Why do Oil Companies Drill For Oil and Find it, when Using Millions of Years?

KD

JM, your point concerning oil companies is one I've been trying to make for days now.

According to a geologist buddy of mine, who actually works as an oil/gas prospector, if oil had formed according to the creationist model of geology it would lie in deposits so shallow (it was made only ~4000 years ago, after all) that, in his words, "we could practically dig it up with a shovel."

[In some places one could]

So if the creationist model were correct, why do we have to drill down thousands of feet to find oil and gas?

SG

//The only difficulty I see even if what you say is true, is the fact the Bible says God in fact did make light before he made objects that produce Light.//

My answer is simply that the OT creation narrative is not inpspired truth but a myth most likey borrowed from other older ones.

HGL

"if oil had formed according to the creationist model of geology it would lie in deposits so shallow (it was made only ~4000 years ago, after all) that, in his words, 'we could practically dig it up with a shovel.'

"So if the creationist model were correct, why do we have to drill down thousands of feet to find oil and gas?"

Because oil and gas forming during the flood (which I think is the standard creationist model) happens to have had the material making them up sink through or start off under very huge piles of flood deposit.

"My answer is simply that the OT creation narrative is not inpspired truth but a myth most likey borrowed from other older ones."

If so, how come none of the older - e g Egyptian or Mesopotamian - myths ever mentions the idea of God or any of the gods creating light before creating lights?

SG

I haven't studied, so you would have to inform me.

HGL

Well, none of them do. None of those preserved to now.

My answer is that your guess is wrong and this item is real revelation after all.

And yes, God can produce light without using a light source. Just as He can make water into wine without using soil, vine plant, lengths of time etc.

KD

//Because oil and gas forming during the flood (which I think is the standard creationist model) happens to have had the material making them up sink through or start off under very huge piles of flood deposit.//

No. Geologically impossible. Observations simply don't support this premise. And by what mechanism would this work, were it true?

And of course, the million dollar questionwhy isn't the creationist model of geology used to prospect for oil and gas? Why do oil companies use the standard model, which acknowledges deep time and refutes the possibility of a global deluge?

//And yes, God can produce light without using a light source. Just as He can make water into wine without using soil, vine plant, lengths of time etc.//

A major claim. Evidence of how the laws of physics may be violated without invoking a magical explanation, please.

HGL

I guess you owe me a million dollars, because I have an answer:

• because their Capitalist owners get their education (or half education) from un-Catholic places like Harvard until even Catholic places where you can get educations start repeating the nonsense.

Now for the rest:

"Geologically impossible."

For what reason?

"Observations simply don't support this premise."

Wrong category, I didn't give a premiss for a conclusion, I gave a guess for an explanation.

Wrong number, I didn't give one but two.

[1) Because oil and gas forming during the flood (which I think is the standard creationist model) happens to have had the material making them up sink through OR 2) start off under very huge piles of flood deposit.]

And for a guess in order to explain, wrong objection too: "observations simply don't support" is good enough against a premiss for a conclusion, but hardly against a guess for an explanation.

[There you would rather want observations incompatible with the guess or its obvious conclusions than lack of evidence in observations.]

Fact remains, if we had observations of the process while ongoing, we would not have a long age guess and we would not have an alternative creationist guess (or two).

SG

I got that theory from atheist debunkers, btw, HGL.

HGL

"A major claim. Evidence of how the laws of physics may be violated without invoking a magical explanation, please."

• What law of physics says "God can't"?
• What law of physics is violated?
• Who says Christians can't invoke explanations which atheists will scoff as "magical"?

[HGL @ SG] Well, either these atheist debunkers were too atheist and need debunking themselves or they were debunking atheism but not enough.

KD

//"A major claim. Evidence of how the laws of physics may be violated without invoking a magical explanation, please."

• What law of physics says "God can't"?
• What law of physics is violated?
• Who says Christians can't invoke explanations which atheists will scoff as "magical"?//

LOLthese aren't refutations! You're JAQing off now.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/just-asking-questions-creation-edition/

[Not linking to that pseudoscientific antiphilosophical shit, you have the adress if you want to copy it.]

"Geologically impossible" due to the fact that we DONT observe the evidence expected were the creationist claim correct.

[Did not directly answer this one here, but gave an answer later and in link I gave. It provides a theory of mine with empirical palaeontological backup.]

