Oil Doesn't Come From Dead Dinosaurs

[Vkothii]

why do people such as yourself keep ignoring extraterrestrial hydrocarbons?

Why do morons such as yourself see extraterrestrial hydrocarbons as something they so clearly are not?

Why do you keep chanting, and dancing a strange little dance around every direct question posted at you? Things like the above mantra: "No biological molecule can survive subduction into the mantle."

So bloody what? What does this statement actually mean? Have you ever tried to understand the words?

Seeing how you seem to have no idea whatsoever, what the meaning of "biological" is? Or what "chemistry" means?

You don't know do you? Because you're actually a moron, a real-live chalk-breathing, dancing, singing, one!

 

[OilIsMastery]

Why do morons such as yourself see extraterrestrial hydrocarbons as something they so clearly are not?

What aren't they?

Why do you keep chanting, and dancing a strange little dance around every direct question posted at you? Things like the above mantra: "No biological molecule can survive subduction into the mantle."

Because it's a fact. So, according to you, how many dinosaurs live in the mantle?

 

[Vkothii]

according to you, how many dinosaurs live in the mantle?

Another mantra, how often do you dance around your little campfire to that one, then?

You realise, I have no intention whatsoever of answering a single question, right?
I'm just laughing away at the silly looking moron, here, dancing away and chanting the same lines over and over, as if they mean something. What a cackle.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Another mantra, how often do you dance around your little campfire to that one, then?

I take that reply to mean utter defeat.

 

[Vkothii]

Yes, you have the camp all to yourself; now dance, dammit, let's see some gettin' down.

 

[Reiku]

Why do morons such as yourself see extraterrestrial hydrocarbons as something they so clearly are not?

Why do you keep chanting, and dancing a strange little dance around every direct question posted at you? Things like the above mantra: "No biological molecule can survive subduction into the mantle."

So bloody what? What does this statement actually mean? Have you ever tried to understand the words?

Seeing how you seem to have no idea whatsoever, what the meaning of "biological" is? Or what "chemistry" means?

You don't know do you? Because you're actually a moron, a real-live chalk-breathing, dancing, singing, one!

Actually, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons have been found in the vacuum of spacetime.

 

[spidergoat]

I take that reply to mean utter defeat.

You were already utterly defeated in a formal debate. Case closed.

 

[OilIsMastery]

You were already utterly defeated in a formal debate. Case closed.

What formal debate?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Because it's a fact. So, according to you, how many dinosaurs live in the mantle?

You do know the difference between a dinosaur and a biological molecule right?

I can't live in space. But the molecules which make up my body can.

 

[OilIsMastery]

You do know the difference between a dinosaur and a biological molecule right?

I can't live in space. But the molecules which make up my body can.

So explain how a biological molecule can survive in the mantle. This ought to be good...

 

[Vkothii]

So explain how ..

First: explain why you want someone to explain what "biological", and "survive", and "mantle" means.

That's got a good rhythm to it, I thought, but let's watch...

 

[Tristan]

Anybody who uses derogatory terms toward others will receive a warning first, and then an infraction. I have had enough of it. I'm tired of hearing reports about it, as much as I'm tired of hearing people complain that there is uneven punishment.

Period, end of story.

 

[Trippy]

So why do people such as yourself keep ignoring extraterrestrial hydrocarbons?

Falsehood.
I have explicitly aknowledged in this thread, and others that extra terrestrial hydrocarbons exist.

Strawman fallacy - they're also irrelevant to the discussion. We're talking about conditions on earth that are inherently different.

 

[Trippy]

The paper is not an assumption. It's a conclusion based upon observation and the scientific method.

Strawman fallacy - I stated that your post involved an assumption, not that the paper that you linked to was an assumption.

What process?

Decarboxylation - removing carbon dioxide from fatty acids to produce alkanes (simple hydrocarbons) a process which can be spontaneous at STP.

You've already said you believe that oxidation prevents the formation of methane. Sorry Charlie and LOL at your blatant contradictions. You're still my favorite poster.

Strawman, and a falsehood. Saying that something is an oxidation product of something else, in an environment that is too oxidising to let some other thing form is not a contradiction by any definition.

No biological molecule can survive subduction into the mantle.

Strawman. ONce again, I am not implicitly or explicitly discussing a mantle process.

That's because you are ignorant.

Ad-hominem fallacy, and an unprovable statement (also a falsehood).

