Dear God, Eve what have you done?

[Mystical]

Drich there's a hole in your theory, Eden would have been submerged for quite some time (hundreds of thousands of years) to allow the formation of all of the oil that is now there, correct? How could Adam and Eve survive in the garden of Eden when it was submerged. After all oil only forms from dead aquatic plant and marine life, hence why there were no dinosaurs in "Eden".

Maybe look up Gondwana, and tell me again how the region in question was on the sea floor. You would think you would have checked ALL your facts before giving me an oppertunity to make you look foolish, but hey, nobody's perfect eh?

*note the text that says Arabia, right there submerged under the Tethys Ocean.

Crude oil is formed from the decayed remnants of aquatic plants and animals that lived hundreds of millions of years ago.

says scientist who believe that petroleum is a fossil based fuel. There are other 'scientists' who believe oil is a byproduct of Teutonic activity. The point? No one knows for sure, at best you have a theory you like Kinda like I do.

Not really, no. I'm just gonna assume you mean tectonic activity and address you as such.

If you want to go with already debunked 'scientists' theories from the 1600's, go ahead. I'll stick with modern science. What's more, your own tectonic theorists have been proven wrong already, and their theories still require "magic" energy sources for the convection of tectonic plates; which, if it were to somehow be plausible for a magical energy source to cause such friction (you're an earth expansionist theorist, aren't you?), it would still be impossible for plate tectonics to be a plausible theory, because it's a theory without an energy source to power geodynamic activity.

Herndon ... found a serious problem [6]. Indeed, the critical assumption of mantle convection is truly the Achilles heel of plate tectonics.
When a fluid is heated from beneath, it expands becoming lighter, less dense, than the fluid above it. This top-heavy arrangement is unstable, so fluid motions result as the fluid attempts to restore stability. The top-heavy arrangement occurs because the temperature at the bottom is hotter than at the top. This is convection. Not only is the Earth’s mantle not a fluid, but the weight of over-burden rock causes compression within the mantle, which increases with depth. Matter at the bottom of the mantle is about 62% more dense than at the top, as shown in the figure at right. Heating bottom-rock causes a miniscule increase in volume, hence miniscule decrease in density, much, much less than 1%. This is far, far too little to make the "parcel" of bottom-mantle light enough to float to the top, not enough to make the mantle top-heavy; the result is no mantle-convection at all.

Often Earth-mantle convection is (wrongly) "justified" by calculating a high Rayleigh Number. But, as discovered by J. Marvin Herndon, Lord Rayleigh's derivation was based upon constant density and, thus, is not applicable to the Earth's mantle [6].

So, unequivocally, plate tectonics theory is not correct. Why? Because the crucial underlying part is physically impossible, which means that plate tectonics theory is wrong. That might not be surprising as plate tectonics is an incomplete theory, a theory without an energy source to power geodynamic activity.

Large portions of the modern day Middle East were once submerged under a large, now non-existent sea called the Tethys Sea.

Sorry bunny no, well 2/3's no. Tethys was not one large ocean in the region being discussed. It was 3 seperate bodies of water that occupied different portions of the Arabian plate at one time or another. 'Scientist' project that roughly 1/2 of the Arabian plate was submerged at one point or another. And, of that 1/2 only 1/3 of it was under water at a time.
http://www.geoexpro.com/article/Why_So_M...94fc1.aspx
(Tethys is discussed in the paragraph under the fourth pic from the top.)

I don't see any disagreement with what I said. We're in agreement. You're an idiot.

http://www.sepmstrata.org/page.aspx?pageid=133


The Late Ordovician was characterized by the expanding of the polar glaciers across Gondwana and most of western parts of Arabia (Husseini, 1991).


In the Early Silurian, sea level rose in response to deglaciation and resulted in the widespread deposition of the upward-coarsening Qalibah Formation, which consists of a lower Qusaiba member and an upper Sharawara member (Mahmoud et al., 1992). The Qusaiba member at the base of Qalibah Formation is an organic-rich shale corresponding to a maximum flooding surface. This "hot shale" unit ranges in thickness from 20-70 m. On the basis of carbon isotope and biomarker data, the basal Qusaiba shale is believed to be the principal source for the low-sulfur, light oil discovered in Paleozoic reservoirs of central and eastern Saudi Arabia (McGillivray and Husseini, 1992). According to Vail (1977), a hiatus associated with a global sea-level drop occurred in the late stages of Silurian.



n the Late Permian, the Arabian-Gondwana/Iranian-Laurasia super continent was fragmented when the crust was stretched, and by the Early Triassic eventually rifted along the Zagros line to form the Neo-Tethys Sea (eastern margin of the Arabian Plate) (Beydoun, 1991). During the Jurassic the Arabian plate was relatively tectonically stable and was located at the Equator enabling the development of a wide shallow shelf on the western passive margin of the Neo-Tethys on which carbonates accumulated over the shelf and inner platform. Most of the Arabian Gulf petroleum source-reservoir-seals accumulated during the Jurassic and Cretaceous.