HGL

Here is ANOTHER Q for U.

• Who made NeuroLogica blog the judge of what strategies I may use in debate?
  
  And one more:
  
  
• If "just asking questions" is not allowed, how come science is allowed at all?

KD

Sorry HGL, but answering evidence with questions isn't a refutation.

Want to refute the standard explanation for geology? Only one way to do it.present EVIDENCE that the creationist model for oil and gas formation is valid.

//If "just asking questions" is not allowed, how come science is allowed at all?//

Red herring. Please present evidence that supports your claim of creationist geology.

[Didn't do it here either in the Gish Gallop he provided, but later]

Please explain why energy companies use the standard geologic model versus the creationist model, if the creationist model is supposedly superior.

HGL

But if you want refutations instead of questions, here we go:

• First law of physics is God created everything and can do anything He wants with the creation;
• Second law of physics is that spirit rules matter within - for created spirits like human souls and angels - the limits God decided;
• THIRD ONLY law of physics is that material objects when interacting (usually moved by God, angels or men ultimately) follow certain physical laws.

THAT being said you can ask why I can define laws of physics? Well, I am not a physicist, but physicists are not metaphysicians.

This means that the underlying metaphysics of any non-Theist physicist or believer of such will get the first two laws of physics wrong and therefore object in the wrong places and against the wrong things.

That was not JAQ, that is my formal answer. YOU GOT IT WRONG.

If you want to you can scoff and call that appealing to magic, doesn't change a thing.

"Sorry HGL, but answering evidence with questions isn't a refutation."

You gave no evidence. You gave an attempt at a proof and I asked you to confirm the unstated premisses. Sorry for understanding your argument better than you do yourself!

"Please explain why energy companies use the standard geologic model versus the creationist model, if the creationist model is supposedly superior."

Because their directors go to the wrong schools, as already stated.

Adding "milions of years" of duration or "millions of years ago" doesn't change a real thing in otherwise correct explanations and the way you find oil is not by reasoning about either model as such but by going by where oil was found in the past.

HH

bahahhahaha

creationism does not have a geological model, no backing scientifically of any of it

HGL

Creationism has even more than one geological model for flood geology. They are most of them being debated. Here is mine, which isn't:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

KD

//You gave no evidence. You gave an attempt at a proof and I &asked you to confirm the unstated premisses. Sorry for understanding your argument better than you do yourself!//

No HGL, you still don't get it.

Energy companies UNIVERSALLY agree on deep time and standard geology. They use this knowledge to reliably find oil and gas deposits. They do NOT rely on the creationist model, and if you look at previous comments you'll see I mention a few reasons why.

My evidence, therefore, is the success that energy companies enjoy due to following the deep time interpretation of geology.

NowI'll ask a question of my own.why should this be, if the creationist model is supposedly the superior explanation?

HGL

"Energy companies UNIVERSALLY agree on deep time and standard geology."

You don't get that I got it.

What I answered is that using millions of years isn't helping them.

"They use this knowledge to reliably find oil and gas deposits."

The knowledge that actually helps them is not the millions of years part.

But of course, they UNIVERSALLY get the same indoctrination and narrowminded prejudice that makes them think it does.

KD

//What I answered is that using millions of years isn't helping them.//

No. Incorrect. The deep time model is an integral part of understanding how oil formed, where in the world the conditions were correct for formation to occur, the LENGTH OF TIME the deposits have been buried, and where we are most likely to find oil in this day and age after MILLIONS OF YEARS of tectonic action.

"They use this knowledge to reliably find oil and gas deposits."

THe knowledge that actually helps them is not the millions of years part.

NO. INCORRECT. Deep time is an integral factor in energy prospecting, and for the reasons I've stated.

//But of course, they UNIVERSALLY get the same indoctrination and narrowminded prejudice that makes them think it does.//

AGAIN.INCORRECT. The deep time models consistently get positive results and bring in trillions of dollars in energy products every year.

So.why can't creationist geologic interpretations do this?

Because they are flawed, and cannot make these predictions.

Sorry HGL, but you still haven't explained why energy companies shun creationist explanations in favor of standard ones.the ones based on DEEP TIME and which refute a global flood.

HGL

"The deep time models consistently get positive results and bring in trillions of dollars in energy products every year."

