Debate on Geology

HGL's F.B. writings: Debate on Geology · Creation vs. Evolution: 4.5 Billion Years Worth of Nuclear Decay, Before the End of Day Three? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Continuing debate with David C. Campbell on YEC, OE, Palaeontology · Continued Debate with David C. Campbell · Mr. Campbell is Back

Ken Wolgemuth

2 Sept 2024 21:11

Creation’s Story via Geology — with Ken Wolgemuth

How are oil and gas formed in the earth, and why is the U.S. the world’s leading producer?

I have had a haitus due to taking our grandchildren on a trip to see Mt. Rushmore, and a trip east to attend the annual meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation. This topic of oil and gas came up because I was asked to give the answers to those questions to a group without a geology background. I am certain that homeschooling families will be interested, because gas heats our homes, and we all ride in cars!

The answer from a Christian worldview is that in God’s divine design of this earth to be our home includes many gigatons of organic matter stored in sedimentary rocks. These resources provide the energy for our advanced technology of the last few hundred years to support the billions of people who now live on the earth.

The oil and gas come from organic matter of marine organisms that live in ocean waters, use carbon dioxide to form organic matter which falls to the sea bed and is in black shale sedimentary rocks.

[Plus three info sheets]

Ken Wolgemuth

2 Sept 2024 21:49

Many of you have been in my group of FB friends for years, as I reach out to the evangelical church community to describe creation through the lense of geology and geochemistry. Recently I have been posting with my Professional Page, which is my Picture alone. If you have not yet looked at my Professional Page where I now post items of Creation's Story via Geology. I will cover any topics about geology that interest you. You may email questions to me to address. wolgemuth2@aol.com

Thank you all for helping the spread the story of God's creation through geology.

I

Nick Tavani

YEC is a mindset apart from reasonable discourse; more psychology than geology probably.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nick Tavani Have you missed that Ken Wohlgemuth gave no specific reason against YEC?

Nick Tavani

Hans-Georg Lundahl He is graciously focusing on his topic

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, not here.

The one aspect of how petrol and gas is formed that in his view contradicts young earth creationism is HOW much plancton died and was gathered together. In a Flood scenario, there is another way in which they would die.

Nothing in the subsequent process he outlined contradicts YEC.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

YEC basically agree on the process with two caveats.
1) marine life need not naturally die and drop to the bottom, it can well have been buried i the Flood
2) the seal rock would very easily also be from the Flood.

150° F and 300° F = 65.556° C and 148.89° C.
This would imply Flood waters were hotter below and cooled on top, since that's where the heat could escape by radiation etc.

Phil Woodhull

Hans-Georg Lundahl The amount of heat from accelerated nuclear decay would have been several dozen times higher than what’s needed to literally vaporize (not just boil) the oceans.

Jeff Greenberg

Hans-Georg Lundahl Way too much geological info available that contradicts ALL of the YEC weak "models". Cyclothems included. YEC excuses always leave out loads of key details. Works for their tribal adherents. Fails miserably among anyone knowing the geology and related chemistry-physics. YEC geologists are NOT involved in Science but are really pushing poor apologetics insupportable with narrow biblical interpretations.

David Price

Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah yes, but that would require reasonable geological evidence of said global flood, which is pointedly lacking. And the implication of hotter and colder is another stretched "If, ... then ..." so characteristic of YEC straw-grasping gestures and their circular reasoning.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think I might start in reverse order:

another stretched "If, ... then ..." so characteristic of YEC straw-grasping gestures and their circular reasoning.

The fallacy "circular reasoning" doesn't exist. At best, it's a group of fallacies, and if all enumerable fallacies within the group are lacking, so is the group. I did not commit a circular proof, not a circular explanation or invoking a circular causation, not a circular definition.

"If ... then ..." is a certain type of proposition called hypothetic. It's really useful when reasoning about things that cannot be directly observed.

"reasonable geological evidence of said global flood"

I find it reasonable evidence that in land fauna, you don't find several layers directly on top of each other. Even in marine fauna, when it comes to whales and plesiosaurs, animals that needed to be near the surface, you don't find whales on top of plesiosaurs either.

"Way too much geological info available that contradicts ALL of the YEC weak "models". Cyclothems included."

I just noted that *faunal* cyclothems are inextant. You don't find a sequence of ammonites, dimetrodons, jurassic sharks, eocene brontotheres, miocene whales and then pliocene woolly mammoths. Ever.

Non-faunal cyclothems may have their explanations within Flood geology. Ah, yes. Sandstone and shale are both pretty normal Flood deposits, and put coal into it, we deal with floating forests. Logmats.

"The amount of heat from accelerated nuclear decay would have been several dozen times higher"

Phil Woodhull, sounds like one of these "if ... then ..." clauses that David Price characterised as "circular reasoning" ...

