Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [apologetics and theology] Origin of petroleum: proof of young earth

Expand Messages
  • IW
    ... Hash: SHA1 Tanggal Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:18:03 EDT Penulis B1E1Nugent@aol.com menulis email dengan judul [apologetics and theology] Origin of petroleum:
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
      Hash: SHA1

      Tanggal Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:18:03 EDT Penulis B1E1Nugent@...
      menulis email dengan judul [apologetics and theology] Origin of
      petroleum: proof of young earth seperti tertera di bawah ini:

      Well, I finally got around to answering this...with thanks to my
      contributing friends from the American Scientific As. (Christians)

      I don't know about porphyrins and will let others comment on that.
      Kirk Bertsche has shown in considerable detail how the claimed
      detection of carbon 14 in coal and diamonds is actually the background
      level of AMS instruments.
      http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm. It's amazing
      how some folks extrapolate from Baumgardner's misinterpretation of
      background levels to "all coal contains carbon 14.."

      Regarding the common assumption of flood geology that the flood swept
      away "forests, swamps, and prairies" I'd like some clarification too.
      I'm on this point in some YEC dialogs and I'm trying to figure out on
      what basis this claim is made. I'm no hydrologist or geologist but it
      would seem to me that erosion mainly takes place in relatively shallow
      waters where there are significant elevation gradients. We have no idea
      what the terrain was like before the flood (except maybe just like it
      is today??) and no information about the source and spatial
      variation/intensity of the rain. Wouldn't the rising waters soon
      eliminate the elevation change rendering erosion minimal? Tidal waves
      wouldn't be strong in deep water either. So where does this idea come
      from that there was significant erosion? Let alone all the deposition
      of sediments in the whole world? It's not biblical. It's not
      scientific. Is it simply what is needed to make the case?

      Randy

      - ---

      Any petroleum geologist will tell you that oil formed in deep
      sedimentary rock and then migrated upward to a different layer of
      porous sedimentary rock called reservoir rock.

      Partly true, but considerable oil has "migrated" downwards, being
      generated in shales and "squeezed" into lower layers.

      Sedimentary rock was...laid down by water.

      Or wind, landslides, etc.

      The presence of porphyrins in oil is compelling evidence that the
      formation of oil had to occur quickly

      Non sequitur; there's no reason the porphyrins couldn't have been
      isolated from oxygen for a long time.

      The forest floor of a rain forest will yield no petroleum or coal or
      any fossils of any kind because the dead organic matter will rot away
      very quickly in the moist tropical heat

      Only if it doesn't get buried or smothered with anoxic swamp water.

      It is apparent that the massive sediment beds that yield the billions
      of barrels of crude oil so much in demand today had to have been laid
      down very quickly during an extreme catastrophe.

      No. Most oil comes from marine plants (e.g., phytoplankton) that
      precipitated out slowly.

      Creationists have for decades pointed to the millions of square miles
      of thick layers of sedimentary rock as evidence of a global catastrophe.

      True, but they've obviously never looked closely at those sedimentary
      rocks or they would certainly have concluded that (1) not all could
      have been laid down quickly, and (2) there were many, many episodes of
      deposition, not just one. If they did the calculations, they'd find
      they'd also have a very hard time explaining where all those cubic
      miles of sediment could have come from. And that's just the beginning
      of the problems with that model.

      The worldwide flood of Noah's day involved trillions of tons of water
      flowing over the continents sweeping away forests, swamps and prairies.

      An event of such violence would have scattered the organic matter far
      and wide and would not have allowed the kind of accumulations that
      would lead to observed deposits of coal and oil. There also could not
      have been enough organic matter in existence at any one time to account
      for the quantities of coal and oil observed today. Under any scenario
      one must assume that most of the organic matter would have decayed and
      vanished. Most of it in a violent flood would float on top of flood
      waters and eventually come to rest on some land surface, where it would
      decay.

      This nonporous layer of rock is called the cap rock.

      No, it isn't. Cap rock has several definitions, but this isn't one of
      them. Petroleum geologists often call this impermeable layer of rock
      the "reservoir seal" rock.

      All oil fields leak over time.

      True.

      This too is proof of young earth because if the oil fields were
      millions of years old as secular geologists claim, the oil would have
      leaked out ages ago.

      Non sequitur. Permeability can be extremely low with correspondingly
      low leakage rates.

      Evolutionary geologists have also not adequately explained how fragile
      organic chemicals, such as porphyrins, could form in oil under the
      gradual, oxygen rich conditions they claim.

      Who are "they" who claim the conditions were oxygen-rich?

      Don

      - ---

      I like how they prejudice their claims by saying what any petroleum
      Geologists will tell you. Most of my drilling has been on reservoir
      rocks that were formed in warm, shallow, and very low energy, marine
      environments. I had several wells drilled through huge pinnacle reefs.
      It took a long time just for the reefs to grow to such a magnificent
      size. Any high energy catastrophe occurring while the reef was growing
      would have destroyed it. Since these flood geologists claim that the
      entirety of the geologic record was laid down during the flood, these
      reefs that are observed well within the record, should not even have
      had a chance to grow, much less exist at all. You cannot have a slow
      growing reef going on about its business, as it grows it's colony, all
      the while a maelstrom is going on all around it.

      Also note, while conventional geology can predict how these reefs are
      oriented to allow for further exploration of additional reef
      formations, Flood Geology cannot predict anything and is utterly
      worthless. I have also drilled several wells in the Austin Chalk, part
      of the former (cretaceous) continental shelf of the Texas Gulf coast.
      This chalk also formed very slowly by single celled animals, such as
      foraminifera, living near the surface, warm and very low energy, then
      dying and their tests (shells) settling out on the shelf floor. It is
      readily apparent that this is a very low energy occurrence by observing
      how well they are sorted. Glenn Morton has a great page illustrating
      this.

      http://home.entouch.net/dmd/limehash.htm
      http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htm

      Check out the other links on that page's header.

