Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

[PersianPaladin]

Anaconda, you are aware - that on a catastrophist forum; such conventional notions of radioactive dating (as listed in the paper you cited) are going to come under considerable scrutiny

[BobDodds]

Why would comets only hit rifts? Why would biological matter collect at rifts only?

We might compare abiotic and biogenic theories for how well they each posit in terms of first physical principles, and reproduce in lab, specific chemical reactions that catalyse or otherwise bring up the energy potential of specified input substances to a much higher energy density. Abiotic theory still has to explain the same phenomenon of rising energy density of material, but, abiotic science does so and biogenic theory is a no show.

[Anaconda]

PersianPaladin, I simply quoted the conclusion of the Morton paper, but as readers of this board already know I don't subscribe to the accuracy of radiometric dating, it is the other physical facts & evidence on which I rely.

Let's be clear, as I stated before, "comet oil would be possible", but it doesn't explain the giant oil deposits or the vast bulk of the world's oil supply.

For that Abiotic Oil Theory provides the best answer: The bowels of the Earth is a veritable geo-physical and chemical factory of vast resources.

The partial quote starbiter presents is part of a longer comment which was, itself, a follow up on an even longer comment where I provide facts & evidence for why the vast bulk of the world's oil supply is from the Earth's own internal formation of abiotic oil.

The complete July 11, 2012 4:55 pm comment:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150&start=675#p68180

And the previous comment on July 11, 2012 1:46 pm which the 4:55 pm comment followed:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150&start=675#p68177

Both the above comments support my conclusion that the vast bulk of the world oil supply is abiotic.

Here is a partial quote from starbiter's response to my above two comments:

If the Green River Basin is a slosh from recent catastrophes then the oil shale containing 2 trillion barrels of oil would have flowed with the slosh.

And the link to starbiter's full comment:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150&start=675#p68245

Notice starbiter states "slosh", two different times in the same sentence, as in a singular event, not "sloshes". But starbiter is now claiming multiple "slosh" events after his singular "slosh" has been falsified. In essence, starbiter admits his singular "slosh" scenario has bee falsified, so he changes his idea. One should be cautious when evaluating an idea when the idea is changed to fit the facts after those facts contradict the previous idea.

Me again,

Anaconda admits comet oil is possible but then claims it's not capable of meaningful deposits. Then he gets upset when i claim the majority of Earth oil seems to be from external sources, because he admitted comet oil is possible.

Talk about twisting other peoples' comments!

Please read the comment:

Let's be clear, as I stated before, "comet oil would be possible", but it doesn't explain the giant oil deposits or the vast bulk of the world's oil supply.

For that Abiotic Oil Theory provides the best answer: The bowels of the Earth is a veritable geo-physical and chemical factory of vast resources.

starbiter, did I use the words "not capable of meaningful deposits"? Again, a strawman argument.

What I stated is that "Abiotic Oil Theory provides the best answer" for the reasons I had previously presented in the comments.

By the way, disagreeing with your hypothesis is not being "upset". On the contrary, it is you who are apparently "upset" that I disagree with your hypothesis, specifically by stating the bulk of the world's oil supply has been generated by Earth's own geo-physical processes. Several times starbiter stated he doesn't like being lectured:

The chapter uses legend and myth from around the world describing huge amounts of oil falling from the sky. Most of the people died. Apparently You're not impressed. I don't care. And i don't care for your lectures either.

Whatever the characterization, providing facts & evidence contradicting and falsifying a hypothesis is part of the Scientific Method. So, if you don't like being told your ideas are contradicted by facts & evidence and consider it an unpleasant "lecture", I suggest you shouldn't be involved in scientific discussions so your ego won't be "upset".

Please, starbiter, don't project your own feeling onto somebody else.

Please don't lecture me for my choice of words.

starbiter, when you present stawman arguments about what MY position is by twisting MY words, then I will point that out for other readers so they can make an informed judgment about the validity of your arguments.

Anaconda, Your argument escapes me. You don't seem to want to consider a catastrophic scenario on a catastrophist forum for the bulk of Earth's oil.

Please, starbiter, I get tired regarding your intellectually dishonest statements, and I bet other readers do, too.

I have considered your arguments and I have answered them in detail. Where I agree you have valid points, I acknowledge those points, where I disagree with your opinion, I explain why I disagree by providing facts & evidence which contracts your opinion.

starbiter, perhaps, my argument "escapes" you because you simply can't handle or discuss in detail facts & evidence which contradict your opinion.

Or are You willing to consider legend and myth?

Again, another stawman argument. I have already stated I will consider legend and myth, but geo-physical evidence is not to be ignored, like you do repeatedly when it contradicts your hypothesis. This is the problem with "personal theories" such as yours, it is hard to pin it down to specifics that can be objectively researched and, if appropriate, challenged or agreed to.

Do You think the Green River basin might be the result of rivers of oil fulling lakes with sediment and oil? Or did the oil require many millions of years to be created by volcanoes?

I don't know about "rivers of oil". I thought you proposed a "slosh" of large proportion? Or is it now multiple "sloshes". Or is it now "rivers of oil"?

My opinion is that hydrocarbons were emitted from below the surface into the body of the ancient lakes and/or within the raparian area of those lakes and then it flowed into the lakes. The light hydrocarbons evaporated and the heavy hydrocarbons sank to the bottom of the lakes. That is why the thickest layers are towards the center of the ancient lake beds.

As i mentioned last time, many floods with and without hydraulic currents are being proposed.

How many floods?

Lakes would be filled with oil, water, and sediments by flooding rivers of oil . Then electric currents would lithify some of the deposits to varying degrees. That seems to agree with Your link.

In what specific way does the above agree with the Morton link?

In all honesty, you need to work out your personal theory better than it currently exists and you better get used to it being critisized and objected to without thinking you are being unfaily lectured to.

[starbiter]

Why would comets only hit rifts? Why would biological matter collect at rifts only?

We might compare abiotic and biogenic theories for how well they each posit in terms of first physical principles, and reproduce in lab, specific chemical reactions that catalyse or otherwise bring up the energy potential of specified input substances to a much higher energy density. Abiotic theory still has to explain the same phenomenon of rising energy density of material, but, abiotic science does so and biogenic theory is a no show.

Hello Bob Dodds,

I think the battle against biogenic oil has been won. Of course oil from a comet or gas giant would most likely be abiotic.

Concerning rifts, the Green River area is not mentioned as a rift in the searches i've done. And it contains over half the worlds proven reserves according to the USGS.

The Rio Grande is considered a rift.

The WIKI version of the Rio Grande Rift is below,
[...]

The Rio Grande rift's tectonic evolution is fairly complex. The fundamental change in the western margin of the North American plate from one of subduction to a transform boundary occurred during Cenozoic time. The Farallon plate continued to be subducted beneath western North America for at least 100 million years during Late Mesozoic and early Cenozoic time. Compressional and transpressional deformation incurred by the Laramide Orogeny lasted until about 40 Ma in New Mexico.[20][21][22] This deformation may have been a result of the coupling between the subducting Farallon plate and the overlying North American plate. Crustal thickening occurred due to Laramide compression. After the Laramide Orogeny and until 20 Ma, a major period of volcanic activity occurred throughout the southwestern United States. Injection of hot magmas weakened the lithosphere and allowed for later extension of the region.

Cenozoic extension started about 30 million years ago (Ma). There are two phases of extension observed: late Oligocene and middle Miocene.[24] The first period of extension produced broad, shallow basins bounded by low-angle faults. The crust may have been extended as much as 50% during this episode. Widespread magmatism in mid-Cenozoic time suggests that the lithosphere was hot, the brittle-ductile transition was relatively shallow.[23] There is evidence that the second period of extension began earlier in the central and northern Rio Grande Rift than in the south.[1]
It has been suggested that the Colorado Plateau acts as a semi-independent microplate [25] and one way of explaining the creation of the Rio Grande Rift is by the simple rotation of the Colorado Plateau 1-1.5 degrees in a clockwise direction relative to the North American craton.[

me again,
That's quite a story. It doesn't mention myth, legend, or plasma. Are You cool with this version of geologic history? How about You Anaconda?

How long does it take for oil to reach the TOP of the Book Cliffs from deep earth volcanoes? If the Book Cliffs are less than 10,000 years old You might need some very speedy oil.

michael

[starbiter]

Anaconda said,

My opinion is that hydrocarbons were emitted from below the surface into the body of the ancient lakes and/or within the raparian area of those lakes and then it flowed into the lakes. The light hydrocarbons evaporated and the heavy hydrocarbons sank to the bottom of the lakes. That is why the thickest layers are towards the center of the ancient lake beds.

Me again,

Thanks for sharing that. I think it speaks for itself.

michael steinbacher

[Anaconda]

The oil of the greater Green River basin is contained in what appears to be a geologic feature produced underwater with a strong current. This is over half of the worlds proven reserve. There are fossils associated with the oil as if it was a flooding scenario.

As i mentioned last time, many floods with and without hydraulic currents are being proposed.

Which one of the two distinct hypothesis do you subscribe to, starbiter?

The hypothesis before you were informed of the Morton paper which totally contradicted the "geologic feature produced underwater with a strong current" or the hypothesis after you were informed of the Morton paper's facts & evidence?

I'd think we'd all like to know.

Since starbiter disagrees with my opinion regarding the proportions of Earth derived abiotic oil versus comet derived abiotic oil, his response to the below comment is an interesting turn in the discussion:

My opinion is that hydrocarbons were emitted from below the surface into the body of the ancient lakes and/or within the raparian area of those lakes and then it flowed into the lakes. The light hydrocarbons evaporated and the heavy hydrocarbons sank to the bottom of the lakes. That is why the thickest layers are towards the center of the ancient lake beds.

starbiter's response:

Me again,

Thanks for sharing that. I think it speaks for itself.

Please, I'm sure other readers including myself would appreciate a response which is not so cryptic. Do you agree with the statement, and, if so, why, or, more likely, given your previous comments, why do you disagree with the statement?

[starbiter]

Anaconda said,
[...]
Again, another stawman argument. I have already stated I will consider legend and myth, but geo-physical evidence is not to be ignored, like you do repeatedly when it contradicts your hypothesis. This is the problem with "personal theories" such as yours, it is hard to pin it down to specifics that can be objectively researched and, if appropriate, challenged or agreed to.

me again,
My reading of Your statement is that You completely ignore legend and myth. When have You ever considered legend or myth in Your thinking? Have You ever considered a 10,000 year timeline for the surface of Earth? Dust and wind so strong You can't see Your own hand? Oil raining for days and nights? Rivers of fire? The Sun rising where it used to set? It certainly doesn't seem like it to me. You seem more concerned with my use of singular or plural sloshes. The answer is plural. Some sloshes bigger than others. Some with more or less oil than others. Sloshes would travel up rivers in many cases filling lakes along the way. Other sloshes were on the return trip to the equator from what i see in the field. Any lakes along the way would likely to be filled. See Worlds in Collision for details. The Sun changed it's motion many times. Each time the Sun changes it's motion the movement of Earth changes causing a slosh a varying magnitude. A reversal of sunrise/sunset would cause a really big slosh with the oceans rushing poleward, then back to the equator as the planet commenced rotating in the opposite direction. This is all EU 101.

