Oil and McIntosh

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

Oil and McIntosh

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:23 pm

Andy McIntosh argues that the presence of coal and oil is no obstacle to Young Earth creationism. They can be produced quite quickly, given the right temperature and pressure, he says.
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/An ... usOpinions

I've now come across an Answers in Genesis paper going into much greater detail about the formation of oil within biblical time. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/oil.asp

Interestingly, I found this just after I found an account of Russian-Ukrainian geologists who claim that petroleum isn't even of biological origin. It's come from the mantle, they reckon. The interesting thing, though, is that they argue that formation of petroleum form biological material is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics!
http://www.gasresources.net/

In the blue corner, Andy McIntoah, in the red corner, the Gas Resources Corporation...

Any thoughts, anyone? Michael? Derek?

Brian
PS: does the formation of coal from peat involve a decrease in entropy? Superficially, I'd think it might.,
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Oil and McIntosh

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:09 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:Andy McIntosh argues that the presence of coal and oil is no obstacle to Young Earth creationism. They can be produced quite quickly, given the right temperature and pressure, he says.
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/An ... usOpinions

I've now come across an Answers in Genesis paper going into much greater detail about the formation of oil within biblical time. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/oil.asp

Interestingly, I found this just after I found an account of Russian-Ukrainian geologists who claim that petroleum isn't even of biological origin. It's come from the mantle, they reckon. The interesting thing, though, is that they argue that formation of petroleum form biological material is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics!
http://www.gasresources.net/

In the blue corner, Andy McIntoah, in the red corner, the Gas Resources Corporation...

Any thoughts, anyone? Michael? Derek?

Brian
PS: does the formation of coal from peat involve a decrease in entropy? Superficially, I'd think it might.,


IIRC the issue that oil comes from the mantle dates back years. There was a Swede behind the hypothesis who did'nt deliver on what he claimed. He got funding for some serious deep drilling, btw.
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby psiloiordinary » Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:20 pm

According to a recent issue of the BBC magazine Focus (yes I know its not a journal) more funding is now being thrown at research into abiogenisis of all. NO mention of timescales though to my recollection - I'll see if I can find it. . .
User avatar
psiloiordinary
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:03 am
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Oil and McIntosh

Postby Derek Potter » Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:30 am

Brian Jordan wrote:Andy McIntosh argues that the presence of coal and oil is no obstacle to Young Earth creationism. They can be produced quite quickly, given the right temperature and pressure, he says.
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/An ... usOpinions

I've now come across an Answers in Genesis paper going into much greater detail about the formation of oil within biblical time. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/oil.asp

Interestingly, I found this just after I found an account of Russian-Ukrainian geologists who claim that petroleum isn't even of biological origin. It's come from the mantle, they reckon. The interesting thing, though, is that they argue that formation of petroleum form biological material is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics!
http://www.gasresources.net/

In the blue corner, Andy McIntoah, in the red corner, the Gas Resources Corporation...

Any thoughts, anyone? Michael? Derek?

Well, since you ask... I read that article years ago. It didn't make sense then and it still doesn't.

Spot the discrepancy:
a) "Many people today, including scientists, have the idea that oil and natural gas must take a long time to form, even millions of years."
b) "Geologists usually maintain that these processes of oil formation from source rocks (maturation events) commonly involve one thousand to one million years or more at near maximum temperatures."
And guess what, if you get the conditions right in the lab, you can cut it down a bit further.

AiG are being very disingenuous to imply that the rate of oil formation is used in any serious calculation of age. It's also disingenuous of them to parade an example of oil-from-sewage which could not possibly occur in nature, only to dismiss it as if they are being generous and evenhanded referees in a scientific debate.

"Andy McIntosh argues that the presence of coal and oil is no obstacle to Young Earth creationism."

Even God Himself saying " THAT'S 4.6 BILLION YEARS, DUMMY! " wouldn't be an obstacle to Young Earth creationism :)

PS: does the formation of coal from peat involve a decrease in entropy? Superficially, I'd think it might.,

No idea, you'd have to ask a chemist. It may be that the Russians did some calculations and found that the specific breakdown route was not favoured. That would be a proper application of classical 2LT.
User avatar
Derek Potter
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:32 pm

Postby jon_12091 » Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:40 am

The idea that oil &/or gas is generated at great depths is fringe to say the least. I would except the generation of small quanitites of gas, but there is no geological evidence for the large scale formation of hydrocarbons by abiogenesis. Biogenesis is pretty much a certainty for the formation of most hydrocarbons, especially fluids. For example it is possible to finger print an oil to a particular source rock. We know that much of the N Sea oil comes from the kimmeridge clays.

McIntosh's ideas about fossil fuels seem to be based on the utterly incontinent idea that if you push up the temperature you can speed up the process (a typical enginer's asumption about geology (which is why serious oil compaines use multi-displinery teams!)). If only geology was that simple (McIntosh should try reading some of the undergrad geology texts in the university library)! Phases of hydrocarbon emplacement can be used as a relative aging tool in conjunction with observations about the formation of different sandstone cements. These same mineral cements also provide a significant hole in McIntosh's argument, as you can either preciptate them slooooowly at moderate tempertures compatible with oil emplacement or you can speed them up with extra heat and crack the oil.... As for lab observations given controlled conditions it is pretty much possible to approximate any process we see in nature speeded up in ideal conditions. But guess what in nature seldom produces ideal laboratory conditions!

http://bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=548&start=0

And all this is before we even get into arguments about how the source & reservoir rocks were produced!

[edit] There are also a range of paelo-temperature indicators avaliable to the geologist, which tell just how hot a particular bed of rock has got. These are important in allowing oil companies to asses whether or not a particular sedimentary basin has exceeded the oil temperature window during its history.
Last edited by jon_12091 on Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Timothy Chase » Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:44 pm

jon_12091 wrote:McIntosh's ideas about fossil fuels seem to be based on the utterly incontinent idea...


Well, I don't know if I would describe it as "incontinent," but clearly he is trying to say that something flows...
User avatar
Timothy Chase
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Chris Sergeant » Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:44 pm

Oil has to be formed and then migrate to the anticlines where it and gas tend to be found. Is there any experimental evidence of the speed for such movement?
Chris Sergeant
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:26 pm

Postby jon_12091 » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:09 pm

The speed of oil migration is controlled by a whole host of different variables, including its own physical properties and the properties of the rocks it has to flow through. Being less dense than rock "up" tends to be the dominant direction of flow. I haven't read any studies of specific timings for oil migration, but typically oil will migrate only a few kilometers over a period of time measured in millions of years. The fluid properties of gas means it tends to move about more quickly.

If McIntoshs ideas weren't holed below the waterline at conception there are examples of exhumed 'fossil' oil reservoirs found around the world. I'd love to see the creationist chronostratigrahy that can cope with generation and emplacement of oil followed by such significant basin inversion/uplift, especially given that fossil fuels are supposed to result from organics buried by the flood and that all large scale Earth movements are also related to the deluge!

[edit] oh, and cyclothems!
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby jon_12091 » Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:16 pm

A really good little guide, especially for the non-geologist, is Britain's Offshore Oil and Gas published by the UK Offshore Operators Association and The Natural History Museum (ISBN 0-565-09027-5). The Natural History museum have produced a number similar publications on other subjects over the years like soil and water resources. All of which are good little introductory reads.
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm


Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests