"Undersea volcanic activity triggered a mass extinction of marine life and buried a thick mat of organic matter on the sea floor about 93 million years ago, which became a major source of oil, according to a new study."

Read more (http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=9492)

More CO2 alarmism. At least it's accurately being attributed to volcanoes.

More CO2 alarmism.Well, the animals who died out might have been a bit alarmed about it.
I doubt they managed to figure out that it was because of all the eruptions (that they couldn't do a thing about anyway).

Incidentally, whether you think CO2 is a vital component of the atmosphere or not, probably doesn't change the above, fairly universal principle.

hey check it out...in a million years to come a new civilization will rise on our ashes...and we all will be part of oil on the sea floor...

Absolute nonsense. Natural petroleum has no connection to biological material. No biological molecule can survive 100 kilometers deep in the earth's mantle.

No biological molecule can survive 100 kilometers deep in the earth's mantle.You mean, apart from all those biological molecules that make up extremophiles that do?

Oil is presumably the remains of biomass that's been subjected to high temperatures and pressures, because of tectonics and the folding of crustal plates - i.e. compression. The biomass in question is very old, too, like all the way back to the Devonian at least, or the Precambrian, which means it's the remains of large colonies of early monocellular lifeforms, like the modern cyanobacteria.

For the umptieth time.

You mean, apart from all those biological molecules that make up extremophiles that do?

Oil is presumably the remains of biomass that's been subjected to high temperatures and pressures, because of tectonics and the folding of crustal plates - i.e. compression. The biomass in question is very old, too, like all the way back to the Devonian at least, or the Precambrian, which means it's the remains of large colonies of early monocellular lifeforms, like the modern cyanobacteria.

For the umptieth time.

the oil of now...are the forests of past...

You mean, apart from all those biological molecules that make up extremophiles that do?
Extremophiles only survive between 5 and 7 kilometers deep...:rolleyes:

Oil is presumably the remains of biomass
Presumed by morons. Carbon is not alive. Vitalism was debunked in 1828 by Friedrich Wöhler. Volcanologists have known petroleum comes from the mantle since Von Humboldt (1804). The peridotite mantle is the source of carbon.

that's been subjected to high temperatures and pressures, because of tectonics and the folding of crustal plates - i.e. compression.
No biological molecule can survive in the mantle.

The biomass in question is very old, too, like all the way back to the Devonian at least, or the Precambrian
Wrong. Petroleum has been found in all sedimentary strata from Archaean to Quaternary as well as in volcanic igneous rocks and pillow lava.

which means it's the remains of large colonies of early monocellular lifeforms, like the modern cyanobacteria.
Cyanobacteria are hydrocarbon destroyers not hydrocarbon generators.

I think every one of the refutations in the last missive are out the window (that means, they're wrong, they're incorrect, they're absolute rubbish, etc).

Anyone looking up any of the things listed will see that OIM appears to be labouring under some kind of illusory hypnotic trance (possibly the result of all those fumes). Bacteria have been found at much greater depths than 7km. Carbon is not alive, sure. Neither is oxygen or hydrogen, so what?
"No biological material can survive" - not sure why this theme keeps reappearing, but crude oil isn't alive either - everyone knows that, so again so what?

Not sure what the location of petroleum deposits has to do with it, or with the idea that it's a geological process (that has biomass as input, and petroleum after a few million yrs or so, as output). Do I have to ask "so what?" again...?

And the last point again doesn't seem to be anywhere near the dartboard. So what if cyanobacteria destroy hydrocarbons? All the things we know about that we term "living things" produce organic molecules. All the petroleum we've ever found is presumed to have started out as biomolecules...?

I await one's opinion of whether biomolecules qualify as hydrocarbons.

Carbon is not a biomolecule. Carbon is a chemical element. Carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe and on earth comes from the peridotite mantle, e.g. diamonds and hydrocarbons. The elements in the periodic table are not living organisms nor are chemical compounds and geological minerals such as hydrocarbons.

Bacteria have been found at much greater depths than 7km.
Link please. So far as I know the deepest bacteria ever found were only 1.5 kilometers below the mudline in volcanic rock in Hawaii and the deepest Archaea 6 kilometers deep (1.6 kilometers below the mudline) in Canada.