Has it escaped your notice that:
1) a world wide ocean would act like a radiator with that heat, radiating it out into space?
2) megacyclones would have added convection, drawing heat upwards into the atmosphere?

That's at least what YECs suggested on:

"Does Radiometric Dating & The Heat Problem Debunk YEC? Could THIS be evidence for Accelerated Decay?"
On the channel: "Standing For Truth" (unusually short for that channel, just 15 minutes).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBYvhTH1ZJk

Jeff Greenberg

Hans-Georg Lundahl Thanks for all your comments, simply because all of us who devoted lives* in studying earth history see your faulty thinking. Your reading seems to be limited to YEC nonsense. The more you post, the evident that you are misled, badly. Should be embarrassed. Like me trying to correct my physics prof about magnetism!🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"simply because all of us who devoted lives in studying earth history see your faulty thinking"

We are in a debate.

You are free to refute me so that you convince, if not me, at least others.

Why waste your time on an ad hominem + ex autoritate instead of arguing the points?

The one about "circular reasoning" or absence of fallacy is not even relevant whether you studied earth sciences all of your lives, since formal logic is not a part of these, but a prolegomenon to any serious study.

"Like me trying to correct my physics prof about magnetism!"

If you have Dawkins as your biology prof, you should correct him about the "gay gene" ... you don't inherit genes from uncles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Greenberg If you are Jeffrey Greenberg, emeritus of geology at Wheaton, I have noted even with Geologists of CMI, they are somewhat insensitive to the Faunal side, the Palaeontology.

While Palaeocritti (a site fed by people reading professional publications) was up, I found no evidence of superpositions of land faunas.

I know there is superpositions of faunas in drill holes, and that's generally marine fauna. On the places I went through on palaeocritti (yes, they had a search by place function), there was not a single place where Permian lied below Triassic.

That includes places in the Karoo, where both are found, and the locations of which were the first or among the first I looked at.

Cut-out

following comments were taken away:

Jeff Greenberg

You are horribly confused. Appoint your paleo questions to experts. I suggest KeithandRuth Douglas Miller and David C. Campbell in particular. You might ;learn something useful.

Phil Woodhull

Hans-Georg Lundahl A mere global flood and even a globe-spanning super-hypercyclone would be many orders of magnitude too little to keep the planet from becoming glass.

See the calculations and admissions of the very Young Earthers who hypothesized those failed fixes here: https://youtu.be/yT908HUZ7nI?si=wG3dVW80J_U0rzCJ

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Greenberg I did not QUESTION.

I did AFFIRM. And I did so after CONSULTING actual experts from Karoo.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/06/contacting-karoo-about-superposition-of.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Phil Woodhull I'm not sure if you have missed it, but the video is a very long one by Gutsick Gibbon, who is very far from a YEC, and who is cherry-picking their material, as likely as not.

Phil Woodhull

Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, I watched the video. She quotes YECs (really, plays interviews of YECs by other YECs). The math is in there too (because the YECs don’t do that part.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Would you mind telling me at what exact part she is doing the maths for them, since in fact an over two hour long video is a bit unwieldy to plough through ...?

I already came to a part where she was misrepresenting patristics.

Phil Woodhull

Hans-Georg Lundahl Uhhh, you on the right video? The one I sent is 46 minutes.

Results of the math for how much heat starts at 11:30. Hypercanes math is at 30:54. But the entire video is just about heat and miracles vs science.

The Death of "Scientific Creationism"?
https://youtu.be/yT908HUZ7nI?si=MDbZOahwO41ASLz6

Cut-out

ends here, the comments that follow were not taken away.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11:30? I commented there.

@hglundahl

11:51 You have limited the km^3 to the globe?

Have you considered radiation and other processes pushing the heat out into the universe?

Plus, you have spoken about the sum total of decay heat, what is the sum total of the kg of uranium?

@James-hd4ms

Have you factored in refrigerators?

@hglundahl

@James-hd4ms yeah, precisely ... a world wide ocean might have functions in common with such a thing ...

Will take a look at 30:54 too ....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

At 29:16, the normal mSv from food and water are basically thought of as coming only from the decay of uranium to lead?

AND the decay will directly affect food and water on the ark?

Because that's implied when accelerated decay is thought of as implying multiple lethal doses per hour ....

The logic isn't baffling other than for lack of itself ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

At 34:34 Gutsick Gibbon is missing the point, by presuming the molten core was molten before the Flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

W o u l d you mind telling me who has ever (apart from Soroka and Nelson, the latter identic to AronRa) given any total of how much Uranium has decayed on Earth?

Because, if there is only 1 kg of Uranium, even accelerating the decay won't do much ...

