Yes or no?
I say no.
I say no.
Last edited:
Do Carbonaceous Meteorites Come From Jurrasic and Cretaceous Algae?
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
I think the simple (not oil like molecules) hydrocarbons found in some are of inorganic origin, but as you like decade old Russian literature, and groups with an agenda to “prove,” I will help you in your efforts. You can see photos of section of some here:
http://www.panspermia.org/zhmur1.htm
Here is some “mined text” from that link. (I know you love “mined text,” as is represented by most of your posts.):
“July 20-22, 1999, a pair scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences presented sharp images that look very much like fossilized microorganisms taken from fragments of several carbonaceous meteorites.*** The scientists are Stanislav I. Zhmur, Institute of the Lithosphere of Marginal Seas, and Lyudmila M. Gerasimenko, Institute of Biology. …”
I am not sure what those words I made bold above mean but you can cite them as “PROOF” of oil’s a-biotic origin – which is the point of this thread, I assume.
If you need more quotes, use this:
“ …morphology of microorganisms of modern and ancient terrestrial cyanobacterial community showed that they are analogous. This gave us reason to consider that these bacteriomorphic structures are fossilized remnants of microorganisms. …”
Or:
“….The microfossls detected apparently represent the remains of microbial communities rather than remains of individual microorganisms; the communities were well developed and resembled cyanobacterial communities. The communities functioned in an aquatic environment, probably in hydrothermal volcanic activity zones.
Or:
"The basic morphological similarity of modern and ancient terrestrial microorganisms with the bacteriomorphic structures found in meteorites supports the belief that the primary biological worlds of the Earth and extraterrestrial objects were united. The identity of matter from which various objects of the solar system (planets, asteroids, meteorites, etc.) consist and their close (on geological scale) age are also evidence in favor of the united biological world of the solar system. “{and a-biotic oil
}…”
-----
***Billy T insert: The Iron/Nickel meteorites surely came for the interiors of planets. The fact that life is only in the crustal part, which is a small part of the planet, probably explains why these meteorites are much more rare. – But that’s just my theory. – What do you think?
http://www.panspermia.org/zhmur1.htm
Here is some “mined text” from that link. (I know you love “mined text,” as is represented by most of your posts.):
“July 20-22, 1999, a pair scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences presented sharp images that look very much like fossilized microorganisms taken from fragments of several carbonaceous meteorites.*** The scientists are Stanislav I. Zhmur, Institute of the Lithosphere of Marginal Seas, and Lyudmila M. Gerasimenko, Institute of Biology. …”
I am not sure what those words I made bold above mean but you can cite them as “PROOF” of oil’s a-biotic origin – which is the point of this thread, I assume.
If you need more quotes, use this:
“ …morphology of microorganisms of modern and ancient terrestrial cyanobacterial community showed that they are analogous. This gave us reason to consider that these bacteriomorphic structures are fossilized remnants of microorganisms. …”
Or:
“….The microfossls detected apparently represent the remains of microbial communities rather than remains of individual microorganisms; the communities were well developed and resembled cyanobacterial communities. The communities functioned in an aquatic environment, probably in hydrothermal volcanic activity zones.
Or:
"The basic morphological similarity of modern and ancient terrestrial microorganisms with the bacteriomorphic structures found in meteorites supports the belief that the primary biological worlds of the Earth and extraterrestrial objects were united. The identity of matter from which various objects of the solar system (planets, asteroids, meteorites, etc.) consist and their close (on geological scale) age are also evidence in favor of the united biological world of the solar system. “{and a-biotic oil
}…”-----
***Billy T insert: The Iron/Nickel meteorites surely came for the interiors of planets. The fact that life is only in the crustal part, which is a small part of the planet, probably explains why these meteorites are much more rare. – But that’s just my theory. – What do you think?
Last edited by a moderator:
OK so far we have 1 vote for yes and 1 vote for no.
again Not correct: It is two votes "No."
I vote no also because Jurrasic and Cretaceous Algae was generated on Earth.
Meteorites are extra terrestrial in origin, but you seem to have great confusions about origins.
PS - If you need more help (I gave some for free in post 2) I will, but I charge next time. (I had to search prior to making post 2 as I had forgotten what state of chemical bonding, if any, the carbon in those meteorites was in. - I rarely search, so want to be paid when I must.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice job on farming the biogenic quotes by the way. You're almost as good as synthesizer-patel.
Thanks. I knew you would like to see the photograph presented in the post 2 link. {The authors of your Russian references were not by members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, perhaps because they invented things? - Probably that is common in the decades old Russian literature you quote and why these authors, who are members, felt the need to show that actual photographs.}
Do Carbonaceous Meteorites Come From Jurrasic and Cretaceous Algae?
No they fly out of OIM's butt - followed by winged monkeys
does it hurt when then do that?
