>There are two problems with this argument. First, oil will only migrate up
>to the first impermeable layer it encounters, usually clay or shale, but
>sometimes a fault breccia or other structure. Clay and shale layers are
>very abundant throughout the geological column, so oil will not migrate up
>through "geological time" very far.
Not true, Lee. I would suggest that you consult a good text on oil
migration. The porous and permeable layers are in the earth and lie at an
angle. They are not horizontal. The dipping beds and the faults (cracks in
the rocks) provide enough pathways for the oil to migrate quite far and
quite high in the geologic column.
Consider the diagram below.
There are two sandstone bodies surrounded by shale. The section has two big
faults, or cracks. The oil is migrating from the source rock and has enter
into the lower sand from the shales. The oil does as you say Lee and rises
to the top of the lower left sand. Then it moves uphill along top of the
sand till it reaches a fault. At this point the fault can be a conduit for
the oil. Small cracks along the fault can allow the oil to rise higher.
The oil then enters the lower sand in fault block 2. The oil also rises to
enter the top sand in fault block 2. The oil moves uphill along the lower
sand until it reaches the fault which in this case has no small pathways for
the oil to escape and so the sand fills with oil and you have an oil field.
The oil that entered the upper sand moves uphill to the same fault, but this
part of the fault is a conduit and the oil rises along that fault till it
reaches the top sand in fault block 3. In this way we find deeper and older
oils in much younger rocks.
fault block 1 fault block 2 fault block 3
---------------------------------------/-----------------/oooooo
--------------------------------------/-----------------/osssssss
------------------------------------/ooooooooooooooooo/o---------
---------------------sssssssssssss/osssssssssssssssss/-----------
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss/o------------------/ssssssssssss
sssssssssssssssssssss---------/o-------------------/ssssssssssss
----------------------------/o-------------ooooooo/--------------
--------------------------/o------ooooooooooooooo/---------------
------------------------/ooooooooosssssssss-----/----------------
----------------------/ossssssssss-------------/-----------------
---------oooooooooo/o-------------------------/------------------
ooooooooooossssss/---------------------------/-------------------
ssossossso------/---------------------------/--------------------
oil source rock---------------------------/---------------------
s= sand
-= shale
o=oil or oil traveling through the sand or up the fault
/ fault
/o oil traveling up fault plane
In the Gulf of Mexico we find Jurassic Cretaceous and Tertiary oils in
Tertiary rocks. We find Jurassic and Cretaceous oil in Cretaceous rocks and
we find only Jurassic oil in Jurassic rocks. The geologic column (for those
other than Lee who might not know) is:
top
Tertiary
Cretaceous
Jurassic
bottom
Secondly, it assumes that "global
>flood theory" processes mixed all habitats; that biota from an
>elevationally higher biome could get transported to and mixed with the
>biota of a lower biome. If one assumes that the portion of the geological
>column referred to by Glenn represents deposits formed during the flood,
>the fact that species have observably distinct stratigraphic ranges and are
>not found mixed randomly throughout the column says that the flood
>processes were orderly and not mixed. The model predicts that angiosperms
>will not be destroyed and buried before the rising floodwaters reached
>them; therefore, angiosperms should not be represented in the fossil record
>before mid-Cretaceous biomes.
You forget that the flood must FIRST ERODE THE ENTIRE WORLD before it can
begin to lay down sediments anywhere. This is because whereever the first
flood sediments are laid down, must never again be eroded. There are
several million cubic kilometers of sedimentary rock (60,000 feet of it in
parts of Oklahoma). All of this must be in suspension or have been eroded
previously and moved around prior to the flood. The global flood is
envisioned to have destroyed mountain ranges, but it can't mix anything up?
That is quite strange.
>
>The real problem for "global flood theory" has nothing to do with flood
>processes, but rather, What pre-flood environmental conditions could
>restrict angiosperms to the higher elevations? In our modern world, there
>is no biome except marine-below-the-photic-zone that lacks angiosperms.
>What were the conditions before the flood where cycads and conifers could
>live, but not angiosperms? This again illustrates that more time should be
>spent trying to solve problems within the paradigm than trying to prove a
>different paradigm wrong.
The global flood paradigm has so many problems and no one is finding
solutions. You can't offer a solution for this problem so one must ask, are
you going to be able to solve it?
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm