Coal Deposits and the Flood

Welcome to EvCWe're glad you dropped by and look forward to learning from you. After many years of living among Georgia Red Clay Pine Forests I'll be interested in hearing what you know about trees and soils.At the bottom of this message are some links to threads that might help make your stay here more enjoyable.Again, Welcome and thanks for dropping in.

---

Hi all,I've been discussing on a worldwide flood thread elsewhere and cited a piece of research from Glenn Morton. Frustratingly, his source seems to be incorrect, and I've been caught out. The point I've been trying to make is that all the biomass contained in carboniferous rocks could not have been alive over the span of 6,000 years.Here is the link: How Good are Those Young Earth Arguments?, by Glenn Morton.This seems like a sloppy citation from someone like Morton and I should have caught this before I used it. Apparently someone named Sonleitner watched a creationist video and wrote what appears to be a software programme titled "An Evolutionist goes to the creationist movies". In this he cites a creationist writer called Morton -- obviously Glenn while he was still a YEC -- who cites information from someone called Hunt. I've dug a little deeper and I think this is John M. Hunt, a late geochemist with a specialism in petroleum. His qualifications and experience suggest that his figures would not be completely erroneous but I don't know what his methods or parameters were and unfortunately I don't have access to his research.This is the info Morton credits to him:

quote:

---

Because coal and oil are important economic resources, geologists have worked hard to estimate how much of these resources exist. The creationist writer Morton cites data published by Hunt indicating that the carbon in the coal alone is 50 times that in the entire present biosphere!...And the carbon in all oil deposits is 666 times that in the entire present biosphere! That in oil shales and other sedimentary rocks (which Morton doesn't mention!) is 40,000 times that in the present biosphere. And that doesn't count the enormous quantities of carbonates, much in the form of fossil shells. The Livingstone Limestone in the Canadian Rockies contains at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates!

---

These figures for coal and oil appear to be quite substantially inflated. Look here for example, at the table next to carbon in the oceans. It says that the total amount of fossil fuels (of which oil is only part) is 4 trillion tons. Other sites seem to use similar estimates to this one. This site estimates the amount of carbon in the biosphere (living plants and animals) at 560 billion tons. You can see that the entire amount of coal alone is nowhere near 50 times that of the present biosphere.So how did Hunt get it wrong, and why is Morton quoting him? Does anyone know reliable sources for true estimates of coal and oil reserves?Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Hi Lindalou, welcome back to the saner board ...I don't know for sure but I would look upJoe Meert (gondwanaland)
One of the main objections to radiometric dating has linksDon Lindsay
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus has linksI'm off to bed.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi RAZD,Thanks for those links. The Meert one is fantastic, just the sort of thing I've been needing. I've been learning about SHRIMP U-Pb zircon dating (or diagenetic xenotime dating) and that's another big nail in the coffin of creationist beliefs -- they can't claim now that sedimentary layers are always dated by relative means.I've also been reading your info about polonium halos there and here and I think I understand the basics now. CTD thinks he got the better of you on that thread -- what that says about what goes on in the world in his head, we can only speculate . . .Anyway, about coal and oil content of rocks. I didn't think I'd be able to find contact details for Morton himself, let alone get a reply from him, but that's just what happened. He said in his response to me:

quote:

---

I think the thing you are missing is that Hunt calculates disseminated carbon in the form of carbonaceous material and disseminated petroleum. And he calculates the quantity of limestone which came from living organisms. The quantities of economically recoverable oil are tiny in relation to the quantities that can't be recovered. Only 30% of the oil in most oil fields can be actually pumped out of the ground. And the oil in oil fields is a tiny tiny fraction of all the petroleum found in rocks, most of it too dispersed to be of any value at all.

​

I have confidence in Hunt's numbers far beyond anything one would find on the web.