No they fly out of OIM's butt - followed by winged monkeys
does it hurt when then do that?
The premise of this thread is ridiculous.
Flushed.
Flushed.
ROFL @ U. Don't let anyone see the fact that inorganic hydrocarbons are in outer space. It might make them disagree with you.
Here is why:
Before there were stars, the universe had only hydrogen and some helium. The intitial stars tended to be at least 100 times more massive than the sun because the universe had not expanded to its present relatively lower average density state.
These massive stars, first convert hydrogen to helium just as our sun is doing, but unlike the sun, which when it has "burnt" most of its hydrogen and then becomes a "Red Giant" (in about 5 billion years if I remember correctly) , these massive stars will begin to "burn" the helium to heavier atoms. Some will go thru many different fusion processes and eventually the last fusion in the largest stars will make iron. Many will make carbon and not go further as not massive enough to shrink some more and get hot enough to initiate the next stage of fusion.
These "stopped at carbon" stars will explode. (I am not sure if only as "novas" or as weak "super-novas.") In any case, they make a rapidly expanding nebula containing both atomic hydrogen and carbon. Most of the hydrogen will eventually become the H2 molecules that dominate "empty" space, but some will bind to carbon atoms. I.e. first become CH, but that molecule still has "room" (unsatisfied valence bonds in the outer electron layers or "molecular orbitals" to use the correct term.) for three more hydrogen atoms. Thus, the atomic carbon atoms in that cloud of hydrogen converted to CH4 now found in space, which as is obvious with this understanding of this stellar history, has an a-biotic origin.
Why do you keep mentioning that there are a-biotic hydrocarbons? We agree. CH4 is also being generated as I type, right here on Earth (in chemical reactions in some of the hot deep-sea vents and probably in many non-venting parts of Earth's crust, especially where oil hydrocarbons have been convected down too deep* to be thermally stable) as you have noted.
-----------
*This downward transport typically took place (or still is) where two tectonic plates collide, one being forced below the other. That "double thickness" of the lighter crustal rocks etc then "floats" on the denser mantel material (like a piece of wood on water) sticking up above the average crustal level. We called these locations "Mountains." They often are the places where natural gas is found. It is a shame so much oil was thermally decomposed as oil is worth much more that natural gas. Fortunately, in quite a few places, some of the oil did not decompose as it did not get down deep enough.
For example, Brazil has a coastal chain of mountains, and about 250km East of this coastal mountain chain, the descending Atlantic plate did not get as deep as directly under those costal mountains so the organic material (ancient algae mainly), there is down only about 8 to 9,000 meters below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean. That old organic material is now 80% oil and 20% natural gas in Brazil's new Tupi oil field. As you move closer to the shore, the percentage that is oil drops (As you would expect as it is deeper and hotter.) and the percantage that is natural gas increases.
PetroBras is frantically drilling for natural gas now closer to the shore-line and on shore since Bolivia recently confiscated the natural gas that PetroBras found under the taller Andes Mountain chain in Bolivia. (The organic material was 100% converted to natural gas - Bolivia has no oil. It surely did millions of years ago, but it has all thermally decomposed into CH4 and H2.)
Fortunately, as expected, PetroBras is now discovering natural gas in these deeper layers, which are closer to the shore or on land by drilling deeper for it than they drilled years ago, without success, looking for on-shore oil (which according to the a-biotic origin nonsense should have been found in abundance as Brazil is deep earth up lifted as evidence by the world's largest deposit so many minerals and large beautiful crystals etc. You do not need to dig miles deep for gold in Brazil as in South Africa etc. It is found on the surface and a cause for great friction with the Native tribes as prospectors invade their reservations. Each side kills a few of the other each year.)
I said "fortunately" and "frantically" as natural gas is being "economically rationed" now that the Bolivian supply is very limited. The price per BTU in Sao Paulo went up 18% at start of this month - not something the government wanted to do. The government has shut down power stations burning natural gas. Fortunately more than 90% of Brazil's electric production is hydro electric and the reservoirs are near capacity - Had exceptionally good rains during this past growing season - Brazil has historic large crops and expanded alcohol production also. It is US's corn to alcohol program that is contributing to the food shortage, not Brazil's expanding sugar cane to alcohol program; but I am drifting off topic so will stop, just again noting oil is not found on land in Brazil or under tall mountains anywhere in the world as the a-biotic origin predicts is should be. Oil is found where there once was a lot of dead algae deep enough in an ancient ocean to be protected from oxidation.
You seem incapable of facing these facts and so you keep telling that some hydrocarbon CH4 is a-biotic origin, a fact which all can agree with, as it has nothing to with how oil was formed or where it is found. Ancient oceans and plate tectonic movements that took the accumulated algae down (but not too deep as under tall mountains) explain how oil was made and where it is found (and where it is not despite the a-biotic nonsense that it should found where there are faults for it to seep up thru. That is almost everywhere and certainly includes California.)
