What natural purpose does petrolium/oil serve?

[Imperfectionist]

they are natural and without purpose

 

[joepistole]

I think what you are trying to say is purpose only has meaning to a human. It is an invention of the human mind to help understand the world...to assist with our perception of the world.
Geologic and all other natural processes have no intrensic meaning or purpose. They just are. Associations form between processes but that does not imply intent...just a random act that repeats itself because it can.
Did I state your position accurately?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

"Purpose" is a human concept. Nature does not have purposes. Things happen and that's the way they are. Nature has no obligation to make sense to us.

 

[Enmos]

What natural purpose does petrolium/oil serve for the Earth? I was talking with a friend online the other day and she was mentioning how we should leave nature alone because everything fits together and plays an important role in it and tampering with anything has it's consequences so obviously the topic of oil came up but we couldn't think of it's purpose. So we were thinking up some crazy ideas and we both mentioned how it could be natural lubricant for the Earth in much a ways as it is for our mechanical engines. Who knows, maybe we need to apply some of that earthly lubricant to techtonic plate areas, heh.

So yeah, what purpose does it serve, if any, other than just being there?

- N

No purpose.

 

[Syzygys]

The OP was answered already in post #3:

Everything's, well, just there. Doesn't exactly serve a purpose so much as we humans would interpret a use for it.

 

[cosmictraveler]

But the oceans hold enough hydrogen to supply fuel forever because when you burn hydrogen you get water back! So it is perfectly recyclable and non polluting. That's why water is easily found and oil isn;t, it is there to be used as fuel.

 

[Ophiolite]

But the oceans hold enough hydrogen to supply fuel forever because when you burn hydrogen you get water back! So it is perfectly recyclable and non polluting. That's why water is easily found and oil isn;t, it is there to be used as fuel.

Since you require to put more energy into breaking the water down into hydrogen and oxygen than you get from recombining them to form water, it seems a little ingenuous to describe it as a fuel.

 

[borlefborlef]

I think in a way everyone here has valid points both in thinking that everything in nature does have a purpose because of the way it fits in to the puzzle of life but also in how there is no overall purpose in nature because it merely subsists and does not progress. However, something does not have to progress and change to have meaning or purpose, and clearly the purpose of everything in nature is to keep the cycle going, to keep our earth alive. And surely nature learns to adapt to new situations but when such great outside, unnatural influences are beared upon it ecosystems have fallen apart and only time will tell whether they can manage to adapt. When we overfish the ocean leaving too few predators left in the sea, allowing the herbivorous fish to populate freely will they not exhaust the plant life of the ocean, what greater effect will this have? Will the ocean water not be filtered leaving the water to go rancid like an unkept pool?
Clearly everything has grown to be an integral piece in the puzzle of life and while I certainly think that nature has an amazing ability to adapt to different situations, if you allocate resources in such a way that they never support one group, then all will suffer.
I am surprised that nobody has drawn the comparison between Oil and SOil yet, because of it's not only obvious close spelling but also because effectively it would seem that soil is much like oil+sand. I think that we will learn to find that oil, like soil to land, is the nutrient-base for all plant life and that as we continue to take it from the ocean, as we continue to exhaust our soils without repletion, that the ocean floor will suffer, and so along with it will the rest of the sea. This is because when you take the foundation, the most basic building block of all civilization out of the equation then nothing else can survive because it all has to filter up.
Once upon a time nature was one big cycle, the plants would grow, full of nutrients from rich soil, the herbivores would eat them, the carnivores would eat the herbivores to keep them from overpopulating, they would both leave droppings which insects would feed off of upon which they would leave droppings in the soil which the soil would derive nutrients from.
But what we are doing now is instead of replacing the lost nutrients back into the soil, we are burning things into the air, dumping them where they are not of use and turning things into chemical compounds that can't be utilized by the earth.
I think that what we are doing is going to prove to be un-adaptable in a short period of time and I think that oil most certainly is something that exists to serve a purpose where it lies.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I think that we will learn to find that oil, like soil to land, is the nutrient-base for all plant life and that as we continue to take it from the ocean, as we continue to exhaust our soils without repletion, that the ocean floor will suffer, and so along with it will the rest of the sea. This is because when you take the foundation, the most basic building block of all civilization out of the equation then nothing else can survive because it all has to filter up. I think that what we are doing is going to prove to be un-adaptable in a short period of time and I think that oil most certainly is something that exists to serve a purpose where it lies.