What gets these results is the prospecting of which millions of years is MISTAKEDLY seen as an integral part.

What actually IS an integral part is the distinctions of layer types, like Cretaceous. I believe Cretaceous is a real type of deposit or several of them, but that x millions of years ago has NOTHING to do with it.

"So.why can't creationist geologic interpretations do this?

Because they are flawed, and cannot make these predictions."

If Tas Walker was hired or Woodmorappe, they would get equal results. They are flood geologists. They have a geologic education and no longer (at least for Tas) believe millions of years have anything to do with real geology.

I don't know Woodmorappe's background, so I can't say for sure he was an old earth believer, but if not he may have had a hard time socially while doing the studies.

What predictions are based on are rather "this formation is shale and shale can lead to oil" - that type of reasoning. You can decorate that with "this is shale that formed over millions of years" but it adds nothing.

KD

//"The deep time models consistently get positive results and bring in trillions of dollars in energy products every year."

What gets these results is the prospecting of which millions of years is MISTAKDLY seen as an integral part.

What actually IS an integral part is the distinctions of layer types, like Creataceous. I believe Cretaceous is a real type of deposit or several of them, but that x millions of years ago has NOTHING to do with it.//

HGL, no matter what you believe, reality says different.

And no if the idea of deep time were false, the standard model WOULDNT WORK, and oil companies would just have to drill everywhere and keep their fingers crossed.

But that's not how it is.using models based on deep time and no cataclysmic flood, they consistently find valuable energy deposits right where they are expected to be.

This is the benchmark of any scientific school of thoughtPREDICTIVE POWER. And this is the very thing that creationist models lack.

HGL

"HGL, no matter what you believe, reality says different."

What reality? The petrol [that is] found?

I just told you why it does NOT say differently.

In fact, it does in itself NOT say anything, you have to interpret it and your interpretation lacks a certain elasticity as to seeing things from different angles even when handed them on a plate.

"if the idea of deep time were false, the standard model WOULDNT WORK,"

It is a rule of logic that premisses that are right and are rightly applied cannot yield wrong conclusions. But it is not a rule of logic that premisses that are wrong cannot yield correct ones. Still less that a sentence that is wrong and not really part of the premisses cannot leave them unaffacted so they can give a right conclusion.

KD

//If Tas Walker was hired or Woodmorappe, they would get equal results. They are flood geologists. They have a geologic education and no longer (at least for Tas) believe millions of years have anything to do with real geology.//

And yet no oil company seeks out creationist geologists to do their prospecting. Instead, they choose the standard interpretation and reap billions in profits.

A completely hypothetical statement, and still doesn't refute my point regarding the energy companies' preference for standard geology.

//I don't know Woodmorappe's background, so I can't say for sure he was an old earth believer, but if not he may have had a hard time socially while doing the studies.//

Your own personal musing, but again, doesn't explain the energy companies' preference for standard geology.

[He really is the kind of jerk who's able to take an aside and an admission as if it had been meant as and failed as a proof, isn't he?]

HGL

"And yet no oil company seeks out creationist geologists to do their prospecting."

And actually Tas has other things to do too.

"Instead, they choose the standard interpretation and reap billions in profits."

I don't adore profits. I don't make them my benchmark for truth. They show something is working, but do not show what is working.

"A completely hypothetical statement, and still doesn't refute my point regarding the energy companies' preference for standard geology."

As a curious fact, no, it stands. As a point against creationism, yes, I just refuted it.

And explaining their preference was already done : the bad education they got.

KD

//"if the idea of deep time were false, the standard model WOULDNT WORK,"

It is a rule of logic that premisses that are right and are rightly applied cannot yield wrong conclusions. But it is not a rule of logic that premisses that are wrong cannot yield correct ones. Still less that a sentence that is wrong and not really part of the premisses cannot leave them unaffacted so they can give a right conclusion.//

This isn't your high school debate team HGL, and a logically pretty argument does not trump evidence.

Evidence supports deep time. Oil companies make fortunes based on the concept.

HGL, you're trying to use a philosophical method to approach a scientific matter. It doesn't work.

HGL

"a logically pretty argument does not trump evidence."

A logically pretty argument trumps a logically faulty one when making sense of evidence.

No evidence is evidence for anything unless it is argued about, at least implicitly.