      I have drilled Ellenburger wells in west central Texas. The Ellenburger
      should not exist if it was deposited by a Global Flood.

      http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ellenburger.htm

      Other features that should not exist within the geologic record if it
      was deposited by a global flood. Evaporites, foot prints, fragile
      features found whole such as nests, rain drop impressions, desert sand
      dunes, desiccation cracks, or any other feature that occurs from long
      periods of arid climates. There is so much they ignore, and I am sure
      do not want any layperson of their fold finding out. They also ignore
      what marks a global flood would leave. For AIG to not consider basic
      geology, they are charlatans, liars, willfully ignorant, or whatever,
      just to adhere to a false doctrine. They are an apologetics ministry
      lying for Jesus, they are not doing real geology. All they while
      saying, "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

      Skogh

      - ---

      Note that the writer considers sedimentary rocks to be
      exclusively clastics, namely, rocks formed from material broken off or
      abraded from distant source rocks. He says, "Sedimentary rock, as
      its name suggests, was formed by particles that eroded off of a
      continent and were laid down by water." Indeed if all sedimentary
      rocks were such clastics, then a geologic column generated by Noah's
      Flood would be marginally more plausible than it is.

      However, as "skrogh" points out below, there are also non-clastic
      sedimentary rocks; he mentions evaporites and chalks. The non-clastic
      sedimentary rocks constitute half or more of the sedimentary column in
      many basins. They include halites, evaporites, many limestones, chalks
      and diatomites. All such rocks were originally formed by precipitation
      out of still water and not by material brought by flowing water from
      land.

      To get limestone, halite or evaporite to precipitate out of seawater
      requires high concentrations of the minerals and subsequent
      evaporation. "Trillions of tons" of fresh rainwater flowing into the
      basins would make such precipitation impossible, and hence such rocks
      could not exist under Noah's Flood conditions.

      Similarly, deposition of forams for chalk or diatoms for diatomite
      requires long uninterrupted periods of tranquil seas that allow the
      organisms to die and their remains to slowly build up on the sea
      floor. It's inconceivable that a violent worldwide flood could somehow
      collect forams and sort them so as to make the chalks we observe.

      The prevalence of nonclastic sedimentary rocks is thus hard proof that
      the geological column could not have come from a worldwide flood. Some
      part of it possibly could have--a clastic part--but not the whole
      thing.

      Don

      - ---



      _________________
      iain@... (0x722EE765)
      iaincw@... (0x3BCCA6CE)
      iwilson@... (0x722EE765)
      http://www.holuwon.com

      "...the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small
      and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its
      reach." Samwise Gamgee (LOT)





      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
      Comment: http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371/

      iD8DBQFIvoPU90Gf33Iu52URAq2IAJ9wrdYM65QEzkhcxssIrN95T5fDdgCeJosr
      D9t8XjW+ZmecLweXN0Yr7D8=
      =Gt68
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    • B1E1Nugent@aol.com
      In a message dated 9/4/2008 8:02:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, iain@holuwon.com writes: Similarly, deposition of forams for chalk or diatoms for diatomite
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 5, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 9/4/2008 8:02:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
        iain@... writes:

        Similarly, deposition of forams for chalk or diatoms for diatomite
        requires long uninterrupted periods of tranquil seas that allow the
        organisms to die and their remains to slowly build up on the sea
        floor. It's inconceivable that a violent worldwide flood could somehow
        collect forams and sort them so as to make the chalks we observe.

        This criticism of my post, as in most of the rest of it simply is a
        reiteration of the assumptions, speculations and presuppositions of conventional
        secular atheistic geology. You say that chalk forms from long uninterrupted
        periods of tranquil seas that allow the organisms to die and their remains to
        slowly build up on the sea floor. It is interesting that we don't see any chalk
        beds forming today on the sea floor of either the Atlantic or Pacific oceans.
        No Limestone formations forming today, in fact the sea floors are amazingly
        void of significant sediment buildup except for the river deltas as originally
        explained in my post.
        Furthermore Noah's flood involved significant volcanic action and also the
        earth being thrust off its axis for a time causing the oceans to flow over the
        continents not just "rainwater" as mentioned in the critiques.
        Furthermore AIG does not regard Noah's flood as the only cause of
        sedimentary deposition but sees other natural catastrophes and events as causative.
        Furthermore name calling, such as calling AIG charlatans is not helpful to
        the critique and makes one wonder if the critic is a nonchristian.

        Bill in New Hampshire





        **************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
        plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
        (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • IW
        ... Hash: SHA1 Tanggal Fri, 5 Sep 2008 22:49:00 EDT Penulis B1E1Nugent@aol.com menulis email dengan judul Re: [apologetics and theology] Origin of petroleum:
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 5, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
          Hash: SHA1

          Tanggal Fri, 5 Sep 2008 22:49:00 EDT Penulis B1E1Nugent@... menulis
          email dengan judul Re: [apologetics and theology] Origin of petroleum:
          proof of young earth seperti tertera di bawah ini:

          >
          Furthermore Noah's flood involved significant
          >volcanic action and also the earth being thrust off its axis for a
          >time causing the oceans to flow over the continents not just
          >"rainwater" as mentioned in the critiques.

          You know this how exactly? There are no records, no statements in
          scripture and no one to testify to this. I would call that a pretty big
          supposition. You made a statement of fact based on nothing close to
          substantive evidence.

          IW




          -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
          Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
          Comment: http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371/

          iD8DBQFIwgAJ90Gf33Iu52URAgNXAJ9QTuTzjP9X3tr3YLq6SGfgBW4LlwCgjHZQ
          dKHRMcOM4xt/kyf/o3xY0z4=
          =rpNF
          -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
        • mdavidjohnson442
          Bill - I think I follow your reasoning on the carbon 14 in coal. The Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14_dating ) reports: Relatively recent
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 6, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Bill -

            I think I follow your reasoning on the carbon 14 in coal.

            The Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14_dating )
            reports:

            Relatively recent (2001) evidence has allowed scientists to refine
            the knowledge of one of the underlying assumptions. A peak in the
            amount of carbon-14 was discovered by scientists studying
            speleothems in caves in the Bahamas. Stalagmites are calcium
            carbonate deposits left behind when seepage water, containing
            dissolved carbon dioxide, evaporates. Carbon-14 levels were found to
            be twice as high as modern levels. These discoveries improved the
            calibration for the radiocarbon technique and extended its
            usefulness to 45,000 years into the past.

            So, if coal contains measurable carbon 14, it can't be older than
            45,000 years.

            Does that accurately reflect your position?

            If it does, could you please point me to a website, book, or report
            that documents the presence of carbon 14 in coal?

            M. David Johnson
            Glenview, Illinois


            --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, B1E1Nugent@... wrote:

            [snip]

            >By the way, all coal contains carbon 14 and this would be
            >impossible if coal beds were millions of years old!