That's exactly what we're discussing... What do you think we're discussing? Dinosaurs?

I introduced decarboxylation, as an alternative (or partial alternative) that technically negates your thermodynamic argument, which is part of your argument that abiogenesis must be a fact.

Therefore, the 30kbar is only relevant to one theory, however you misapply it in contexts that imply it is relevant to all theories

 

[OilIsMastery]

extra terrestrial hydrocarbons exist.

How did they form? Were they generated by decaying aliens?

We're talking about conditions on earth that are inherently different.

No one is talking about conditions on earth being different from conditions in outer space. That is not the topic of this conversation. In what way are the mechanisms of formation different? In what way are hydrocarbons on earth different from extraterrestrial hydrocarbons?

 

[OilIsMastery]

Decarboxylation - removing carbon dioxide from fatty acids to produce alkanes (simple hydrocarbons) a process which can be spontaneous at STP.

Link please.

Saying that something is an oxidation product of something else, in an environment that is too oxidising to let some other thing form is not a contradiction by any definition.

You said oxidation prevents the formation of methane which is absurd.

I am not implicitly or explicitly discussing a mantle process.

Then you are posting in the wrong thread.

I introduced decarboxylation, as an alternative (or partial alternative) that technically negates your thermodynamic argument, which is part of your argument that abiogenesis must be a fact.

Therefore, the 30kbar is only relevant to one theory, however you misapply it in contexts that imply it is relevant to all theories

Link please.

 

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

Ok, about Titan the lunar satilite of Saturn.

Titan has no naturally occuring Carbon, meaning carbon that is native to Titan.

The Carbon that exist on Titan is carbon that has been transfered from Saturns atmosphere to Titan, or carbon that is collected from nearby space around Saturn.

It appears that most of Saturns lunar satilites have no natural carbon that is native to them, and so the presence of carbon or hydrocarbons on such satilites are tansfers from the atmosphere of the parent body Saturn


Dwayne D.L.Rabon

 

[OilIsMastery]

Titan has no naturally occuring Carbon

LMAO.

You guys just keep coming up with better stuff everyday.

meaning carbon that is native to Titan.

WTF? LMAO.

The Carbon that exist on Titan is carbon that has been transfered from Saturns atmosphere to Titan, or carbon that is collected from nearby space around Saturn.

It appears that most of Saturns lunar satilites have no natural carbon that is native to them, and so the presence of carbon or hydrocarbons on such satilites are tansfers from the atmosphere of the parent body Saturn

In that case earth has no native carbon because all of the earth's carbon comes from the sun...

 

[Vkothii]

In what way are hydrocarbons on earth different from extraterrestrial hydrocarbons?

Isn't anyone going to tell him? Or what the difference (he appears to think an atmosphere is part of the lithosphere of a planet or a moon), is between extra-atmospheric carbon that gets into an atmosphere (from outside) and carbon in the lithosphere (very few planetologists or geologists insist atmosphere is part of the mantle or lithosphere).

However... (la la la, etc...)

all of the earth's carbon comes from the [same place all the carbon in the] sun [did].

 

[Trippy]

Link please.

Many organic chemistry textbooks talk about it (although many of the basic ones discuss specific cases.

Specific references?

Solomons Organic Chemistry, Fifth Edition. T W Graham Solomons. Page 798.

18.11 Decaboxylation of carboxylic acids.

The reaction whereby a caboxylic acid looses CO2 is called decarboxylation.

R-COOH → R-H + CO2

Although the unusual stability of carbondioxide means that decarboxylation of most acids is exothermic, in practice the reaction is not always easy to carry out because the the reaction is very slow. Special groups usually have to be present in the molecule for the decarboxylation to be synthetically useful

The reaction is thermodynamically favourable, and the rate increases with increasing heat, however, in order to be useful for industrial synthesis, some other catalyst must be present,

This does not, however, preclude it's apperance in reactions involving the break down of organic matter into alkanes.

You said oxidation prevents the formation of methane which is absurd.

Falsehood. It was you that stated (or implied) that Oxidation prevented the formation of methane in the crust.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1962076&postcount=168

(While i'm at it, proof that you understood the same thing from the word crust that I did http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1960666&postcount=104 thus rendering your implication we were using different definitions a falsehood).

Then you are posting in the wrong thread.

Falsehood - the title of the thread implies a discussion of the validity of biogenesis v's the validity of abiogenesis.

Link please.

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full