"HGL, you're trying to use a philosophical method to approach a scientific matter. It doesn't work."

When it comes to truth, it is the unphilosophical one which doesn't work.

KP

KD, what is a creationist geologist? Do you work for oil companies? Thx.

HH

there is no such thing

you need real science not guesses to do geology

KD

//When it comes to truth, it is the unphilosophical one which doesn't work.//

No. In reality, evidence rules. We see the results of honestly following evidence to a parsimonious conclusion in the fact that by following the standard, deep time model of geology energy companies are consistently successful in finding what they go looking for.

Predictive power.it's the best, strongest evidence of the credibility of any scientific model. Creationist models have none. Standard models have it in spades.

HGL

Evidence can only get correct conclusions through logic, not through "parsimoniousness" and still less through mistaking antisupernatural prejudice for parsimoniousness.

Predicting can be a devious game, I studied Greek tragedy, I ought to know. Start with Oedipus.

HGL @ KP- a creationist geologist or more usually a flood geologist is a geologist who like Steno, founder of the discipline, believes most deposits are from Flood.

KD just said he didn't work for oil companies but had a buddy who does.

KD

//KD, what is a creationist geologist? Do you work for oil companies? Thx.//

Hey KP!

Creation geologists could be descibed as those who accept a young age of the earth and claim the earth was once submerged under a world wide deluge.

No, I don't work for the oil companies, but have a friend who does. He's a geologist who does prospecting work looking for natural gas and oil deposits. He's taught me a few things, and has shown me survey maps, how they're used, and why they work in the way they do. It's all based on standard explanations of rock formation, chemistry, and millions of years worth of plate tectonics and tracking of the paths of plate movements.

HGL

Oh, did they really take millions of years while tracking the paths of plate movements?

[Not answered.]

HH

its easy to see the real science behind why the earth is over 4 billion years old

HGL

Ah, it is easy to see it? Where is it then?

KP

So KD, hypothetically speaking for you, if you take the statement "millions of years" out of your response there would be no difference between a creationist geologist and a regular geologist, correct?

HH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rArGi6lwds.

[Not linking there either. Might later do - or not do a series of comment refutations, as with AronRa's videos. If so, I will link from their mirror on my blog.]

real science has nothing to do with religion books

HGL

HH, I wasn't asking for a 52 minutes long video, I was asking for a definite place where one can really see the science behind the 4 billion years figure.

HH

it 4 time 52 minutes and teaches you some real stuff, you would be better to watch that then debate lol

learn it first then debate it

most people dont even know its the zircon that we use to date old things with now, science moves very fast

KD

//Evidence can only get correct conclusions through logic, not through "parsimoniousness" and still less through mistaking antisupernatural prejudice for parsimoniousness.//

> The scientific principle of parsimony favors the most streamlined explanation as being the one more likely to be valid. Standard geologic interpretation is the more parsimonious oneit involves no untestable, unmeasurable forces like a supernatural entity. And it gets results.

The creationist model can't say the same, and is refuted by observed evidence. Sorry, still no support for any creationist explanations and the oil companies continue to get richer based on standard science.

//Predicting can be a devious game, I studied Greek tragedy, I ought to know. Start with Oedipus.//

Thus has nothing to do with any scientific topic being discussed.

HGL @ HH

I don't agree about your assessment of me and I would appreciate you let KD answer my question about how the millions years were followed in real time by the geologists . IN REAL TIME, Get it?

HH

if you dont want to learn you never will

HGL

"Thus has nothing to do with any scientific topic being discussed."

It has to do with whether predictive power is an argument for truth.

Apollo predicted accurately - but counted on Oedipus and Akrisios to fulfil the prediction by believing it.

JM

HGL: " because their Capitalist owners get their education (or half education) from un-Catholic places like Harvard until even Catholic places where you can get educations start repeating the nonsense. "

That's right because capitalists prefer god-denying bad science that gives them less profits to bible-affirming good science that would maximise their profits. Similarly universities such as Harvard (and Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne etc.) can't be bothered to upgrade the science courses to take into account the irreproachable YEC evidence.

HGL

HH, I am not here to learn but to teach - if not science, at least logic.