            [snip]
          • B1E1Nugent@aol.com
            David, I ve pasted an excerpt from an article below that shows that carbon 14 exists in virtually all fossilized organic matter not just coal. I found this
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 6, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              David,

              I've pasted an excerpt from an article below that shows that carbon 14
              exists in virtually all fossilized organic matter not just coal. I found this
              article from which I excerpted this by going to answersingenesis.org and typing
              "carbon 14 in all coal" in the search box. It took me to a page of links to
              relevant articles.

              Carbon 14 and other data put the age of the earth into the biblical
              timeframe.

              Bill

              More great news on radiocarbon
              It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few
              tens of thousands of years at the most_2_
              (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp#_ftn2) ) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal,
              oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For
              instance, AiG has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing
              of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils,
              inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by
              then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in _Creation_
              (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation) magazine and _TJ_
              (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/technical.asp) . In each case, with contamination
              eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when
              it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team
              to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of
              creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.
              In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists
              from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further
              experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no
              matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels._3_
              (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp#_ftn3) This effectively
              limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.
              (When one takes into account the likely much lower ratio of radioactive to ‘
              normal’ carbon pre-Flood_4_
              (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp#_ftn4) , it brings it right down to within the biblical ‘ballpark’.)
              Interestingly, specimens which appear to definitely be pre-Flood seem to
              have C-14 present, too, and importantly, these cluster around a lower relative
              amount of C-14. This suggests that some C-14 was primordial, and not
              produced by cosmic rays—thus limiting the age of the entire earth to only a few
              thousand years.
              This latter suggestion about primordial C-14 appears to have been somewhat
              spectacularly supported when Dr Baumgardner sent a diamond for C-14 dating.
              It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back
              positive—i.e. the diamond, formed deep inside the earth in a ‘Precambrian’ layer,
              nevertheless contained radioactive carbon, even though it ‘shouldn’t have’.

              This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably
              powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological
              contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior.
              The diamond’s carbon-dated ‘age’ of <58,000 years is thus an upper limit
              for the age of the whole earth. And this age is brought down still further now
              that the helium diffusion results have so strongly affirmed dramatic past
              acceleration of radioactive decay._5_
              (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp#_ftn5)
              C-14 labs have no real answer to this problem, namely that all the ‘vast-age’
              specimens they measure still have C-14. Labelling this detectable C-14
              with such words as ‘contamination’ and ‘background’ is completely unhelpful in
              explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions
              have shown. But it is no problem or mystery at all if the
              uniformitarian/long-age assumptions are laid to one side and the real history of the world,
              given in Scripture, is taken seriously. The C-14 is there, quite simply, because
              it hasn’t had time to decay yet. The world just isn’t that old!
              The C-14 results are an independent but powerful confirmation of the
              stunning helium-diffusion results. 2003 looks like going down as a bad year for
              megachronophiles (lovers of long ages), but a good year for lovers of the Word
              of God.
              Postscript: In addition to the book expected in 2005 reporting the final
              results of the RATE project, the project expects to publish a book for laymen
              summarizing the project shortly thereafter. _Dr Don DeYoung_
              (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/d_deyoung.asp) will be the author. He has
              written several popular books on creation science and has been on the RATE since
              its inception. His grasp of the details of the project and his excellent
              writing skills should combine to produce a highly readable book for creationist
              laymen.

              In a message dated 9/6/2008 12:18:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
              mdavidjohnson442@... writes:

              Bill -

              I think I follow your reasoning on the carbon 14 in coal.

              The Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14_dating )
              reports:

              Relatively recent (2001) evidence has allowed scientists to refine
              the knowledge of one of the underlying assumptions. A peak in the
              amount of carbon-14 was discovered by scientists studying
              speleothems in caves in the Bahamas. Stalagmites are calcium
              carbonate deposits left behind when seepage water, containing
              dissolved carbon dioxide, evaporates. Carbon-14 levels were found to
              be twice as high as modern levels. These discoveries improved the
              calibration for the radiocarbon technique and extended its
              usefulness to 45,000 years into the past.

              So, if coal contains measurable carbon 14, it can't be older than
              45,000 years.

              Does that accurately reflect your position?

              If it does, could you please point me to a website, book, or report
              that documents the presence of carbon 14 in coal?

              M. David Johnson
              Glenview, Illinois


              --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, B1E1Nugent@... wrote:

              [snip]

              >By the way, all coal contains carbon 14 and this would be
              >impossible if coal beds were millions of years old!

              [snip]




              ------------------------------------

              Brought to you by Theologically Correct dot Com Ministries.
              http://theologicallycorrect.com
              1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3 - Resources for Christian Living for the Whole Life of
              the BelieverYahoo! Groups Links








              **************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
              plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
              (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • IW
              ... Hash: SHA1 Tanggal Sun, 7 Sep 2008 00:02:53 EDT Penulis B1E1Nugent@aol.com menulis email dengan judul Re: [apologetics and theology] Re: Origin of ...
              Message 6 of 14 , Sep 7, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
                Hash: SHA1

                Tanggal Sun, 7 Sep 2008 00:02:53 EDT Penulis B1E1Nugent@... menulis
                email dengan judul Re: [apologetics and theology] Re: Origin of
                petroleum: proof of young earth seperti tertera di bawah ini:


                >Carbon 14 and other data put the age of the earth into the biblical
                >timeframe.

                WHich is?
                -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
                Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
                Comment: http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371/

                iD8DBQFIw8Rm90Gf33Iu52URAs22AKDOlnde8uEkw+ZD0jlhO1JLWvuPjACgnYsv
                4jcwVr8EzowZTIyuRABUdBA=
                =EBPW
                -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
              • Johanus Dagius
                Hi Bill, If we assume the C-14 in coal and oil is real (i.e. not some kind of recent contaminant) then these findings are surely a compelling argument against
                Message 7 of 14 , Sep 7, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Bill,
                  If we assume the C-14 in coal and oil is real (i.e. not some kind of
                  recent contaminant) then these findings are surely a compelling
                  argument against believing they are fossils, millions of
                  years old.

