Originally posted by PlanoMM Originally posted by Mylon Originally posted by PlanoMM while i respect both of your opinions, ive met me share of "nutjobs" that werent christians. and yes, some people to do willingly ignore some facts, its not true of everyone. and call me a bad person, but i couldnt care less where any of you go when all is said and done. lol. not much of a recruiter, eh? meh, oO well. w/e.
Haha, I thought from your posts that you were an atheist like myself? I figure there's no where to go but the grave after death, but that means I also believe that the life here and now is all we have, and we have to cherish it while we can. Which means getting people away from silly dogmas that breed hate and discrimination.
I mean, Christians think that these other people are going to hell and lash out or whatever, but if we all got along, we might not even need heaven because Earth would be a nice place to be too. the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. im no fool. btw, religion is not the driving force behind hate. human nature is. athiests lead violent protests too. athiests kill and rob people too. to say that its all religion based is foolish, IMO. i do however, agree that if we all took a step back and gave this life more credit and lived it like its the only one we get and loved everyone and respected everyone, it would be a great place. I don't state there is no god so much as I state that the particular god of the Bible is a bunch of hoey. Someone that steps in as often as he does not playing an active, primary role in today's world? Plus lots of other reasons, but that's a long topic.
And I'm not blaming religion for everything! I know atheists do bad stuff to, but that's because, well, the only defining point of an atheist is not believing in everyone else's gods. There's no clause about "loving one another" in atheism because it's without dogma.
Religion is, however, another way we divide one another, and, at least from my view point, it's a rather silly way to divide people and a silly thing to fight over. I mean, "My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend!" It's impossible to distinguish any one from being better than any other.
I don't state there is no god so much as I state that the particular god of the Bible is a bunch of hoey. Someone that steps in as often as he does not playing an active, primary role in today's world? Plus lots of other reasons, but that's a long topic.
And I'm not blaming religion for everything! I know atheists do bad stuff to, but that's because, well, the only defining point of an atheist is not believing in everyone else's gods. There's no clause about "loving one another" in atheism because it's without dogma.
Religion is, however, another way we divide one another, and, at least from my view point, it's a rather silly way to divide people and a silly thing to fight over. I mean, "My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend!" It's impossible to distinguish any one from being better than any other.
thank you for your post. i respect your opinion. however, i assert that me imaginary friend CAN actually beat up your imaginary friend, lol. j/k me God isnt imaginary. but w/e, right? you shared what you believe, i shared what i believe. im not insulted by what you said. and i hope that youre not offended by anything that i said. religion doesnt HAVE to be the divide that you think that it is. i have several friends that dont believe like i do. anyway, thank you again for sharing.
you cant/dont/w/e, it all means the same thing. you dont believe in creationism. why the nitpicking on each word? btw, creationism is not a "hypothetical theory" at all. you can think that all you want, but its not.
Can't and don't don't mean the same thing. You're putting words in my mouth again. Or typing stuff with my keyboard . The nitpicking is to try to tell you that things are not black/white, right/wrong, 100%/0%, yes/no. There are intermediates. Now here you are telling me my thinking is flawed and pointless and that you're completely right. That's your assumption about people who oppose creationist or biblical views. see this is your opinion of creationists. all creationists. this is you dismissing it like you accuse us of doing. the difference is i actually check all the links that evolutionists post. i dont skim it, i dont dismiss it. i check it without bias.
Don't type stuff like that when you say something completely different at the same time.
so you admit that its speculative? finally.
I've admitted the speculative nature of evolution and the Oort cloud (and almost all astronomy) in previous posts as well. I'll say it again. Based on empirical science =! empirical science.
you dont see me insulting you or your beliefs, unless you consider me defending me beliefs an insult.
I do see you insulting me constantly and having a similar "condescending attitude" as you believe all scientists who disagree with creationist views have. Also I think using your beliefs as a vessel of vulnerability for "insult" is rather illogical when it comes down to being constructive. honestly, if you cant have an adult convo without the veiled insults, then maybe were done here.
If you believe I'm being less mature than you, go ahead. You've been shoveling sentimentality and condescending laughter in my face from your first reply to my post(and yes I do agree my first post was inflammatory as well, but you could have turned the other cheek). I wouldn't mind this being the last time I need to type this stuff, though, it is getting rather ridiculous. this is a discussion. youre on one side of the debate and im on the other side.
If this is a discussion, how can this be a debate? I like to have constructive arguements where both sides exchange blows but compromise and come to a conclusion together. I don't like to think every thread on the internet is a debate. A debate is what you said. Two sides are set up and their point is to argue their view in the most convincing way. The aim of a debate is very competitive in nature.
oO and assumption is faith/belief.
A soccer ball is a bowling ball. An umbrella is a rain coat. Just because they follow similar functions doesn't mean they're one and the same.
and in the meantime we teach our children that its based solely on facts. so they grow up believing that evolution and the oort cloud is fact.
This is an outrageous assumption you make about the irresponsibility of the people that are accountable for education. As I have previously stated the majority of the people in the western world have been to school and still believe in your occult tales. The Oort cloud is not taught to children and evolution is just barely mentioned. You were hardly a child when evolution was mentioned to you, were you? You're adding sentimentality to the issue yet again: "OMG our children are being corrupted by E V O L U T I O N". Another example of the scandalous tactics used by creationists. (And yes I'm being rather sarcastic with the extent I'm using my lingo about creationism tactics) and just so i know, where in the "Holy book" does it say that the laws of physics and chemistry change? just so i know where youre getting that.
Every statement about miracles pretty much. Starting with creation, going on to people living for centuries(and being extremely inbred with no birth defects at least being mentioned), going on to a tower that reached the heavens, going on to a flaming bush and commandments being given by a man in the sky, going on to a whole lot of other occult stuff including a man allegedly being resurrected (not springing back to life*) after being crucified. There's a whole lot of paranormal things going on. This suggests the natural sciences would have been altered somehow or would not have existed. I know you believe this can happen but I don't, it's yet to be empirically proven or even to be plausibly based on empiricism.
*There was an interesting case of this happening in Finland just recently where a man began moving in a body bag after the medics had declared him dead. The medics here are well-trained, opposed to the medicine 2000 years ago
but when you make comments like that, it makes me think that you havent ever read the Bible.
I have been read the bible as a young child. I have attended religion classes and read and been read the bible. I have attended church and listened to sermons. Also I sense the sentimentality in "you haven't ever read the Bible". I sense your condescendence. And I pity you.
i dont agree, but this wasnt even me arguement. so ok, you believe what you believe, ill believe whats true, lol. j/k ill believe what i believe. Oo and lastly, no creature has been observed to have evolved.
Another example of you shoving off information based on your bias. No creature has been observed to have evolved in the way Lamarck's evolution describes(giraffes grow long necks and blood sponges). Darwin's theory (short-necked giraffes starve to death while a long neck bottleneck eventually becomes able to acquire nutrition from all parts of vegetation) has been proven to the adaptability extent, and scientists are trying to find out what happens when adaptability reaches it's limits and something else is needed for a species to survive (be it genetic evolution or the finger of an alien species or a deadly virus that kills 99% of the population and genetically alters the rest). Darwin never talked about a change in DNA, that is the assumption modern science has made concerning further adaptation of species. Darwin supposed species evolve by adaptation.
Also Darwin and Lamarck both based their theories on empirical fact. Lamarck on the fact that specialized biological organisms exist yet organisms have homologous anatomical structures and Darwin on that and the fact that different geographical distributions of fauna acquire different characteristics based on their environment. Both may have been very shaky assumptions at the time, but both have been reinforced by paleontology, geology, biology, physics, chemistry and even theology to some extent.
