Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

originally posted by: daskakik
That has nothing to do with buoyant things on the surface that would want to float after their roots lost their grip from waterlogged soil.

You do understand that when there is a flood some trees fall because the flooded soil allows the top heavy plants to topple over because the soils has become loose.

If horizontal force from impending mud toppled the tree, it would be buried by the mud as is exhibited in mudslides.

"Love Jesus and stop this dumb obsession with evolution. It is by its own definition a theory that involves no intelligence."

How does that affect you if some people choose to believe that?

They can believe whatever they want. But when they call it a fact I have to interject, for truth's sake.

Why do you care?

Evolutionary theory can be a philosophical dead-end, I encourage everyone to keep searching and let go of bias. I know, Ironic that's what atheists think about theists too.

I have my beliefs, I haven't made a single thread about it. I mention it every now and then but I'm not trying to convert anyone, probably couldn't.

I like sharing my research.. I am interested in your thoughts regarding the possibility and role of a higher intelligence in the origins of things, I am basing that comment off the few times you have mentioned some of your ideas. You should make a thread about something that you think is a novel idea or a worthwhile thought.

a reply to: cooperton

Bedrock can be mudstone (i.e. limestone). The mud from the flood lithified and became bedrock all around the world. The organic matter trapped beneath was pressurized into become oil and other components.

"LALALA, I CANT HEAR YOU REALITY!"

Bedrock is not always sedimentary you freaking dullard. Many times its igneous and metamorphic.

Don't try to explain the formation of anything geologically, because you can't do it. It's painful.

The fact that you say absolutely mindless things like a flood created mud sediment that buried organic matter and created oil shows, 1) You know next to nothing 2) refuse to learn ACTUAL geology.

So why bother?

I told you how the coal in West Virginia formed. 310 MYA when it was a tropical swamp at the equator, and was covered during an orogenic event. One of several that cycled the Appalachians for millions of years.



Now try, just for a second, to acknowledge the earth looked like that when the coalfields formed. Maybe? If you can?

Meanwhile, we know how the Texas Oil fields formed too. Both East and West.

The West Texas was formed by algae in a shallow sea getting trapped by sediment. Late Mississippian through Permian.

In East Texas, it was more recent. But still a shallow sea and continental shelf. No, the chalk layer is NOT caused by your 4500 year old flood either, but it did trap the oil.

This sandstone unit was deposited during a period when East Texas was a shallow sea, approximately 100 million years ago. During a subsequent period it was uplifted with the Sabine Uplift, eroded, and then covered again by the sea, which this time unconformably deposited a layer of impermeable chalk, the Austin Chalk, creating a stratigraphic trap – a situation where oil, which is lighter than water and migrates upwards, reaches a point where it can move no farther, and pools. The source rock for the oil in East Texas is the overlying Eagle Ford Shale

But if you want to contest the chalk layer and sandstone that trapped the oil go right ahead. But you will just be making up absurdities that have no base in reality.

But you are allowed you own reality. Your reality can be without periods and eras or the literal mountains of dated evidence we base this on. It can exist in a fantasy land where things can be cherry-picked without any foundation in Science and used to support ridiculous presuppositions.

If your argument is, "Bedrock was created by mud deposits from a single flood that also trapped the organic matter that created all oil starting 4500 years ago." You might as well argue the moon is made of swiss cheese.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton


Bedrock can be mudstone (i.e. limestone). The mud from the flood lithified and became bedrock all around the world. The organic matter trapped beneath was pressurized into become oil and other components."

Bedrock is not always sedimentary you freaking dullard. Many times its igneous and metamorphic.

Lol I know, that is why I said it "CAN" be mudstone. Nice try pal. You guys want so badly to catch me in a gotcha lolol.

originally posted by: cooperton
If horizontal force from impending mud toppled the tree, it would be buried by the mud as is exhibited in mudslides.

Mudslides don't bury things thousands of meters below ground. You are grasping at straws.

They can believe whatever they want. But when they call it a fact I have to interject, for truth's sake.

You have no proof of your truth. That is why you should probably stop.

Evolutionary theory can be a philosophical dead-end, I encourage everyone to keep searching and let go of bias. I know, Ironic that's what atheists think about theists too.

So what? We are all going to die believing what we do.

I like sharing my research.. I am interested in your thoughts regarding the possibility and role of a higher intelligence in the origins of things, I am basing that comment off the few times you have mentioned some of your ideas. You should make a thread about something that you think is a novel idea or a worthwhile thought.

But you dismiss solid things because you are stuck in this biblical thing, that we all know people manipulated to create a control mechanism.

I mean that is CT 101.

a reply to: cooperton

You catch yourself by not that having the most minimal of knowledge required to make these arguments, dude.

Not your pal, either. Maybe your Science Police. And I'm just going to stick around these threads to prevent geology from being assaulted too much.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

You catch yourself by not that having the most minimal of knowledge required to make these arguments, dude.

Not your pal either. Maybe your Science Police. And I'm just going to stick around this thread to prevent geology from being assaulted touch.

Hmm, well you incorrectly attempted to arrest me for saying something that is true... 'bedrock can be mudstone". Maybe you're just one of those egotistical cops that will try to arrest people just because you're emotional. Perhaps this is spilling over from your personal life.

originally posted by: daskakik
You have no proof of your truth. That is why you should probably stop.

I have plenty of proof evolution or abiogenesis is not a possible theory. You have yet to provide an example of evolution occurring, so perhaps you are the one who should just stop

originally posted by: cooperton
I have plenty of proof evolution or abiogenesis is not a possible theory. You have yet to provide an example of evolution occurring, so perhaps you are the one who should just stop

I'm not advocating for evolution so I never started.

And you don't actually have proof that evolution or abiogenesis is not a possible theory. If you did, you wouldn't meet so much resistance in this forum about denying ignorance.

a reply to: cooperton

Actually, I'm just mocking the premise of a single flood explaining any petroleum deposits and bedrock.

You use 445-270 million year old deposits as evidence of a recent made-up event with no place in reality.

Screw the mudstone, answer to everything else wrong. But really don't, because I'm not terribly invested in falling into special needs ouroboros this evening.

Nothing really real life affecting internet posting, thanks for you concern. I helped my friend get back at some a-holes recently, but that's about it.

originally posted by: daskakik
And you don't actually have proof that evolution or abiogenesis is not a possible theory. If you did, you wouldn't meet so much resistance in this forum about denying ignorance.

I met resistance saying that heaviness is not interchangeable with density lol... You have lost your credibility.

originally posted by: cooperton
I met resistance saying that heaviness is not interchangeable with density lol... You have lost your credibility.

You are wrong, you can't accept that the english language works like that. Dying on that mountain made you lose more credibility than you had already lost by making threads like this.

Crude deposits thousands of meters below the earth were created by the deluge? C'mon man.

I wouldn't have even posted in the thread if you just said god put them there because mankind would find a way to use them.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

Actually, I'm just mocking the premise of a single flood explaining any petroleum deposits and bedrock.

A global flood would explain mudrock deposition, fossils within the mudrock depositions (especially marine fossils on mountains), global erratics beyond glacial zones, the historical accounts by cultures around the world, and also would provide the necessary pressure to create oil from organic matter underneath these layers.

originally posted by: daskakik
You are wrong, you can't accept that the english language works like that. Dying on that mountain made you lose more credibility than you had already lost by making threads like this.

I don't care anymore to be honest. Phantom can lie all she wants, she's not gonna stop no matter what I do and the mods don't care either.

Crude deposits thousands of meters below the earth were created by the deluge? C'mon man.

Makes more sense than gradual deposition from plankton. The mainstream theory is just another magic time wand where time can do anything because you can't even fathom the timespans involved.

I wouldn't have even posted in the thread if you just said god put them there because mankind would find a way to use them.

It could be part of the starter kit for earth. But all the pieces match with it being from the global flood described by our ancestors

a reply to: cooperton

A global flood would explain mudrock deposition, fossils within the mudrock depositions (especially marine fossils on mountains), global erratics beyond glacial zones, the historical accounts by cultures around the world, and also would provide the necessary pressure to create oil from organic matter underneath these layers.

So... Marine fossils on mountains again?

You're like talking to a brick wall that is denser than it is heavy. Or something.

You've just ignored all real solutions in favor of wackiness and story time again. You've pivoted back to ignoring mountain uplift, and the long accepted processes of geological formation, and returned to magic flood waters bringing fish and seashells to the top of mountains. I don't really feel like explaining the collision of The India Subcontinent again if its going to fall on deaf ears.

