Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've brought up this same question in a number of different ways and I've gotten two common responses, neither of which make any sense. One of them is that God created the oil, coal, etc. itself and that it didn't actually go through any process that would take millions of years. Of course that brings up the question of why God would create something and make it appear as though it were ancient in the first place. The other common response is that scientists are just mixed up about how long it takes for fossil fuels to be created and that it can actually happen very quickly. That makes no sense either when you consider the amount of plant and organic material would be required to turn into a coal bed or an oil deposit. When you look at a coal bed that's very thick you have to realize that it took countless generations of trees and other plant material which obviously takes alot of time. You can find tree stumps in the middle of a coal deposit and common sense will tell you that the accumulation of coal above it indicates that the tree must have been living hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago. Creationists don't have answers to those problems with their young earth scenario, or at least none that make any sense.
One of them is that God created the oil, coal, etc. itself and that it didn't actually go through any process that would take millions of years. Of course that brings up the question of why God would create something and make it appear as though it were ancient in the first place.
I have heard this one before too. The "God created all the fossils to test us", well if this is the case, is god in a sense lying to us?
God certainaly would know what humans are capable of, specifcally the means in which we precive the world around us. So then why god create something that he knows we would come to a false conclusion about? And not only come to a false conclusion, but set things up so we would come to a false conclusion.
It takes millions of year for organic compounds to break down in such a way that the end result is a hydrocarbon fuel (fossil fuel).
So my question is, is the use of such material blashemous as it does not fit in with the creationist time table?
Are you asking is it wrong to use oil and other "fossil" fuels because it is believed to take millions of years to form, which is outside the timeframe of a creationists worldview? No, because as a creationist I don't believe it took millions of years. Same oil, different conclusions on how/when it arrived here.
I've provided a link to a creationist paper regarding the origin of oil. While I may or may not agree with some statements contained within the paper, I am providing it to show there are explanations if one chooses to find them.
The dominant view of the origin of oil amongst western oil companies until 1969 was that it was due to the decay of living matter. Now other views are making themselves heard. To try and resolve the issue whether oil is biogenic (derived from living matter) or abiogenic (built up from primordial matter and therefore not from living matter) a Hedberg Conference recently took place. The issue was not resolved. This suggests that a third alternative is needed, especially as neither model fits into a young-earth scenario.
Actually, I've heard that under intense pressures fossil fuels can be formed much much quicker than the millions of years theorized.
On the other hand, I have no problem with the notion that God put them there knowing that we'd use 'em someday.
Ive done some searching, and the lowest time scale ive found to make oil is about 10,000 years. I'll see if i can find the website again, but according to this theory, with the formation, production etc, oil would account for 1/4 of the earths weight.
No, because as a creationist I don't believe it took millions of years.
Hi mams, how's it going? I've got to say that the geologists and those who are experts in looking for oil don't agree with the creationist scenario. Have you considered the fact that the largest deposits of oil in the world are located in areas in the Middle East that don't even have organic and plant material anymore and now they're mostly covered with sand? It's quite obvious that those huge oil deposts required a massive amount of organic material and yet that part of the world is no longer a lush tropical environment. There are fossils of trees and vegetation in areas that are now deserts including the Sahara. What could possibly explain all of this within a 6,000 year timetable?
Are you asking is it wrong to use oil and other "fossil" fuels because it is believed to take millions of years to form, which is outside the timeframe of a creationists worldview? No, because as a creationist I don't believe it took millions of years. Same oil, different conclusions on how/when it arrived here.
I've provided a link to a creationist paper regarding the origin of oil. While I may or may not agree with some statements contained within the paper, I am providing it to show there are explanations if one chooses to find them.
Bascally, yes, I am asking how the formation of oil is considerd from a creationists view point.
I looked browesed throught the website you offered, and it does point out some issues with both biotic and abiotc oil formation (as oil formation is not yet completely understood). But i have one major issue with it.
Quote:
The dominant view of the origin of oil amongst western oil companies until 1969 was that it was due to the decay of living matter. Now other views are making themselves heard. To try and resolve the issue whether oil is biogenic (derived from living matter) or abiogenic (built up from primordial matter and therefore not from living matter) a Hedberg Conference recently took place. The issue was not resolved. This suggests that a third alternative is needed, especially as neither model fits into a young-earth scenario.
The bolded part makes it sound as though explainations will continue to be dismissed untill they meet this set of criteria, or hypothesis. But, if the research is found to contridict the hypothesis, it is the hypothesis that must be dissmissed or alterd to fit the findings. Not the evidence its self.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've got to say that the geologists and those who are experts in looking for oil don't agree with the creationist scenario. Have you considered the fact that the largest deposits of oil in the world are located in areas in the Middle East that don't even have organic and plant material anymore and now they're mostly covered with sand? It's quite obvious that those huge oil deposts required a massive amount of organic material and yet that part of the world is no longer a lush tropical environment. There are fossils of trees and vegetation in areas that are now deserts including the Sahara. What could possibly explain all of this within a 6,000 year timetable?