Just because you lent kaibigan your time, doesn't mean you completely lost your bias and became the pinnacle of open-mindedness(and by this I'm not saying I'm a pinnacle of open-mindedness either, unfortunately I consider myself rather close-minded at least regarding certain things). Another fallacy of logic on your part.
and youre welcome
/blush. You're saying this part of your posts wasn't inflammatory, unnecessary, and an insult to me directly? At least I started off bashing only hyperbolized creationist and religious viewpoints. Oh and also I was carrying on a going flamewar with Draenor I started when i'd gotten home drunk one night(and I do apologize Draenor, it was uncalled for, to also go on with it later was rather inconsiderate. But what can I do when you type something as controversial as empirical science = religion?). I wasn't insulting you personally PlanoMM, at least not before you started lolling and omging in my face and later on accusing me of dodging your arguements.
Originally posted by Babbuun Can't and don't don't mean the same thing. You're putting words in my mouth again. Or typing stuff with my keyboard . The nitpicking is to try to tell you that things are not black/white, right/wrong, 100%/0%, yes/no. There are intermediates. Now here you are telling me my thinking is flawed and pointless and that you're completely right. That's your assumption about people who oppose creationist or biblical views.
you dont believe it. thats the flipping point of the freagin post. stop twisting shyt around to make it sound like im the one thats twisting shyt. if you dont believe it, fine. but dont tell me that im a retard and stupid for believing it. thats insulting. and that is what you have been doing from the beginning. and ive talked extensively with people that dont believe like me. ask Kai. we still talk via pms. we resolved our issues several pages ago and now were actually friends. so dont presume to know what me assumptions about people who oppose me views are. im telling you that your views are flawed and pointless because youre using personal attacks on me character and not facts to prove your stuff. you should pm Kai and talk to him about this. i think that youll find that the problem with me and you, isnt me.
Don't type stuff like that when you say something completely different at the same time.
huh? now youre going to presume to tell me what i can and cannot type?
I've admitted the speculative nature of evolution and the Oort cloud (and almost all astronomy) in previous posts as well. I'll say it again. Based on empirical science =! empirical science.
yes, you admitted it. thats me point, if you dont get it, thats your problem. not mine.
I do see you insulting me constantly and having a similar "condescending attitude" as you believe all scientists who disagree with creationist views have. Also I think using your beliefs as a vessel of vulnerability for "insult" is rather illogical when it comes down to being constructive. you saw me defending meself from your bias beliefs that im a dumbass that only believes what i believe because im told to. you have been rude and condescending from the get-go. me loling and omging you is just the way i type. read some of me other posts in the EQII forums or Vanguard forums or the Pub and youll see that. and ive since then stopped doing that when i noticed that you were getting upset about it. (what a huge deal to get mad about). that was several pages ago. you have always been condescending in every one of your posts. and im not using me beliefs as a vessel of vulnerability, im using your condescending and insults for that. its called basic respect for others. you lack it, seriously.
If you believe I'm being less mature than you, go ahead. You've been shoveling sentimentality and condescending laughter in my face from your first reply to my post(and yes I do agree my first post was inflammatory as well, but you could have turned the other cheek). I wouldn't mind this being the last time I need to type this stuff, though, it is getting rather ridiculous. and you admit that your post was inflammatory, but i should have turned the other cheek? what a load. i may believe in God, but ive never claimed to be the pinnacle of Christ-like. if you would think before you post insults and flames, the rest of us wouldnt have to "turn the other cheek". btw, would you turn the other cheek? if so, prove it now, turn the other cheek. if you yourself are unwilling to do it, dont use it. this is getting ridiculous. at least with Kai, he was reasonable and respectful when i pointed out that he was being offensive. you just blow it off and accuse me of feigning vulnerability.
If this is a discussion, how can this be a debate? I like to have constructive arguements where both sides exchange blows but compromise and come to a conclusion together. I don't like to think every thread on the internet is a debate. A debate is what you said. Two sides are set up and their point is to argue their view in the most convincing way. The aim of a debate is very competitive in nature.
nitpicking. /sigh w/e. by the way, there is no reason that we have to come to a compromise. i never led you to believe that i was willing to compromise in any way. in fact, ive stated many times that im not going to compromise what i believe. im just here for the discussion, i love to discuss. i can do it without getting offensive, but since you cant. im done with this. ive been very respectful and forgiving up till now, but im done.
A soccer ball is a bowling ball. An umbrella is a rain coat. Just because they follow similar functions doesn't mean they're one and the same.
once again, totally irrelevant. and pigs eat speakers for the protein. and mice are the new chicken. does that apply to our current discussion?
This is an outrageous assumption you make about the irresponsibility of the people that are accountable for education. As I have previously stated the majority of the people in the western world have been to school and still believe in your occult tales. The Oort cloud is not taught to children and evolution is just barely mentioned. You were hardly a child when evolution was mentioned to you, were you? You're adding sentimentality to the issue yet again: "OMG our children are being corrupted by E V O L U T I O N". Another example of the scandalous tactics used by creationists. (And yes I'm being rather sarcastic with the extent I'm using my lingo about creationism tactics) a fact that is proven over and over. sorry you disagree, but i dont care. im not here to convert you. not me problem if you disagree. believe whatever you want, but you quoted a biology book, remember? and i would say that creationism is what was barely mentioned, it went into detail about evolution. and evolution was taught when i was in school. and it was taught as fact. in fact, i once almost got expelled from school for having an arguement with me 9th grade biology teacher about whether it is a fact or not. tell me again that evolution is barely taught. im not using "tactics". im using arguements. but then youre looking at the arguement through your ass, so it might be a bit cloudy. Oo and im not being sarcastic.
Every statement about miracles pretty much. Starting with creation, going on to people living for centuries(and being extremely inbred with no birth defects at least being mentioned), going on to a tower that reached the heavens, going on to a flaming bush and commandments being given by a man in the sky, going on to a whole lot of other occult stuff including a man allegedly being resurrected (not springing back to life*) after being crucified. There's a whole lot of paranormal things going on. This suggests the natural sciences would have been altered somehow or would not have existed. I know you believe this can happen but I don't, it's yet to be empirically proven or even to be plausibly based on empiricism.
*There was an interesting case of this happening in Finland just recently where a man began moving in a body bag after the medics had declared him dead. The medics here are well-trained, opposed to the medicine 2000 years ago
so supernatural now equates to superstition? those were supernatural events, of course theyre not going to work exactly like natural events. hence the "super" at the beginning. that proves nothing. i said show me where you see that the natural events in the Bible contradicted physics and chemistry.
I have been read the bible as a young child. I have attended religion classes and read and been read the bible. I have attended church and listened to sermons. Also I sense the sentimentality in "you haven't ever read the Bible". I sense your condescendence. And I pity you.
actually i said, that it makes me think that you have never even read the Bible. now whos putting words in whos mouth? and thank you for your pity. ill put it right next to the insults and condescendence that you have been spitting all over me during this arguement.
Another example of you shoving off information based on your bias. No creature has been observed to have evolved in the way Lamarck's evolution describes(giraffes grow long necks and blood sponges). Darwin's theory (short-necked giraffes starve to death while a long neck bottleneck eventually becomes able to acquire nutrition from all parts of vegetation) has been proven to the adaptability extent, and scientists are trying to find out what happens when adaptability reaches it's limits and something else is needed for a species to survive (be it genetic evolution or the finger of an alien species or a deadly virus that kills 99% of the population and genetically alters the rest). Darwin never talked about a change in DNA, that is the assumption modern science has made concerning further adaptation of species. Darwin supposed species evolve by adaptation. Darwin never talked about DNA. so your arguement is null and void. its still a fact that we have no tangible evidence and proof of evolution ever have happening. you cant argue with it.
