Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Coal and oil

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00

brujaq

Member
Were there coal and oil deposits before the great flood? I think not , Oil was found in Pennsylvania and monopolized by old man Rockefeller having the market cornered then Texas sprung a leak then the middle East . Peak oil has been preached for the last 40 yrs to no avail but even deserted, depleted oil fields are being filled back up . Which leads to my question . Is oil and coal still being produced In Earth ? I say yes and it is a direct result of the great flood
 
Which leads to my question . Is oil and coal still being produced In Earth ?

Yep. Peat bogs, for example, are slowly forming coal seams. If they get buried and compressed for millions of years, you get anthracite coal.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were areas where organisms were being buried and compressed. In millions of years, that would also form oi.

Don't see what a flood has to do with it, though.
 
We're just using it much, much faster than the Earth is making it. That's the problem.
And you know this how? There is no definitive proof that oil and coal are produced over millions of years. It is quite possible when considering the life of this universe based on a biblical timeline that these things could be produced in a much shorter amount of time. With decomposition rates of organic bodies, it is quite possible that oil could be generated in a matter of centuries, not millennia, and the same is true for coal.
 
And you know this how? There is no definitive proof that oil and coal are produced over millions of years.

Yeah, that's known. We can watch it changing now, in peat bets and soft coal seams.

It is quite possible when considering the life of this universe based on a biblical timeline that these things could be produced in a much shorter amount of time.

Evidence indicate otherwise.

With decomposition rates of organic bodies, it is quite possible that oil could be generated in a matter of centuries, not millennia, and the same is true for coal.

Nope. The Germans worked out a system for making it in WWII, but it was extremely difficult and used processes not found in the Earth.
 
Yeah, that's known. We can watch it changing now, in peat bets and soft coal seams.
That is one way to dodge the question. Seeing an example of how something is changing now does not support the millions of years assumption.

Evidence indicate otherwise.

If the "evidence" is not supported by the bible it must be dismissed.

Nope. The Germans worked out a system for making it in WWII, but it was extremely difficult and used processes not found in the Earth.

How does something the Nazis tried in a matter of months or years compare with something that would have occurred over hundreds of years?
 
That is one way to dodge the question. Seeing an example of how something is changing now does not support the millions of years assumption.



If the "evidence" is not supported by the bible it must be dismissed.



How does something the Nazis tried in a matter of months or years compare with something that would have occurred over hundreds of years?
Synthetic oil,and synthetic gas,diesel.

While costly ,synthetic oil is better then crude
 
Barbarian observes:
Yeah, that's known. We can watch it changing now, in peat bets and soft coal seams. The argument that we can't know anything we don't live long enough to watch personally, is a common dodge, but no one really believes it.

That is one way to dodge the question.

The evidence obviously shows the process takes millions of years. Rates of change in peat beds fit the evidence nicely.

Seeing an example of how something is changing now does not support the millions of years assumption.

We see it changing at rates that fit the other evidence. And we see how it gradually changes over those millions of years.

If the "evidence" is not supported by the bible it must be dismissed.

So we have to dismiss the evidence for protons and for neurotransmitters because the Bible doesn't support them? That seems like a rather odd belief to me. The Bible certainly doesn't support that belief.

How does something the Nazis tried in a matter of months or years compare with something that would have occurred over hundreds of years?

Millions of years. The catalyzed reactions had rates in the millions of years without the catalyst.
 
Yep. Peat bogs, for example, are slowly forming coal seams. If they get buried and compressed for millions of years, you get anthracite coal.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were areas where organisms were being buried and compressed. In millions of years, that would also form oi.

Don't see what a flood has to do with it, though.

In Short....
Peat that collects in stagnant, oxygen-poor waters of a swamp doesn't have the same texture as coal. Peats have a fine texture resembling “mashed potatoes” penetrated by tree roots, while coals are coarser, more like “coffee grounds,” and interspersed with sheets of altered bark.
Trees that were washed into Spirit lake when Mt. St Helens erupted have had their bark rubbed off where it settled to the bottom of the lake. This bark peat is not now becoming coal.
Mt. St Helens is likened to a minny flood of Noah and sheds great insight onto what happened during the world wide flood.
The world wide flood buried a lot of vegetation, bark, etc. which has become the coal we use today.
This info was gleened from this site.
 
Peat that collects in stagnant, oxygen-poor waters of a swamp doesn't have the same texture as coal. Peats have a fine texture resembling “mashed potatoes” penetrated by tree roots, while coals are coarser, more like “coffee grounds,” and interspersed with sheets of altered bark.

And for that to happen, the peat would have to be buried and pressured by the overlaying material for many, many years. Which is why we can find transitional peat becoming soft coal.

Trees that were washed into Spirit lake when Mt. St Helens erupted have had their bark rubbed off where it settled to the bottom of the lake. This bark peat is not now becoming coal.

Been there. No lake now. And no coal. It's way too early for there to be even peat at this point.
 
[QUOTE="Barbarian, post: 1375335, member: 917"



Been there. No lake now. And no coal. It's way too early for there to be even peat at this point.[/QUOTE]

You missed the point. Your reply made no sense.
 
You missed the point. Your reply made no sense.

The debris from the trees is largely distributed within many millions of tons of rhyolite ash. It will not form coal. A volcanic eruption is really not a very good model for a flood, for reasons that should be obvious if you think about it.
 
The debris from the trees is largely distributed within many millions of tons of rhyolite ash. It will not form coal. A volcanic eruption is really not a very good model for a flood, for reasons that should be obvious if you think about it.

It's not quite the way you described it.
 
yes, but barb must argue against it.

Normally, bark loosens from fallen trees. But the raft in the lake is a tiny fraction of the trees that fell and were buried. And you won't see peat there, because it takes thousands of years to form. The "Mt. St. Helens Peat" argument is only a "just so" story, with no evidence to support it.
 
Back
Top