Carbon is not a biomolecule. Carbon is a chemical element. Carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe and on earth comes from the peridotite mantle, e.g. diamonds and hydrocarbons. The elements in the periodic table are not living organisms nor are chemical compounds and geological minerals such as hydrocarbons.All true. You left out: "carbon readily forms chains and bonds with hydrogen". Also: "carbon bonds with many other elements, and forms rings with delocalised, remarkably stable bonds". And one or two other things, like: "carbon chemistry is called organic chemistry", etc.

P.S. if you count the depth of the ocean, how deep is 7.5k below that? Extremophiles are also found in the vents along the mid-oceanic ridge, which isn't real deep, but it's hot. The point being that life - organic chemistry too - can sustain itself at extreme pressures and temperatures, quite a range after all, at least for the little guys.

There's plenty of evidence that the chemistry, if not the biomass, happens in the extreme cold of the vacuum (i.e. interstellar vacuum) too.

P.P.S. Just what, apart from plasticised minerals (silicates, carbonates), dissolved gases and water, do you think there is at 100k below the surface? Where exactly is this 100k deep patch of the planet, bearing in mind the surface is not uniform, shall we say?

"carbon chemistry is called organic chemistry"
Carbon chemistry is called organic chemistry because in the Middle Ages vitalist theorists thought carbon was alive just as today biogenic theorists think hydrocarbons come from living organisms.

The point being that life - organic chemistry too - can sustain itself at extreme pressures and temperatures, quite a range after all, at least for the little guys.
Yes. In the crust not in the mantle.

There's plenty of evidence that the chemistry, if not the biomass, happens in the extreme cold of the vacuum (i.e. interstellar vacuum) too.
Yes. But not past the critical temperature of water.

P.P.S. Just what, apart from plasticised minerals (silicates, carbonates), dissolved gases and water, do you think there is at 100k below the surface?
The mantle has everything you need to create hydrocarbons: iron, carbon, and hydrogen.

Where exactly is this 100k deep patch of the planet, bearing in mind the surface is not uniform, shall we say?
It's called the mantle.

The mantle is part of the inner structure, yes? It's beneath the surface "crust" or lithosphere. Do you know about the deepest, or thinnest places in the lithosphere, or about the dynamics, the interface between the cooler surface layer, and the mantle - the part called the asthenosphere which is generally where you are if you're 100k below the surface?

The mantle is part of the inner structure, yes? It's beneath the surface "crust" or lithosphere.
Lithosphere is a nebulous geological term that includes both the crust and the upper mantle. The thickness of the lithosphere varies from around 5km to up to 100km where there is thick continental crust.

Do you know about the deepest, or thinnest places in the lithosphere, or about the dynamics, the interface between the cooler surface layer, and the mantle - the part called the asthenosphere which is generally where you are if you're 100k below the surface?
Yes. The asthenosphere begins at 100 kilometers deep.

It "begins at 100k" huh? Never see anything asthenospheric above 100k depth you mean, the boundary is like, cast in stone? So what's between 100k and the lithosphere that's 5k deep according to you?
The thickness of the lithosphere varies from around 5km to up to 100km where there is thick continental crust.
Oh yeah, "bzzzzt!" this isn't correct:
Lithosphere is a nebulous geological term that includes both the crust and the upper mantle.
The lithosphere does not "include the upper mantle". The asthenosphere is between the mantle (the upper mantle), and the lithosphere.

OilIsMastery, what EXACTLY do you think your made of?

Guess what got rid of all that carbon dioxide the volcanoes produced? Anoxic bacteria which spread in the dead oceans too warm to hold oxygen. Guess what turned into oil? Now guess what we are now releasing again into the atmosphere by burning that oil? And now guess what will happen as a result?

The lithosphere does not "include the upper mantle". The asthenosphere is between the mantle (the upper mantle), and the lithosphere.
You say that based upon ignorance and a lack of education.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/glossary.php?termID=113&alpha=L

The lithosphere is the outer solid part of the earth, including the crust and uppermost mantle. The lithosphere is about 100 km thick

http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/glossary/lithosphere

Lithosphere

The outer, rigid shell of the earth. It is composed of the entire crust and uppermost part of the mantle. The thickness of the lithosphere varies from around 5km to up to 100km where there is thick continental crust. The lithosphere is above the more ductile asthenosphere.