---

It's not 100% clear that the part of the table labelled "fossil fuel deposits, 4 trillion tons" is only referring to recoverable oil and coal, but I think it's a reasonable assumption to make. This is an important figure for obvious reasons; not so important (apart from to geologists) would be the nonrecoverable carbon content of rocks.I have mentioned to the creationists that this is an example of me admitting a discrepancy in my figures and checking it out. I think such a procedure is unknown to them.

Hi LindaLou Yeah, I know, but he had to ban me to stop reality from interfering with his fantasy. Of course creationists of CTD's ilk are not interested in reality and refuse to listen to facts, and the results of the argument with CTD shows that few creationists even know how to check facts.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

quote:

---

the results of the argument with CTD shows that few creationists even know how to check facts.

---

This has just been demonstrated by a denizen of the fundamentalist church next door knocking on my door doing a survey, and trying to debate with me about creationism. He asked me about radioactive decay rates changing, and started to pose a hypothetical question something along the lines of "what if there were smaller amounts of the radioactive elements created, would that affect . . ."I politely told him to go learn some science from sites other than AiG.Do you think we'll be warned for talking off topic here?

Hi LindaLou,Often times, I am accused here of being cryptic. It's not true, it's just that I believe in showing people things using the Socratic method.Please tell me the difference between.....1.) A carboniferous shale or rockand2.) a carbonaceous shale or rockNow tell me why the subtitle to your post makes no sense.I will return later to chat about total organic content in rocks after you have cleared this up.BTW I have Johm M. Hunt's first edition of Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology, an excellent text, well written and comprehensive, but geared and written to people who are at the graduate level in geology and have taken a year of organic chemistry.You can get the second edition herehttp://www.amazon.com/...try-Geology-John-Hunt/dp/0716724413$800 new or $250 used and well worth it if you are exploring for oil and gas for a living.My intent in this post is to show you something so you don't look like an idiot when debating geology. I hope you take it in the way I meant it, which was to teach you something.

Sure, that's fine . . . so I take it that "carboniferous" refers to the geologic period, and the term I should be using is "carbonaceous" (carbon-containing). I did wonder about this and some of the links I used with valid information got it wrong too. I don't like sloppiness but sometimes it creeps in because the forum I write on is small, I am more or less the only evolutionist there who regularly posts scientific info, and to be blunt the creationists are pretty nutty even by that ideology's standard. Sadly, you can blind them with basic science too easily, though that's not what I try to do of course; I think it's always best to explain things plainly so that people can understand.Thanks for the correction. I think I might give the expensive book a miss (Morton's email to me seems to have stopped all conversation on the topic) but if you can provide any info here then I'm all ears. I'm much obliged to Percy for letting me come back because it's very helpful to talk with the experts here.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Another common and abundant rock type containing Carbon is the carbonate rocks of which limestone (Calcite - CaCO₃) is the most common example. But carbonate rocks are not classified as being carbonaceous.Carbonaceous - Having C as part of the rock.Carbonate - Having a CaCO₃ mineral as part of the rock.None the less, much (most?) of the carbonate rock directly or indirectly originates via lifeforms.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

​

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Correct, but in order to add to the confusion, there is such a thing as carbonaceous (carbon-rich) limestone.

quote:

---

carbonate rocks are not classified as being carbonaceous.

---

quote:

---

there is such a thing as carbonaceous (carbon-rich) limestone.

---

Calcium carbonate is that stuff that fizzes in vinegar isn't it?Those are some interesting statements above. So is there a term that encompasses all rocks in the world that formed from organic matter? And, does anyone have any figures that would help put the worldwide amounts of these into perspective for creationists? Something like, in 6,000 years there would have to have been so many coccoliths on the earth that you'd be crunching on them while you walked. That's the main constituent of limestone, yes?Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Yes, also the main mineral in marble. Calcium carbonate exists in 2 allotropic forms, Calcite (Hexagonal) & Aragonite (Orthorhombic).Aragonite is the main constituent of Coral reefs.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Goes to show you what I learned in high school "earth science". Not very much.I didn't know that marble was metamorphosed limestone. Dolomite is too, apparently. The earth's deposits of materials which were originally organic must truly be huge.