Also Darwin and Lamarck both based their theories on empirical fact. Lamarck on the fact that specialized biological organisms exist yet organisms have homologous anatomical structures and Darwin on that and the fact that different geographical distributions of fauna acquire different characteristics based on their environment. Both may have been very shaky assumptions at the time, but both have been reinforced by paleontology, geology, biology, physics, chemistry and even theology to some extent. neither has been reinforced by anything except more speculation.
Just because you lent kaibigan your time, doesn't mean you completely lost your bias and became the pinnacle of open-mindedness(and by this I'm not saying I'm a pinnacle of open-mindedness either, unfortunately I consider myself rather close-minded at least regarding certain things). Another fallacy of logic on your part.
i never claimed to be the pinnacle of anything. pull shyt out of your ass much? and i never "lent" Kai anything. we shared our opinions about what we believed respectively. thats what an adult convo consists of. apparently, its too much for you to handle. and since youre admitting that your close-minded, how is that fallacy of logic on me part? i know youre close-minded. you prove it stronger and stronger in every post.
/blush. You're saying this part of your posts wasn't inflammatory, unnecessary, and an insult to me directly? At least I started off bashing only hyperbolized creationist and religious viewpoints. Oh and also I was carrying on a going flamewar with Draenor I started when i'd gotten home drunk one night(and I do apologize Draenor, it was uncalled for, to also go on with it later was rather inconsiderate. But what can I do when you type something as controversial as empirical science = religion?). I wasn't insulting you personally PlanoMM, at least not before you started lolling and omging in my face and later on accusing me of dodging your arguements.
inflammatory? no. unnecessary? maybe. insult? pluuuuueeeeaaaaassssseee. and you started off bashing Draenor, then you started in on me and all christians. btw, ive highlighted what you should have said. you shouldnt have to feel the need to bash any viewpoints. period. its rude and disrespectful. oO and empirical science = religion, is taken out of context. and you admit that you were drunk when you flamed him. hmmm.... and about the loling and omging you to your face.......im pretty sure im nowhere close to your face. and you did dodge the facts. not an accusation, its a fact.
in any case, im completely done with this pointless and stupidass arguement that i admit i helped carry on way too long. feel free to answer this. i wont be reading it, because im going to be the adult and walk away without having to have the last word. i know you wont be able to. just know that i dont care anymore, ive wasted entirely too much time and effort answering your insults and dumbass comments
i would suggest that we agree to disagree, but thats an impossibility with you. so, w/e. have fun with your creationism bashing.
PlanoMM. Ok first off. What I did with Draenor was not a flame war. I said I'd call him an outright liar for claiming to have heard everything from both "sides"(which he did claim to know about the evolution/creationism issue, something which was not shown in the posts he was making, at least). Here's the post:
Yes actually, I, unlike most people, was willing to hear everything that both sides had to say, and I did my own research...and I came up with my own conclusion, and for some reason, evolutionists aren't okay with that.
And if you notice he's also belittling and taunting me with the "unlike most people" comment. I could not refuse the temptation to call his words untrue. After our first conversation(the so-called flamewar) had died down, he went on to say this:
I think that Empirical science = religion. Think about it.
Now that is an outright lie. Draenor(or was it you?), I believe, said a lot of evolutionists get pissed off at you for defending your beliefs. Well saying things like this is going to make people pissed off. Also claiming altogether different words mean the exact same things will not get you a sensible reply.
Can't and don't are not the same thing. Don't refers to a choice, can't refers to not having a choice.
Assume =! Believe. Assumption =! Faith. The words are used in different context, they have different connotation. Believe and assume are somewhat synonymous. However closer to assume are suppose and presume. Believe comes close to meaning suppose when used in it's alternate meaning. The founding meaning of believe/belief and the one you constantly refer to, however means to accept as true or real.
ask Kai. we still talk via pms. we resolved our issues several pages ago and now were actually friends.
I have no need to. If he felt I was off-target, he'd post it here as well. You claimed I was hiding behind kaibigan, now you're doing the exact same thing.
I've admitted the speculative nature of evolution and the Oort cloud (and almost all astronomy) in previous posts as well. I'll say it again. Based on empirical science =! empirical science.
yes, you admitted it. thats me point, if you dont get it, thats your problem. not mine.
Why I said I admitted to those theories being speculative is because you said I didn't. Now you say I did and did before as well.
I do believe I've been quite civil here. All the things you claim I've said about you are just what you suppose is the agenda and connotation behind my statements. but dont tell me that im a retard and stupid for believing it. I have not called you stupid or a retard. The post with the different words = different words was just too easy to pick apart. Also the fact that you pay no heed to the nature of agnosticism is quite an easy target. I apologize for lacking respect for you when you have done nothing but show lack of respect. Thank you for telling me I'm a dodging laughable guy with no real opinions of his own and no basic respect. Those are assumptions you made. You laughed at me (not just the lolling) and accused me of dodging all your points on a very loose basis and now you said I lack basic respect.
I guess I was trying to trap you with the inflammatory nature thing since my posts were only just smoking . It was a slightly ironic remark and now on top of everything else, you've gone and labelled me as just a flaming forum troll.
i never led you to believe that i was willing to compromise in any way. in fact, ive stated many times that im not going to compromise what i believe. im just here for the discussion, i love to discuss.
If you don't plan to compromise what you believe, a discussion is quite one-sided.
in fact, i once almost got expelled from school for having an arguement with me 9th grade biology teacher about whether it is a fact or not. tell me again that evolution is barely taught.
Well why didn't you say this from the get-go? A teacher has no right to use his/her authority in the way you describe. I will agree with you that this teacher in question was a complete and utter dicknugget. He/she does not, however, represent the entire field of evolution(and I do not either because I'm an agnostic :P).
The biology book I was quoting I studied at the ages of 15-17. Hardly an age to not be able to put the "just a theory" thing into context. At the meantime finnish kids are getting their brains warped with hypothetic, theoretical, metaphorical stories from the bible from 2nd grade onwards. Is this the way you want the stuff to be handled?
I did bash creationist views, but have yet to be proven otherwise. All creationist things I've seen thus far have been sensational populistic hyperboles with no consistent base to build up from. You and Draenor also have accused me of not looking into the matter. Instead of saying "I know everything" I'll say this: I've looked into the matter far before these posts since the beggining of the debate years ago. The arguements of most creationists are just too contorted to represent any kind of logical consistency. The way I've attacked religion is by stating the obvious religious fallacies of knowledge: 1. It's far too convenient to believe anything that science can not fully explain today is paranormal. 2. Using your faith and belief as a vessel for vulnerability and insult makes it tough to argue with any religious person about science, something in which sentimentality is to be shoved aside. 3. A person who is not willing to compromise what he believes in cannot have a proper discussion. There might have been some other stuff but I forget.
All this being said. I surrender. There will be no more posts from me on this topic unless you go and post something blatantly untrue.
Originally posted by Tamalan How long does it take fossil fuels to form from their animal/vegetable sources?
Just a question for you all to consider regarding the creationist/young earth theory
The young earth story is a funny one because it has a giant loophole that can explain everything: God made it that way. God made the earth with giant resevoirs of fossil fuels that otherwise take eons to form. God made the earth with chasms that take millions of years for rivers to carve. God made the earth with fossils lying around of creatures never created. You can't argue with the young earth story because nothing is impossible when you have an omnipotent being involved.