                  But why would this fact necessarily support the entire Creationist Y-
                  E cosmology and rule out any other simpler, scientific explanation:?
                  Could there perhaps there be another theory of oil-gas formation
                  that does not depend on a literal belief in the Bible or, even more
                  heretical, the belief that oil and gas are fossils at all? [I.e.,
                  are not scientists allowed to formulate more than one theory to
                  support their observations and experiments?]

                  One such theory might be based on Thomas Gold's "abiogenic" theory
                  of oil-gas formation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold
                  Gold was a brilliant iconoclast, scorned by most of his peers. He
                  did not believe that petroleum were million-year old dinosaur
                  remains, but abiogenic in origin and constantly being replenished.

                  Would that not explain why C-14 is found in oil and gas (and also
                  why no one talks about running out of oil any more, like back in the
                  1970's)?

                  Best regards,
                  -Johanus

                  --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, B1E1Nugent@... wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > In this time of energy crisis it will be useful to take a look at
                  how oil
                  > formed. Any petroleum geologist will tell you that oil formed in
                  deep
                  > sedimentary rock and then migrated upward to a different layer of
                  porous sedimentary
                  > rock called reservoir rock.
                  >
                  > Sedimentary rock, as its name suggests, was formed by particles
                  that eroded
                  > off of a continent and were laid down by water. Often the
                  sediments contain
                  > dead plant and animal matter. The water and dissolved minerals
                  among the
                  > particles act as a natural cement that hardens to turn the eroded
                  particles into
                  > solid rock. Oil forms in this sedimentary rock only if there is a
                  sufficient
                  > amount of biological debris among the particles that were laid
                  down.
                  >
                  > All plant and animal life contains highly complex long chain
                  hydrocarbons.
                  > When plants and animals are buried, crushed and heated in
                  sediment the long
                  > chain hydrocarbons are broken down to the short chain
                  hydrocarbons found in
                  > oil.
                  >
                  > It is interesting to note that all petroleum contains certain
                  chemical
                  > compounds common in both the chlorophyll of plants and hemoglobin
                  of blood. These
                  > chemical compounds are called porphyrins. Porphyrins are very
                  fragile
                  > compounds that break down quickly in the presence of oxygen.
                  >
                  > The presence of porphyrins in oil is compelling evidence that the
                  formation
                  > of oil had to occur quickly in an environment free of oxygen. The
                  standard
                  > old earth view that the sediments that formed oil were laid down
                  over millions
                  > of years is thus rendered absurd.
                  >
                  > Since plant and animal matter breaks down and rots very rapidly
                  in the
                  > presence of oxygen any slowly forming sediment bed such as a
                  river delta, which is
                  > oxygen rich, will yield no fossil fuels. The forest floor of a
                  rain forest
                  > will yield no petroleum or coal or any fossils of any kind
                  because the dead
                  > organic matter will rot away very quickly in the moist tropical
                  heat.
                  >
                  > It is apparent that the massive sediment beds that yield the
                  billions of
                  > barrels of crude oil so much in demand today had to have been
                  laid down very
                  > quickly during an extreme catastrophe. Creationists have for
                  decades pointed to
                  > the millions of square miles of thick layers of sedimentary rock
                  as evidence
                  > of a global catastrophe. The only catastrophe that was capable of
                  producing
                  > such continent wide geological phenomena is the worldwide flood
                  described in
                  > Genesis.
                  >
                  > The worldwide flood of Noah's day involved trillions of tons of
                  water
                  > flowing over the continents sweeping away forests, swamps and
                  prairies. This
                  > organic matter was mixed with huge amounts of eroded sediments and
                  rapidly laid
                  > down over vast distances.
                  >
                  > This slurry of sand, clay, volcanic ash and organic matter formed
                  the ideal
                  > conditions for oil to form. It buried the organic matter deep
                  enough to be
                  > void of oxygen and to have sufficient pressure and heat to cause
                  oil and natu
                  > ral gas to form.
                  >
                  > The oil formed in one layer of sedimentary rock and then migrated
                  upward and
                  > pooled in more porous sedimentary rock called reservoir rock.
                  There is
                  > usually a layer of nonporous rock above the reservoir rock that
                  traps the oil in
                  > the reservoir. This nonporous layer of rock is called the cap
                  rock. If there
                  > is no cap rock above the reservoir rock the oil will keep
                  migrating until it
                  > pours out onto the surface in tar pits like we find in
                  California, Venezuela
                  > and in certain parts of the middle East. Most oil pools are
                  trapped by cap
                  > rock.
                  >
                  > It is interesting to note that no oil field is completely
                  restrained by cap
                  > rock. All oil fields leak over time. This too is proof of young
                  earth because
                  > if the oil fields were millions of years old as secular
                  geologists claim,
                  > the oil would have leaked out ages ago. Creationists have pointed
                  out this fact
                  > for years. Old earth evolutionists have developed many
                  complicated theories
                  > to explain how oil could remain trapped for millions of years.
                  Their theories
                  > are far fetched and offer no compelling proof of their position.
                  >
                  > Evolutionary geologists have also not adequately explained how
                  fragile
                  > organic chemicals, such as porphyrins, could form in oil under
                  the gradual, oxygen
                  > rich conditions they claim. The claim by evolutionists that
                  porphyrins could
                  > remain stable in oil over millions of years also stretches
                  credulity. By the
                  > way, all coal contains carbon 14 and this would be impossible if
                  coal beds
                  > were millions of years old!
                  >
                  > Creationist website _www.answersingenesis.org_
                  > (http://www.answersingenesis.org/) contains articles about oil
                  formation and many other proofs of young
                  > earth. The earth was created within the biblical timeframe of
                  thousands, not
                  > billions of years.
                  >
                  > The duty of an objective scientist is go where the facts lead.
                  The facts of
                  > petroleum geology clearly point to young earth and to the global
                  catastrophe
                  > which was the biblical flood of Noah's day.
                  >
                  > Bill in New Hampshire
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > **************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find
                  your travel
                  > deal here.
                  > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • B1E1Nugent@aol.com
                  Hi Johanus, The fact that Carbon 14 is in all coal and all fossils is compelling evidence for young earth. Could scientists come up with a simpler explanation?
                  Message 8 of 14 , Sep 8, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Johanus,

                    The fact that Carbon 14 is in all coal and all fossils is compelling
                    evidence for young earth. Could scientists come up with a simpler explanation? Many
                    have tried. They offer contamination and background radiation as explanations
                    but these fall short. (See answersingenesis.org.) Thomas Gold's abiogenic
                    theory is refuted by creationists and others on several grounds. We young earth
                    creationists offer the simplest explanation for the lack of c-14 in coal
                    that conforms to all known laws of physics and our explanation, our Occam's
                    razor, points to young earth and this is consistent with the Bible's timeframe
                    and creation.
                    Evolutionists offer complex explanations and when we promote our explanation
                    they exclaim; "that's already been answered! Why haven't you kept up with
                    science? We refuted your explanation years ago!"
                    The evolutionist explanation for carbon 14 in coal or any other of our young
                    earth proofs is filled with scientific jargon and far flung interpretations
                    of limited evidence and speculation. The only alternative to evolution is
                    creation. So when we refute evolution they immediately accuse us of promoting
                    religion in the science classroom. Let them try to formulate an alternative
                    naturalistic theory to evolution. They can't do it.