Petroleum is by no means distributed evenly across the earth's surface. It occurs in pockets and the total area that has it is far smaller than the area that does not. (Duh. That's why we're trying to seize Iraq instead of each of us having an oil well in our backyard.) Furthermore, nearly all of it is buried far below the biosphere, where its effect on life is somewhere between zero and immeasurable. After all, petroleum was created by pressure and there's no pressure near the surface.

In fact the biosphere is so thoroughly separated from petroleum deposits that, AFAIK, no organisms have evolved that can consume it. It took our meddling--converting petroleum into plastic and then leaving the discarded plastic lying around on the surface where bacteria can easily reach it and wonder how to get their little bacteria mouths around that rich source of hydrocarbons--to breed the first bacteria capable of metabolizing plastic. Nylon was one of the first plastics and the first bacteria that can eat nylon was discovered less than twenty years ago.

 

[Oli]

I think in a way everyone here has valid points both in thinking that everything in nature does have a purpose because of the way it fits in to the puzzle of life but also in how there is no overall purpose in nature because it merely subsists and does not progress.

So basically you're agreeing that one point of view is correct and that, additionally, the opposite point of view is correct?

However, something does not have to progress and change to have meaning or purpose, and clearly the purpose of everything in nature is to keep the cycle going, to keep our earth alive.

Clearly you misunderstand the word "purpose"

When we overfish the ocean leaving too few predators left in the sea,

I think you'll find that "predators" are not what we generally fish for.

allowing the herbivorous fish to populate freely will they not exhaust the plant life of the ocean, what greater effect will this have?

Plant life of the ocean?

I am surprised that nobody has drawn the comparison between Oil and SOil yet, because of it's not only obvious close spelling

I'm surprised you even bothered to bring it up: unless you believe that "reality" only speaks English.
The French for oil is "huile" and (from memory) soil is "sol" - not much correlation there.

but also because effectively it would seem that soil is much like oil+sand.

"Like" does not mean "is".

I think that we will learn to find that oil, like soil to land, is the nutrient-base for all plant life

I think you'll find that's not even close to true.

I think that what we are doing is going to prove to be un-adaptable in a short period of time and I think that oil most certainly is something that exists to serve a purpose where it lies.

You may think it, but you haven't even got close to supporting that belief.

 

[borlefborlef]

So basically you're agreeing that one point of view is correct and that, additionally, the opposite point of view is correct?

-Moron, both sides have validity, the same way republicans and democrats can both arguing a point validly but at opposition with each other. I clearly explained it there that obviously things have a purpose, such as a lion, to eat the herbivores of the plains to keep them from overpopulating. While there is not necessarily a greater purpose to the whole being of the earth, it is merely here to subsist.


Clearly you misunderstand the word "purpose"
- Purpose: 1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal.
- Clearly you don't understand it


I think you'll find that "predators" are not what we generally fish for.
- Really? We haven't decimated 50 percent of the shark population in the last 15 years? Good call.

Plant life of the ocean?
- You know, algae, coral, agar, seaweed?


I'm surprised you even bothered to bring it up: unless you believe that "reality" only speaks English.
The French for oil is "huile" and (from memory) soil is "sol" - not much correlation there.
- I know the etymology of the words do not corrolate. I was merely drawing a comparison to the similarity in not only the form of the word but also the way that they may perform.


"Like" does not mean "is".
- No shit, that's why I used the word "like" and not "is," because oil "is" not soil, it's "like" it you absolute moron. That's my whole point.


I think you'll find that's not even close to true.
-Great, you think, I think, we all think something, fascinating rebuttal there.

later

 

[Oli]

-Moron, both sides have validity, the same way republicans and democrats can both arguing a point validly but at opposition with each other

Moron?
Excellent start your career as a SciForums loser.
Validity? "there is purpose" "there is no purpose"
If they are opposing answers then only one can be valid.

I clearly explained it there that obviously things have a purpose, such as a lion, to eat the herbivores of the plains to keep them from overpopulating. While there is not necessarily a greater purpose to the whole being of the earth, it is merely here to subsist.

Explain?
No, you assumed.
And no, there is no "purpose", it's just the way things work.