I guess I really should flag this, but once an idiot, etc.

I'll start at the end, which I will also assume is possibly a conclusion of some kind:
The lithosphere is above the more ductile asthenosphere. So if the asthenosphere is below the lithosphere, where is the mantle again?

P.S. sorry, I think that link that purports to be about geology is in fact misleading - the asthenosphere is the "upper part of the mantle" the same way the lithosphere is the "upper part of the asthenosphere".

oil idiot i will ask again WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE MADE OF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oil idiot i will ask again WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE MADE OF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Asguard...acting in a disrespectful manner towards another member of this community and at the same time expecting that member to answer your insinuating disrespectful questions, is not just immoral but also illogical.

oil idiot i will ask again WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE MADE OF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
H2O mostly. You probably think water is alive and biological.

Name calling is so childish. Ad hominem personal attacks are discouraged here on science forums. It's very unbecoming behavior and unworthy of a moderator imo.

your right, the body is a solution, that being said protines, amino acids, fats ect are all BIOLOGICAL molicules. That is they are long chains of CARBON that is created INSIDE the body. How else do you think these get into the body?

We eat the base materals and the body MAKES them (though we cant make some amino acids, these have to come from plants or other animals)

You probably think water is alive and biological.You're like a limpet stuck on a rock of some sort - is it in the asthenosphere somewhere?
Water is definitely biological, and so is carbon (and a few other elements). Everyone who went to high school knows this, were you away that day?

P.S. sorry, I think that link that purports to be about geology is in fact misleading - the asthenosphere is the "upper part of the mantle" the same way the lithosphere is the "upper part of the asthenosphere".

In what way is the description misleading? The definition of lithosphere means "layer of rock" is describes the rigid, outer layer. The asthenosphere is a more ductile layer and is picked out by a slowing of seismic waves (and in fact is often called the low velocity zone).

The mantle is everything below the "crust" and above the core. Therefore lithosphere is roughly equivalent to crust and asthenosphere roughly equals uppermost mantle.

If you think you have a better definition, then please do contribute to GeologyRocks. We peer review everything, so there's no guarantee that any contributions would be accepted, but they are always welcome.

BTW: Ignore OiM. He's clearly completely closed-minded. Oil is generated by decomposition and heating of organic matter. The chemical signatures of oil most closely match that of organic compounds. There is no doubt some inorganic oil present, but it is not the majority and is in fact, a tiny percentage.

Therefore lithosphere is roughly equivalent to crust and asthenosphere roughly equals uppermost mantle.Yep.
And less roughly the asthenosphere equals the interface (a distinct plastic layer) between the cooler and denser layer (a distinct solid surface crust), and the mantle (so-called because it's believed to enclose a central dense core, which would be another interface: the core-mantle boundary).

So saying the mantle has an upper part is fine, but does that mean the asthenosphere is part of the upper part? Is the surface layer part of the asthenosphere, and does that make the lithosphere part of the mantle too? Maybe the core is part of the mantle?

Yep.
And less roughly the asthenosphere equals the interface (a distinct plastic layer) between the cooler and denser layer (a distinct solid surface crust), and the mantle (so-called because it's believed to enclose a central dense core, which would be another interface: the core-mantle boundary).


That's incorrect - the asthenosphere is a region - not an interface. It's generally is the ductile part of the upper mantle (which is most of it!). It therefore from the base of the lithosphere to the interface with the lower mantle (defined to be a olivine-spinel transition).


So saying the mantle has an upper part is fine, but does that mean the asthenosphere is part of the upper part?

Yes - it's most of it.


Is the surface layer part of the asthenosphere,


No - that's the lithosphere.


and does that make the lithosphere part of the mantle too?


Some of it is, yes - the part below the crust.


Maybe the core is part of the mantle?

Now you're being silly ;)

Pic: www .brojon.org/images/articles/dino1/figure3.jpg (remove space - I can't post links yet!)

Pic: www .brojon.org/images/articles/dino1/figure3.jpg (remove space - I can't post links yet!)