The climate became more humid towards the end of Early Jurassic. As a result, evaporites deposition was rare. Intrashelf depressions such as the Gotnia, the South Rub' AlKhali, and the Arabian Basins were created as a result of tectonic differentiation and rising sea level.

The major formation of the Arabian platform was initiated in the Late Callovian, and caused the deposition of the organic rich rocks that form the major source formation in the anoxic intrashelf basins of the Middle East (e.g., Gotnia Basin and Arabian Basin). The carbonate deposition on the shelf kept pace with changes in sea level until the end of Jurassic when the major evaporitic seals were deposited during a fall in sea level as the climate became predominantly arid.

The onset of the Alpine-Himalayan orogeny started in the late Cretaceous. The Neo-Tethys began to close and as a result of compression and foredeep developed in eastern Arabia. The re-organization of the Indian Ocean spreading centers (as a result of fast northward motion of Indian plate) thrust fragments of ocean crust upon the eastern Arabian plate continental margins (Semail ophiolite of Oman) (Hulver, 2000). This tectonic motion produced a major hiatus of sedimentation across the Arabian plate and the Pre-Aruma unconformity (PAU). Additionally, the "Hercynian" structures were rejuvenated and started forming the major eastern Arabian petroleum traps (e.g. the Ghawar anticline) (Beydoun, 1991).

So let's review what happened up there shall we? First, deglaciation floods everything, creating the Tethys Sea--Lots, and lots of organic material in a world sized sea. Climate change causes a decrease in sea levels and major evaporitic seals were deposited. The african shelf collides with the european shelf, shifting the arabian shelf counterclockwise, and all the biological matter was covered in a shale of rock and left to cook.

Now let's look at how real science says fossil fuels are formed.

http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energyle...ormed.html
During the millions of years that passed, the dead plants and animals slowly decomposed into organic materials and formed fossil fuels. Different types of fossil fuels were formed depending on what combination of animal and plant debris was present, how long the material was buried, and what conditions of temperature and pressure existed when they were decomposing.

For example, oil and natural gas were created from organisms that lived in the water and were buried under ocean or river sediments. Long after the great prehistoric seas and rivers vanished, heat, pressure and bacteria combined to compress and "cook" the organic material under layers of silt. In most areas, a thick liquid called oil formed first, but in deeper, hot regions underground, the cooking process continued until natural gas was formed. Over time, some of this oil and natural gas began working its way upward through the earth's crust until they ran into rock formations called "caprocks" that are dense enough to prevent them from seeping to the surface. It is from under these caprocks that most oil and natural gas is produced today.

[/quote]

Why wont you just outright say where you believe the garden was?

I have a few times. Well as close as I can because as I have already explained we only know where two of the four rivers mentioned in genesis are.

Really? Where? In this thread that we're talking in right now? Or are you asking me to read an entire Other thread just to address you in this one which is highly inconvenient and kinda dickish of you? Or do you mean in the great "Drich's revised version of History" on this forum? Cuz, you know, I don't follow every single post of yours; just the blatantly retarded ones.

Telling us to get a map and research before you making us look like fools is foolish, to say the least. If you truly think your 'layman theory' is correct beyond all doubt, and that there are NO fossils coming out of that region, then by all means Drich--put it up for scrutiny. I've already pointed out to you how your 'garden oil deposits' are incorrect, lets keep goin.

so it is your opinion that 'fossil fuel scientists' would admit to there have being the garden of Eden as the primary source for all the oil in that region if they had proof?

Ummm.. DUH. Science isn't based upon what it wants to disprove, it's a culmination of FACTS, data, observations, with CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE FACTS, not the other way around like you're trying to do (poorly).
If I'm giving an opinion on the matter, it's my opinion that 'fossil fuel scientists' aka: scientists have proven beyond doubt what has happened, and 'creationist scientists' refuse to accept the findings because it contradicts what they believe to be true and invalidates their book as being truth. Therefore they grasp at unfounded, impossible theories such as those you have spewed forth, in order to justify their scrutiny of well-founded TRUTH.

