It's not just Kenney. It's Kenney AND every relevant geologist in Russia and the Ukraine. Krayushkin. Plotnikova. Etc.
You continue to ignore and fabricate all empirical data and scientific evidence.
Scientific Retards
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
- Status
You continue to ignore and fabricate all empirical data and scientific evidence.
wonderful - an appeal to authority as a last resort.
Unfortunately science has little respect for authority - only to empirical data.
Thus when Laherrere - a petrogeologist who's humble acheivements only list 10 pages of peer-reviewed science and being credited as the man instrumental in finding Africa's largest oil field (so clearly leagues below Kenney, Krayushkin and their cronies) thoroughly refuted all of Krayushkins assertions and challenged him to defend them - krayushkin promptly cancelled his public appearances and went into hiding.
That was 7 years ago and he has still not come forward to defend his hypothesis.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml
If that's true why do you refer to Laherrere as an authority?
"Many analysts warned that these crises proved that the world would soon run out of oil. Yet they were wrong. Their dire predictions were emotional and political reactions; even at the time, oil experts knew that they had no scientific basis." -- Laherrere
Laherrere totally discredited here: http://www.gasresources.net/Lynch(Hubbert-Deffeyes).htm
As far as empirical data is concerned, geologists have known petroleum has a magmatic origin since 1804 and oilmen have been drilling for crude in igneous rock since 1919 and past 15,000 feet TVD since 1938.
Last edited:
I made no such claim about laherre - merely that his acheivements show him to be competent and that he scared krayushkin so badly that he ran of and hid.
The validity of Laherre's views on peak oil have no relation to the validity of the points with which he shot krayushkin down in flames - indeed krayushkin's lack of a response is testament to this - as such your article that "discredits" him is a non sequitur
As far as empirical data is concerned, geologists have known petroleum has a magmatic origin since 1804 and oilmen have been drilling for crude in igneous rock since 1919 and past 15,000 feet TVD since 1938.
I note you change the subject once again
which as you readily admit does noting to prove your hypothesis
Do you ever get bored of repeating yourself?
and yet with 200 years of science under their belts no-one has come close to proving it, and biogenic theory has continued to strengthen in the face of this.
which as you readily admit does noting to prove your hypothesis
Do you ever get bored of repeating yourself?
double post
The only reason I have to repeat myself is because you are partially illiterate and deliberately ignore all the key arguments.
I don't admit that. The empirical data above obviously disproves biogenic theory.
At least you correctly identified Campbell, Laherrere, Deffeyes, and Heinberg as "fucking idiots."
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1887001&postcount=159
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Estimates vary but the earth supports somewhere between 10^10 and 10^14 tons of biomass at any moment. Before the animal kingdom evolved in earnest that was almost all plant tissue and most of the plants died "natural" deaths without being digested by animals. That's a hell of a lot of carbon dioxide being sucked out of the atmosphere and separated, with the carbon sinking into the soil.
Sure, with all the oxygen being separated and returned to the atmosphere, making it very oxygen-rich by today's standards, there were undoubtedly some periodic lightning fires of biblical proportions that turned a bit of the carbon back into gaseous molecules. Yet over hundreds of millions of years, there were still quadrillions of tons of atmospheric carbon being transformed into organic carbon, the bulk of which was deposited in the earth's crust.
If it's not represented in that petroleum, then where did it go?
No one has figured out how abiogenesis works either, but that doesn't mean we don't expect to some day. Circumstantial evidence is not always enough to justify promoting a hypothesis to a theory, but it's usually enough to justify pursuing the line of research vigorously until the hypothesis is either fully detailed or falsified.
We've got solid circumstantial evidence for abiogenesis and we've got solid circumstantial evidence for at least some of the earth's petroleum being fossilized organic tissue.
The problem with dismissing abiogenesis without falsifying it is that it leaves us with no explanation for how a point mass of inorganic matter became a universe with at least one life-bearing planet. The problem with dismissing petroleum biogenesis without falsifying it is--unless I'm missing something obvious--that it leaves us looking for a rather large pile of missing organic waste.
It's still here. Carbon is an element. All elements are abiotic. Carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe. If you want to find abiotic carbon you might want to try looking in the mantle, anywhere in outer space, or at graphite.
Sedimentary rocks are not missing. We know exactly where they are. Near the surface of the Earth, the exact opposite direction of where we drill for oil.
Last edited:
The fact that cows fart methane is no more evidence for the biogenic origin compounds and elements than the fact that oxygen is a byproduct of cyanobacteria during photosynthesis.
Oxygen is the third most common element in the universe after hydrogen and helium.
And as everyone knows, there are no cows on Titan.
Oxygen is the third most common element in the universe after hydrogen and helium.
And as everyone knows, there are no cows on Titan.
Last edited:
You have already had the definition of biogenic explained to you - you are once again defining it incorrectly.
in short it means : "resulting from the activity of living organisms"
thus a whole bunch of compunds can be both biogenic - and abiogenic - it depends on how they are made.
Thus if during photosynthesis a plant reduces CO2 to produce carbohydrates and oxygen - that oxygen is biogenic in nature.
Conversely if an oxide is reduced through a simple chemical reation outside of nature, and oxygen is liberated - that oxygen is abiogenic.
The methane in my farts - and yours - is biogenic - it is produced when the bacteria in my large intestine digest cellulose.
Conversely if seawater reacts with certain rocks in hydrothermal systems to produce methane, then this methane is abiogenic
do you now understand the correct usage of the terminology?
Last edited:
A totally meaningless statement since all living organisms are comprised of inorganic elements but not all inorganic elements are from the activity of living organisms. Just as the hydrocarbons on Titan are comprised of inorganic materials.
You don't know how they are made.
"I have gone to the best geologists and the best petroleum researchers, and I can give you the authoritative answer: No one knows." -- Edward Teller 1979, father of the hydrogen bomb, on how living matter is converted into petroleum.
Last edited:
don't complain to me
Complain to the person who writes the dictionary
Complain to all these organisms that inconveniently for you synthesize compounds through biological processes (those tricky little critters - can't trust 'em!)
Complain to the atoms and molecules that do it through chemical reactions
Complain to your school teacher that she never taught you english comprehension
***edit** thinking about it I'm guessing that your lack of comprehension of english is due to the fact that english is probably not your first language - If I'm right let me know and I'll cut you a little slack and explain your comprehension mistakes to you simply and politely
Appeals to authority prove nothing
Quotes without empirical data that support them prove nothing
You have once again proved nothing
Last edited:
I'm beginning to suspect that the way one approaches the answer has something to do with the different lenses and semantic differences through which the scientists of different fields of study view the universe.
A biologist or geologist is going to say oxygen has a biogenic origin.
A chemist or astronomer is going to say oxygen has an abiotic origin.
A biologist or geologist is going to say oxygen has a biogenic origin.
A chemist or astronomer is going to say oxygen has an abiotic origin.
(Wallace E. Pratt, Letter to Dott, October 23, 1964)
Last edited:
I think we've come to an agreement so let me tell you my conclusions so we can start arguing again.
Saying that the bulk of the oxygen on the earth is biogenic in origin is a totally meaningless statement. It doesn't mean we are running out of oxygen. Oxygen is the third most common element in the universe.
?
I thought you agreed that I proved Campbell, Deffeyes, and Heinberg are "fucking idiots" for believing in the oil window and all of their other ridiculous beliefs.
What??
- Status