Here you go:

http://www.brojon.org/images/articles/dino1/figure3.jpg

the asthenosphere is a region - not an interface. It's both, actually. it's definitely a distinct layer.
I would say I'd get away with calling it the interface between the upper mantle and the lithosphere in a discussion with a geologist.
What about the core-mantle boundary? Is that an interface or a layer (a region), or both?

It's both, actually. it's definitely a distinct layer.
I would say I'd get away with calling it the interface between the upper mantle and the lithosphere in a discussion with a geologist.
What about the core-mantle boundary? Is that an interface or a layer (a region), or both?

No - an interface is a (infinitely) thin layer. The asthenosphere has a well defined thickness and comprises *most* of the upper mantle and therefore is not the interface between the upper mantle and lithosphere.

The CM boundary is an interface - the clue is the the term boundary (equivalent to interface ;) ) It may be graduated or sharp - I'm not sure it's known yet, but it definitely an interface. Besides, we're now down at the level of semantics, which given the usual discussion occurring here is far too high brow ;)

And, as a geologist, you wouldn't get away with it in a discussion ;)

Water is definitely biological, and so is carbon (and a few other elements). Everyone who went to high school knows this, were you away that day?
Water is not alive, neither is carbon or any other element. Elements and compounds are chemical, not biological.

Oil is generated by decomposition and heating of organic matter.
Oil is formed by composition not decomposition...:rolleyes:

If by organic you mean carbon then you are correct. If by organic you mean biological then you are retarded.

The chemical signatures of oil most closely match that of organic compounds.
What chemical signatures? What do you mean by organic? Carbon or biological?

There is no doubt some inorganic oil present, but it is not the majority and is in fact, a tiny percentage.
All oil has inorganic geochemistry: http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/techprogram/A112905.htm

It's a bit too late, but anyway:

oil idiot i will ask again WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE MADE OF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:bravo: It's about time, Asguard! :D

If by organic you mean carbon then you are correct. If by organic you mean biological then you are retarded.


The *generally* accepted explanation for oil formation is heating (under pressure) of source rock (a carbon-rich shale normally, where the carbon is of organic - yes biological - origin). Clearly, you don't agree - which is fine, but ten's of thousands of geologists (including yours truly) do not agree with you.



What chemical signatures? What do you mean by organic? Carbon or biological?


Biological. The chemical signatures (hedgehog graphs) can be traced to a source rock and matches similar chemical signatures. These signatures also match those derived from heating biological matter, in terms of isotope composition. The source rocks are very clearly biological in orgin - they are deep water ocean sediments (mostly) comprising ocean detritus. They form in anoxic conditions (very dark black colour) and in low energy conditions (very fined grained). As they contain marine fossils (both macro- and micro-fossils), they are clearly marine in origin. The Kimmeridge Clay (Upper Jurassic, UK) is a prime example - look it up, it could be enlightening. Wikipedia is a decent start here.


All oil has inorganic geochemistry:

No, *some* is. The link is a *single* session at a very popular conference looking at this issue - it does not prove that *all* oil is inorganic. The oil the authors were discussing does *not* match known crustal rocks and hence the origin is in doubt. The same is simply not true of all oil. In fact, the rest of the sessions (47) looked at more conventional oil generation and exploitation.

The *generally* accepted
Means nothing to me. Unitarianism was generally accepted. Vitalism was generally accepted.

explanation for oil formation is heating (under pressure) of source rock (a carbon-rich shale normally, where the carbon is of organic - yes biological - origin). Clearly, you don't agree - which is fine, but ten's of thousands of geologists (including yours truly) do not agree with you.
LOL. Ya think?

Biological. The chemical signatures (hedgehog graphs) can be traced to a source rock and matches similar chemical signatures. These signatures also match those derived from heating biological matter, in terms of isotope composition. The source rocks are very clearly biological in orgin - they are deep water ocean sediments (mostly) comprising ocean detritus. They form in anoxic conditions (very dark black colour) and in low energy conditions (very fined grained). As they contain marine fossils (both macro- and micro-fossils), they are clearly marine in origin. The Kimmeridge Clay (Upper Jurassic, UK) is a prime example - look it up, it could be enlightening.
Complete nonsense.

Wikipedia is a decent start here.
Wikipedia is edited by morons.

OK then. Not much I can say to that. I offer evidence and you simply say it's nonsense. No counter-evidence at all. You'll convince a lot of folk that way ;)

But back to topic - the original article is very much worth a read if you can access it on Nature.

I offer evidence and you simply say it's nonsense.
What evidence did you offer? Wikipedia? LOL.

No counter-evidence at all.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Read it and weep.

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

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/39/14023.full

http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

you can access it on Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v198/n4882/abs/198728a0.html

Evidence for Abiogenic Hydrocarbons

Mueller, G. , Nature, 196, 13 (1962). | ISI |
Wilson, A. T. , Nature, 196, 11 (1962). | ISI | ChemPort |
Landes, K. L. , Amoruso, J. J. , Charlesworth, jun., L. J. , Heany, F. , and Lesperance, P. J. , Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., 44, 1682 (1960).
Kudryavtsev, N. A. , Nefti, gaz i tverdye v izvershennykh i metamorphicheskikh porodakh., Leningrad, (1959).
Kropotkin, P. N. , Origin of Life on the Earth, 84 (1959).
Petersil'ye, I. A. , and Proskuryakova, Ye. B. , Izv. Acad. Sci. U.S.S.R. Geol., No. 4, 55 (1961). (1962; Eng. transl.).
Teodorovich, G. I. , Intern. Geol. Rev., 4, 1040 (1962).
Pratt, W. R. , and Rogers, R. G. , Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., 45, 397 (1961).
Davidson, C. F. , and Bowie, S. H. U. , Bull. Geol. Surv. Great Britain, 3, 1 (1951).
Deans, T. , Miner. Mag., 32, 705 (1961). | ChemPort |
Dewey, H. , and Eastwood, T. , Spec. Rep. Min. Res. Great Britain, 30, (Mem. Geol. Surv. Great Britain) (1925).
Dons, J. A. , Norsk. Geol. Tidsskr., 36, 249 (1956). | ChemPort |
Hedstrøm, H. , Arsb. Sver. Geol. Undersök., 16, (1923).
Mueller, G. , C.R. Cong. Géol. Intern., 19, (Alger), 12, 297 (1954).
King, R. J. , Trans. Leic. Lit. Phil. Soc., 53, 18 (1959). | ChemPort |
Miller, J. A. , and Podmore, J. S. , Geol. Mag., 98, 85 (1961). | ChemPort |
Harington, J. S. , Nature, 193, 43 (1962). | Article | ISI |
Harington, J. S. , Science, 138, 521 (1962). | ISI | ChemPort |
Calvin, M. , Chem. Eng. News, 39 (21), 96 (1961).
Briggs, M. H. , Nature, 191, 1137 (1961). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
Pirie, N. W. , New Biol., 16, 41 (1954).
Bernal, J. D. , Proc. Phys. Soc. Lond., 52, 537 (1949).
Bernal, J. D. , Nature, 190, 129 (1961). | Article | ISI |
Bernal, J. D. , Oceanography, 95 (Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1961).
Yates, R. G. , and Thompson, G. A. , U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 114, (1959).
Bailey, E. H. , Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 70, 661 (1959). | ChemPort |
Ransome, F. L. , Econ. Geol., 16, 313 (1921). | ChemPort |
Goguel, R. , Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 27, 155 (1963). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
Krejci-Graf, K. , Kali, verwandte Salze und Erdöl, Heft 20–23 (1934).

Well, it looks like there's a carbon-based chemical system who insists (somehow this system of chemicals manages to communicate, after a fashion, our technicians are working on this) yes folks - right here, that they are not biological.

No, biology is not organic, organic is where OIL comes from. Carbon makes minerals like periodites and diamonds. Biology has nothing to do with this, apparently.

biology is not organic
Organic can mean anything.

organic is where OIL comes from.
Organic can mean anything.

Carbon makes minerals like periodites and diamonds. Biology has nothing to do with this, apparently.
Correct.

Is H2O organic?
Answer: no, organic chemistry is carbon chemistry.

What does organic mean?
Answer: OIM doesn't know, he kept falling asleep in class, from sniffing too much petrol.

lets see if he can understand a simplifide version of what we are taught in bioscience.

Organic chem is called orgainic chem because its what makes up all life.

Carbon redily forms long chains of itself which are what make up the fundermental structure of the body (though i belive silicon could also do the same which is why astrobiologists also look for silicon based life).

One form of this is glucose which is one of the most basic sugars our body uses. Its chemical sign is C5 H10 O4 an its produced by plants which store the suns energy as glucose through photosynthis

Another group of organic molocules are lipids which includes all the fats, oils ect that your body makes or stores. Cholestorol is one example of a lipid and its also a steroid and used to make testorone and estrogen.

If we look at the chemical symbol for cholestrolo its C27 H46 O

This is a piture of a cholestrolo molicule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol

The grey refers to carbon, white to hydrogen and the red to Oxygen. See how it forms the long chain of carbon atached to carbon, this is fundemential to all life. The body redily breaks this down and reforms it into this:

C19 H28 O2

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1a/Testosterone3D.gif/250px-Testosterone3D.gif

There for i have proved in one post that biological actions can create carbon based molocules and that anything oil posts should be in psudoscience

Thank you
*bows*

for some reason my colestrol molicule wont post so here is the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cholesterol-3d.png

Is H2O organic?
Answer: no, organic chemistry is carbon chemistry.
Organic can mean carbon. It also has other definitions which you would know if you had a brain.

What does organic mean?
Answer: OIM doesn't know, he kept falling asleep in class, from sniffing too much petrol.
Organic has multiple definitions...:rolleyes:

Organic chem is called orgainic chem because its what makes up all life.
Wrong. Organic chem is called organic chem because vitalist retards before the 19th century were taught that carbon is alive. Due to this ignorance, carbon chemistry is still called organic chemistry to this day.

Carbon redily forms long chains of itself which are what make up the fundermental structure of the body (though i belive silicon could also do the same which is why astrobiologists also look for silicon based life).

One form of this is glucose which is one of the most basic sugars our body uses. Its chemical sign is C5 H10 O4 an its produced by plants which store the suns energy as glucose through photosynthis

Another group of organic molocules are lipids which includes all the fats, oils ect that your body makes or stores. Cholestorol is one example of a lipid and its also a steroid and used to make testorone and estrogen.

If we look at the chemical symbol for cholestrolo its C27 H46 O
Granted glucose is biological, however hydrocarbons are not. That pesky oxygen makes all the difference.

OIM struggles with some of the very most basic definitions and simplest of distinguishing points.

he struggles tremendously with the definitions of (a)biotic, (a)biogenic, biological, and organic - he seemingly can't destinguish between an element and a compound.
If we move on further to how compunds can be produced through more than one process, his blathering confusion becomes reminiscent of a straight jacketed lunatic bouncing off the soft walls in a padded room.

He seems resigned to his ignorance - indeed he seems to actually enjoy it.
He certainly loves to lets us know how moronic he is on as regular a basis as he possibly can.
Personally I think its hilarious in a watching-a-train-wreck kind of way.

Keep rattling those cage bars guys

:D

ps - I'm kind of intruiged to find out OIM's real name - that way when the next american High School spree killing happens, we can look out for his name as one of the perps - lets face it doesn't he seem like the type - delusional, angry, sociopathic, delusions of superiority, and on the verge of a major mental breakdown

Keep rattling those cage bars guys

Hum,
If he wants to hijack a thread, might as well be one to wind himself up,
(before turning the gun on himself).

OIM struggles with some of the very most basic definitions and simplest of distinguishing points.

he struggles tremendously with the definitions of (a)biotic, (a)biogenic, biological, and organic - he seemingly can't destinguish between an element and a compound.
If we move on further to how compunds can be produced through more than one process, his blathering confusion becomes reminiscent of a straight jacketed lunatic bouncing off the soft walls in a padded room.

He seems resigned to his ignorance - indeed he seems to actually enjoy it.
He certainly loves to lets us know how moronic he is on as regular a basis as he possibly can.
Personally I think its hilarious in a watching-a-train-wreck kind of way.

Keep rattling those cage bars guys

:D

ps - I'm kind of intruiged to find out OIM's real name - that way when the next american High School spree killing happens, we can look out for his name as one of the perps - lets face it doesn't he seem like the type - delusional, angry, sociopathic, delusions of superiority, and on the verge of a major mental breakdown
That's the msot persuasive argument for vitalism I've seen thus far. If I didn't have any scientific arguments I would resort to ad hominem as well.