirs and goes to the surface, keeping the pressure from building up too much. This is how most oil fields were detected in the past, before we could find oil with modern science. And even your own creation "science" figure has this at 100,000 years, much longer than those who read the bible literally claim the earth has existed for.
12) It is well known that the interior of the Earth is very hot. For each mile you descend, the temperature increases by 118 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earth is a thousand miles in diameter; the core is so hot that the rocks are molten. Yet as Earth passes through the extreme cold of outer space, it's losing its heat. Even with the heat it receives from the sun, Earth's net heat loss is 1027 calories per second. This means that if it started at 190 degrees Fahrenheit on the surface, Earth would have been frozen stone cold to the center in the first 40 million years. If it were four billion years old, it should have been a huge sphere of ice over 100 times by now. The actual geothermal gradient that I found is about 75F/mi (25C/km), but that is besides the point. Also, the diameter of the Earth is 12,740 km (7916 mi), far off from your 1000 mi, and the center of the earth is SOLID. So whoever wrote your cut and paste doesn't even have an understanding of basic middle school science. You might say this is ad hominem, but I would prefer to listen to a person who can look up simple facts over someone making them up any day. And for the record, you are saying that the earth looses an amount of energy roughly equal to the chemical energy of a tic-tac every day. This isn't nearly as impressive a number as you seem to think.
Anyway, I am not sure where your number came from, as I can find no source for any number of how much heat we loose or gain globally. I seriously doubt such a number exists from any good scientific work. We can't even agree on whether global warming takes place or not (and even supercomputers can't calculate all the variables needed for cliatology yet), if there were concrete numbers on how much energy we loose every day, everyone would agree that there was definite global cooling of a certain amount. And even if your number is accurate for today, it is well known that the temperature of the earth fluctuates and that sometimes it should get hotter and sometimes cooler, cyclicly, over the long term it should even out and we will never freeze the planet (you need to remember that the Earth's orbit is elliptical and that there is a certain amount of "wobble" to take into account. The Earth's heat is anything but linear, if we are loosing heat now, we will probably be gaining it later.
Heat lost to space is replaced by heat from the sun. At the poles, we loose more heat than we gain, but nearer the equator we gain more heat, this difference is responsible for Hadley circulation. The atmosphere allows us to keep more heat in and let less escape, which is why earth doesn't cool down as fast as the planets with very little atmosphere like Mars. Overall, we loose heat and gain heat on a daily basis with day and night, and a yearly basis with winter and summer, and over the longer term with atmosphere changes and orbit variation, but overall, everthing equals out. Once again, you oversimplfy the math and assume complex situations can be modeled perfectly by math which is far too simple.
A line can approximate sin(x) very well for a tiny bit, and if you extrapolate that line, you will think that sin(x) was equal to -6000 at some point, but you would, of course, be wrong, since on the larger scale the line model doesn't work. I think this is a very good example, if you don't know what it looks like, go graph sin(x) on a graphing calculator. Now see that a line would seem very accurate for the section between a trough and peak of the wave. If you only look at that part, it seems to be a very close estimate, but when you see the whole graph, you realize that it is not at all linear and no figures calculated with that line beyond a certain distance can be at all relevant).
I am tired and rambling, more tomorrow.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowThanks Umbrage, I'll look forward to it!
So I am taking up the debunking of Fly's list where I think Louis is planning to leave off. By my count "[b]The pressure in modern day oil fields is too high for them to be very old. Current estimates indicate that the longest a rock layer could keep oil under pressure would be 100,000 years. Oil is simply not as old as evolutionists' claim.30[ ...[text shortened]... e can be at all relevant).
I am tired and rambling, more tomorrow.
Do not expect a reply from Fly though he has communicated to me that he feels more comfortable not continuing the debate.
I'd like to thank him for his input though, and invite him to future debates (seems a nice guy, and able to present some good points, and use good logic) with us, and eny time you want a game fly.....
Originally posted by OmnislashOh boy, talk about running a subject into the ground, especially
I beg your pardon sir, ID is indeed a theory. It simply comes from a greatly differing train of thought. Simply because it is not proven through scientific means does not negate its relevance as a possibility. Science, while the most wonderous manner we have developed to understand the universe around us, is inherantly flawed and limited due to its relianc ...[text shortened]... d have scientific basis:
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/theory
Best Regards,
Omnislash
one that actually belongs in the ground. Whats wrong with teaching
Itelligent design in a sociology, anthropology or religious study
class? Nothing. But ID'ers are not satisfied with that because it doesn't
fit their aims: To force religion down the throats of the educational
system, to force ID to be taught side by side as if it were real science.
You can say its a theory also but theories are open to dissent and
that the ID'ers don't want. There are no reputable publications
of ID or its parent Creationism 'theory' because ID's have nothing
to debate except their word that its real. If you don't have solid
and repeatable data to back up your theory, its only conjecture not
a theory. You might dress it up however you want but in the end
its a political thrust not a theory.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowBesides one other factor overlooked in this heat equation:
So I am taking up the debunking of Fly's list where I think Louis is planning to leave off. By my count "[b]The pressure in modern day oil fields is too high for them to be very old. Current estimates indicate that the longest a rock layer could keep oil under pressure would be 100,000 years. Oil is simply not as old as evolutionists' claim.30[ ...[text shortened]... e can be at all relevant).
I am tired and rambling, more tomorrow.
