Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Black Gold
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 16 of 24 (128503)
07-28-2004 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coragyps
07-28-2004 10:59 PM


Thank you for your reply.
I figured the Creo/permiablity argument would be quite easily explained.
I guess the meat of the controversy with me is: Is biogenic material required for oil to form, or can it form by chemical processes alone with materials present in the crust.
His ideas may have some merit - the deep gas in western Oklahoma was found by people who listened to him. But so very much petroleum has "biomarker" molecules in it that can be directly related to living things, even specific kinds of algae, or the cuticle on a kind of leaf, that I'm pretty well convinced that most oil is biogenic. A lot of natural gas may well not be, but that's not to say it's "primordial." There might be oxidation/reduction reactions in hot rock that could produce methane.
If oil is formed deeper in the crust and then works its way up into pockets, could it not collect biogenic material including bacteria, plant remains, etc. as it rises, or does the chemical nature of it mean it must have been formed FROM biogenic material?
Dr. Gold believed that the oil is a "renewable, primordial soup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attached by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs."
Hmmm. Where? I might want to invest.....
From the article...
Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence of a "deep fault" at the base of the Eugene Island reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from some deeper and previously unknown source.
Similar results were seen at other Gulf of Mexico oil wells. Similar results were found in the Cook Inlet oil fields in Alaska. Similar results were found in oil fields in Uzbekistan. Similarly in the Middle East, where oil exploration and extraction have been underway for at least the last 20 years, known reserves have doubled.
I realize this is more of a sensationalized news story than a scientific study, but it perked my curiosity. For all who did not read the article here is a brief summary of the points in the theory:
The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process which occurs between the mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and 20 miles deep. The proposed mechanism is as follows:
Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system — huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.
At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.
Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural gas."
In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs.
In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes.
Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan.
Periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 07-28-2004 10:59 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by contracycle, posted 07-29-2004 6:21 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 24 (128557)
07-29-2004 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Hangdawg13
07-28-2004 11:40 PM


quote:
I guess the meat of the controversy with me is: Is biogenic material required for oil to form, or can it form by chemical processes alone with materials present in the crust.
The presently existing commonly accepted answer is "yes". It may be wrong.
However it should be pointed out that these arguments mostly appear emanate from the small sect that insist that global warming is either not happening or is an entirely natural phenomenon which we can and should do nothing about. It is one of s eries of arguments that all converge on a singular conclusion: the broad sicentific community is mistakens and/or ideologically driven and in fact we CAN carry on regardless with our energy and material-intensive lifestyles.
This makes me highly suspicious of the real agenda of thse arguments.
Also I have a question from the above artic;e:
quote:
At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.
Surely encountering a hot spot would add energy to the gas, and make it more volatile and less likely to condense or precipitate suspended particles. Condensation and precipitation are usually achieved by cooling, rather than heating, are they not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-28-2004 11:40 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Loudmouth, posted 07-29-2004 1:35 PM contracycle has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 24 (128642)
07-29-2004 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by contracycle
07-29-2004 6:21 AM


quote:
Condensation and precipitation are usually achieved by cooling, rather than heating, are they not?
I think in this case, "condensation" describes the production of longer hydrocarbon chains from methane, going from a one carbone molecule (methane,CH4) to octane and nonanes (octane = C8H18). If I remember my organic chemistry correctly, you would have to account for the amount of hydrogen that would be produced, or look for evidence of reduced chemicals that would fuel the reaction. (just to jog everyones memorya, if two methanes join then the carbon-hydrogen bonds are replaced by carbon-carbon bonds, the hydrogen has to go somewhere, possibly H2S).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by contracycle, posted 07-29-2004 6:21 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 19 of 24 (128644)
07-29-2004 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hangdawg13
07-28-2004 6:53 PM


In message 1, Hangdawg13 wrote:
"A discussion for the geologists and roughnecks out there:
"I have been reading about the Guadalupe
Mountains and El Capitan in Texas as I may
visit there in a couple of weeks. El Capitan is
a thousand foot limestone cliff, which geologists
believe is from the Permian Era (about 250 Mya). "
Not only is it a "limestone clift", but a rather impressive reef. A good reference for the lay public is;
Spearing, Darwin, 1991, Mountain Press Publishing,
Missoula,Montana.