The link You posted talked about lakes being filled. That fits the flooding river system/slosh model nicely. The idea of lakes being filled from below with deep volcano oil seems ludacris. I've never read of a legend or myth describing something like a lake filling up with oil from below. I can't find literature about lakes filling up with oil today. You do realize the USGS thinks there are 4 trillion barrels of oil in the greater Green River basin. The Green River basin has very little volcanics associated with it by the way. Legend and myth describe a series of events that would produce the Green River basin. You seem to be pulling Your model from thin air, although you do have anti biogenic people on your side. They probably agree with You. But i see no basis for belief in this fantastic story. You might want to use something other than the Book Cliffs as Your example. But that would mean that deep earth volcano oil was less than half the worlds oil. And as you've pointed out, many other oil deposits are similar.

michael

[PersianPaladin]

Sourcebook Project Anomaly Register No. 3, Oct 97, p. 5, BBC2 Horizon 1997

The Green River formation in Wyoming shows more than a million varves (thin layers) of shale, each supposedly indicating one year's lake sediments. However, fossil catfish are found over a large area in excellent state of preservation, which indicates rapid burial as dead fish normally decay rapidly on a muddy lake bottom. There are also two layers of volcanic ash in one area, yet the thickness and varve counts between them varies to the tune of 400 years. It is also hard to imagine any lake surviving over a million years, through ice ages and climate changes, yet never varying its rate of sedimentation, nor even becoming eventually silted up.

In the course of the Horizon program on the death of the dinosaurs via an impact at Chichxub, a Mexican geologist pointed to a thick bed of sediment and suggested it might have been laid down during a single tidal wave. With the increasing numbers of examples like these how is it possible for geologists to maintain that the depth of any layer is indicative of even decades of slow deposition, let alone the millions they usually attribute to them? Bernard Newgrosh raises again the question of how it can be glibly assumed that the very thick layers necessary to cover a large dinosaur bone can have taken thousands of years to be deposited. We have had reports of dinosaur bones which looked remarkably fresh; patently they had to be catastrophically buried. All thick layers of sedimentary rock should really be viewed as possible indicators of rapid and catastrophic deposition.

Source:-
From: SIS Chronology & Catastrophism Review 1997:2 (Apr 1998)


Granted, the Morton paper does raise interesting questions about the issue of catfish preservation and distribution.

[Chromium6]

Keep in mind that earthquakes are common and bust the "crust" for magma flows. Where these occur often map to hydrocarbon deposits in large quantities. This is only the last 100 years but project a few million on that back to the Oligocene.

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/3114-wo ... s-map.html

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/images/i/5288/original/earthquake-world-map-120628.jpg

Stunning Map Reveals World's Earthquakes Since 1898
Andrea Mustain, OurAmazingPlanet Staff Writer - Jun 28, 2012 04:50 PM ET

World map shows 105 years of earthquakes.
More than 100 years of earthquakes glow on a world map.
CREDIT: John Nelson, IDV Solutions.


If you've ever wondered where — and why — earthquakes happen the most, look no further than a new map, which plots more than a century's worth of nearly every recorded earthquake strong enough to at least rattle the bookshelves.

The map shows earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 or greater since 1898; each is marked in a lightning-bug hue that glows brighter with increasing magnitude.

The overall effect is both beautiful and arresting, revealing the silhouettes of Earth's tectonic boundaries in stark, luminous swarms of color.

The map's maker, John Nelson, the user experience and mapping manager for IDV Solutions, a data visualization company, said the project offered several surprises.

"First, I was surprised by the sheer amount of earthquakes that have been recorded," Nelson told OurAmazingPlanet. "It's almost like you could walk from Seattle to Wellington [New Zealand] if these things were floating in the ocean, and I wouldn't have expected that."

In all, 203,186 earthquakes are marked on the map, which is current through 2003. And it reveals the story of plate tectonics itself.

Earthquake makers

The long volcanic seams where Earth's crust is born appear as faint, snaking lines cutting through the world's oceans. The earthquakes along these so-called spreading centers tend to be rather mild. The best studied spreading center, called the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, bisects the Atlantic Ocean, on the right side of the image.

Its Pacific counterpart wanders along the eastern edge of the Pacific Ocean, cutting a wide swath offshore of South America. Another spreading center makes a jog though the Indian Ocean and up through the Red Sea.

But one glance at the map shows that the real earthquake action is elsewhere. [7 Ways the Earth Changes in the Blink of an Eye]

Subduction zones, the places where tectonic plates overlap and one is forced to dive deep beneath the other and into the Earth's crushing interior — a process that generates the biggest earthquakes on the planet — stand out like a Vegas light show.