You cited a Nova Scotia formation accurately dated to around 300 MYA, when the land subsidence was condusive to rapid sedimentation. The coal deposits cited in Appalachia, are BETTER explained by swamps existing in an equatorial region.

In fact I'm 100% sure on that, without any doubt, and so is the rest of geology. You have yet to acknowledge a Carboniferous Period even existed, which is kind of insulting. Why can't you acknowledge geological history?

You can't debate rationally or with any intelligence if you eschew the 4.5 billion years.

You will never transition from pseudoscience to factual data until you acknowledge the timescale.

You might as well go to a psyche ward and start screaming at the doctors and nurses that everyone's problems are caused by demons and start mocking them for choosing drugs/therapy over exorcism/prayer, or that they are volcano displaced alien souls which need money/lie detectors to cure.

You put all these things together and I'm only responding to see myself post now. It's not serving any useful purpose, and I might as well transicion al espanol el resto del camino. No creo que haga la mas minima diferencia.

¡Vaya barco magico que sobrevivio a la gran inundacion de la tierra de la fantasia!

originally posted by: cooperton
It could be part of the starter kit for earth. But all the pieces match with it being from the global flood described by our ancestors

No it doesn't because the the precursors float on water if water was introduced relatively slowly, most of it would end up floating and the depositing on or near the surface after the flood.

You want to believe the bible and love Jesus? Great, the heart wants what the heart wants. But you have no convincing proof. It almost seems like you are trying to convince yourself by these science proves intelligent design threads.

originally posted by: cooperton
A global flood would explain mudrock deposition, fossils within the mudrock depositions (especially marine fossils on mountains)

Right, because mollusks would go up 6000 m for no good reason, and then just die there.

May as well say god or satan put them there.

originally posted by: daskakik
Right, because mollusks would go up 6000 m for no good reason, and then just die there.

May as well say god or satan put them there.

Genuinely interested in such a mollusk, do you have a link to this find?

originally posted by: Degradation33

So... Marine fossils on mountains again?

You believe mountains arose out of the ocean, I believe the ocean raised over the mountains. Just let people believe differently than you without taking it personally.

originally posted by: cooperton
Genuinely interested in such a mollusk, do you have a link to this find?

Almost all mollusks except for cephalopods (octopuses, squid) live on or near the ocean floors, they would not travel up regardless of how deep the water got because most of them can't swim, they slither or hop a little:

Most mollusks are marine animals that live in habitats from shallow coastal areas to deep waters. Most stay within the sediments at the bottom of water bodies, although a few—such as cephalopods—are free swimming.

Species
There are eight different broad categories of mollusks on our planet.

* Caudofoveates are small, deep-sea mollusks that burrow into soft bottom sediments. These worm-like animals lack the shells and muscular feet characteristic of other mollusks, and their bodies are covered with scale-like, calcareous spicules.
* Solanogastres, like caudofoveata, are worm-like mollusks that lack shells. These small, ocean-dwelling animals are mostly blind, and either flattened or cylindrical.
* Chitons, also known as polyplacophorans, are flat, slug-like mollusks with calcareous plates covering the upper surfaces of their bodies; they live in intertidal waters along rocky coastlines worldwide.
* Monoplacophorans are deep-sea mollusks equipped with cap-like shells. They were long believed to be extinct, but in 1952, zoologists discovered a handful of living species.
* Tusk shells, also known as scaphopods, have long, cylindrical shells with tentacles extending from one end, which these mollusks use to rope in prey from the surrounding water.
* Bivalves are characterized by their hinged shells and live in both marine and freshwater habitats. These mollusks have no heads, and their bodies consist entirely of a wedge-shaped "foot."
* Gastropods are the most diverse family of mollusks, including over 60,000 species of snails and slugs that live in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial habitats.
* Cephalopods, the most advanced mollusks, include octopuses, squids, cuttlefish, and nautiluses. Most of the members of this group either lack shells, or have small internal shells.

Mollusk Facts: Habitat, Behavior, Diet

originally posted by: daskakik

Almost all mollusks except for cephalopods (octopuses, squid) live on or near the ocean floors, they would not travel up regardless of how deep the water got because most of them can't swim

Yeah but where's the documentation of a mollusk being found at 6000m altitude?

a reply to: cooperton


I am willing to believe that oil is not a fossil fuel, it is abiotic .


The Great Oil Conspiracy: It has been known since the end of WWII that oil is not a fossil fuel; it is abiotic