Phil Woodhull

Hans-Georg Lundahl Do you know how cooling in space works? It’s terrible… satellite cooling takes forever. Just invoking “space” doesn’t get you much of anywhere.

You’re skipping huge chunks of the video that answer those questions, and blowing off mechanisms that always are there but are at such low levels we don’t usually care.**

Phil Woodhull

Hans-Georg Lundahl She explains why the molten core (or not) doesn’t help. You’re cherry picking and merely nitpicking to discredit, not trying to learn.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Phil Woodhull The video is still plenty long for simply consulting, OK.

You are not giving "this is a fact and here is the reference" you are giving "here are 46 minutes of reference, don't say another word until you have mastered it all" ... on top of that irrelevant for the point of Ken Wolgemuth's actual status.

Comments

in the debate keep disappearing. Phil Woodhull's second last comment disappeared when his last appeared, and some of mine disappeared too.

Phil Woodhull

Hans-Georg Lundahl I was addressing heat being a problem for the Flood model, since YOU mentioned heat escape by radiation. That’s what the video is about (no, not about petroleum, granted). Sorry you can’t bear with explanations that take more than 15 minutes. Details and more-complete stories are hard, huh?

Buddy Spaulding

The capstone rock could easily have been deposited by the flood.

Hans Georg has not given any evidence to support this assertion. It appears to be a personal belief.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Phil Woodhull Debates involve telling each other where references are, not telling each other to school themselves.

In fact, it was the response video by Standing for Truth that was over 2 hours.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Buddy Spaulding Flood, basically any YEC model, involves the deposition of both limestone and sandstone.

How would both of them be inadequate as capstone rocks?

Buddy Spaulding

Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't claim to know for certain, although I do have a pretty good idea.

But that is irrelevant, since I didn't make an unsupported assertion. You did. So don't try shifting the burden of proof to me.

Ball is in your court.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not make an assertion. I pointed out a possibility.

The burden of proof is on impossibility.

A necesse ad esse, ab esse ad posse valet consequentia.
A non posse ad non esse, a non esse ad non necesse valet consequentia.

More comments

have obviously gone missing, my whole dialogue with Buddy Spaulding, and the question Buddy Spaulding obviously posed to Jeff Greenberg. If it was about "a necesse ad posse" I think I understand scholastic philosophy better than modern natural scientists do, because it is my home lane. Not theirs.

Jeff Greenberg

Buddy Spaulding From, something he read and does not understand.

Jeff Greenberg

Hans-Georg Lundahl No debate, You aren't even neat being qualified.

Jeff Greenberg

Hans-Georg Lundahl Last comment. That "KAROO"reference is a joke. If you really care, other than trying to put tiny dents in the grand theories of earth history, DO seek out valid sources (like the two experts I posted) and not quacks. Bye now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Greenberg Is it so hard for you to no longer have students to abuse?

Again, in the literature I could find online for Palaeontology, Karoo was one of the very few places on earth where Permian and Triassic co-existed in some way shape or form.

I took pains to go over each assemblage zone, they were not overlapping in the terrain.

No Permian creature has been found ten metres below a Triassic one.

The reference you considered a joke, and qualify as a quack is my blog with correspondence with Karoo.

The man I got in touch with is:

Johann Neveling
Council for Geoscience · Geological Mapping
B.Sc. (Hons.), M.B.A., PhD
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Johann-Neveling

Doesn't sound like a quack to me.
Dito for:

Professor Emeritus
Bruce Rubidge
Evolutionary Studies Institute (Witwatersrand, Johannesburg)
https://www.wits.ac.za/people/academic-a-z-listing/r/brucerubidgewitsacza/

The latter told me:

I really do not understand your question. To simply dig down from the Katberg into the Balfour in the hopes of finding vertebrate fossils is a senseless exercise as you have to dig through rock and it is hard work. I doubt whether anybody would do that.

In other words, fossils of the Triassic are not even in Karoo found straight above those of the Permian.

Jeff Greenberg

Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah, you finally SHOW the true nature of a Troll! You know nothing but what you get from fringe bias and then turn to personal attacks when cornered by real Science. I'll leave this (I promise) last comment about your nonsense: Consider a person wanting to show-prove that a strong, well-established fortress is actually just a "house of cards" and can be destroyed by their effort. So this one goes up to tremendous blocks of granite with a rock hammer and chisel. After laboring for many hours, they are able to produce a few small chips of rock. "SEE WHAT I DID? THIS THING IS REALLY NOT SO BIG AND STRONG. I REMOVED SOME IT, THUS PROVING THAT IT IS REALLY WEAK AND NOT SUCH A TRUE FORTRESS!" Bottom line for those with any sense of reason is that even if one can determine a wee bit of uncertainty about a premier, established, constantly tested and refined theory, you accomplish nothing, unless confirmed by the grand community of experienced scientists who serve academics. Your tiny bit of the Karoo is a tiny chip off the great fortress. One can rightfully say, "SO WHAT?" 🤔💥

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You know nothing but what you get from fringe bias"

Paleocritti is not fringe bias. Or was, it was taken down.