Originally posted by Tamalan How long does it take fossil fuels to form from their animal/vegetable sources?
Just a question for you all to consider regarding the creationist/young earth theory
enjoy
Coal Deposits Within the Geological Time-scale
Coal can be found in almost all levels of the geological record from the Devonian to the Tertiary Period (see Table 1).1
The biggest coal deposits, however, occur in the Carboniferous Period, especially the upper portion thereof; hence the name (Latin carbo, coal). Depending on the degree of carbon concentration and coalification, one differentiates between lignite, bituminous coal and anthracite. The degree of coalification generally increases the further down in the rock record the coal layers are. In the Carboniferous Period one thus finds bituminous coal, and in exceptions where the layers were not so deeply buried, also sub-bituminous coal. Lignite is found predominantly in the Tertiary Period.
These different rank coals were formed within a period of 350 million years according to historical geology. A duration of 3040 million years is presupposed, for example, for the formation of the bituminous coal of the upper Carboniferous Period.
Does this coal contain the stored solar energy of millions of years?
PERIOD
ALLEGED AGE /Mya
Quaternary
01.8
Tertiary
1.865.0
Cretaceous
65.0142.0
Jurassic
142.0205.7
Triassic
205.7248.2
Permian
248.2290.0
Carboniferous
290.0354.0
Devonian
354.0417.0
Silurian
417.0443.0
Ordovician
443.0495.0
Cambrian
495.0545.0
Precambrian
>545.0
Table 1. Uniformitarian geological time-table with the time-scale of historical geology.
Global Resources of Crude Fossil Fuels
For raw materials, a difference is made between the guaranteed mineable reserves and the total of all estimated deposits (the resources)see Table 2.2 The estimated global resources of fossil fuels (which only 10% thereof are guaranteed mineable reserves!) are:
Efossil = 3.3 x 1023 J
How much energy is that?
Comparison of Fossil Energy with Daily Solar Radiation
The Earth receives solar energy from the Sun of
Esolar =SorR2 p x 1 day
=1.37 x 103W/m2 (6.37 x 106m)2 p
x 24 x 3600 sec
=1.5 x 1022 J per day
where
So =solar constant,
and
rR =average Earths radius
Thus
Efossil/Esolar = 3.3 x 1023 J/1.51 x 1022J
= approx. 22
That is, during every 22 days the Earth receives solar radiation energy which corresponds to the energy in all the fossil fuel resources.
This fossil fuel corresponds to what area of forest?
ENERGY CARRIER
RESOURCES
ENERGY PRODUCED/1023J
bituminous and sub bituminous coal
9.8 x 1012 tonnes
2.2
lignite
2.3 x 1012 tonnes
0.25
oil shale
0.4
pitchstone
0.15
natural oil
3.4 x 1014 m3
0.13
crude oil
2.7 x 1011 tonnes
0.12
heavy oil
0.1
peat
2.0 x 1011 tonnes
0.015
TOTAL
3.3
Table 2.Global resources of fossil fuel raw materials (from Ref. 2).
Comparison Between Fossil Fuels and the Energy Content of a Global Forest
Today, a useful forest in Germany has a maximum of 300 solid cubic metres of wood per hectare.3 A forest area 100 years old already has up to 1,000 solid cubic metres of wood per hectare (see Table 3). Primeval forests may have yielded even more.
The General Sherman Tree in the Sequoia National Park north of Los Angeles is the biggest tree in the world. It is 83.8 m tall, has a circumference of 31.3 m, and is said to be 2,500 years old. A single such tree would easily yield 2,000 solid cubic metres of wood.
Now the majority of scientists claim that crude oil and natural gas originated primarily from sea plankton. Thus only the coal portion of the total energy in the fossil fuels, or 2.4 x 1023 J, stems from forests.
If one assumes that the primeval forests yielded 600 solid cubic metres of wood per hectare, with an average heating value of 1010 J/m3, this energy mass of coal would correspond to a forest area of
2.4 x 1023J/(1010J/m3 x 600m3/ha)
= 3.6 x 1010 ha
which is approximately 2.5 times the surface area of the present continents (which together equal 29% of the Earths 511 million km2 total surface area).
Primeval forests of modern species would have needed to cover 2.5 times the present continental surfaces prior to the Flood in order to provide the energy amounts in all the coal resources.
How long would it take to produce the fossil fuels from present forests?
TYPE OF WOOD
CUBIC METRE PER HECTARE
Pine
300400
Beech
600
Spruce
600800
Sequoia
1000
Table 3. Solid cubic metre wood of different woods at 100 years of age.
Comparison of Fossil Fuels with the Global Growth Rates of Forests
The annual growth rate of a forest lies between 0.9 (needle wood) and 3.5 (rain forest) tonnes per hectare. For present forests of 2.5 x 109 hectares (in the last five years 85 million hectares were deforested!), which corresponds to 17% of the surface area of the continents, the annual growth amounts to 4.4 x 109 tonnes of dry substance per year. If one takes deciduous and needle forests into consideration, one would arrive at 7.1 x 109 cubic metres of wood per year. For an average heating value of 1010 J/m3, this corresponds to a global annual energy growth of 8 x 1019 J.
At the present global growth rates, the fuel energy in all coal could thus have been stored within 2.4 x 1023J/7.8 x 1019J or approximately 3,000 years. This fossil fuel could thus have been stored easily in 3,000 years at the present global growth rates.
Bituminous and Sub-Bituminous Coal in the Creation Model
The Evolutionary/Uniformitarian Scenario
Approximately 65% of the fossil fuels are bituminous coal (including approximately 7% sub-bituminous coal). Bituminous coal is found in all geological systems, but predominantly in the Carboniferous and Permian Periods (see Table 1). It has been deposited primarily in the form of seams, which may extend over hundreds of square kilometres. Imprints of the original vegetation often remain in the bituminous coal. 200300 seams lie in the north-western coal reserves of Germany, assigned to the Carboniferous Period and distributed through up to 4,000 m of thick sedimentary beds stacked on top of one another. The seams are separated from one another by layers of sediments (for example, sandstone, limestone, shale). According to the evolutionary/uniformitarian model these seams were supposedly formed as a result of repeated transgressions and regressions of the seas of those days (periodic flooding) over coastal swamp forests in the course of a total of approximately 3040 million years.4,5
Catastrophic Formation of Carboniferous Coals?
This evolutionary/uniformitarian hypothesis has been questioned. The structure of the intermediate sedimentary layers clearly indicates their formation due to a catastrophe; the so-called root horizons are not fossil soils with roots in them suitable for the growth of the Carboniferous plants;6 and the anatomy of the vegetation of the Carboniferous Period (Lepidodendron and Sigillaria) indicates floating plants.7,8,9 Based on this data, Scheven postulated that the Carboniferous vegetation had the characteristics of a floating forest, an alternative to swamp forests10 (see the article Forests that grew on water and drawing (right) of Dr Schevens proposal11.
Schevens Flood model within the creationist framework for Earth history presupposes that the floating forests of the so-called Carboniferous Period, as a habitat of pre-Flood ecosystems, were buried either during or shortly after the year of the Flood. According to this model, they grew prior to the catastrophe of the Flood and were then broken up and deposited on top of one another during the Flood. Subsequent to burial the layers of forest debris subsided to great depths, where they were subjected to pressure conditions which led to a rapid formation of coal.12
Too Much Coal in Too Short a Period?