Access denied
Also, a person can read through 1. Virtual Geologic Field Trip to the Permian Reef
Complex, Guadalupe and Delaware Mountains, New Mexico-West Texas" at:
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/scholle/guadalupe.html
and 2. NMBGMR Staff - Peter Scholle - El Paso-Carlsbad Geologic Roadlog at:
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/scholle/ep_csbd_roadlog.html
Hangdawg13 continued:
"There is also a large Permian oil reservoir near the area.
I have read from several sites that this oil reservoir is
formed from buried plant and animal material that was
heated and compressed. I have also heard several members
of this site say something to the effect that this is how
oil is formed. I have a few problems with this explanation.
What would cause such a vast amount of plants and animals
to be buried rapidly enough to produce the carbon for this
oil?"
First, the above question falsely presumes that rapid burial is needed to preserve the organic matter. The fact of the matter, as seen in the modern Black Sea, rapid burial isn't needed to pressure organic matter. Instead, what is needed are either large stratified bodies of waters with oxygenated surface layers underlain by an anoxic bottom layer or greatly increased productivity of organic matter to the point more organic matter is produced than can be destroyed during the time it take to settle to the bottom. In either case, the rapid burial of organic matter is simply unneeded for it to be preserved and accumulated along with sediment on the bottom of a sea, ocean, or lake.
During periods of hothouse climates, i.e. during the Mesozoic Era and specifically during the Cretaceous, the overall climate of the Earth was much hotter than present. As a result, the polar regions weren't cold enough to either support ice sheets or ice packs. One result of this was that there was no significant source of the very cold and dense water needed to create currents to transport water downward into the ocean depths. Also, the lack of continental size ice sheets meant that sea level would have been 250 ft higher than present and shorelines would lie far landward of where they are now. These and other factors might have caused large parts of the world's ocean to periodically become thermally stratified much like the modern Black Sea with an oxygenated surface layers underlain by a thick anoxia bottom water layers during the mid-Cretaceous warm period (120-80 Ma). Also, productivity of organic material by organisms was far greater than present, at times, to the point that so much organic material was produced, that it couldn't all be destroyed before it sank to the bottom. These periods, called "oceanic anoxic events", were globally characterized by high rates of organic carbon burial and the accumulation of thick deposits of organic-rich marine sediments. Earlier periods of hothouse climate were also associated with similar anoxic oceans and accumulation of organic-rich sediments.
Finally, during individual oceanic anoxic events, zooplankton and phytoplankton thrived in abundance within the oxygenated surface layers. When they died, they sank down into what were often anoxia bottom layers and slowly accumulated on the bottom of what geologists like to call "stinking oceans" as organic-rich marls and organic-rich clays. The marls were derived from the accumulation of the shells of phytoplankton. The mud consisted of clay brought in from adjacent continents by interflows of muddy water along the boundary between the oxygenated and anoxia water and dust falling into the ocean from the air. Almost all of the oil in Gulf of Mexico and the Middle East comes from the cooking of such organic-rich sediments, which accumulated during the Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods during periods of anoxia locally within the Gulf of Mexico and globally within oceans.
The oil shale of the Green River Formation formed in a similar manner, except the permanently stratified water body, in which the organic-rich sediments accumulated, with a thick layer of anoxia bottom water was a very large lake. The anoxia permitted organic matter to slowly accumulate over a long period of time precluding the need for rapid burial. Also, because of smaller opening to the Caribbean Sea and Atlantic Ocean during its early history, the Gulf of Mexico was prone to restricted circulation. This resulted in frequent periods of anoxic bottoms conditions and the accumulation of organic-rich sediments during the early stages of its formation during the Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods. As a result, well-documented and thick sequence of organic-rich marine sediments of both ages lie buried deeply beneath the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.
Some references are:
Arthur, M. A., Brumsack, H.-J., Jenkyns, H. C., and
Schlanger, S. O., 1990. Stratigraphy, geochemistry, and
paleoceanography of organic carbon-rich Cretaceous
sequences. In R. N. Ginsburg and B. Beaudoin, eds., pp.