Also your 'theory' has already been done. Unless this is you?

---

The Dinosaurs Story -Science vs. The Bible posted 5/21/2008 8:39:05 PM | 4 kudos what's this? report abuse tagged: dinosaurs, bible

justsayyeah7

Dinosaurs have been a fascination of mankind ever since the first dinosaur bones were discovered in the 1820's. The word dinosaur means 'terrible lizard.'

Dinosaurs are always thought of as huge monsters when in reality most of them were the size of elephants or smaller.

Most scientists(excluding creationist scientists) tell us dinosaurs lived for millions of years, millions of years ago. This is just theories of these scientists of course since there is no measuring stick they use to prove this. The scientists that believe dinosaurs lived millions of years ago are evolutionists and they try to fit the story of dinosaurs into their evolution views. The problem with the evolution theories is that the dinosaur bones do not show it. Ever go to a dinosaur museum and see a partial Triceratops? No. But if the dinosaurs evolved then where is the partial Triceratops? Every Triceratops in every museum is 100% Triceratops. There is no fossil evidence of animals that are part dinosaur and part something else. These scientists also believe that dinosaurs and humans never lived on the eath at the same time. The only reason these types of theories exists is because these scientists like to try and disprove the bible and promote their evolution views.

The bible on the other hand gives us clues to dinosaurs and humans living on the planet at the same time. First off, bible scholars tell us that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1 can only mean an ordinary day in this context. So when the bible tells us that God created the earth in 6 days, then it was 6 actual days. Some scientists will tell you that 'who knows how long each day was, each day could have represented years.' That is them using theories with no proof again.

In Genesis 1 we read that God created beasts of the earth and man on the 6th day and then on the 7th day He rested. The book of Genesis was written by Moses in the 16th Century BC and describes events that took place between the 4th and 3rd Millieneum before Christ. That means roughly 4,000 to 3,000 years BC. That would show that dinosaurs lived only 5,000 to 6,000 years ago.

So since the bible tells us that beasts and man were created on the same day, that would say that man and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time.

Then what happened to the dinosaurs? Evolution scientists will tell you many different theories to the dinosaurs demise. Here are some of those theories;

Dinosaurs starved to death; they died from overeating; they were poisoned; they became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals ate their eggs. Other causes include-volcanic dust, poisonous gases, comets, sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_89453/Th...Bible.html econstipation, parasites, shrinking brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the composition of air, etc.

It is obvious that evolutionist don't know what happened and are just guessing. Why else would they have so many different reasons? In the bible, scholars believe that the flood that covered the entire earth is the reason. This is when we had the story of Noah's Ark. The creatures that could fit were placed inside the Ark by either pairs or in sevens and the rest all drowned. This would include the large dinosaurs that were too large to fit in the ark and they drowned too. The creatures who drowned were buried under the mud created by the flood.

One fact that I find interesting is that no dinosaur fossils have ever been found in the Iraq/Saudi Arabia region(also know back then as the Garden of Eden). This is the region that people lived in prior to the flood. Dinosaurs have been found in every region in the world except this one is very interesting and makes the story of the bible even more believable.

So if you care about this subject then I hope you enjoyed this blog. As I see it, you can either believe the theories that date back to the 1820's or you can believe documents that were written 1,600 BC. Me personally, I believe written documents over someones theory anyday.

---

So? All this says in Common with what I said is there are no fossils found in that region... It's the truth, I do not understand your point.

Not true. All of it covers exactly what you've been saying in this thread and the Other one you made me review. My point, sir, is that you're by far not the first to throw this shit around, and those before you have been refuted to the point that you saying it again and thinking it's revolutionary is just embarrassing for you.

I guess this is another opportunity for me to gloat, because you puffed yourself up on info someone else provided you blindly.. Meaning ms. Foo foo didnt provide any reference material verifying what she said was accurate or even close...

Gloating seems to be the only thing you're good at.

Who needs story tellers when you are good with blind faith, and someone who sounds like she knows what she is talking about... how does that differ from story telling again?

I think it's been made quite evident that you've been holding a bluff hand all along. I'd suggest to you to take your information from real scientific websites, rather than religious conspiracy theorist ones. Just a suggestion.