Clearly you misunderstand the word "purpose"
- Purpose: 1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal.
- Clearly you don't understand it

Oops, wrong.
There is no "purpose" in lions eating gazelle for instance.
It's just the way things work.
"For which something exists" is the part that isn't true.
No purpose...

I think you'll find that "predators" are not what we generally fish for.
- Really? We haven't decimated 50 percent of the shark population in the last 15 years? Good call.

Oh yes, so many of our fishing boats go out out for shark.
Not.
Note the word "generally".
Well read.

Plant life of the ocean?
- You know, algae, coral, agar, seaweed?

Ah yes the stuff you find in the deep ocean waters where fishing takes place.

- I know the etymology of the words do not corrolate. I was merely drawing a comparison to the similarity in not only the form of the word but also the way that they may perform.

Then any comparison is specious, neh?
And they do not perform in anything like the same way.

- No shit, that's why I used the word "like" and not "is," because oil "is" not soil, it's "like" it you absolute moron. That's my whole point.

Soil is not oil nor is it like it.
You don't have a point.
You have a specious supposition.

-Great, you think, I think, we all think something, fascinating rebuttal there.

It is if you actually learn anything from it, but I suspect the unjustified arrogance you display will prevent that.

later

I can't wait

 

[borlefborlef]

Moron?
Excellent start your career as a SciForums loser.
Validity? "there is purpose" "there is no purpose"
If they are opposing answers then only one can be valid.
- Lol, are you seriously retarted? They are opinions, for which many opposing theories can be valid. Saying that welfare is wrong is not a fact, it is an opinion for which there can never be defined an answer that is factually correct, the same way different opinions here have been expressed as to "purpose." If one was wrong and one was right definitively there would be no argument.


Explain?
No, you assumed.
And no, there is no "purpose", it's just the way things work.
- Then by that thinking, nothing in life ever has a "purpose"



Oops, wrong.
There is no "purpose" in lions eating gazelle for instance.
It's just the way things work.
"For which something exists" is the part that isn't true.
No purpose...
-?!?!


Oh yes, so many of our fishing boats go out out for shark.
Not.
Note the word "generally".
Well read.
-Yea, not a lot at all, only 50 PERCENT OF THE SPECIES HAVE BEEN KILLED! LOL


Ah yes the stuff you find in the deep ocean waters where fishing takes place.
- That being the stuff that fish feed off moron, because there is a food chain, where the predators eat the herbivores you fool.



Then any comparison is specious, neh?
And they do not perform in anything like the same way.
- Then please explain how oil does function in it's natural environment.


Soil is not oil nor is it like it.
You don't have a point.
You have a specious supposition.
- You're not smart because you know the word specious, and you're simply overusing it.


It is if you actually learn anything from it, but I suspect the unjustified arrogance you display will prevent that.


I can't wait

you should feel priveledged to have me indulge your retarded arguments.

 

[Oli]

- Lol, are you seriously retarted?

I'll give you two clues:
One of us is
It's not me.

They are opinions, for which many opposing theories can be valid.

They are mutually exclusive statements.
Equivalent to "this is black" "this is white" when talking about the same object.

Saying that welfare is wrong is not a fact, it is an opinion for which there can never be defined an answer that is factually correct, the same way different opinions here have been expressed as to "purpose." If one was wrong and one was right definitively there would be no argument.

We're not talking about welfare, we're talking about "purpose or "no purpose".
And the reason that there is argument here is that some of those arguing are actually wrong and incapable of accepting it.
They don't understand facts, science or evidence.

- Then by that thinking, nothing in life ever has a "purpose"

Correct.
The only "purpose" is that which any individual assigns to him or herself.
And of course, designed/ manufactured items.

-?!?!

No purpose - lions may eat gazelles, but they were not "intended" to do, it just happened to work out like that.

-Yea, not a lot at all, only 50 PERCENT OF THE SPECIES HAVE BEEN KILLED! LOL

Were they "fished" or were they killed?
What's the staple catch for fishing boats?
It's not sharks.

- That being the stuff that fish feed off moron, because there is a food chain, where the predators eat the herbivores you fool.

That was sarcasm - the things you named tend to be shallow water vegetation,
Deep sea fishes caught by trawlers aren't generally "herbivorous".

- Then please explain how oil does function in it's natural environment.

What makes you think oil "functions"?
It's residue - left over stuff that's just there...