HH

what i posted is science of our history if you ignore it its youre loss not mine

KD

//So KD, hypothetically speaking for you, if you take the statement "millions of years" out of your response there would be no difference between a creationist geologist and a regular geologist, correct?//

No, there's still the difference regarding the flood. As HGL stated previously, perhaps the term "Flood Geologists" might be better. Standard interpretation of the geologic evidence refutes a global flood.

HGL

The YEC evidence is indeed being ignored as you say, JM.

And you still missed the point that I think BOTH models for what happened are irrelevant for getting the results oil companies want.

HH

Q you should ask HGL is does he know about tsunamis?

and how big they were in the past

HGL

"Standard interpretation of the geologic evidence refutes a global flood."

Ah the interpretation of it, yes. The evidence as such no.

HGL @ HH, "your loss not mine" is a standard argument of gipsy women with crystal balls.

[like zircon]

HH

it is a great doco

JM

HGL. Why is the YEC evidence rejected (not ignored)?

KD

//"Thus has nothing to do with any scientific topic being discussed."

It has to do with whether predictive power is an argument for truth.

Apollo predicted accurately - but counted on Oedipus and Akrisios to fulfil the prediction by believing it.//

LOL "Truth".now we're back to discussing philosophical topics?

[My emphasis]

The predictive power of science is a known thing and gives valuable results, and is entirely different from the prophetic types of predictions you allude to. As far as truth goes. I suppose the truth is standard scientific explanations succeed where creationist explanations fail, based on results.

HGL

A wise thing to ignore if the one using such a sales argument seems like a gipsy woman offering a palm reading.

HGL @ JM, this here is ignored, not rejected:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

HH

its not mine lol its common science that is why you are a twit

KD

//"Standard interpretation of the geologic evidence refutes a global flood."

Ah the interpretation of it, yes. The evidence as such no.//

Sorry, the evidence as such, yes. There's no credible evidence to suggest a world wide flood.

HH

you should not be dabating it if you dont understand it in the first place

KD

HGL, why are you citing yourself as a reference?

HH

there are places in australia water has not been for billions of years

HGL

ALL the sediments are VERY credible evidence for a global flood. Except very recent ones in Deltas of Nile and Mississippi.

Especially fact you nowhere find a trilobite under a dino and both under a smilodon.

[reference to what I was saying at greater length in the link]

KD

Be back shortly guys

HGL

"why are you citing yourself as a reference?"

I am not citing me as a reference, I am offering a previous essay or series of such I gave on topic.

[Difference? A reference would be someone else backing up my facts. My essay was giving my own argument but at much greater length than I could give during this anticreationist Gish Gallop.

HH

i do urge you to learn it first HGL. you look silly debating something you dont understand

JM

HGL: Are you using the word ignore in its French sense of "being ignorant of"? If YEC science is well-founded there is no logical reason why it should not be adopted by universities and oil companies.

HGL

Thank you very much to leave me alone about your sordid urges, HH

[HGL @ JM]I use ignore in the English sense and learnt English before French, you idiot! Just because I stay in France doesn't make me a Frenchie.

It is being ignored and not ignoring it would ruin carreers. Perhaps not oil companies, but academic carreers.

[HGL @ HH], I will have to block you [he's number 6, how big is your block list?], there are people who actually try to argue I prefer arguing with them to hearing your insults.

JM

If the science was good, companies which rely on good science getting good profitable results would soon put pressure on universities to change. And anyway there is no academic career to be made by blindly pursuing yesterday's science.

HGL

Btw, JM, Padro Pio never lent any authority to Evolutionism as far as I know.

KD

//"why are you citing yourself as a reference?"

I am not citing me as a reference, I am offering a previous essay or series of such I gave on topic.//

I understand. Thank you for the clarification.

Making coffee, brb

HGL

"If the science was good, companies which rely on good science getting good profitable results would soon put pressure on universities to change."

ONLY if the good science makes any difference for their profits.

[And perhaps not even then.]

JM

Padre Pio, to his friends

HGL

KD, enjoy the coffee.

[HGL @ JM] Yes, what did Padre Pio say to his friends on Evolution? Anything at all? What friends except Jesus and the Blessed Virgin?

To people confessing to him, he had more urgent matters.

As to oil companies putting pressure on universities if YEC science was good, you overrate the interest of businessmen in good science.

Their attitude is often tied up with bad logic like that given just recently by KD (hope he enjoys the coffee, he already had my correction on that one).