                    Bill in New Hampshire


                    In a message dated 9/7/2008 2:14:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                    jdagius@... writes:

                    Hi Bill,
                    If we assume the C-14 in coal and oil is real (i.e. not some kind of
                    recent contaminant) then these findings are surely a compelling
                    argument against believing they are fossils, millions of
                    years old.

                    But why would this fact necessarily support the entire Creationist Y-
                    E cosmology and rule out any other simpler, scientific explanation:?
                    Could there perhaps there be another theory of oil-gas formation
                    that does not depend on a literal belief in the Bible or, even more
                    heretical, the belief that oil and gas are fossils at all? [I.e.,
                    are not scientists allowed to formulate more than one theory to
                    support their observations and experiments?]

                    One such theory might be based on Thomas Gold's "abiogenic" theory
                    of oil-gas formation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold
                    Gold was a brilliant iconoclast, scorned by most of his peers. He
                    did not believe that petroleum were million-year old dinosaur
                    remains, but abiogenic in origin and constantly being replenished.

                    Would that not explain why C-14 is found in oil and gas (and also
                    why no one talks about running out of oil any more, like back in the
                    1970's)?

                    Best regards,
                    -Johanus





                    **************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
                    plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
                    (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Johanus Dagius
                    ... Hello, Earth to Bill! Did you even read my posting? It did offer a simpler explanation. The Gold Hypothesis supposes that these are _not_ fossils, but are
                    Message 9 of 14 , Sep 9, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, B1E1Nugent@... wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi Johanus,
                      >
                      > The fact that Carbon 14 is in all coal and all fossils is
                      > compelling evidence for young earth.

                      > Could scientists come up with a simpler explanation?

                      Hello, Earth to Bill! Did you even read my posting? It did offer a
                      simpler explanation. The Gold Hypothesis supposes that these are
                      _not_ fossils, but are abiotic and still being generated. That is a
                      very simple explanation of how they could still contain C-14.

                      Best of all it is one of those "bipartisan" theories, that is
                      consistent with both young-earth and old-earth theories. I.e. it
                      doesn't rule out that oil, gas and coal existed millions of years
                      ago.

                      It also doesn't rule out that the earth is only 40,000 years old (if
                      we accept the C-14 data that you offered as "proof of YE".

                      But doesn't that create a theological problem for you? You claim
                      that the Earth is 6000 or so years old, according to the sums of OT
                      genealogies. But the C-14 evidence proves that the Earth is at least
                      40,000 or so years old. How do you account for the 34,000+ year
                      discrepancy?

                      I suppose that you could argue that C-14 dating is very inaccurate
                      and unreliable. But then that would undermine your original "proof"
                      based on C-14 measurements (which is the point I think IW was trying
                      to make in his last post). You can't have it both ways.

                      Best regards,
                      -Johanus

                      > In a message dated 9/7/2008 2:14:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                      > jdagius@... writes:
                      >
                      > Hi Bill,
                      > If we assume the C-14 in coal and oil is real (i.e. not some kind
                      of
                      > recent contaminant) then these findings are surely a compelling
                      > argument against believing they are fossils, millions of
                      > years old.
                      >
                      > But why would this fact necessarily support the entire
                      > Creationist Y-E cosmology and rule out any other simpler,
                      > scientific explanation:?
                      > Could there perhaps there be another theory of oil-gas formation
                      > that does not depend on a literal belief in the Bible or, even
                      more
                      > heretical, the belief that oil and gas are fossils at all? [I.e.,
                      > are not scientists allowed to formulate more than one theory to
                      > support their observations and experiments?]
                      >
                      > One such theory might be based on Thomas Gold's "abiogenic"
                      theory
                      > of oil-gas formation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold
                      > Gold was a brilliant iconoclast, scorned by most of his peers. He
                      > did not believe that petroleum were million-year old dinosaur
                      > remains, but abiogenic in origin and constantly being replenished.
                      >
                      > Would that not explain why C-14 is found in oil and gas (and also
                      > why no one talks about running out of oil any more, like back in
                      the
                      > 1970's)?
                      >
                      > Best regards,
                      > -Johanus
                    • B1E1Nugent@aol.com
                      In a message dated 9/9/2008 9:55:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ... Hello, Earth to Bill! Did you even read my posting? It did offer a simpler explanation.
                      Message 10 of 14 , Sep 9, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 9/9/2008 9:55:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                        jdagius@... writes:

                        >
                        > Hi Johanus,
                        >
                        > The fact that Carbon 14 is in all coal and all fossils is
                        > compelling evidence for young earth.

                        > Could scientists come up with a simpler explanation?

                        Hello, Earth to Bill! Did you even read my posting? It did offer a
                        simpler explanation. The Gold Hypothesis supposes that these are
                        _not_ fossils, but are abiotic and still being generated. That is a
                        very simple explanation of how they could still contain C-14.

                        Best of all it is one of those "bipartisan" theories, that is
                        consistent with both young-earth and old-earth theories. I.e. it
                        doesn't rule out that oil, gas and coal existed millions of years
                        ago.

                        It also doesn't rule out that the earth is only 40,000 years old (if
                        we accept the C-14 data that you offered as "proof of YE".

                        But doesn't that create a theological problem for you? You claim
                        that the Earth is 6000 or so years old, according to the sums of OT
                        genealogies. But the C-14 evidence proves that the Earth is at least
                        40,000 or so years old. How do you account for the 34,000+ year
                        discrepancy?