I'm learning from Ken Wolgemuth, but not the denial of YEC.

Johann Neveling and Bruce Rubidge are mainstream scientists, believers in Millions and Billions of years.

I did not attack them.

"and then turn to personal attacks when cornered by real Science."

I did not feel cornered by Ken or by Johann or by Bruce. I do not feel cornered by you.

I did not turn to personal attacks against any of the three.

Between us two, you are the one who started the ad hominem.

"After laboring for many hours, they are able to produce a few small chips of rock."

Nice to know you can do poetry, but what is it you consider as "small chips of rock" in comparison to what "well-established fortress"? The non-superposition of land faunas in Karoo, was in fact mirrored even more basically all other places I had the time to look up. It's just that Karoo was the most promising for my opponents, the most promising to refute my wager of non-superposition. Mainstream scientists from that area told me it hadn't refuted me there.

"unless confirmed by the grand community of experienced scientists who serve academics."

Mutatis mutandis, and without in the least pretending to be either God or Saviour, you sound like a Pharisee telling Jesus He accomplishes nothing, unless His rulings on the law be confirmed by the grand community of Pharisees.

God did not promise the Scientific Community infallibility any more than He promised it to Pharisees. If anything less, since the Pharisees were delegates of the OT Magisterium of Ezra.

David C. Campbell

Yes, there are abundant examples of sequences of layers of terrestrial faunas. For fossilization purposes, land has the disadvantage of being elevated and thus tending to erode away, but where multiple layers are preserved, they record the sequence of geologic time. For example, different chronological faunas of dinosaurs occur in the sequence of Mesozoic formations in the Alberta to Montana region, overlain by Cenozoic mammal-rich deposits. In the Karoo, there are sites with the Triassic faunas overlying the Permian, though of course anywhere that has the Triassic completely eroded away will not show that sequence. Similarly, for ocean deposits, non-drilling collection (which is generally necessary to have large fossils) requires the layers being exposed at or near the surface. Nevertheless, layers with Mesozoic marine reptiles are overlain by layers with whales. For example, I have collected a mosasaur tooth in the layer near river level along the lower Cape Fear River and whale bones from higher levels. And all the other fossils show the same pattern of different kinds in the different layers. The oysters with the Mesozoic reptiles are quite different from those in the various higher beds. Other invertebrates, fishes, etc. likewise show such changes. The microfossils likewise show drastic changes. The sequence of geologic layers is real and is not compatible with a young earth, as was suspected by the late 1600's and firmly established by the 1770's.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Yes, there are abundant examples of sequences of layers of terrestrial faunas."

Let's see what you actually mean.

"different chronological faunas of dinosaurs occur in the sequence of Mesozoic formations in the Alberta to Montana region, overlain by Cenozoic mammal-rich deposits"

I'm not disputing these formations and at least theoretical overlays are attested.

But is there any place where you dug out a Cenozoic mammal and then dug down even deeper and found dinosaurs?

"In the Karoo, there are sites with the Triassic faunas overlying the Permian, though of course anywhere that has the Triassic completely eroded away will not show that sequence."

And where the Triassic is overlying, they are not digging deeper to find Permian below it. I actually wrote them and checked.

"Nevertheless, layers with Mesozoic marine reptiles are overlain by layers with whales. For example, I have collected a mosasaur tooth in the layer near river level along the lower Cape Fear River and whale bones from higher levels."

As the fossils not buried in situ according to Flood geology would tend to be very fragmentaric, are you sure the Mosasaur tooth was buried in situ?

But, supposing it was, by "higher levels" do you mean you walked uphill or do you mean you had dug a hole and was climbing up in the hole again?

Because, very obviously, if they are on the most basic and naive level side by side, you haven't actually shown that there was an overlay of levels millions of years apart, the Mosasaur and the Whale could have been just swimming side by side during the Flood and then one of them got buried in a higher sequence of mud ...

* "us who devoted lives" = we could be dealing with at least two geologists apart from Ken Wolgemuth: Jeffrey Greenberg, Ph.D., Professor of Geology Emeritus, Wheaton College and G. David PRICE, Emeritus Professor of Mineral Physics, President and Provost, University College London — for Phil Woodhull I didn't find anything ...

** It actually wasn't Gutsick Gibbon's video that was over 2 hours, but the response to it. Link to it on next post, on my Creationist blog./HGL