Whatever. What you've presented here (in toto) is about the weakest possible case that anyone could possibly present. I suspect even a child of 16 could have done a much better job than the one you've botched so badly.
Oil Crisis
- Thread starter ck27
- Start date
- Status
Whatever. What you've presented here (in toto) is about the weakest possible case that anyone could possibly present. I suspect even a child of 16 could have done a much better job than the one you've botched so badly.
Wow. The evidence you present for biogenic theory here is overwhelming.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
What a poor mass of undereducated human flotsam you are! For one thing, you display the worst case of bad reading comprehension I've ever seen! The VAST majority of the links you have provided don't even come close to saying what you think they do - in fact, many times they provide information that is in direct opposition to your silly idea.And I think that's absolutely HILARIOUS!!! Your foot must be so full of bullet holes that you can't even stand up.
Better than head so full of holes you fail to think.
LOL @ 1993 and UCSD. There isn't an oil well within a hundred miles of UCSD. First they say the amount of abiogenic hydrocarbons is unknown. Then in the next sentence they say they know precisely how much there is rofl. They probably think oil can't be found past 15,000 feet TVD.
Oviously you have no idea that bicarbonate dissolved in seawater and marine carbonates (i.e calcium carbonate) are not the same thing.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6X-3V60552-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=39aa749bdfd026c55761b0f8fe75a807
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater
very good - change the subject to deflect from your utter ignorance.
They are of course not the same source but 2 different journals containing articles with different subject matter - and with regards to the second link you point out, its interesting but anyone can tell you that correlation does not imply caustation.
Lets ask OIlisMastry a simple "yes or no" question, directly related to the biological origin of oil theory:
Is life on Earth many millions of years old?
The biological origin theory that oil comes from dead algae accumulatining in deep parts (no oxygen and cold) of ancient oceans requires that it is very old compared to bibical time scales.
Is life on Earth many millions of years old?
The biological origin theory that oil comes from dead algae accumulatining in deep parts (no oxygen and cold) of ancient oceans requires that it is very old compared to bibical time scales.
We already ran that diagnostic, and OIM doesn't seem infected with creationism. I've been wondering if it's a more culty virus like Limbaugh-ism.
It seems so. 3.5 billion years old.
What does Biblical time scales have to do with anything? The fact that you resort to straw men arguments to try to support your nonexistant case is laughable.
Last edited:
What is the point of 22 pages of crap again?
The point is simply this: oil is infinite. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe.
"It is obvious that the total amount of petroleum in the rocks underlying the surface ... is large beyond computation." -- Edward Orton, 1888
hahaha... haha........ HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OH BOY, YOU MADE MY DAY NOW!!! HAHAHA!!!!!!
Anyhow...
I'm specially amused by your 1888 quote... HAHA!!!! Go backa few centuries and you have "the earth is flat"!
Ok, now to the serious part of my post.....
Nothing is infinite. Everything will end someday. Get used to it!
Next point.... the molecules of oil are extremely complex. It takes energy to produce oil, to bind those together. It's not magic, man! You might as well say that farts are the most common molecules in the universe because theya re made of carbons and hydrogen! In fact, fart molecules require way less carbons and hydrogens, so they should be way more abundant then oil molecules! If you were right, we would be living in a disgusting filthy farty smelly stinky planet, HOLY CRAP!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
:roflmao: :roflmao:
OH BOY, YOU MADE MY DAY NOW!!! HAHAHA!!!!!!
Anyhow...
I'm specially amused by your 1888 quote... HAHA!!!! Go backa few centuries and you have "the earth is flat"!
Ok, now to the serious part of my post.....
Nothing is infinite. Everything will end someday. Get used to it!
Next point.... the molecules of oil are extremely complex. It takes energy to produce oil, to bind those together. It's not magic, man! You might as well say that farts are the most common molecules in the universe because theya re made of carbons and hydrogen! In fact, fart molecules require way less carbons and hydrogens, so they should be way more abundant then oil molecules! If you were right, we would be living in a disgusting filthy farty smelly stinky planet, HOLY CRAP!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
:roflmao: :roflmao:
wait - it gets funnier - he says on his blog that he wants to make PhD thesis out of this.
I'm sure that once he finishes high school, Jerry Fallwell's Liberty University would welcome him with open arms
Last edited:
Thanks for the straight answer. I will ask two more questions:
(1) Do you also agree that single-cell life forms developed that could use sunlight and produce oxygen to transform Earth's initial reducing atmosphere to the oxidizing one now existing?
Let me, for purposes of second question, just refer to these life forms as "algaes" and in passing note that the earlier anaerobic life forms mostly were poisoned by the oxygen, but some survived, safe in mud with rotting bodies of the algaes chemically sequestering the gas that would poison them. For example, still today botulism and some other anaerobic simple life forms live. - Cow's oxygen-free guts are full of a wide variety, some of which produce CH4 in abundance. I am not sure how they get there. Perhaps a new born calf does not have them, but gets some when starting to eat grass. Cows, unlike sheep, horses etc. do not cut the grass with teeth. - They wrap their tounge around it and pull it up, so they must eat a lot of dirt containing these anarobic organisms - why farts of sheep, horses etc. produce little CH4 compared to cows. - Just my theory. - I do not know if it is true, but sort of thing I like to think about when falling asleep.
(2) Assuming a "yes" answer to Q1; Do you agree that for millions of years these algaes lived without any multi-cellular creatures (like primitive worms and fish etc.) around to eat them, so typically in only a few months they died of "old age", but a thick "scum” of them continued to cover all water surfaces for millions of years and was producing still more O2?