Nelson said this concept hit home particularly for the Ring of Fire, the vast line of subduction zones around the northern and western edge of the Pacific Ocean.

"I have a general sense of where it is, and a notion of plate tectonics, but when I first pulled the data in and started painting it in geographically, it was magnificent," Nelson said. "I was awestruck at how rigid those bands of earthquake activity really are."

That realization prompted one big decision about the map's design, Nelson said. Unlike many maps made in the United States, this one is centered over the Pacific Ocean. "That looked like where the magic was happening," Nelson said. California, a spot rattled by quakes where faults jolt horizontally, also shines brightly.

Teaching tool

There are undoubtedly many earthquakes missing, given the dramatic change in scope and accuracy of seismological instruments from 1898 to the present day. Nelson said he saw a huge jump in the volume of data from the 1960s forward. Yet even without the complete catalog of earthquakes, the map provides a striking visual reference — even though none of the data are new.

All the earthquake information and maps are freely available on the Internet courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey, university and state partners in California, and NASA.

"There's nothing new about plotting earthquakes," Nelson said. "It's just presenting it in an interesting way."

And although he was modest about his own role as a designer, Nelson emphasized the value of design in making data more engaging. The project was a follow-up to a recent map of more than 50 years of tornado tracks across the United States; he said both maps are designed to get people more interested in the larger phenomena behind them. "To get them to start asking questions," Nelson said.

In short, a colorful map will grab people more than an Excel spreadsheet, even when both contain the same information.

"It seems almost superficial, but it's true," Nelson said. "If something is treated with thoughtful design, then it becomes better."

Reach Andrea Mustain at amustain@techmedianetwork.com. Follow her on Twitter @AndreaMustain.Follow OurAmazingPlanet for the latest in Earth science and exploration news on Twitter @OAPlanet. We're also on Facebook & Google+.

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/3114-wo ... s-map.html

[Anaconda]

My reading of Your statement is that You completely ignore legend and myth. When have You ever considered legend or myth in Your thinking?

starbiter, I considered legend and myth when I subscribed to to Dr. Anthony L. Peratt's theory that a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora enveloped the Earth and most likely has enveloped the Earth many times in the Earth's past. Not only did I consider Dr. Peratt's two papers, with those discussions of petroglyphs (which in a rough fashion is part of legend and myth), but also Rens van der Sluijs' numerous Thunderbolts Picture of the Day articles discussing legend and myth concerning the Axis Mundi. Rens van der Sluijs provides persuasive discussion with many examples. In fact, Rens van der Sluijs discusses legend and myth more than anybody else on the Thunderbolts Picture of the Day.

starbiter, do you subscribe to Dr. Anthony L. Peratt's theory and Rens van der Sluijs exhaustive explanation of legend and myth concerning the Axis Mundi?

And, I have considered Dr. Velikovsky's chapter on petroleum from the sky and from the ground (Yes, thanks to you, starbiter, for bringing his work to my attention ).

Now, do I get an apology from you or what?

Have You ever considered a 10,000 year timeline for the surface of Earth?

Yes, I have briefly considered it, but don't subscribe to it. Saying the surface of the Earth is only 10,000 years old is as baseless as saying the Earth is 4.6 billion years old via radiometric dating. In my opinion the Earth's surface is old, how old I don't know, but saying its only 10,000 years old flys in the face of the overwhelming totality of the scientific facts & evidence in my opinion.

You seem more concerned with my use of singular or plural sloshes. The answer is plural.

Yes, because your claim was singular until that claim was falsified by Morton's paper. But apparently, you can't bring yourself to admit that. So, in assessing the validity of your idea the fact that you changed from singular to plural is important to consider with regards to the specifics of the Green River Formation (I don't dismiss the possibility of catatrophic changes in the Earth's surface, there seems to be plenty of evidence for that, nor the possibility for massive bodies of water to have moved over the surface, but I certainly don't limit it to a 10,000 year period -- perhaps, that is where the error in your ideas reside).