75-119. Cretaceous Resources, Events and Rhythms:
Dordrecht (Kluwer).
Bralower, T. J., Arthur, M. A., Leckie, R. M., Sliter,
W. V., Allard, D. J., and Schlanger, S. O., 1994. Timing
and paleoceanography of oceanic dysoxia/anoxia in the
late Barremian to early Aptian. Palaios. vol. 9,
pp. 335-369.
Erbacher, J., Huber, B. T., Norris, R. D., and Markey,
M., 2001. Intensified thermohaline stratification as a
possible cause for an ocean anoxic event in the
Cretaceous period. Nature. vol. 409, pp. 325-327.
Jenkyns, H.C., 1980. Cretaceous anoxic events: from
continents to oceans. Journal of the Geological Society
of London. vol. 137, pp. 171-188.
Hangdawg13 added:
"I have heard the creationist argument that since oil
resevoirs exist in permiable rock at such high pressures,
they must be young or else the pressures would have
dissipated over the millions of years. What is the
uniformitarian explanation?"
The first problem is with the question itself. For the typical oil field, Young earth creationists grossly overstate how "high" the pressures found in oil fields are. The pressure found in the typical oil field is equivalent to the lithostatic pressure at the depth at which it is found. The pressure of the oil and gas in the field is result of the static weight of the column of formation water, largely water, and rock that overlies it. As a result, the pressure of the oil and gas and water underlying it in a reservoir is counterbalanced by the weight of the water and rock above it. As a result, the pressure of a reservoir is static and never will dissipate as along as it is buried at the same depth. If the rock overlying the reservoir is eroded, then the pressure will decrease because there is less weight of rock and fluid above the reservoir. If more sediment /rock is deposited on the surface above the reservoir, its pressure will increase because of the added load. When an oil well is drilled, the pressure in the borehole is less than the pressure in the reservoir because the hole is typically filled with a mixture of water and drilling mud that is less dense than the rock surrounding the hole. The impermeable rock creating a seal for an oil reservoir doesn't keep pressure in or out. What is does is keep less dense oil and gas surrounded by denser formation water from floating to the surface.
In a typical oil field, there can be blowouts. It is now because of any original "high" pressures in the oil field. The greater the pressure in an oil field, the more gas there is dissolved in it. As long as it buried under a static lithostatic pressure all is fine. However, when a hole is drilled in a reservoir, it creates a pocket of low pressure surrounding the water-filled hole. This abrupt drop in pressure causes the gas to come out of solution and expanding many fold the volume of fluid - gas within the reservoir. Which results in an explosive surge of gas and oil up the hole exactly like what happens when a Champaign bottle is uncorked and it spurts out the neck of the bottle. This is prevented in the oil business by filling the drill hole with drilling mud that has the same density as the rock surrounding the drill hole. If that is done, the lithostatic pressure within the reservoir equals the pressure within the drill hole.
In the Gulf of Mexico and other basins, there are many overpressured oil fields. However, the surrounding formation waters are just as overpressured as the oil reservoir. Thus, the overpressure is regional in nature and isn't the result of the build up of pressure locally within a reservoir. In the Gulf of Mexico, overpressure within the formation fluids results from sediments compacting faster than water can move from the sediments to the surface. As a result, the formation fluids, water, oil, and gas, are required to support, in part, more of the weight of the overlying rocks and increasing the pressure above lithostatic.
These overpressures will dissipate as the fluids within the formation are expelled from the sediments. However, in areas like the Gulf of Mexico, the movement of the of the formation fluids and the dissipation of overpressures will take tens of millions of years because of the shear volume of water that has to be moved, the very low permeability of clayey strata, and the kilometers of strata through which the water has to pass through, often laterally instead of vertically. To expect overpressures to dissipate in only a few thousand years is completely unrealistic and unsupported by documented principles of fluid flow.
Some references on overpressures are:
Bitzer, K., 1999, Discussion and Replies: Mechanisms for
generating overpressures in sedimentary basins. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists. vol. 83, no. 5,
pp. 798-799.