                        I suppose that you could argue that C-14 dating is very inaccurate
                        and unreliable. But then that would undermine your original "proof"
                        based on C-14 measurements (which is the point I think IW was trying
                        to make in his last post). You can't have it both ways.

                        Best regards,
                        -Johanus
                        Johanus,

                        No need for the "Earth to Bill" condescending language. That is out of place
                        in a group discussing apologetics and theology.

                        I said in my previous post that the Thomas Gold abiogenic theory has been
                        discredited. Even if it did happen as Gold postulates the oil and gas would
                        contain no carbon 14 since Gold says oil comes from the earh's mantle and carbon
                        14 is generated in the atmosphere.

                        The presence of carbon 14 in oil doesn't strictly confirm the biblical 6,000
                        year timeframe because we don't know the starting carbon 14 level in the
                        early earth atmosphere. Since we don't know the early earth concentration of
                        carbon 14 you can't nail down any particular young earth age but can certainly
                        confirm that the earth is less than 100,000 years old and that certainly
                        disproves both millions of years old earth and evolution. This is because carbon
                        14 has a half-life of 5,000 years and any thing over 20 half-lives old (100,000
                        yrs) should have no detectable carbon 14.

                        The levels of carbon 14 in oil while not strictly proving 6,000 yr old earth
                        is consistent with an earth 6,000 yrs young.

                        Best regards,
                        Bill






                        **************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
                        plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
                        (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Johanus Dagius
                        ... Bill, my sincere apologies. I regret that I phrased my response with those words. But I was a little irked at the bum s rush you gave to Thomas Gold. I
                        Message 11 of 14 , Sep 10, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >> No need for the "Earth to Bill" condescending language.

                          Bill, my sincere apologies. I regret that I phrased my response with
                          those words.

                          But I was a little irked at the "bum's rush" you gave to Thomas
                          Gold. I think I felt the same way you feel when folks
                          say "Creationism has been discredited. No further discussion needed".

                          Why do you need to discredit him? You should regard him as
                          a "kindred spririt", a fellow who argued, along with Fred Hoyle,
                          against the "Big Bang" theory. His "steady state" idea (i.e. the
                          Universe has no Beginning and no End) was rejected, mainly because
                          it couldn't explain the microwave "afterglow" predicted by Big Bang.
                          (Although there are still a few cosomologists today who stubbornly
                          refuse to give up Steady State, claiming the microwave signal is
                          just black-body radiation).

                          But getting back to C-14, I don't think we can prove, conclusively,
                          any of these cosmological issues, either way, using C-14 dating. It
                          can't date million-year old objects, of course, so it can't "prove"
                          OEC (that's what U-Pb is for). The presence of C-14 in fossils can
                          be explained by YEC, but others reject that and insist that these
                          are very minute quantities, consistent with C-14 residue build-up
                          (in AMS) and from natural radiation decay in the ground etc.

                          I'm still holding out for a conclusive argument on this matter.

                          If I were a YEC believer I'd be more concerned about star dates and
                          ice-core rings. But you and I have already discussed these before
                          and did not reach a consensus.

                          :-)
                          -Johanus


                          --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, B1E1Nugent@... wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > In a message dated 9/9/2008 9:55:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                          > jdagius@... writes:
                          >
                          > >
                          > > Hi Johanus,
                          > >
                          > > The fact that Carbon 14 is in all coal and all fossils is
                          > > compelling evidence for young earth.
                          >
                          > > Could scientists come up with a simpler explanation?
                          >
                          > Hello, Earth to Bill! Did you even read my posting? It did offer
                          a
                          > simpler explanation. The Gold Hypothesis supposes that these are
                          > _not_ fossils, but are abiotic and still being generated. That is
                          a
                          > very simple explanation of how they could still contain C-14.
                          >
                          > Best of all it is one of those "bipartisan" theories, that is
                          > consistent with both young-earth and old-earth theories. I.e. it
                          > doesn't rule out that oil, gas and coal existed millions of years
                          > ago.
                          >
                          > It also doesn't rule out that the earth is only 40,000 years old
                          (if
                          > we accept the C-14 data that you offered as "proof of YE".
                          >
                          > But doesn't that create a theological problem for you? You claim
                          > that the Earth is 6000 or so years old, according to the sums of
                          OT
                          > genealogies. But the C-14 evidence proves that the Earth is at
                          least
                          > 40,000 or so years old. How do you account for the 34,000+ year
                          > discrepancy?
                          >
                          > I suppose that you could argue that C-14 dating is very
                          inaccurate
                          > and unreliable. But then that would undermine your
                          original "proof"
                          > based on C-14 measurements (which is the point I think IW was
                          trying
                          > to make in his last post). You can't have it both ways.
                          >
                          > Best regards,
                          > -Johanus
                          > Johanus,
                          >
                          > No need for the "Earth to Bill" condescending language. That is
                          out of place
                          > in a group discussing apologetics and theology.
                          >
                          > I said in my previous post that the Thomas Gold abiogenic theory
                          has been
                          > discredited. Even if it did happen as Gold postulates the oil and
                          gas would
                          > contain no carbon 14 since Gold says oil comes from the earh's
                          mantle and carbon
                          > 14 is generated in the atmosphere.
                          >
                          > The presence of carbon 14 in oil doesn't strictly confirm the
                          biblical 6,000
                          > year timeframe because we don't know the starting carbon 14 level
                          in the
                          > early earth atmosphere. Since we don't know the early earth
                          concentration of
                          > carbon 14 you can't nail down any particular young earth age but
                          can certainly
                          > confirm that the earth is less than 100,000 years old and that
                          certainly
                          > disproves both millions of years old earth and evolution. This is
                          because carbon
                          > 14 has a half-life of 5,000 years and any thing over 20 half-lives
                          old (100,000
                          > yrs) should have no detectable carbon 14.
                          >
                          > The levels of carbon 14 in oil while not strictly proving 6,000 yr
                          old earth
                          > is consistent with an earth 6,000 yrs young.
                          >
                          > Best regards,
                          > Bill
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > **************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new
                          fashion blog,
                          > plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
                          > (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • B1E1Nugent@aol.com
                          Johanus, Thanks for your reply. Sorry I gave T. Gold s theory the bum s rush. I have looked at his theory that oil and gas come from deep in earth. Much study
                          Message 12 of 14 , Sep 10, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Johanus,

                            Thanks for your reply.