This depiction of coal formation within the creationist framework for Earth history suggests that at least the biomass of the plants which are present today as bituminous coal, but probably more than this, was present on the Earth prior to the Flood. Since floating forests could not grow in the way they are found buried today as coal seams (namely, stacked on top of one another), they had to live on the water surface next to each other prior to the Flood. Is this at all possible given the size of the Earth? Earlier, it was shown that even if forests of present-day structure were to cover the entire surfaces of todays continents, they would yield only approximately 40% of the estimated coal portion of the fossil fuels.
A short, very rough estimate can give us an answer. In order to do so, we presuppose the following:
We assume that the coals stemming from the Carboniferous and Permian Periods originated entirely from floating forests.
Bituminous coal is found in seams of varying thicknesses. We assume an average thickness of 50 cm (this is probably a conservative estimate).
Bituminous and sub-bituminous coals vary in composition and density. We assume an average density of 1.8 g/cm3.
We assume a total amount of bituminous and sub-bituminous coals of 1013 tonnes (see Table 2).
The assumed density of the coal yields a surface mass of approximately l.0 tonnes per square metre of coal seam if the seam thickness is 0.5 m. A total mass of 1.0 x 1013 tonnes thus yields a surface of approximately 1013 m2 or 10 x 106 km2. For a total Earths surface of 511x106 km2, this yields a fraction of approximately 2% of the Earths surface. This figure is probably too low, since one cannot assume that all the floating forests were fossilised; and also, some of the vegetation destroyed by the Flood would probably have been destroyed by the natural processes of decay.
Lignite in the Creation Model
Lignites, like bituminous coals, can be found at various levels in the geological record, but occurs predominantly in the Tertiary Period. However, lignites were formed from very different plants to those in the bituminous coals, the vegetation responsible more or less corresponding to today's angiosperms and gymnosperms.
Just as the formation of bituminous coal seams is viewed as the result of swamp growth over millennia, so also is the origin of lignite. A study of the actual structure of the Tertiary lignites, however, indicates that here, too, their formation is due to a catastrophe.13 Schevens premise is that the Tertiary lignite deposits consist partially of pre-Flood plants, but that they were only deposited a century or more after the year of the Flood (in particular old-Tertiary lignites with sub-tropical flora). Prior to their final deposition and burial, they are presumed to have drifted on the post-Flood oceans as 'inhabited depots'. On the other hand, new forests may have grown in the centuries following the Flood within the framework of mega-successions (successive recolonisation of the land surfaces and ocean bottoms), which were then uprooted, crushed and buried by later catastrophes.14
According to the calculations above, there would have been enough space on the Earths surface during the pre-Flood period for some of the vegetation in todays lignite deposits to have grown. But would there have been sufficient surface area available on the pre-Flood Earth for all the necessary vegetation?
Given the following parameters, we can estimate the answer:
The total amount of lignite amounts to approximately 2.5 x 1012 tonnes (see Table 2).
The lignite originated from pre-Flood forests with a biomass of approximately 40,000 tonnes of dry wood per km2 (for example, 600 solid cubic metres per hectare, see Table 3).
The pre-Flood forests thus covered a surface area of at least 60 x 106 km2 (2.5 x 1012 tonnes divided by 40,000 tonnes per km2), that is, approximately 40% of todays continents. This estimate seems low, however, since one can hardly assume that this entire mass of plants was fossilised during the Flood. On the other hand, it is also possible that an unknown portion of Tertiary lignites was formed during post-Flood mega-successions,15 the vegetation thus being buried by catastrophes subsequent to the Flood.
Conclusions
If the productivity of todays forests is used as the basis for calculations, then the stored energy of some thousands of years of plant growth is found in fossil fuels. The mineable reserves, which amount to only 10% of the resources, contain the solar energy that could be stored by todays forests in some hundreds of years. This shows the significance of solar energy and its contribution to the forests of the Earth. These estimates show that the Flood model may not be sufficient to account for the fossil fuels if they all originated in forests similar to those of modern times.
If, however, Schevens model of Carboniferous floating forests is applied, the following estimates of pre-Flood biomass result:
Bituminous and sub-bituminous coals could have originated from the floating forests which might have covered 2% of the pre-Flood surface of the Earth.
Lignites from predominantly pre-Flood(?) vegetation represent a biomass which could have existed on approximately 40% of current continental surfaces.
In spite of many unsettled details, the existence of approximately 1.3 x 1013 tonnes of carbon in the form of coal may be reconciled with a Flood as documented in the Bible and an age of the Earth of more or less 6,000 to 10,000 years.
The formation of crude oil still needs to be modelled quantitatively in a creation/Flood framework.
It should be mentioned that the bulk of reduced carbon on Earth is sediment-bound kerogen, which, due to its 13C/12C ratio, most probably is of biological origin. It is estimated that 1022 g kerogen exist in sediments, only 2% of which is coal plus oil plus gas. The origin of this kerogen also needs to be discussed in a creation/Flood model.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I think that Empirical science = religion. Think about it.
Now that is an outright lie. Draenor(or was it you?), I believe, said a lot of evolutionists get pissed off at you for defending your beliefs. Well saying things like this is going to make people pissed off. Also claiming altogether different words mean the exact same things will not get you a sensible reply.
I said it, I stand by it, I do not take it back. If it pisses you off then you should learn more about the psuedo science in which you are putting your faith...the fact that you take God out of the equation does not mean that your beliefs stop short of being religion.
religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by PlanoMMthank you for your post. i respect your opinion. however, i assert that me imaginary friend CAN actually beat up your imaginary friend, lol. j/k me God isnt imaginary. but w/e, right? you shared what you believe, i shared what i believe. im not insulted by what you said. and i hope that youre not offended by anything that i said. religion doesnt HAVE to be the divide that you think that it is. i have several friends that dont believe like i do. anyway, thank you again for sharing.
In another thread, someone kept posting a video Google link to The God Delusion. That video pointed out people of moderate faith serve as a backbone for extremists. That is, extremists alone might have some doubt about their beliefs, but if they're surrounded by thousands of people that share the same basic beliefs as themselves, it's much easier to erase that doubt and go on to execute whatever deeds with the belief they are doing the greast good.
Without religion, good people will be good. Bad people would be bad. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.
Also, some people might use not worshipping the same god as an excuse to be exclusionary.
Without religion, good people will be good. Bad people would be bad. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.
see this is something that I disagree with.
Good people doing bad things...how generic is that? You can be a good person and "do bad things" it's called origional sin.
But if you mean the real bad things, well let's use the crusades because that's what so many people like to use...that wasn't good people doing bad things...it was bad people doing bad things and using religion as a scape goat. religion doesn't drive people to be bad, human nature drives people to be bad, and religion is an unfrotunate but often used excuse.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I think it's all abut comparison... I do not believe in religion stuff, but I do believe in some more real stuff like zodiac sign articles and predictions, based on the stars movements and astrology. I also like to read gemini and cancer articles, because my mother and father have those zodiac signs, and they do believe in the predictions I tell them.
Comments
I mean, Christians think that these other people are going to hell and lash out or whatever, but if we all got along, we might not even need heaven because Earth would be a nice place to be too.
the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. im no fool. btw, religion is not the driving force behind hate. human nature is. athiests lead violent protests too. athiests kill and rob people too. to say that its all religion based is foolish, IMO. i do however, agree that if we all took a step back and gave this life more credit and lived it like its the only one we get and loved everyone and respected everyone, it would be a great place.
I don't state there is no god so much as I state that the particular god of the Bible is a bunch of hoey. Someone that steps in as often as he does not playing an active, primary role in today's world? Plus lots of other reasons, but that's a long topic.
