Scientific Retards

Status
Not open for further replies.
OilIsMastery said:
It just goes to show you how biogenic "theorists" have to twist and warp reality and rewrite literature in order to convince people that their religion is true.
Click to expand...

What is your proof ?

That said, someone has changed it.. then someone else changed it back.

I'm not going to be a part of this.

I suggest the both of you find new sources.
 
Enmos said:
Omg.. new level huh.. ? lol
Click to expand...

Do you think he might actually be a chatbot instead of a real person?

At the best of times he's only barely coherent - his comprehension is akin to that of a 7 year old - and occasionally - like in that last post he just spews out a string of garbled nonsense - like he's just taken snippets of what I've posted - stiched them back together in no particular order and then hit post.

Its my new hypothesis - how do we test it?
 
synthesizer-patel said:
Do you think he might actually be a chatbot instead of a real person?

At the best of times he's only barely coherent - his comprehension is akin to that of a 7 year old - and occasionally - like in that last post he just spews out a string of garbled nonsense - like he's just taken snippets of what I've posted - stiched them back together in no particular order and then hit post.

Its my new hypothesis - how do we test it?
Click to expand...

I have no way of verifying who changed what..
I am interested in that reference that got deleted though.
 
Enmos said:
What is your proof ?

That said, someone has changed it.. then someone else changed it back.

I'm not going to be a part of this.

I suggest the both of you find new sources.
Click to expand...

The paper I referenced is valid and unrefuted. It should therefore be left to stand in wiki until it is refuted
In contrast the statement that diamondoids are formed in the mantle has no reference as to its authenticity.

you tell me - on that basis which is more valid?

If someone edited the wiki article then it wasn't me - but clearly someone on these boards is paying attention :D
 
synthesizer-patel said:
The paper I referenced is valid and unrefuted. It should therefore be left to stand in wiki until it is refuted
In contrast the statement that diamondoids are formed in the mantle has no reference as to its authenticity.

you tell me - on that basis which is more valid?

If someone edited the wiki article then it wasn't me - but clearly someone on these boards is paying attention :D
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I'm just interested in the referenced article. Do you have a link to it ?
 
OilIsMastery said:
It just goes to show you how biogenic "theorists" have to twist and warp reality and rewrite all the literature in order to convince people that their religion is true.
Click to expand...

It is very telling that you describe wikipedia as "The Literature"

It is equally telling that you have no problem with doing it yourself:

I've been editing Wikipedia under the name Wikkidd. Specifically the entries for petroleum (biogenic theory) (I added Kenney link), fossil fuel (I added Agricola to correctly show biogenic theory is the older theory), abiogenic petroleum origin
Click to expand...

http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2008/06/to-anaconda-since-youre-only-one.html

so its fine for you to edit wiki to favour your whacky propaganda - but not for someone else to update an article with genuine peer-reviewed science - oh no when that happens you cry foul.

You are showing your true colours - and you're yella

Loser!
 
Last edited:
Everyone seems to be pretty much on topic..
Click to expand...

Know something?
You're right.
I glanced at this thread a day or two ago and took a different message from it. I was more interested in the list of scientists in the opening post and pretty much overlooked the oil and helium thing.

Sorry.
It seemed like the topic had shifted from scientists to OilIsMastery (who is obviously not a scientist.)

I suppose the topic was in my blind spot.

Carry on.
 
invert_nexus said:
Know something?
You're right.
I glanced at this thread a day or two ago and took a different message from it. I was more interested in the list of scientists in the opening post and pretty much overlooked the oil and helium thing.

Sorry.
It seemed like the topic had shifted from scientists to OilIsMastery (who is obviously not a scientist.)

I suppose the topic was in my blind spot.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

No prob. lol
I was just wondering how you thought is was off-topic ;)
 
Biogenic "theorists" like synthesizer-patel believe that the diamondoids in crude oil were only formed twice in the history of the universe, only on the Earth in sedimentary rock less than 15,000 feet TVD, and only in the Jurassic and Cretaceous, by algae.
 
OilIsMastery said:
The claim that molecular diamondoids were formed from Jurassic and Cretsaceous algae is refuted here: http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
Click to expand...

It does not refute the extremely close match between the carbon isotope ratios of carbon in diamondoids and other forms of biogenic carbon

It does not refute the difference in carbon isotope ratios of carbon in diamondoids and carbon in abiotic diamonds

The paper itself has been refuted - Kenney's assertion ignores the fact all of life relies on being in thermodynamic disequilibrium with its environment - in order to prove his paper he needs to prove that life does not exist.

http://chentserver.uwaterloo.ca/cou...refinery/chapter2-the-origin-of-petroleum.pdf

It fails

You fail

Again
 
See link above.

The claims which purport to argue for some connection between natural petroleum and biological matter fall into roughly two classes: the “look-like/come-from” claims; and the “similar(recondite)-properties/come-from” claims.

The “look-like/come-from” claims apply a line of unreason exactly as designated: Such argue that, because certain molecules found in natural petroleum “look like” certain other molecules found in biological systems, then the former must “come-from” the latter. Such notion is, of course, equivalent to asserting that elephant tusks evolve because those animals must eat piano keys.

In some instances, the “look-like/come-from” claims assert that certain molecules found in natural petroleum actually are biological molecules, and evolve only in biological systems. These molecules have often been given the spurious name “biomarkers.”

The scientific correction must be stated unequivocally: There have never been observed any specifically biological molecules in natural petroleum, except as contaminants.
Click to expand...
 
OilIsMastery said:
See link above.
Click to expand...

I've read it - kenney merely asserts that - never proves it

I can see where you got your style of scientific enquiry and presentation from.

It goes like this:

Pull something out of your arse

Claim its true

Claim its true louder

Ignore refuting evidence

Claim its true even louder

Cry foul when all is lost

Pull something out of your arse

ad infinitum
 
This is so appropriate for OIM:

Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.
Click to expand...

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top