                            Sorry I gave T. Gold's theory the bum's rush. I have looked at his theory
                            that oil and gas come from deep in earth. Much study has shown that biologic
                            remnants are found in oil, even deep oil. The weight of the evidence seems to
                            clearly favor that oil was formed by rapid burial of plant and animal matter
                            during the flood.

                            What follows below is an article I wrote some years ago that deals with
                            carbon 14 and how it helps prove young earth.

                            Creationists have long claimed that the various natural clocks, when
                            properly understood and calibrated, give evidence for a young age of planet earth.
                            This is especially true of the widely utilized carbon 14 dating method. You
                            may remember from your high school biology class that carbon 14 is a
                            radioactive cousin of the stable carbon 12 atom.
                            Plants and animals ingest both types of carbon and when they die the ratio
                            of carbon 14 to carbon 12 is roughly the same as the ratio in the surrounding
                            environment. The carbon 14 decays and is not replenished in the dead plant.
                            Each carbon 14 atom sheds part of its atomic weight and turns into nitrogen.
                            After about 5,730 years, half of the carbon 14 has decayed into nitrogen. This
                            changes the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 in the dead plant and enables
                            scientists to calculate how long ago the plant died. Thus we have a good
                            reliable natural clock. [It's actually a bit more complicated than that because
                            the amount of carbon 14 in the general environment has varied in the past but
                            generally speaking it is a good clock.]
                            Since the half life of carbon 14 is only about 5,730 years and carbon
                            14 is only found in trace amounts to begin with, any fossil alleged to be
                            over 50,000 years old should have no detectable carbon 14 at all.
                            It has been a great embarrassment and unsolved mystery to
                            evolutionists that coal and other fossils claimed to be millions of years old still have
                            detectable levels of carbon 14 in them. Consider the following quote from
                            the article "What About Carbon Dating" by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Ph. D.
                            and Carl Wieland Ph. D. "Laboratories that measure carbon 14 would like a
                            source of organic material with zero carbon 14 to use as a blank to check that
                            their lab procedures do not add carbon 14. Coal is an obvious candidate because
                            the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is
                            supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal
                            should be devoid of carbon 14. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that
                            completely lacks carbon 14." (Emphasis in original.) This same article goes on
                            to discuss fossils discovered in Upper Permian and Middle Triassic rocks,
                            claimed to be over 200 million years old. These fossils still have detectable
                            carbon 14! The article is available for free download at answersingenesis.org.
                            Creationists claim that coal was formed rapidly during Noah's flood
                            when "all the fountains of the great deep burst open" (Gen. 7:11 NASB.) This
                            Bible passage refers to massive volcanism and tectonic shifts that occurred
                            during the flood. Huge land masses containing dense vegetation were subducted
                            (buried) during the movements of the earth's plates. This resulted in vast
                            stores of vegetation being buried deep beneath the surface where temperature and
                            pressure caused it to change to coal and oil. Some oil deposits are more
                            than five miles below the surface. Fossil evidence shows that the preflood
                            forests were far more dense than today's forests.
                            Coal formation had to happen rapidly because slow accumulation of
                            plant matter allows the plants to rot before they are buried by any layers of
                            slowly accumulating sediment. Plant matter in today's Amazon basin rots far
                            more rapidly than plant matter in more temperate climates.
                            Much has been written by creationists about other natural clocks used
                            by evolutionists. For instance the much touted potassium/argon method gives
                            widely divergent dates for rock strata. The article quoted above also
                            discusses how the potassium/argon method gave dates in the millions of years old to
                            lava flows that occurred less than 75 years ago in New Zealand!
                            The evolutionists can't prove the earth is old enough to allow time
                            for evolution. The best evidence points to young earth.

                            Best Regards,
                            Bill



                            In a message dated 9/10/2008 9:26:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                            jdagius@... writes:

                            Bill, my sincere apologies. I regret that I phrased my response with
                            those words.

                            But I was a little irked at the "bum's rush" you gave to Thomas
                            Gold. I think I felt the same way you feel when folks
                            say "Creationism has been discredited. No further discussion needed".

                            Why do you need to discredit him? You should regard him as
                            a "kindred spririt", a fellow who argued, along with Fred Hoyle,
                            against the "Big Bang" theory. His "steady state" idea (i.e. the
                            Universe has no Beginning and no End) was rejected, mainly because
                            it couldn't explain the microwave "afterglow" predicted by Big Bang.
                            (Although there are still a few cosomologists today who stubbornly
                            refuse to give up Steady State, claiming the microwave signal is
                            just black-body radiation).

                            But getting back to C-14, I don't think we can prove, conclusively,
                            any of these cosmological issues, either way, using C-14 dating. It
                            can't date million-year old objects, of course, so it can't "prove"
                            OEC (that's what U-Pb is for). The presence of C-14 in fossils can
                            be explained by YEC, but others reject that and insist that these
                            are very minute quantities, consistent with C-14 residue build-up
                            (in AMS) and from natural radiation decay in the ground etc.

                            I'm still holding out for a conclusive argument on this matter.

                            If I were a YEC believer I'd be more concerned about star dates and
                            ice-core rings. But you and I have already discussed these before
                            and did not reach a consensus.

                            :-)
                            -Johanus





                            **************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
                            plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
                            (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Johanus Dagius
                            Bill, ... One of the biggest myths of modern times is the belief that coal and oil are the fossil remains of prehistoric plants and animals. These deposits
                            Message 13 of 14 , Sep 11, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Bill,
                              >> ... that biologic _remnants_ are found in oil, even deep oil.

                              One of the biggest myths of modern times is the belief that coal and
                              oil are the fossil remains of prehistoric plants and animals. These
                              deposits were created from abiotic hydrocarbon gases deep within
                              the earth. The fact that fossils are sometimes found embedded in
                              coal deposits actually proves that the coal itself could not be from
                              fossils. Read here for more insight on this:
                              http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=182

                              These "remnants" that you speak of are hopanoids, remnants of
                              bacterial cell walls that are found deep within the earth.

                              Recent evidence confirms Gold's hypotheses:
                              http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1963050/posts

                              I'm not aware that these findings argue for or against creationist
                              theory. It's just a more accurate way to explain and predict what is
                              going on in the deep biosphere (if that is what you are interested
                              in).