Do you not have any problem with fact US's oil is found in Texas and Oklahoma, which were once under the sea, and yet not found all along the St. Andres Fault in California as predicted by a-biotic origin theory? Or do you rest easy with these facts as you cannot think?
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't tell that to the fossil fuel cult. They might blow a wing nut.
Thank you.
Heresy!!!! Don't tell that to the fossil fuel cult they will definitely blow a wing nut at that.
Shocking since noone is drilling in the Amazon.
Don't forget Kansas there Dorothy. Sedimentary rock is only 1100 feet thick in Kansas. Apparently you don't know what abiogenic origin predicts: it predicts a mantle origin not a mountain origin.
No oil near faults or in California? That's a good one. Ever heard of Chevron?
http://books.google.com/books?id=2UcLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17869187
http://books.google.com/books?id=2lALAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA288&lpg=RA1-PA288n
Last edited:
These three links are a new low in lack of relevance, even for you. They do not support there ever having been commercial quantities of oil coming up anywhere along the faults in California.
The first link is a map with two red dots in California, but does not tell what they indicate. You wanted me and others to falsely assume that they mark the locations of commercial oil discoveries. I did that for a few seconds until I noticed there is not even one red dot in all of the Mid East where most of the commercial oil is!
The second link is about where coal is found. AND NOT MUCH THERE EVEN ON THAT! Nothing there about oil formation.
The third link is also about coal. It does note that Bituminous Coal, the type we mainly have in West Virginia where I grew up, does have more oil like molecules in it. (We hill-billies call it "soft coal.") I am not geologist, but guess it is much closer to oil than anthracite coal, which is essentially pure glassy carbon and much harder. I once had a small vase made of anthracite coal. The center had been bored out of one big piece of anthracite coal; the outside turned round in a lathe and lightly carved by hand. The lip was very smooth and shinny as it had been polished.
I know this about my anthracite coal vase has nothing to do with the origin of oil but, as usual, neither do your links.
I am not much of a linguist so cannot be sure but think "Chevron" is from the French and describes the inverted V of their company logo. Even if Chevron did start or once had its headquarters in California and even if small quantities of oil have been found there, as the a-biotic theory predicts it should be in great quantities, and that it should still now coming up everywhere along that major fault line, it certainly is not. - I have never seen a picture of even one oil derrick in California, but there were thousands in Texas where the biological origin of oil theory predicts oil should be and was found.
Huh? I'm pretty sure Coste is relevant. Maybe not to the theory that all oil comes from living organisms but certainly relevant.
I take it you've never heard of Chevron or Kern County.
http://www.offshore-mag.com/display...e-Middle-East-fields-may-produce-oil-forever/
Nope no geologic activity in the Middle East lol.
LMAO. Allow me to educate you.
Venice Beach California, 1933.
Long Beach California 1932.
Huh? All the fossils lived in Saudi Arabia and Texas eh? If all oil is from Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments, as claimed by Colin Campbell, how come we don't find all the oil in Montana or wherever we find dinosaurs?
Since when is a question a premise?
Thanks for the photos. only the Long Beach one displayed for me.
I assume that both Venice and Long BEACH oil field were near the ocean, not over the ST. Andreas Fault, but I do not know their position. More important is the fact that they seem to resemble Brazil's oil fields. I.e. about 250km from a major mountain chain (the Rockies in their case). That mountain chain is evidence that at some point in the past the Pacific plate must have been moving more eastward (diving down so the Rockies could "float up") - way all mountain chains are made. (Again the "double thick" layer of less dense crustal rocks sticks up higher than the average crustal surface like wood floating on water.)
As is the case in Brazil, the dividing down of the Pacific plate back then did transport organic material deep with it. Again it got too deep to remain oil under the mountains, but the thermally decomposed oil is the CH4 or natural gas found in many mountain areas today. How far are those two beach oil fields from the Rockies? Less the 250Km of Brazil oil from the Mountains I would guess.
Fact that oil was found in commercial quantites at only two or three location does not support well a theory that has oil generated a-biotically. It should be found all along the fault line. Recall Gold drilled where an ancient meteor had hit making lots of shock wave fractures deep for the a-biotic oil to seep up thru or at least easily move to the tip of his drill hole.
The biotic modern theory does not think much if any oil is from dead dinosaurs. Early algae like creatures instead, as I understand it - back before more sophisticated creatures evolved to eat them - clean up the photosynthetic scum covering all the oceans. that theory requires that only the deepest parts of the ancient oceans were oxygen free and cold enough to keep the organic material accumulating on the bottom un-oxidized until buried and eventually transported down, but not too far down to decompose it. Thus by that biotic origin POV, oil should not be found everywhere, not even in all the fault lines, but occasion some faults may facilitate the movement of oil, perhaps helping it avoid the fate of conversion into CH4 as the rocks dive deeper.