And I'm not blaming religion for everything! I know atheists do bad stuff to, but that's because, well, the only defining point of an atheist is not believing in everyone else's gods. There's no clause about "loving one another" in atheism because it's without dogma.
Religion is, however, another way we divide one another, and, at least from my view point, it's a rather silly way to divide people and a silly thing to fight over. I mean, "My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend!" It's impossible to distinguish any one from being better than any other.
I don't state there is no god so much as I state that the particular god of the Bible is a bunch of hoey. Someone that steps in as often as he does not playing an active, primary role in today's world? Plus lots of other reasons, but that's a long topic.
And I'm not blaming religion for everything! I know atheists do bad stuff to, but that's because, well, the only defining point of an atheist is not believing in everyone else's gods. There's no clause about "loving one another" in atheism because it's without dogma.
Religion is, however, another way we divide one another, and, at least from my view point, it's a rather silly way to divide people and a silly thing to fight over. I mean, "My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend!" It's impossible to distinguish any one from being better than any other.
thank you for your post. i respect your opinion. however, i assert that me imaginary friend CAN actually beat up your imaginary friend, lol. j/k me God isnt imaginary. but w/e, right? you shared what you believe, i shared what i believe. im not insulted by what you said. and i hope that youre not offended by anything that i said. religion doesnt HAVE to be the divide that you think that it is. i have several friends that dont believe like i do. anyway, thank you again for sharing.
______________________________
it all means the same thing. you dont believe in creationism. why the
nitpicking on each word? btw, creationism is not a "hypothetical
theory" at all. you can think that all you want, but its not.
Can't and don't don't mean the same thing. You're putting words in my mouth again. Or typing stuff with my keyboard
see
this is your opinion of creationists. all creationists. this is you
dismissing it like you accuse us of doing. the difference is i
actually check all the links that evolutionists post. i dont skim it,
i dont dismiss it. i check it without bias.
Don't type stuff like that when you say something completely different at the same time.
so you admit that its speculative? finally.
I've admitted the speculative nature of evolution and the Oort cloud (and almost all astronomy) in previous posts as well. I'll say it again. Based on empirical science =! empirical science.
you dont see me insulting you or your beliefs, unless you consider me defending me beliefs an insult.
I do see you insulting me constantly and having a similar "condescending attitude" as you believe all scientists who disagree with creationist views have. Also I think using your beliefs as a vessel of vulnerability for "insult" is rather illogical when it comes down to being constructive.
honestly, if you cant have an adult convo without the veiled insults, then maybe were done here.
If you believe I'm being less mature than you, go ahead. You've been shoveling sentimentality and condescending laughter in my face from your first reply to my post(and yes I do agree my first post was inflammatory as well, but you could have turned the other cheek). I wouldn't mind this being the last time I need to type this stuff, though, it is getting rather ridiculous.
this is a discussion. youre on one side of the debate and im on the other side.
If this is a discussion, how can this be a debate? I like to have constructive arguements where both sides exchange blows but compromise and come to a conclusion together. I don't like to think every thread on the internet is a debate. A debate is what you said. Two sides are set up and their point is to argue their view in the most convincing way. The aim of a debate is very competitive in nature.
oO and assumption is faith/belief.
A soccer ball is a bowling ball. An umbrella is a rain coat. Just because they follow similar functions doesn't mean they're one and the same.
and
in the meantime we teach our children that its based solely on facts.
so they grow up believing that evolution and the oort cloud is fact.
This is an outrageous assumption you make about the irresponsibility of the people that are accountable for education. As I have previously stated the majority of the people in the western world have been to school and still believe in your occult tales. The Oort cloud is not taught to children and evolution is just barely mentioned. You were hardly a child when evolution was mentioned to you, were you? You're adding sentimentality to the issue yet again: "OMG our children are being corrupted by E V O L U T I O N". Another example of the scandalous tactics used by creationists. (And yes I'm being rather sarcastic with the extent I'm using my lingo about creationism tactics)
and just so i
know, where in the "Holy book" does it say that the laws of physics and
chemistry change? just so i know where youre getting that.
Every statement about miracles pretty much. Starting with creation, going on to people living for centuries(and being extremely inbred with no birth defects at least being mentioned), going on to a tower that reached the heavens, going on to a flaming bush and commandments being given by a man in the sky, going on to a whole lot of other occult stuff including a man allegedly being resurrected (not springing back to life*) after being crucified. There's a whole lot of paranormal things going on. This suggests the natural sciences would have been altered somehow or would not have existed. I know you believe this can happen but I don't, it's yet to be empirically proven or even to be plausibly based on empiricism.
*There was an interesting case of this happening in Finland just recently where a man began moving in a body bag after the medics had declared him dead. The medics here are well-trained, opposed to the medicine 2000 years ago
but when you make comments like that, it makes me think that you havent ever read the Bible.
I have been read the bible as a young child. I have attended religion classes and read and been read the bible. I have attended church and listened to sermons. Also I sense the sentimentality in "you haven't ever read the Bible". I sense your condescendence. And I pity you
i
dont agree, but this wasnt even me arguement. so ok, you believe what
you believe, ill believe whats true, lol. j/k ill believe what i
believe. Oo and lastly, no creature has been observed to have evolved.
Another example of you shoving off information based on your bias. No creature has been observed to have evolved in the way Lamarck's evolution describes(giraffes grow long necks and blood sponges). Darwin's theory (short-necked giraffes starve to death while a long neck bottleneck eventually becomes able to acquire nutrition from all parts of vegetation) has been proven to the adaptability extent, and scientists are trying to find out what happens when adaptability reaches it's limits and something else is needed for a species to survive (be it genetic evolution or the finger of an alien species or a deadly virus that kills 99% of the population and genetically alters the rest). Darwin never talked about a change in DNA, that is the assumption modern science has made concerning further adaptation of species. Darwin supposed species evolve by adaptation.
Also Darwin and Lamarck both based their theories on empirical fact. Lamarck on the fact that specialized biological organisms exist yet organisms have homologous anatomical structures and Darwin on that and the fact that different geographical distributions of fauna acquire different characteristics based on their environment. Both may have been very shaky assumptions at the time, but both have been reinforced by paleontology, geology, biology, physics, chemistry and even theology to some extent.
Just because you lent kaibigan your time, doesn't mean you completely lost your bias and became the pinnacle of open-mindedness(and by this I'm not saying I'm a pinnacle of open-mindedness either, unfortunately I consider myself rather close-minded at least regarding certain things). Another fallacy of logic on your part.
and youre welcome
/blush. You're saying this part of your posts wasn't inflammatory, unnecessary, and an insult to me directly? At least I started off bashing only hyperbolized creationist and religious viewpoints. Oh and also I was carrying on a going flamewar with Draenor I started when i'd gotten home drunk one night(and I do apologize Draenor, it was uncalled for, to also go on with it later was rather inconsiderate. But what can I do when you type something as controversial as empirical science = religion?). I wasn't insulting you personally PlanoMM, at least not before you started lolling and omging in my face and later on accusing me of dodging your arguements.
______________________________
Just a question for you all to consider regarding the creationist/young earth theory
Yes actually, I, unlike most people, was willing to hear everything that both sides had to say, and I did my own research...and I came up with my own conclusion, and for some reason, evolutionists aren't okay with that.
And if you notice he's also belittling and taunting me with the "unlike most people" comment. I could not refuse the temptation to call his words untrue. After our first conversation(the so-called flamewar) had died down, he went on to say this:
I think that Empirical science = religion. Think about it.
Now that is an outright lie. Draenor(or was it you?), I believe, said a lot of evolutionists get pissed off at you for defending your beliefs. Well saying things like this is going to make people pissed off. Also claiming altogether different words mean the exact same things will not get you a sensible reply.