It has been proven there is a 10,000 Gigawatt heat source
which adds to the mix: deep underground ancient nuclear reactions
where fissionable material gets concentrated to a point where
a fission reaction can begin and its usually in a deep water supply,
albeit in veins, but the water dampens the reaction enough so
it doesn't explode but cause the water to go to steam which
stops the reaction due to a temporary lack of water and then new
water seeps in the vein and the cycle starts anew, thus adding
heat the ID'ers never accounted for.
Originally posted by flyUnityHey Thats a good one, the earths magnetic field getting so strong
There are allot of evidence about young earth, I believe that Secular scientists hang on to the old Earth and old universe interpretation because nobody will believe that nothing will evolve into something unless you have a massive period of time. It's so tightly clung to because if you take away the time, nobody's going to believe in evolution.
from ht ...[text shortened]... k for the grazing industry. See Interview with Dr. Raymond Jones.
it would crush itself. Surely you can't even begin to entertain that
so-called idea. Sure if you extrapolate the field strength like that
you would think such stupid things but the fact of the matter is
it goes in cycles, actually reversing itself every few hundred thousand
years or so. My bet is you actually know that but just throw in that
rediculous argument just for spite.
A very famous philosopher who had his genesis here at RHP once said:
Laws of the Jungle. Laws of man. Laws of God.
God makes jungles, men make laws and jungles make man.
Some say that jungles do so "with gods permission or design." Others say "to spite God".
Does Gods law fight the law of man? Or the law of the jungle?
Do the laws of man supercede the laws of God or the laws of the jungle?
Does the law of the jungle cease to exist in the presence of the laws of man or the laws of God?
Might this seasoning and quiescence not be what we call "Civilization"?
SVW
Fly, as a creationist you have been disowned by the Intelligent Design crowd. Most anti-evolutionists have given up on the young earth, dinosaurs drowning in the flood type of beliefs because there is so much evidence showing this is false. They have surrendered the creationist position and now espouse evolutionary theory.
The Intelligent Design approach is evolution is a fact as the weight of evidence is overwhelming. However IDers claim some life is evolved, some life is created.
Intelligent Design is not even a theory, as a theory can be experimentally tested. ID people can never agree where the limits of evolution are or how we know where the accepted fact of evolution can not explain some aspect of life.
Intellectually, Creationism is dead. You must be one of the last remaining members of this once powerful movement.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyStill around? Just had a long holiday after losing my job and been travelled the world. Even managed to get through Homeland Security at LA airport so my reputation can not be so bad after all.
It was naturally selected. Unfortunately.
or it is just like my fingers. Just washed them and can't do a thing with them?
What you up to?
Originally posted by darvlayNowhere really. Just decided to take some time off to get a new perspective on the world. I was locked into a "habit" and that makes me nuts.
Still avoiding work and pissing people off.
So, where've you been?
Freud sucks and Pavlov rules. So with that in mind, whenever one becomes to harshly "conditioned", one must break the conditioning. I was in a rut. So I chose to break it.
I knocked a hole in the back of the house, built a walk-out stair. Then decided to buy a boat. But first had to build a parking pad. Parking pad done, I needed a driveway and approach.
In July I bought a 1 cubic foot cement mixer and eighteen cubic yards of washed sand and gravel along with 12,000 pounds of portland cement. One and a half days per week. Oh yea. Once I got that done, I needed a garage to put the boat in. But now I'm caught up. I have a nice garage and driveway. Sigh. I am ready for my Bayliner 175. Except now I've lost interest in the boat, so I guess I won't buy one afterall. I have a second really nice garage and drive though.
Ya know. This really sounds pathetic once I see it in writing.
Originally posted by steerpikeSorry about the job. Unless you didn't like it. Glad to hear you are up and about. That is fine news. As to "Homeland Security" ... it always stikes me as second best to a mothers breast and serving the same function for a kid past two years of age.
Still around? Just had a long holiday after losing my job and been travelled the world. Even managed to get through Homeland Security at LA airport so my reputation can not be so bad after all.
Did you enjoy your travels? What did you do or see?
Concerning "Intelligent Design", I have a few thoughts. The main one is the amplification of the very earliest discussion of "singularity" put forth in science fiction as an examination of John von Neuman's original use of "Singularity", or that point in techno growth when advancement exceeds the ability to understand nevermind control change. This was taken to be a very naughty problem. I attended a science fiction conference in Ohio in the early 90's wherein Vernor Vinge posed the question "What do we do when nano-machines and nano-computers no longer need us because we fail to meet their requirments of 'logical input' before action? What happens if 'initiation input' and it's (attendant fail proof parameters) fails to occur? What if some nano-programmer fails to prove out his code and just allows action after a certain period of time?"
I have thought about that a lot. That wouldn't be good "intelligent design", but is bound to happen. I think we as sentient beings should be spending a lot more time worrying about THAT eventuality and much less worrying about God and Science... whatever they are.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNo worries about the job - I got taken on by my old company, four days after getting back and with a pay rise. And in the meantime, I visited US, Panama, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Spain, UK, Amsterdam, Budapest, Lebanon,Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Kenya, India,and Malaysia. Met lots of nice people from another dozen countries as I traveled alone for six months - I have invited quite a few to visit me. Mostly in cheap hostels and by train or bus within countries as you have to watch the budget on a long trip and the NZ dollar does not go very far - especailly if you are paying in UK pounds, euros, or US dollars. Really liked South America best and would like to learn a bit more Spanish.
Sorry about the job. Unless you didn't like it. Glad to hear you are up and about. That is fine news. As to "Homeland Security" ... it always stikes me as second best to a mothers breast and serving the same function for a kid past two years of age.
Did you enjoy your travels? What did you do or see?
You travel a bit yourself?