What is the reason according to the a-biotic theory why oil is not found almost every where?
Also I remind you that I asked: What is the energy source for the energy stored in oil in the a-biotic origin story? It is solar energy captured by the primitive "algae like" single cell organism in the biotic origin theory. There is a lot of energy to account for stored in oil where does it come from if not the sunshine?
Emphasis on assume.
Exactly. Oil is associated with continental rifting over the mantle.
Oil is deep.Thermally decomposed oil?
The fact that there is not one fossil associated with the oil does not bode well for the biogenic hoax.
Yes; I recall the 80 barrels of oil he discovered there.
Wrong. According to Colin Campbell, one of biogenic theories most important spokesmen, oil was only formed twice in the history of the Earth, in the Jurassic and Cretaceous.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits that from ever happening: http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.htm
The reason why oil isn't found everywhere is because biogenic retards think it can only be found above 15,000 feet TVD. The biogenic success rate is 1 well for every 28 dry holes.
Oil is found almost everywhere an abiogenic theorist looks for it.
Hydrocarbon energy comes from the mantle: http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
Then your memory is failing. Gold and that a-biotic backers did get excited for abourt 10 days when there were traces of oil in the cuttings coming up. Unfortunately for the a-biotic theory, that it the only oil they ever found and soon chemical annalysis showed it came form the anti-rust lubercation of the drill string pipes. In total not enough oil to fill a coffee cup was recoverded from some new pipes installed after the end of the string broke off. That happend 4 or 5 times before they finally gave up as the bit tended to follow the deep fractures the old meteor strike's shock wave had made. (They drilled there under the guidance of the a-biotic theory as these fractures were predicted to be full of oil and the meteor glass cap or fused surface was their guananteed it would not have escaped earlier.)
I do not know him or when that opinion was offered. I do acknoweledge that at one time years ago the biological source of oil was thought to be large animals especially dinosaurs, but later ti was realized that algae provides an much larger source. AlsoBTW even currently where the oceans are no longer covered by a scum of algae the algae is producing several times more oxygen than the Amazon Forest does. It is basically algae that converted the Earth's original reducing atmosphere into the current oxidizing one.
You do have a tendency to quote / cite obsolte information rather than more modern and better established facts, so if Colin Campbell did say that it must have been some time ago as he is certainly not to be representing the biotic / algae origin theory, or even one of the major oil company's POV.
...
If that were true and there were any people with drill rigs who believed that a-biotic theory, then why is the price of oil so high? Why are they not drilling and hitting oil guided by their "prefect understanding" of it origin and where it can be found?
What you state is self-evident NONSENSE. It is getting harder to find oil. The followers of a-biotic theory can not find any of their "inexhaustable supply" now. Either that, or they not like the money they could make by selling it at 130/ barrel?
Then your memory is failing. Gold and that a-biotic backers did get excited for about 10 days when there were traces of oil in the cuttings coming up. Unfortunately for the a-biotic theory, that is the only oil they ever found and soon chemical annalysis showed it came form the anti-rust lubercation of the drill string pipes. In total not enough oil to fill a coffee cup was recoverded from some new pipes installed after the end of the string broke off. That happend 4 or 5 times before they finally gave up as the bit tended to follow the deep fractures the old meteor strike's shock wave had made. (They drilled there under the guidance of the a-biotic theory as these fractures were predicted to be full of oil and the meteor glass cap or fused surface was their guananteed it would not have escaped earlier.)
I do not know him or when that opinion was offered. I do acknoweledge that at one time years ago the biological source of oil was thought to be large animals especially dinosaurs, but later it was realized that algae provides a much larger source. Also, BTW even currently when the oceans are no longer covered by a scum of algae, the algae is producing several times more oxygen than the Amazon Forest does. It is basically algae that converted the Earth's original reducing atmosphere into the current oxidizing one.
You do have a tendency to quote / cite obsolte information rather than more modern and better established facts, so if Colin Campbell did say that it must have been some time ago as he is certainly not representing the biotic / algae origin theory, or even one of the major oil company's POV.
...
It that were true and there were any people with drill rigs who believed that a-biotic theory then why is the price of iol so high? Why are they not drilling and hitting oil guided by the "prefect understanding" of it origin and where it can be found?
What you state is self-evident NONSENSE. It is getting harder to find oil. The followers of a-biotic theory can not find any of their "inexhaustable supply" now. Either that, or they not like the money they could make by selling it at $130/ barrel.Which is it? Or do you not answer questions still?
Last edited by a moderator:
You ignored all the key points. Go back and read the parts you deliberately didn't quote because you're too scared to be honest with yourself.