The link You posted talked about lakes being filled.

Yes, lakes are filled with water by definition.

The idea of lakes being filled from below with deep volcano oil seems ludacris.

Really? Have you ever researched oil seeps?

There are oil seeps in numerous places. In fact, oil seeps are active in the Gulf of Mexico and account for a large amount of oil, which is evidenced by oil sheens or slicks on the surface (this is well documented and one way oil companies prospect for oil in the Gulf of Mexico). There are oil seeps off the coast of California and there are oil seeps on land as well in California. Oil bubbles to the surface in Iraq in small pools. It seems quite possible on a more geo-physically and chemically active planet Earth that oil seeps were more common and active. So is it really ludicrous for oil seeps to have existed within these ancient lakes?

Remember, these are depressed basins, likely because of geologic activity via faults and fractures in the Earth's crust, this is entirely consistent with where oil deposits are found, today, by oil companies.

Again, I didn't say the lakes were filled with oil, rather, the lakes were filled with water (as one would expect) and the oil seeps existed within the lakes and upon the oil seeping into the water of the lake, the heavy hydrocarbons would stay at the bottom, thus, forming the oil shale over time, and the light hydrocarbons would rise to the surface of the water and then evaporate.

The Green River basin has very little volcanics associated with it by the way.

Looking at the map of the Green River Formation:

http://webhosting.web.com/imagelib/site ... &title=Map of Green River Formation - Oil Shale

It would appear that the Yellowstone super volcano caldera is not too far away (considering its size and power) and there is apparently some evidence the Yellowstone super volcano caldera has moved over a long time in a North East direction, which would bring volcanic activity, if extended out from the super volcano caldera, near the Green River Formation area. Also, the Sevier orogeny which has a rift running through it which acts as the divider is also not too far away. There are many fractures and faults within the area of the Green River Formation which could act as conduits for oil to rise up and into the lakes as oil seeps and the area also has a record of seismic activity in line with Chromium6's previous comment.

You seem to be pulling Your model from thin air

No, it is a reasonable conclusion based on known geo-physical properties and the evidence at hand.

But i see no basis for belief in this fantastic story [oil seeps at the bottom of a lake].

starbiter, you are obviously oblivious to the irony of your statement considering the extraordinary nature of the claims in your personal theory.

Like I stated before, perhaps it is best to just agree to disagree.

[starbiter]

I'd like to explain the way i see a slosh. If the Earth's rotation slows down to a stop there would be consequences. If the Sun now rises where it used to set a reversal of rotation might be the cause. The oceans would continue in the direction they were moving prior to reversal. At the equator the speed is about 1,000 miles an hour. The length of time for breaking would determine the severity of the western slosh, if the Sun rose in the West prior to our current situation. In addition, the 13.25 mile higher sea level at the equator would be released to rush poleward. In my travels through the western US mountains i've tried to understand the process. It seems the waters followed the path of least resistance. Instead of flowing over 12,000 passes, the waters seem to have flowed up the river systems. Until the planet started to revolve in the opposite direction the waters could only move poleward. This is what was reported.

From WiC,
[...]
7. According to the Lapland cosmogonic story ...the angry God spoke, 'I shall reverse the world, I shall bid the rivers flow upward; I shall cause the sea to gather itself up into a towering wall which I shall hurl upon your wicked earth-children, and thus destroy them and all life. ...(Jubmel) with one strong upheaval, made the earth-lands all turn over.'

me again,
As the globe began to rotate in the manner we see today [East sunrise] the water in the flooded drainages [river systems] would would begin to be pulled back to the equator. It is the return flood that appears to have created the last event, or top event in the greater Green River basin.

The image below is a road cut just NW of Price UT. There are layers of coal, shale, and sandstone. This pattern continues for hundreds of feet down.


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-GyNP5 ... lQNHM/edit

Any lakes in the path of a flood of this nature would be filled with the material caught up in the flood. Below is a chart from the Book Cliff area showing the layers.