Billy T comment (you can ignore if you like): There is now about 3 pounds of O2 above every square inch of the Earth. - I.e. The algaes did a good job. If we buried everything that could oxidize, humans would not notice any decrease in the available O2 for 10s of thousands of years, even if all production of O2 were terminated today. We have a big supply in the atmosphere. - I.e. plenty of time to build the artificial solar-powered O2 -producing-chemical plants we would need.
PS - I bet you can guess where I am going with my questions now, so I did not answer your question as to why I am asking.
Clearly you are new to this thread BillyT - what has happened so far when OIM has been pressed to give a coherent answer to questions like yours, is he starts ranting about how stupid you are, he'll accuse you of being a member of the "cult of biogenic oil formation", and then bung a load of links and mined quotes at you that he thinks support the fantasy that for some reason he so desperately clings to - when in fact more often that not they either don't mean what he thinks they mean - or in fact contradict his entire hypothesis.
Don't let it wind you up though as its fun to watch him make a bigger and bigger fool of himself.
does that make me a bad person ?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No.. lol
I think you may have some errors and omissions here. First and easy one is air does not smell as it has lots of O2 in it that rapidly destroys farts. Now about your energy statements quickly: Probably true, but not necessarily so.
If the Hydrogen and Carbon atoms were not already bound up chemically say as H2O and CO2, then what you state about it taking energy to make oil molecules is false. The very fact that the H and C are bound in the molecule shows that. Also OilisMaster is correct on one thing:
There was a lot of both free H and C* in the universe initially - back when it was smaller and hotter, I suspect now that most of the H is found as H2 and I am too lazy to look up and compare the binding energy of molecular hydrogen to the typical C-H bond in oil - I bet the H2 bond is stronger as the electron which C steals from H only is in the n=2 shell, not the n = 1 shell near a proton as in H2 (Although technically there H2 molecule does not have any n=1 shell as that is an atomic atom idea only, but you surely get what I am trying to state.)
If H2 binding is stronger than C-H as I think highly probable for reasons just stated, AND if the oil molecule got its H for H2 then you are correct, even if free C atoms were available. Certainly, you are correct if the C is also bound as in CO2. I think there is essentially zero chance that there every was any place on Earth with both free C and free H, so for practical purposes you are correct in stating that Earth's oil did require energy to form from things like CO2 and H2.
This energy was thermal and found deep in the earth. I.e. some carbon compound and hydrogen compounds do exist in which these atoms are less tightly bound than in the C-H bonds of oil. At the depth where temperatures are high enough to break these bonds, then free H and free C will briefly exist from this thermal decomposition and form C-H bonds which are stable at that temperature as the C-H bond is stronger. If however the oil so formed is transported by subduction deeper into hotter regions some of the weaker bonds in the oil molecule (that would be the C-C bonds where none of the shared electrons is near any positive nuclear charge) will break before the weaker C-H bonds do. Thus oil will decompose into more stable hydrocarbons with no C-C bonds, such as CH4 and as here there is a higher ratio of H to C than in the oil, there will also be formed quite a lot of carbonate compounds (I can not tell which as I am a physicist, not a chemist. – I can only tell these binding energy and atomic and molecular structure facts.
Now unrelated to your post, a clarification:
Although, I have spoken of dead algae etc being transported down in subduction zones, this would normally take the newly formed oil down deep enough to decompose it. The oil we have today is not found where the crustal rocks dived down deep into the Earth. E.g. in the Andes Mountain region where the Pacific plate dove down making the lighter crustal rocks very thick so that they stick up or "float" high, like wood on water (or any lighter material on a denser one) but you sure do find the decomposed oil - now natural gas there. It is the basis for Bolivia's economy and found all along most of Earth's high mountain chains. - In the US the Appalachian and Rocky Mountain chain states all have natural gas, often in commercial amounts.
The oil had to be taken down deep enough to form (by the thermal energy input) but not too deep. This typically was the deep cold, oxygen free bed of an ancient ocean that just keep sinking and yet not getting much deeper as material was continuously filling it in as it sunk. For example the oil recently found by PetroBras under the salt layer (an old ocean deposit). I do not know, but would not be surprised if there is also oil under the Bonneville salt flat region which was also an old ocean bed, I think, but perhaps it never got deep enough to break weak C and H bonds to other elements and re-form the stronger C-H bonds of oil. Perhaps that region was never an ocean, just a great inland lake? I have read that Texas/ Oklahoma region was once connected ocean - don't know if it was just then a much larger Gulf of Mexico or what - this is not my field.
Where is the Bonneville salt flat anyway? Is there any fossil fuel there?
*The C was available only after the first big stars died. As they exploded, probably some CH4 did form in the cooling nebulae. I do not know, but bet it has been observed by astronomers by its spectral line emissions (In the IR probably.).
Last edited by a moderator:
We got ambiguous results. He isn't a certain kind of Young Earth creationist. We still have a couple of kinds of Young Earth creationist and several varieties of Old Earth Creationist to go.hypewaders said:
His earlier incarnation once offered this same general theory of oil formation, in support of the claim that the geology of the surface of the planet was formed in the Noachian Flood of the Christian Bible. That might be a starting point for further diagnostics.
But the thread is 22 pages long, and abiotic oil formation discussion visible within it does have some interesting content that might be further buried by the endeavor.
What I was saying is that in order for his theory to be true there would have to be such a quantity of farts that they would stay in the air.
You do realize I'm being sarcastic, right?
How is it that the molecules release a lot of energy, but it does not take a lot of energy to produce them?
Yes, of course.
Do we even know what oil is made of?
- Status