- You're not smart because you know the word specious, and you're simply overusing it.

Quite correct: there are others reasons why I'm smart.
I use the word "specious" because I'm smart and I can.
And I'm "overusing" it because you provide so many opportunities and it's apt.

you should feel priveledged to have me indulge your retarded arguments.

Privileged?
To get involved with someone who can barely spell, can't understand the basic concepts and appears to be incapable of grasping the point?
Nope, you're just something to amuse me while I'm talking to serious people.

 

[borlefborlef]

I'll give you two clues:
One of is
It's not me.


They are mutually exclusive statements.
Equivalent to "this is black" "this is white" when talking about the same object.


We're not talking about welfare, we're talking about "purpose or "no purpose".
And the reason that there is argument here is that some of those arguing are actually wrong and incapable of accepting it.
They don't understand facts, science or evidence.


Correct.
The only "purpose" is that which any individual assigns to him or herself.
And of course, designed/ manufactured items.


No purpose - lions may eat gazelles, but they were not "intended" to do, it just happened to work out like that.


Were they "fished" or were they killed?
What's the staple catch for fishing boats?
It's not sharks.


That was sarcasm - the things you named tend to be shallow water vegetation,
Deep sea fishes caught by trawlers aren't generally "herbivorous".


What makes you think oil "functions"?
It's residue - left over stuff that's just there...


Quite correct: there are others reasons why I'm smart.
I use the word "specious" because I'm smart and I can.
And I'm "overusing" it because you provide so many opportunities and it's apt.


Privileged?
To get involved with someone who barely spell, can't understand the basic concepts and appears to be incapable of grasping the point?
Nope, you're just something to amuse me while I'm talking to serious people.

2-0. I play best of 3's. Better luck next time.

 

[Randwolf]

2-0. I play best of 3's. Better luck next time.

Well, borlefborlef, I'm your huckleberry...

Fuel-eating bacteria 11.02.2004

Certain bacteria are able to feed off petroleum oil which is, in fact, full of these kinds of bacteria.
...

First, they took the samples to the laboratory in order to observe which kind of bacteria live in the petroleum oil in its natural state. It was seen that a great number of different microorganisms, hundreds, live together. They are bacteria of all kinds: those that eat the oil rapidly, those that degrade the petroleum very slowly ... in other words, a wide variety.

It would seem that these bacteria work as a team. Some digest the big hydrocarbon molecules of oil, generating much shorter chains of carbon; other bacteria consume these shorter chains. At the termination of this teamwork, the oil has completely disappeared – only remains of water and carbon dioxide are left.

So there you go, oil / petroleum exists so that certain species of bacteria may one day take over the world, all in due and natural course, no less. This is its purpose. You have sought, SciForums has provided...

Grand slam - SF 4, borbor 2. (Sorry sweetie) :bawl:

 

[Oli]

2-0. I play best of 3's. Better luck next time.

Meaning that you haven't got an answer (or a clue).
What was the wording?
Ah yes: "fascinating rebuttal there."

 

[Pronatalist]

Coal and oil are probably left over remnants of organic materials, plants, life, destroyed in the Great Flood (of Noah's Ark).

The process appears to be reversible, for us to tap energy and fertilizer, to convert into food for more life, especially human life, but also pets and farm livestock.

Gee? Nobody knew this? I thought people tell me this as a side of the false theory of Peak Oil. I don't believe the Peak Oil claim, but if time permits before the Biblical endtimes, I think we will be moving towards better energy, and coal and oil for energy will eventually become largely obsolete. So better use it now while we can, while it's still worth something, as we need what's available now, to get there, otherwise, can't get there from here?

Since the process of coal and oil formation continues (perhaps to a lesser extent now), I've heard it's wrong to call them "fossil fuels." Anyway, coal and petroleum and wood or natural forest fires are "stored sunlight" energy. Far more efficient and portable than solar panels that don't work when the sun doesn't shine.

 

[Hipparchia]

Contrary to what borlef states and what Oli goes along with, corals are most definitely not plants. They are a colonial metazoan. Many of them live symbiotically with dinoflagellates within their tissues. Dinoflagellates, however, are also not plants. So, no plants anywhere in sight.
Sorry.

 

[Oli]

Contrary to what borlef states and what Oli goes along with, corals are most definitely not plants.

Shoot me, I missed that one.