                              You might be interested in reading Gold's seminal paper "The Deep,
                              Hot Biosphere", available here:
                              http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=49434

                              -Johanus

                              --- In apologetics@yahoogroups.com, B1E1Nugent@... wrote:
                              >
                              > Johanus,
                              >
                              > Thanks for your reply.
                              >
                              > Sorry I gave T. Gold's theory the bum's rush. I have looked at his
                              theory
                              > that oil and gas come from deep in earth. Much study has shown
                              that biologic
                              > remnants are found in oil, even deep oil. The weight of the
                              evidence seems to
                              > clearly favor that oil was formed by rapid burial of plant and
                              animal matter
                              > during the flood.
                              >
                              > What follows below is an article I wrote some years ago that deals
                              with
                              > carbon 14 and how it helps prove young earth.
                              >
                              > Creationists have long claimed that the various natural clocks,
                              when
                              > properly understood and calibrated, give evidence for a young age
                              of planet earth.
                              > This is especially true of the widely utilized carbon 14 dating
                              method. You
                              > may remember from your high school biology class that carbon 14 is
                              a
                              > radioactive cousin of the stable carbon 12 atom.
                              > Plants and animals ingest both types of carbon and when they die
                              the ratio
                              > of carbon 14 to carbon 12 is roughly the same as the ratio in the
                              surrounding
                              > environment. The carbon 14 decays and is not replenished in the
                              dead plant.
                              > Each carbon 14 atom sheds part of its atomic weight and turns
                              into nitrogen.
                              > After about 5,730 years, half of the carbon 14 has decayed into
                              nitrogen. This
                              > changes the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 in the dead plant and
                              enables
                              > scientists to calculate how long ago the plant died. Thus we have
                              a good
                              > reliable natural clock. [It's actually a bit more complicated than
                              that because
                              > the amount of carbon 14 in the general environment has varied in
                              the past but
                              > generally speaking it is a good clock.]
                              > Since the half life of carbon 14 is only about 5,730 years
                              and carbon
                              > 14 is only found in trace amounts to begin with, any fossil
                              alleged to be
                              > over 50,000 years old should have no detectable carbon 14 at all.
                              > It has been a great embarrassment and unsolved mystery to
                              > evolutionists that coal and other fossils claimed to be millions
                              of years old still have
                              > detectable levels of carbon 14 in them. Consider the following
                              quote from
                              > the article "What About Carbon Dating" by Ken Ham, Jonathan
                              Sarfati, Ph. D.
                              > and Carl Wieland Ph. D. "Laboratories that measure carbon 14
                              would like a
                              > source of organic material with zero carbon 14 to use as a blank
                              to check that
                              > their lab procedures do not add carbon 14. Coal is an obvious
                              candidate because
                              > the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and
                              most of it is
                              > supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such
                              old coal
                              > should be devoid of carbon 14. It isn't. No source of coal has
                              been found that
                              > completely lacks carbon 14." (Emphasis in original.) This same
                              article goes on
                              > to discuss fossils discovered in Upper Permian and Middle
                              Triassic rocks,
                              > claimed to be over 200 million years old. These fossils still
                              have detectable
                              > carbon 14! The article is available for free download at
                              answersingenesis.org.
                              > Creationists claim that coal was formed rapidly during
                              Noah's flood
                              > when "all the fountains of the great deep burst open" (Gen. 7:11
                              NASB.) This
                              > Bible passage refers to massive volcanism and tectonic shifts that
                              occurred
                              > during the flood. Huge land masses containing dense vegetation
                              were subducted
                              > (buried) during the movements of the earth's plates. This resulted
                              in vast
                              > stores of vegetation being buried deep beneath the surface where
                              temperature and
                              > pressure caused it to change to coal and oil. Some oil deposits
                              are more
                              > than five miles below the surface. Fossil evidence shows that the
                              preflood
                              > forests were far more dense than today's forests.
                              > Coal formation had to happen rapidly because slow
                              accumulation of
                              > plant matter allows the plants to rot before they are buried by
                              any layers of
                              > slowly accumulating sediment. Plant matter in today's Amazon
                              basin rots far
                              > more rapidly than plant matter in more temperate climates.
                              > Much has been written by creationists about other natural
                              clocks used
                              > by evolutionists. For instance the much touted potassium/argon
                              method gives
                              > widely divergent dates for rock strata. The article quoted above
                              also
                              > discusses how the potassium/argon method gave dates in the
                              millions of years old to
                              > lava flows that occurred less than 75 years ago in New Zealand!
                              > The evolutionists can't prove the earth is old enough to
                              allow time
                              > for evolution. The best evidence points to young earth.
                              >
                              > Best Regards,
                              > Bill
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > In a message dated 9/10/2008 9:26:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                              > jdagius@... writes:
                              >
                              > Bill, my sincere apologies. I regret that I phrased my response
                              with
                              > those words.
                              >
                              > But I was a little irked at the "bum's rush" you gave to Thomas
                              > Gold. I think I felt the same way you feel when folks
                              > say "Creationism has been discredited. No further discussion
                              needed".
                              >
                              > Why do you need to discredit him? You should regard him as
                              > a "kindred spririt", a fellow who argued, along with Fred Hoyle,
                              > against the "Big Bang" theory. His "steady state" idea (i.e. the
                              > Universe has no Beginning and no End) was rejected, mainly
                              because
                              > it couldn't explain the microwave "afterglow" predicted by Big
                              Bang.
                              > (Although there are still a few cosomologists today who
                              stubbornly
                              > refuse to give up Steady State, claiming the microwave signal is
                              > just black-body radiation).
                              >
                              > But getting back to C-14, I don't think we can prove,
                              conclusively,
                              > any of these cosmological issues, either way, using C-14 dating.
                              It
                              > can't date million-year old objects, of course, so it
                              can't "prove"
                              > OEC (that's what U-Pb is for). The presence of C-14 in fossils
                              can
                              > be explained by YEC, but others reject that and insist that these
                              > are very minute quantities, consistent with C-14 residue build-up
                              > (in AMS) and from natural radiation decay in the ground etc.
                              >
                              > I'm still holding out for a conclusive argument on this matter.
                              >
                              > If I were a YEC believer I'd be more concerned about star dates
                              and
                              > ice-core rings. But you and I have already discussed these before
                              > and did not reach a consensus.
                              >
                              > :-)
                              > -Johanus
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > **************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new
                              fashion blog,
                              > plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
                              > (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.