Can't and don't are not the same thing. Don't refers to a choice, can't refers to not having a choice.
Assume =! Believe. Assumption =! Faith. The words are used in different context, they have different connotation. Believe and assume are somewhat synonymous. However closer to assume are suppose and presume. Believe comes close to meaning suppose when used in it's alternate meaning. The founding meaning of believe/belief and the one you constantly refer to, however means to accept as true or real.
ask Kai. we still talk via pms. we resolved our issues several pages ago and now were actually friends.
I have no need to. If he felt I was off-target, he'd post it here as well. You claimed I was hiding behind kaibigan, now you're doing the exact same thing.
I've admitted the speculative nature of evolution and the Oort cloud (and almost all astronomy) in previous posts as well. I'll say it again. Based on empirical science =! empirical science.
yes, you admitted it. thats me point, if you dont get it, thats your problem. not mine.
Why I said I admitted to those theories being speculative is because you said I didn't. Now you say I did and did before as well.
I do believe I've been quite civil here. All the things you claim I've said about you are just what you suppose is the agenda and connotation behind my statements. but dont tell me that im a retard and stupid for believing it. I have not called you stupid or a retard. The post with the different words = different words was just too easy to pick apart. Also the fact that you pay no heed to the nature of agnosticism is quite an easy target. I apologize for lacking respect for you when you have done nothing but show lack of respect. Thank you for telling me I'm a dodging laughable guy with no real opinions of his own and no basic respect. Those are assumptions you made. You laughed at me (not just the lolling) and accused me of dodging all your points on a very loose basis and now you said I lack basic respect.
I guess I was trying to trap you with the inflammatory nature thing since my posts were only just smoking
i never led you to believe that i was willing to compromise in any way. in fact, ive stated many times that im not going to compromise what i believe. im just here for the discussion, i love to discuss.
If you don't plan to compromise what you believe, a discussion is quite one-sided.
in fact, i once almost got expelled from school for having an arguement with me 9th grade biology teacher about whether it is a fact or not. tell me again that evolution is barely taught.
Well why didn't you say this from the get-go? A teacher has no right to use his/her authority in the way you describe. I will agree with you that this teacher in question was a complete and utter dicknugget. He/she does not, however, represent the entire field of evolution(and I do not either because I'm an agnostic :P).
The biology book I was quoting I studied at the ages of 15-17. Hardly an age to not be able to put the "just a theory" thing into context. At the meantime finnish kids are getting their brains warped with hypothetic, theoretical, metaphorical stories from the bible from 2nd grade onwards. Is this the way you want the stuff to be handled?
I did bash creationist views, but have yet to be proven otherwise. All creationist things I've seen thus far have been sensational populistic hyperboles with no consistent base to build up from. You and Draenor also have accused me of not looking into the matter. Instead of saying "I know everything" I'll say this: I've looked into the matter far before these posts since the beggining of the debate years ago. The arguements of most creationists are just too contorted to represent any kind of logical consistency. The way I've attacked religion is by stating the obvious religious fallacies of knowledge: 1. It's far too convenient to believe anything that science can not fully explain today is paranormal. 2. Using your faith and belief as a vessel for vulnerability and insult makes it tough to argue with any religious person about science, something in which sentimentality is to be shoved aside. 3. A person who is not willing to compromise what he believes in cannot have a proper discussion.
There might have been some other stuff but I forget.
All this being said. I surrender. There will be no more posts from me on this topic unless you go and post something blatantly untrue.
The young earth story is a funny one because it has a giant loophole that can explain everything: God made it that way. God made the earth with giant resevoirs of fossil fuels that otherwise take eons to form. God made the earth with chasms that take millions of years for rivers to carve. God made the earth with fossils lying around of creatures never created. You can't argue with the young earth story because nothing is impossible when you have an omnipotent being involved.
enjoy
Coal Deposits Within the Geological Time-scale
Coal can be found in almost all levels of the geological record from the Devonian to the Tertiary Period (see Table 1).1
The biggest coal deposits, however, occur in the Carboniferous Period, especially the upper portion thereof; hence the name (Latin carbo, coal). Depending on the degree of carbon concentration and coalification, one differentiates between lignite, bituminous coal and anthracite. The degree of coalification generally increases the further down in the rock record the coal layers are. In the Carboniferous Period one thus finds bituminous coal, and in exceptions where the layers were not so deeply buried, also sub-bituminous coal. Lignite is found predominantly in the Tertiary Period.
These different rank coals were formed within a period of 350 million years according to historical geology. A duration of 3040 million years is presupposed, for example, for the formation of the bituminous coal of the upper Carboniferous Period.
Does this coal contain the stored solar energy of millions of years?
PERIOD
ALLEGED AGE /Mya
Quaternary
01.8
Tertiary
1.865.0
Cretaceous
65.0142.0
Jurassic
142.0205.7
Triassic
205.7248.2
Permian
248.2290.0
Carboniferous
290.0354.0
Devonian
354.0417.0
Silurian
417.0443.0
Ordovician
443.0495.0
Cambrian
495.0545.0
Precambrian
>545.0
Table 1. Uniformitarian geological time-table with the time-scale of historical geology.
Global Resources of Crude Fossil Fuels
For raw materials, a difference is made between the guaranteed mineable reserves and the total of all estimated deposits (the resources)see Table 2.2 The estimated global resources of fossil fuels (which only 10% thereof are guaranteed mineable reserves!) are:
Efossil = 3.3 x 1023 J
How much energy is that?
Comparison of Fossil Energy with Daily Solar Radiation
The Earth receives solar energy from the Sun of
Esolar =SorR2 p x 1 day
=1.37 x 103W/m2 (6.37 x 106m)2 p
x 24 x 3600 sec
=1.5 x 1022 J per day
where
So =solar constant,
and
rR =average Earths radius
Thus
Efossil/Esolar = 3.3 x 1023 J/1.51 x 1022 J
= approx. 22
That is, during every 22 days the Earth receives solar radiation energy which corresponds to the energy in all the fossil fuel resources.
This fossil fuel corresponds to what area of forest?
ENERGY CARRIER
RESOURCES
ENERGY PRODUCED/1023J
bituminous and sub bituminous coal
9.8 x 1012 tonnes
2.2
lignite
2.3 x 1012 tonnes
0.25
oil shale
0.4
pitchstone
0.15
natural oil
3.4 x 1014 m3
0.13
crude oil
2.7 x 1011 tonnes
0.12
heavy oil
0.1
peat
2.0 x 1011 tonnes
0.015
TOTAL
3.3
Table 2.Global resources of fossil fuel raw materials (from Ref. 2).
Comparison Between Fossil Fuels and the Energy Content of a Global Forest
Today, a useful forest in Germany has a maximum of 300 solid cubic metres of wood per hectare. 3 A forest area 100 years old already has up to 1,000 solid cubic metres of wood per hectare (see Table 3). Primeval forests may have yielded even more.
The General Sherman Tree in the Sequoia National Park north of Los Angeles is the biggest tree in the world. It is 83.8 m tall, has a circumference of 31.3 m, and is said to be 2,500 years old. A single such tree would easily yield 2,000 solid cubic metres of wood.
Now the majority of scientists claim that crude oil and natural gas originated primarily from sea plankton. Thus only the coal portion of the total energy in the fossil fuels, or 2.4 x 1023 J, stems from forests.