Bradley, J. S., 1975, Abnormal formation pressure .
American Association of Petroleum Geologists. vol. 59,
pp. 957-973.
Osborne, M. J., and R. E. Swarbrick, 1997, Mechanisms for
generating overpressures in sedimentary basins. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists. vol. 81, no. 6,
pp. 1023-1041.
Parker, C. A., 1991, Geopressures and Hydrodynamics in the
Gulf Coast Tertiary. In D. Goldwaithe, ed., An Introduction
to Central Gulf Coast Geology. New Orleans Geological
Society, New Orleans, LA, pp. 151-162.
The fact of the matter, there are numerous document examples in the rock record of former oil reservoirs, in which the seal rock has been breached and oil has leaked away a long time ago. These old reservoirs remain only as tar sands, like the tar sands of Canada. The fact of the matter is that over time, new oil reservoirs are formed as old ones are destroyed.
Hangdawg13 also wrote:
"Finally, I read an article not too long ago from
World Net Daily about the alternative theory of
oil formation. It started off by giving an example
of an oil well on top of the Mississippi river delta
in the gulf. This well pumped out 15,000 barrels a
day when it was first tapped in the 70's. Production
slowly declined over the years to less than 5000
barrels a day. The company was about to abandon the
well as it was becoming no longer profitable when
the well refilled itself and began pumping out 15,000
barrels a day again."
This oil field is the Eugene Island 330 oil Field off of the Louisiana coast. This source of this oil is clearly oil and gas that was distilled out of thick Jurassic - Early Cretaceous age organic-rich sediments that underlie all of the Gulf of Mexico as noted in "Oil and Gas-"Renewable Resources"?" at:
http://www.pnl.gov/er_news/08_95/er_news/oil1.kb.html
In this article Kathy Blanchard stated:
"Recent geochemical research at Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution has demonstrated that the wide range in
composition of the oils in different reservoirs of the
Eugene Island 330 field can be related to one another
and to a deeper source rock of Jurassic-Early Cretaceous
age. The relationships were established by analysing data
on molecular, isotopic, and elemental compositions."
There is absolutely no evidence at all that this oil is coming from the mantle. In fact the presence of chemical remnants of the plankton from which the oil was derived, called "biomarkers", clearly demonstrate a biological source material for the oil in Eugene Island 330. Detailed discussion of this oil field can be found in:
Holland, D. S., Leedy, J. B., and Lammlein, D. R.,
1999, Eugene Island Block 330 Field--U.S.A. Offshore
Louisiana. in p. 103-143, AAPG Treatise of Petroleum
Geology, Atlas of Oil and Gas Fields, Structural Traps.
vol. III, American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Eugene Island Block 330 Field--U.S.A. Offshore Louisiana; David S. Holland, John B. Leedy, David R. Lammlein; Search and Discovery Article #20003 (1999)
Concerning the Eugene Island 330 Oil field Holland et al. (1999) stated:
"Recent studies of Gulf of Mexico oils have shown that
most offshore oils can be assigned to one of two broad
genetic families (Walters and Cassa, 1985; Kennicutt
and Thompson, 1988). The smaller and more distinctive
family is represented by oils in Pleistocene reservoirs
of the Louisiana shelf-slope break region and includes
the oils from the Eugene Island Block 330 field. The
crude oil of this group is characterized by significantly
higher sulfur and vanadium concentrations and lower
pristane/phytane ratios relative to other Gulf of Mexico
oils. These geochemical characteristics suggest that
these oils were derived from a marine source facies
deposited under more reducing (anoxic) conditions than
for the bulk of the offshore oils."
and they also stated:
"Based on a variety of biomarker and gasoline-range
maturity indicators, these oils are estimated to have
been generated at depths of 4572 to 4877 m (15,000 to
16,000 ft) at vitrinite reflectance maturities of
0.08 to 1.0% and temperatures of 150 to 170C (300 to
340F)."
Hangdawg13 wrote:
"The article said that this phenomenon has been
observed in many wells world-wide."
Eugene Island 330 is a very rare case. Once the typical oil field is depleted of oil, it remains deleted and simply doesn't fill back up as the article falsely implies above. Even if other examples of this type of field exist, they are so extremely rare to the point as to be a vastly insignificant proportion of the global oil fields. Such fields are so extremely rare that will have absolutely no effect on global oil reserves.
Hangdawg13 wrote:
"My Dad, who is a geologist, recalled that when he
took his courses in geology (over 30 years ago), the
professor remarked that due to the heat and pressure
necessary for oil to form, the formation of oil is
largely a mystery.""
Well, that was more than 30 years ago. At this point in time, there is absolutely no mystery as to how oil is created. Had the author of this article done any research at all, he or she would have known that in the span of 30 years an incredible amount of research on how oil originated had been conducted and published that has solved this mystery. Even as of the 1980s and 1990s, the origin of oil by the distillation of organic-rich rock had been firmly established as an examination of any textbook in Petroleum Geology would have shown.
Hangdawg13 wrote:
"This article also pointed out that the heat and
pressure necessary to produce oil is only found
near the earth's mantle."
Here, if this is approximately what the author of the World Net Daily article said, he or she shows himself or herself to remarkably ill-informed of the basics of petroleum geology and geology in general. Research has clearly demonstrated that depending of the geothermal gradients the distillation of oil from organic-rich sedimentary rock occurs between depths of 7,500 feet (180F) to 16,000 feet (295F) below the surface. Below 16,000 feet (295F), organic matter and oil is broken down into gas. At deeper depths, any organic matter is broken down into elemental carbon.
Beneath continents, the top of the mantle lies at a depth of about 20 miles (105,600 ft). Simple mathematics shows that the depth at which oil forms, 7,500 to 16,000 ft, is only 7 to 15 percent of the depth to the top of the mantle. Apparently, the author of this article doesn't know what the definition of "near" is as the depth, at which oil forms, is nowhere near the Earth's the mantle. Near the Earth's mantle, temperatures are so hot that all organic matter has long reduced to pure carbon and any oil and gas have been destroyed long before any sedimentary rocks containing them sink to such depths.
Hangdawg13 wrote:
"This has led to the theory that methane in the earth's
crust is heated and condensed into crude oil near the mantle
and then finds its way into the upper crustal rock. This is
supported by the fact that an isotope of Helium, a
radioactive decay product, is almost always found with oil."
The same isotope of Helium can also be found in formation water. Thus, all it means is that this helium is escaping from the deep in the Earth and passing upward through the oil and gas as well as the formation waters, which often consist of deeply circulating groundwater.
If the oil is coming from the mantle why is it only found in basins with organic-rich rocks suitable for the production of oil and gas and only in basins where these source rocks have been heated enough for oil and gas to have been distilled from these rocks? Also, why does the character of the oil always match the unique character of the organic-rich rock present within a basin? If oil is derived from the mantle, these relationships shouldn't exist at all and it should be found wherever geologic structures suitable for trapping oil exist. But, it isn't.
Hangdawg13 wrote:
"The article went on to say that for the last 25 years
this theory has been circulated and accepted by most oil
companies as the means by which oil is formed. So oil
may be a renewable resource after all, and it may not
take hundreds of millions of years to form as is stated
by everything I've ever read about it."
The author of this article shows himself to clearly detached from reality of the oil business and living in the fantasyland of his own imagination. The statement about "this theory has been circulated and accepted by most oil companies" is so completely wrong as demonstrate that the person clearly hasn't bothered to do any research at all. This theory has been circulated and, in fact a completely dry hole, lacking the slightest indication of hydrocarbons, was drilled in the Precambrian granite and gneiss of Sweden based on this theory. However, I don't know of a single oil company that has accepted this theory. I don't even know a single petroleum geologist that accepts this theory. Just as there a few geologists, who are Young Earth creationists, there might be a few that subscribe to this theory, but they are extremely few in number and far outside of the mainstream of geology. The author is dead wrong about oil being a renewable resource.
Hangdawg13 wrote:
"If this is the case, why is there so much misinformation
out there about how oil forms?"
