Creationists!!!?

Question

If you believe that "fossil" fuel like oil can be created in only thousands of years,
Why would it be a "limited" resource?
If it took such a short period to produce, wouldn't that mean it would be continuously produced and wouldn't be considered "limited"?

Perhaps creationists would like to change oil from limited to unlimited.
Gee, you ever wonder if fossils can be created in only 50 years, why we don't have so much oil it would never run out?

hey slickboy:'

I'M talking about OIL , the FOSSIL fuel as a LIMITED resouce,
Get it?

Gary,

come on dude,
just have courage enough to answer addressing the actual question.

Answer 1

The Resources of the Nature are provided by God and also provided a way of Control of each resource..

Some meateaters say that if they do not eat meat then the animals would over flood the World. Well that does not happen.

Some People claim that if they do not control Population then there will be no place left on earth to Stand !!

You question is similar to asking -
" There is so much rain all over the world each year, why dont the Oceans over flow? "

I can understand you would like unlimited Fuel so that you can Create Unlimited Pollution.

You have to look into all the activities of God.. Not only Creation..
He did not create and Die. He is Maintainer and Destroyer too..

Answer 2

In 1970, evolutionists claimed that if we didn't stop using oil - if we didn't cut usage down to nearly zero - we would run out within 20 years. Oil use increased, and by 1990 we knew of more than 35 years worth of oil supplies.

Even an evolutionist should believe that oil is being continuously produced. Dinosaurs might be gone, but aren't other plants and animals dying and being covered with layers of sediment? Isn't evolution based on the assumption that everything continues the way that it always has? If you believe that something happened in the past that isn't being continued each and every day (like a great global flood), you are half-way to being a creationist.

Oil is "limited" only in the sense that it takes time and money to go find it and get it. There's also a constant need to fight liberals who want to protect barren tundra and offshore sites beyond the line of sight of beaches, and will leave their air-conditioned SUV's idling in the parking lots while they talk about the need to protect the ozone layer.

Answer 3

One thing for sure, they are discovering new oil fields all the time...do you read the news? Do you know that Brazil will become self sufficient and an oil exporter in ten years? Do you know about the new discovery in the Gulf of Mexico?

Are you a geologist?There is much more oil than we ever thought.

Now who said (what creationist) that oil takes a thousand years to produce. How many people said this and what is your source?

Answer 4

OK! This is just for all of the bainiacs out there! Fossil 'fuel' MUST have HIGH PRESSURE! It must be compressed! And yes that would not take very long to accomplish. Take a look a the synthetic diamond. It only takes a few days to make one of those, and only one trained in the diamond field can tell the difference, and even then it is not easy.

Answer 5

I don't personally subscribe to the "young earth" theory... but your argument doesn't really hold water. If oil takes thousands of years to produce, and we're using it up at such a rate that we'll have used it up within a couple of centuries since we started using it in large amounts....it would still be considered a "limited" resource, since it will take thousands of years to replenish what we've used up so quickly.

Perhaps a more effective argument against "young earth" proponents would be along the lines of geology and/or evolution?

Answer 6

They are working on creating artificial oil in the lab and have had so good results.

But this artificial oil would cost $15-20 Gal at the pump!

Answer 7

Re: Cambrian explosion a poster mentions.

WRONG. pre-Cambrian life forms are evidenced by stromatolites, which still exist on earth (go to Shark Bay near Perth, Australia)

Pre-Cambrian forms had no hard shells, so didn't leave fossils. That is Biology 101 stuff.

LOL

Answer 8

the object elements a referenced, evidenced thesis. you've offered an charm to Ridicule (i.e. a logical fallacy). Now all you need to do is latest a rational rebuttal - so the thoughtful human beings can take section contained in the communicate. (yet I received't carry my breath).

Answer 9

You are probably unaware of the facts of the fossil record, Jane.

There is plenty of evidence AGAINST EVOLUTION:.
First, the 'Cambrian explosion'; the millions of fossil types in Cambrian rock (oldest fossil bearing rocks) appear suddenly and fully formed and without any previous forms...IOW, there are no transitional forms.

Most well educated evolutionists when forced to ...will admit it, but very unwillingly, and even then they always want to seem to make new excuses for it. Usually they just don't say anything about it and hope noone finds out.


"From the beginning of the Creation God made them male and female..." (Mk. 10:6)

Answer 10

Interesting connection you made! It explains so much.
Have you noticed that creationists and oil companies both love Bush? They DO think the petroleum supply is limitless!