liquid without life?
- Thread starter alexb123
- Start date
Minerals heated to their melting points for sufficient time will turn to liquid. Living things are not needed for this to occur.
The entire earth was a mushy, liquid ball of minerals early in its formation.
The entire earth was a mushy, liquid ball of minerals early in its formation.
Liquid ethane on Titan (Saturn VI) is abiotic.
How far along on dates do you get before bringing this up? Have you launched into your peak-oil-is-a-conspiracy-theory by the time the waiter brings your food? Or are you able, by great personal discipline, able to restrain yourself from spewing your insane conspiracy theories to dates, co-workers, and relatives at family gatherings?
Good question but I can think of one.
Mercury.
Mainly occurs as ore, but does occur as element.
Idrija Mine
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
There is a raging debate over whether a significant portion of earth's petroleum deposits were created by abiotic processes. Given that we can't yet describe the biological processes that form petroleum, it would be bad science to dismiss this hypothesis. I find it rather amusing that we have no trouble assuming that life itself was created abiotically, but not something much simpler like petroleum.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
FG, there is not a raging debate. There is some occassional discussion around the fringes as to the thesis. The central view of petroleum geologists and engineers is that oil is biotic in origin. 99% or more of the exploration programs are based upon a biotic origin.
You say we do not know how petroleum forms. We have a pretty good idea, which is one of the means by which we can link specific source rock to specif reservoir.
Perhaps you mean the debate was raging here on sciforums. That is not a debate - that is a systematic dismantling of the delusions of Oil is MAstery.
As I have noted before OIMs rantings on the subject have distracted from an objective discussion of the possibility that some hydrocarbons may originate from the mantle. Certainly, for the sake of argument, I could make a good case for degassing of methane from the mantle and its conversion to petroleeum through the activity of deep seated thermophiles. I don't beleive it's the case, but it's an interesting talking point.
But a raging debate? Decidedly not.
Okay i think we have established that liquid is very very rare. So my real question here is why? If I apply what I see as logic it seems strange that rock and solid formations are in abundance and great variety; yet liquid isn't. Surely, rock etc takes an amount of bonding which would be a process that liquid does not need, therefore you would think that liquids would be more likely to exist than solids?
Then, you could look at gas, how many forms of non-bio gas are there?
Then, you could look at gas, how many forms of non-bio gas are there?
Most liquids (all except water?) are chemically reactive.
Water is very unreactive. A very stable molecule too.
Despite being unreactive, it is a very good solvent.
Last edited:
I must be missing something here:
" Okay i think we have established that liquid is very very rare."
Have you looked at our planet and missed all the SALT WATER?
Blood seems plentiful too.
Then there is urine, honey and even ear wax.
I must be missing the point.....
" Okay i think we have established that liquid is very very rare."
Have you looked at our planet and missed all the SALT WATER?
Blood seems plentiful too.
Then there is urine, honey and even ear wax.
I must be missing the point.....
I must be missing something here:
" Okay i think we have established that liquid is very very rare."
Have you looked at our planet and missed all the SALT WATER?
Blood seems plentiful too.
Then there is urine, honey and even ear wax.
I must be missing the point.....
"occurs in nature without some form of life"
"except water"
Your liquids are all produced by life, except seawater which is just water with dissolved salts in it.
What debate?
"It is generally recognized that the first pre-biotic organic molecules on earth and elsewhere in the solar system must have been formed by abiogenic reactions." -- Barbara Sherwood Lollar, 2006
"No one doubts that inorganic hydrocarbons may occur in association with hydrothermal systems." -- Michael D. Lewan, 2005
"Abiogenic gasses are a clear fact. I can make them on the lab bench today." -- Barbara Sherwood Lollar, 2005
"This methane cannot be coming from living organisms." -- Jean-Pierre Lebreton, 2005
"I don't think anybody's arguing that gas couldn't be generated from the mantle." -- Barry J. Katz, 2002
"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons." -- Michael D. Lewan, 2002
"There has not been any 'debate' about the origin of hydrocarbons for over a century. Competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological material since the last quarter of the 19th century." -- Jack F. Kenney, 2002
"The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986)." -- Jack F. Kenney, 1996
There is no debate because there is no evidence, literally none whatsoever, indicating hydrocarbons have a biological origin.
"The general concept of petroleum formation by biogenic mechanisms has been firmly entrenched for a long time, but there has been no accumulation of convincing experimental evidence in support of this belief." -- Charles E. Melton and A.A. Giardini, 1983
"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time." -- Fred Hoyle, 1982
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Correct. It is very well understood that prebiotic molecules formed abiogenically. It is likely that a large proportion of these arrived on the Earth in comets and on meteors. Others would have been produced by natural reactions within the atmosphere, oceans and rock.
All of this is quite different from the production biogenically of the material from which petroleum is generated.
In other words, this quotation has nothing to say about the origin of petroleum and in no way supports your abberant and polluting view on abiogenic petroleum.
Indeed no one doubts this. However Michael D.Lewan, your 'supporter' certainly doubts that this is the primary source of hydrocarbons. His views on that matter, that oil is sourced from the biological detritus found in sedimentary rocks, are pretty clearly set out in this publication of his:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5037/p...8-5037_508.pdf
So yet another of your alleged sources supporting an abiogenic origin for petroleum is in fact a complete supporter of the biogenic origin. Are you not embarrassed yet?
You should be embarrassed. I already challenged you on this particular item on another thread, yet you continue to spew out the same nonsense. I have no intention of wasting my time on the rest of your quotes that are similarly quoted out of context, or are simply irrelevant.
This persistent flaunting of failed arguments and repetition of flawed logic is unacceptable. Your post has been reported and I have requested you be permanently banned.
Michael Lewan said it so even the biogenic theorists admit they are wrong and have no clue.
Why would I be embarrased by scientific truth?
Why would I be embarrased by scientific truth?
Wow, permanently banned, a bit radical I think...
So what is the DEAL here, is oil biotic or abiotic or somewhere in between?
I always thought it was from squashed fish and vegetables
Couldn't we just see where it is found the most, and establish if there were forests there or something?