If one assumes that the primeval forests yielded 600 solid cubic metres of wood per hectare, with an average heating value of 1010 J/m3, this energy mass of coal would correspond to a forest area of
2.4 x 1023J/(1010J/m3 x 600m3/ha)
= 3.6 x 1010 ha
which is approximately 2.5 times the surface area of the present continents (which together equal 29% of the Earths 511 million km2 total surface area).
Primeval forests of modern species would have needed to cover 2.5 times the present continental surfaces prior to the Flood in order to provide the energy amounts in all the coal resources.
How long would it take to produce the fossil fuels from present forests?
TYPE OF WOOD
CUBIC METRE PER HECTARE
Pine
300400
Beech
600
Spruce
600800
Sequoia
1000
Table 3. Solid cubic metre wood of different woods at 100 years of age.
Comparison of Fossil Fuels with the Global Growth Rates of Forests
The annual growth rate of a forest lies between 0.9 (needle wood) and 3.5 (rain forest) tonnes per hectare. For present forests of 2.5 x 109 hectares (in the last five years 85 million hectares were deforested!), which corresponds to 17% of the surface area of the continents, the annual growth amounts to 4.4 x 109 tonnes of dry substance per year. If one takes deciduous and needle forests into consideration, one would arrive at 7.1 x 109 cubic metres of wood per year. For an average heating value of 1010 J/m3, this corresponds to a global annual energy growth of 8 x 1019 J.
At the present global growth rates, the fuel energy in all coal could thus have been stored within 2.4 x 1023J/7.8 x 1019J or approximately 3,000 years. This fossil fuel could thus have been stored easily in 3,000 years at the present global growth rates.
Bituminous and Sub-Bituminous Coal in the Creation Model
The Evolutionary/Uniformitarian Scenario
Approximately 65% of the fossil fuels are bituminous coal (including approximately 7% sub-bituminous coal). Bituminous coal is found in all geological systems, but predominantly in the Carboniferous and Permian Periods (see Table 1). It has been deposited primarily in the form of seams, which may extend over hundreds of square kilometres. Imprints of the original vegetation often remain in the bituminous coal. 200300 seams lie in the north-western coal reserves of Germany, assigned to the Carboniferous Period and distributed through up to 4,000 m of thick sedimentary beds stacked on top of one another. The seams are separated from one another by layers of sediments (for example, sandstone, limestone, shale). According to the evolutionary/uniformitarian model these seams were supposedly formed as a result of repeated transgressions and regressions of the seas of those days (periodic flooding) over coastal swamp forests in the course of a total of approximately 3040 million years.4,5
This evolutionary/uniformitarian hypothesis has been questioned. The structure of the intermediate sedimentary layers clearly indicates their formation due to a catastrophe; the so-called root horizons are not fossil soils with roots in them suitable for the growth of the Carboniferous plants;6 and the anatomy of the vegetation of the Carboniferous Period (Lepidodendron and Sigillaria) indicates floating plants.7,8,9 Based on this data, Scheven postulated that the Carboniferous vegetation had the characteristics of a floating forest, an alternative to swamp forests10 (see the article Forests that grew on water and drawing (right) of Dr Schevens proposal 11.
Schevens Flood model within the creationist framework for Earth history presupposes that the floating forests of the so-called Carboniferous Period, as a habitat of pre-Flood ecosystems, were buried either during or shortly after the year of the Flood. According to this model, they grew prior to the catastrophe of the Flood and were then broken up and deposited on top of one another during the Flood. Subsequent to burial the layers of forest debris subsided to great depths, where they were subjected to pressure conditions which led to a rapid formation of coal.12
Too Much Coal in Too Short a Period?
This depiction of coal formation within the creationist framework for Earth history suggests that at least the biomass of the plants which are present today as bituminous coal, but probably more than this, was present on the Earth prior to the Flood. Since floating forests could not grow in the way they are found buried today as coal seams (namely, stacked on top of one another), they had to live on the water surface next to each other prior to the Flood. Is this at all possible given the size of the Earth? Earlier, it was shown that even if forests of present-day structure were to cover the entire surfaces of todays continents, they would yield only approximately 40% of the estimated coal portion of the fossil fuels.
A short, very rough estimate can give us an answer. In order to do so, we presuppose the following:
The assumed density of the coal yields a surface mass of approximately l.0 tonnes per square metre of coal seam if the seam thickness is 0.5 m. A total mass of 1.0 x 1013 tonnes thus yields a surface of approximately 1013 m2 or 10 x 106 km2. For a total Earths surface of 511x106 km2, this yields a fraction of approximately 2% of the Earths surface. This figure is probably too low, since one cannot assume that all the floating forests were fossilised; and also, some of the vegetation destroyed by the Flood would probably have been destroyed by the natural processes of decay.
Lignite in the Creation Model
Lignites, like bituminous coals, can be found at various levels in the geological record, but occurs predominantly in the Tertiary Period. However, lignites were formed from very different plants to those in the bituminous coals, the vegetation responsible more or less corresponding to today's angiosperms and gymnosperms.
Just as the formation of bituminous coal seams is viewed as the result of swamp growth over millennia, so also is the origin of lignite. A study of the actual structure of the Tertiary lignites, however, indicates that here, too, their formation is due to a catastrophe.13 Schevens premise is that the Tertiary lignite deposits consist partially of pre-Flood plants, but that they were only deposited a century or more after the year of the Flood (in particular old-Tertiary lignites with sub-tropical flora). Prior to their final deposition and burial, they are presumed to have drifted on the post-Flood oceans as 'inhabited depots'. On the other hand, new forests may have grown in the centuries following the Flood within the framework of mega-successions (successive recolonisation of the land surfaces and ocean bottoms), which were then uprooted, crushed and buried by later catastrophes.14
According to the calculations above, there would have been enough space on the Earths surface during the pre-Flood period for some of the vegetation in todays lignite deposits to have grown. But would there have been sufficient surface area available on the pre-Flood Earth for all the necessary vegetation?
Given the following parameters, we can estimate the answer:
The pre-Flood forests thus covered a surface area of at least 60 x 106 km2 (2.5 x 1012 tonnes divided by 40,000 tonnes per km2), that is, approximately 40% of todays continents. This estimate seems low, however, since one can hardly assume that this entire mass of plants was fossilised during the Flood. On the other hand, it is also possible that an unknown portion of Tertiary lignites was formed during post-Flood mega-successions,15 the vegetation thus being buried by catastrophes subsequent to the Flood.
Conclusions
If the productivity of todays forests is used as the basis for calculations, then the stored energy of some thousands of years of plant growth is found in fossil fuels. The mineable reserves, which amount to only 10% of the resources, contain the solar energy that could be stored by todays forests in some hundreds of years. This shows the significance of solar energy and its contribution to the forests of the Earth. These estimates show that the Flood model may not be sufficient to account for the fossil fuels if they all originated in forests similar to those of modern times.
If, however, Schevens model of Carboniferous floating forests is applied, the following estimates of pre-Flood biomass result:
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I said it, I stand by it, I do not take it back. If it pisses you off then you should learn more about the psuedo science in which you are putting your faith...the fact that you take God out of the equation does not mean that your beliefs stop short of being religion.
religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Without religion, good people will be good. Bad people would be bad. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.
Also, some people might use not worshipping the same god as an excuse to be exclusionary.
see this is something that I disagree with.
Good people doing bad things...how generic is that? You can be a good person and "do bad things" it's called origional sin.
But if you mean the real bad things, well let's use the crusades because that's what so many people like to use...that wasn't good people doing bad things...it was bad people doing bad things and using religion as a scape goat. religion doesn't drive people to be bad, human nature drives people to be bad, and religion is an unfrotunate but often used excuse.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer