|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coal Deposits and the Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Welcome to EvC
We'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. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4327 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Lindalou, welcome back to the saner board ...
I don't know for sure but I would look up Joe Meert (gondwanaland)One of the main objections to radiometric dating has links Don LindsayA Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus has links I'm off to bed. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4327 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi LindaLou
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 . . . Yeah, I know, but he had to ban me to stop reality from interfering with his fantasy.
He said in his response to me: ... ... 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. 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 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4327 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
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 rock and 2.) a carbonaceous shale or rock Now 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 here http://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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4327 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1016 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
But carbonate rocks are not classified as being carbonaceous.
Correct, but in order to add to the confusion, there is such a thing as carbonaceous (carbon-rich) limestone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4327 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
quote: quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
That's the main constituent of limestone, yes? 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, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4327 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024