PetriFB, your post is singularily ill informed. You have strung together a sequence of falsehoods, misinterpretations and ignorance. They seem to have been lifted intact from one or more creationist sites.
Warning:
Emotional remark approaching.
Don't you retards ever learn?
PetriFB said:
It is spoken about special Carboniferous, when carbon has been formed especially much.
While some oil does come from the Carboniferous, most oil does not.
Coal is particularily common in Carboniferous (Mississipian and Pennsylvanian for you North Americans), not oil.
PetriFB said:
The age of carbon deposits and oil wells. The first point is that evidences of the age of carbon- and oil deposits do not refer to the large periods
Your meaning is not exactly clear here. You seem to be saying that their is no evidence that the oil is old. This is not so. The oil is found in rocks whose age is both well established and very old. Perhaps you would care to cite any contrary evidence. I am not aware of any, but am always ready to learn.
PetriFB said:
The pressure of oil wells is so hard (it is ordinary, that oil can gush into the air from the drilled hole in the ground), that they cannot be at most than 10,000 years old.
Nonsense. You display a total lack of understanding of sedimentology, diagenesis, structural geology, petroleum fluid properties, oil migration, geomechanics, and just about anything connected with the topic. Oil is trapped in rocks because of overlying layers which are impermeable, or of very low permeability. Other factors such as continued subsidence, thermal expansion effects, artesian conditions, clay minerallogy and related osmotic pressures, combine to generate and maintain overpressures for many millions of years.
PetriFB said:
When from carbon strata "from across 250 - 300 millions years" has been found men’s footprints on numerous different areas (for instance Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico and Kentucky) and have been found things and skulls, which belong to man, from these same strata
Extreme nonsense. No such findings have ever been demonstrated. There have been hoaxes and misinterpretations, but no genuine finds.
PetriFB said:
The birth speed. Also as far as is concerned forming of oil and carbon, it has not been needed to last a long time.
Irrelevant. The fact that oil might be produced relatively quickly is not evidence that it was produced relatively quickly.
PetriFB said:
It has also been possible, that tree and other cellulose materials have been changed into carbon or material like carbon only in a few hours.
The same argument applies as above. In addition, you are displaying your considerable ignorance for the world to see. What exactly is a
material like carbon? Do you realise that cellulose is an organic molecule. i.e. its backbone is a chain of carbon atoms. What do you mean by saying it will change into carbon? Your sentence is almost meaningless.
From the middle of carbon strata can be found fossils, for instance trees, which may penetrate several strata. These fossils could not be born in any way and appear, if the carbon strata would have been formed during the millions of years.
We have already established that the Carboniferous strata have nothing to do with much of the oil that has formed.
No one disputes that while the Carboniferous strata were being laid down in tropical forests in huge river basins, there were, from time to time, floods that embedded the roots and lower trunks of trees in sediment. We can witness the same process occuring today in the basins of the Amazon and the Congo.
On many carbon strata of the globe are found noticeable amounts shell strata of sea animals and fossils of sea animals
Of course there were. There were frequent (in a geological sense) marine incursions onto these lowlying deltas. New Orleans mean anything to you? This is evidence
for the ancient nature of oil, not against.
As a problem in the birth of carbon and oil is that it does not happen nowadays. They are not formed even in the tropical countries, even though conditions in those countries would be supposed to be suitable; on the contrary, the plants there only putrefy quickly and from them is not formed any oil or carbon.
Wrong. We can examine the character of organic material in buried sediments, and we find a progressive change in the character of these as the sediments get older that is wholly consistent with the generation of petroleum. Also, get away from this dumb idea that oil comes from, and only from, decaying tropical trees.
Please go away. Get an education, then return to report why you were mistaken.