Section at northwest end of Beckwith Plateau.
Ft. iii.
Sandstone, massive, fine grained................................ 240
Coal...................................................... 2
Shale, carbonaceous.......................................... 7
Sandstone, buff............................................... 5
Coal...................................................... 4
Shale, carbonaceous.......................................... 6
Sandstone, thin bedded........................................ 10
Coal...................................................... 4
Shale, carbonaceous.......................................... 1
Coal...................................................... 1 6
Shale, carbonaceous.......................................... 2
Sandstone, carbonaceous....................................... 2
Sandstone, thin bedded, buff.................................. 6
Shale, buff.................................................... 6
Coal...................................................... 1 8
Sandstone, carbonaceous....................................... 1
Coal..................................'.................... 2
Shale, carbonaceous........................................... 8
Sandstone, thick bedded....................................... 20
Coal...................................................... 3
Shale, carbonaceous, drab...................................... 4
Sandstone, carbonaceous....................................... 3
Shale, carbonaceous...................................."...... 1
Coal...................................................... 1
Sandstone, thin bedded, and shale............................. 10
Shale, carbonaceous.......................................... 3
Coal...................................................... 1 2
Shale, carbonaceous.......................................... 1
Shale, buff, containing fossil plants............................ 2
Sandstone, buff, containing Anomia micronema, Modiola laticostata, and Corbula perundata. ................................ 3
Shale, buff.................................................... 3
Sandstone, buff, thick bedded................................. 45
Sandstone, thin bedded, and shale............................. 140
Sandstone, thick bedded, buff. ................................ 90
' Sandstone, thin bedded, and shale............................. 80
Sandstone, thick bedded, buff................................. 65
Sandstone, thin bedded, buff.................................. 30
Shale.

Total 805'

me again,

The point is, river systems are part of the slosh process. So are depressions in the river systems [lakes]. The process can have a high flow rate [current], low flow rate, or no flow rate. The waters might be full of oil and sediments, or not.

Other oil deposits could be from seeps [ooze is synonymous with seep, except it implies stickyness according to this link http://www.englishforums.com/English/Se ... v/post.htm ] produced by Deep Earth volcano oil. But the Book Cliffs pictured below, and the Greater Green River basin seem like the result of a slosh. Call me a creationist if You like. A Pagan creationist i suppose.




https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-GyNP5 ... 92dkk/edit The grey area is shale, with coal layers above.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-GyNP5 ... BWdUE/edit


michael steinbacher

[Anaconda]

starbiter, I asked you a question directly regarding legend & myth on which you put so much reliance in your personal theory.

starbiter, do you subscribe to Dr. Anthony L. Peratt's theory and Rens van der Sluijs exhaustive explanation of legend and myth concerning the Axis Mundi?

starbiter, please answer my question.

** A note to readers, in response to starbiter's claims and charges I stated my subscription to Dr. Anthony L. Peratt's theory (of course, I also stated my subscription to Peratt's theory on this board well before any discussion with starbiter).

Interestingly, starbiter you have not responded in any detail to those comments, even after I made note of your failure to do so.

So, again, starbiter, please answer my question: Do you subscribe to Dr. Anthony L. Peratt's theory and Rens van der Sluijs' exhaustive explanation of legend and myth concerning the Axis Mundi?

[starbiter]

Hello Anaconda,

The Axis Mundi is accepted by most EU followers. There are questions as to the cause and date. Most consider it the result of a plasma event. Some think it was during the saturnian system. Some think the polar configuration, during the saturnian system was responsible.

I favor a diocotron instability during later events with either Mars or Venus. The beige circular area in the center of the map below seems to be the result of a diocotron instability.

http://goo.gl/maps/K2MgB

http://goo.gl/maps/dWeLu The mountains surrounding the beige area seem related to the central area.

The curvature of the mountains on the right side of the map below seems related to the Four Corners area. On the inside of the mountain ring is a 400 mile ring of basalt and volcanics.

http://goo.gl/maps/uwvVJ

Diocotron instabilities have counter rotating rings of ions and electrons. If a diocotron instability occurred while the air was choked with dust it might concentrate the dust rapidly.

There are mountains going North and South from the circle of mountains, in the shape of a hurricane or spiral galaxy.

http://goo.gl/maps/aTM9m

This might be a remnant of a diocotron instability/Axis Mundi.

It's nice that You're open to the Axis Mundi. But i fail to see what that has to do with oil in the Green River basin laid out in horizontal layers consistent with the sedimentology videos, as my images show. Recognition of the Axis Mundi does not make You a catastrophist, IMHO.




michael

[Anaconda]

steinbacher, thank you for answering my question.

You claimed I "completely ignore legend and myth", that is why the Axis Mundi came up.

And, the Axis Mundi is relevant to the possibility of comet oil as I stated in my comments -- you, steinbacher, brought up comet oil. But I also suggested in my comments the Axis Mundi is relevant in terms of a more geo-physically active planet Earth. In fact, I have already stated that, in my opinion, the Axis Mundi and the increased electromagnetic energy introduced into the planet is likely responsible for catatrophic events, including coal formation epochs and catatrophic earthquake and volcanic activity [and potentially large water movement events due to changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis].

But you already knew that by reading my comments.

steinbacher, why are you intellectually dishonest? And, how do you expect people to take your personal theory seriously, which by the rules of the Thunderbolts Forum doesn't belong on the upper boards, because it is a personal theory, when you constantly ignore facts & evidence which contradict your personal theory and other ideas you support?

steinbacher, you have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you are incapable of engaging in meaningful scientific debate in a way that would ever convince serious people of your ideas.

And, then when people challenge your personal theory you get upset and whine about being "lectured" to?

You need to grow up and respect the Scientific Method and not be childish if you want people to take your personal theory seriously.

By the way, the Book Cliff area, as far as I know, is not considered part of the Green River Formation. It seems to be just a distraction from the fact that you changed your "slosh" from a singular event into multiple events upon becoming aware that the Morton paper falsified your singular "slosh" event idea.

Conclusion

Every feature of the Green River formation points to long periods of deposition. The coprolites of fish and birds, algal encrusting of logs, footprints, variations in laminae thickness consistent with known weather patterns, sunspots, and Earth orbital parameters. Radioactive dating confirms the depositional rates which indicate yearly varves. The young-earth creationist, like Garner, can sit on the fence and throw rocks at the geological explanation, but he can't explain any of these features. The young-earth creationist must ask himself the following set of questions if he is to be rational.

1. Why were the flood waters on layer after layer the depth of a bird leg as indicated by the footprints?

2. How were catfish able to leave so many coprolites on the layers if this is a rapidly deposited formation?

3. Why would God imprint orbital parameters and sunspot cycles on the thicknesses of the laminae?

4. Why do the radioactive dates seem to verify the slow depositional rates?

5. How could a bird take the time to nibble the lake floor during a global flood?

6. How are raindrop impressions preserved under the waters of a global flood?

7. Why did God produce a flood deposit which exactly matches the areal distribution seen in lakes? Did God deceive us?

8. Why do the oxygen-18 values decrease around the edges of Fossil Lake as would be expected of a modern lake?

9. The young-earth creationist must also ask him- or herself why the young-earth authors never tell him what I just told him.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm

To be fair, even though the Book Cliff area is not part of the Green River Formation, it is an quite interesting sedimentary pattern, nevertheless.

[starbiter]

Hello Anaconda,

I usually refer to the greater Green River basin as shown in the links below.

http://thecoloradoobserver.com/wp-conte ... -river.png

http://thecoloradoobserver.com/wp-conte ... -river.png

The Book Cliffs are shown as part of the Green River area on the above map.

This article claims 3 trillion barrels. Others claim over 4 trillion barrels.

Your openness to the Axis Mundi is a wonderful start down the road of legend and myth. Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval get better with every reading.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21746106/Veli ... n-Upheaval

Earth in Upheaval tells the story of a very violent, recent past for our planet.

When combined with the works of Wal Thornhill and Dr Scott the past comes alive.

michael