No, this isn't the case. The article, itself, is a remarkable compilation of classic and cliche misinformation related to the origin of oil. The problem here is that the author apparently, like some other journalists, made the mistake of writing about a topic that was way outside his or her area of expertise without bothering to fully, if at all, research it prior to putting fingers to the word processor.
Hangdawg13 wrote:
"If this is not the case, then what are the typical
explanations for these things?"
I have tried to summarize and discussed much of it above. For the details, please, go see a good basic textbook on Petroleum Geology. I would recommend:
Selley, R. C., 1997, Elements of Petroleum Geology",
W. H. Freeman and Company.
or
Morris, J., House, R., and McCann-Baker, A., 2000,
Practical Petroleum Geology, PETEX,
In message 16, Hangdawg13 wrote:
"If oil is formed deeper in the crust and then works
its way up into pockets, could it not collect biogenic
material including bacteria, plant remains, etc. as it
rises, or does the chemical nature of it mean it must
have been formed FROM biogenic material?"
First, the problem is in explaining the fact that if a person takes pieces of the suspected organic-rich source rock and distill oil from them, the unique composition of the oil from these samples only matches the composition of oil found in the basin, from which the samples came. They don't match the composition of oil found in other basins. If the oil came from deep in the mantle, there shouldn't be any clear correlation between the unique composition of the oil distilled from potential source rocks in a specific basin and the oil found in that basin. The composition of oil produced from the mantle would be quite different from the oil that can be generated from the source rocks found in individual basins.
Second, the stable isotopic composition of oil is completely wrong for a mantle source. Organic carbon has a specific ratio of C12 to C13 because of the unique ways living organisms fractionate carbon isotopes. When the fractionation of carbon that occurs during the distillation of oil and gas from the source rock is acounted for, the carbon isotope ratio clearly match an organic source for them and is completely wrong for a mantle source.
Finally, the biomarkers came precisely from either marine plankton for oil or for gas dominated fields from terrestrial plants, which grow on the land surface. Thus, Mr. Hangdawg1 would needs to explain how either marine plankton orland plants are living underground such that their biomarkers can be incorporated into the rising oil.
I suspect that some methane is coming from the mantle. But, as far as the long-chained hydrocarbon, and even simple chain hydrocarbons like propane, they are of organic origin.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 07-29-2004 12:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-28-2004 6:53 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by CK, posted 07-29-2004 3:19 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 24 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-30-2004 1:05 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 20 of 24 (128670)
07-29-2004 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Bill Birkeland
07-29-2004 1:43 PM


em... would I be premature in saying:
I declare this thread dead.
Unless someone had a well-researched and referenced piece that refutes any of that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Bill Birkeland, posted 07-29-2004 1:43 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Loudmouth, posted 07-29-2004 3:54 PM CK has not replied
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 07-29-2004 5:21 PM CK has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 24 (128685)
07-29-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by CK
07-29-2004 3:19 PM


quote:
em... would I be premature in saying:
I declare this thread dead.
As long as there are creationists there will always be a way of ignoring the data, even if it is ad hoc, or completely untestable. Just look at other threads where creationists claim that science can't study the past. Just remember, when you argue with the ignorant they drag you down to their level and beat you through experience.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-29-2004 02:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by CK, posted 07-29-2004 3:19 PM CK has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 22 of 24 (128717)
07-29-2004 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by CK
07-29-2004 3:19 PM


At the end of the movie....
I see the vampire, stake in chest, turning to dust. If you look very closly you can see the monogram on the stake it says, in tasteful lettering, "B.B.".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by CK, posted 07-29-2004 3:19 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 07-29-2004 5:58 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 23 of 24 (128738)
07-29-2004 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by NosyNed
07-29-2004 5:21 PM


Re: At the end of the movie....
I don't see that at all. What I see is a gift, wrapped with bright ribbon. And I bet it will be recieved as such.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 07-29-2004 5:21 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 24 of 24 (128866)
07-30-2004 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Bill Birkeland
07-29-2004 1:43 PM


Heh.. Can't argue with that... unless I read the small library of material you have referenced, but by then another geologic era may have passed...
Thank you for the in depth reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Bill Birkeland, posted 07-29-2004 1:43 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024