Yes. It's how subterranean animals breathe underground...
So according to you, oxidation in the earth's crust is possible or impossible?
Scientists Find More Abiotic Oil
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
- Status
Strawman - this has nothing to do with what I said. I did not say that there was a difference between free oxygen and O2, in fact I have stated repeatedly that O2 is one of the forms of free oxygen.
What I stated is that there is a difference between Oxygen - the name of an element, and free elemental oxygen - one of the forms that element can take. Stating that something contains Oxygen does not imply that the oxygen is present in its free and elemental state (something I'm sure i've explicitly stated more then once.
If you believe otherwise, then I suggest you try breathing pure carbon dioxide, after all, it's 72.7% Oxygen by weight.
This is a simple appeal to emotion, and an ad-hominem (In the context it's used).
You've already had the definition that I was using explained to you.
I've explained it to you, as have three other people who understood what I was talking about.
Give it up.
That's because they are close enough to the atmosphere for air to get down their tunnels. Do you think there are subterranean animals down 1km from the surface?Yes. It's how subterranean animals breathe underground...
It's possible but not for animals to live. It's possible in the sense that extreme heat and pressure can break down certain rock chemicals and then react with other rocks. But that isn't the same as there being lots of free O2 for animals to breath. Particularly since you need pressures and temperatures many times above STP to initiate the kind of chemical reactions I'm talking about.
Because they have ventilation systems getting air from the surface. When they have cave ins and miners are cut off from the surface, they die of suffocation or things like carbon monoxide poisoning, because free oxygen doesn't just seep in from the rocks, it has to be pumped in from the surface.If there were no O2 in a coal mine, every miner and canary on earth would be dead...
Don't you know anything about mining?
I rest my case.
Nice bit of selective quoting. Particularly considering the other half of the sentence then goes on to say it still doesn't support your claims. It's not 'free'. The conditions involved in oxidation processes in the ground are very hot and very high pressure and it would only occur in certain rock types.
Given you are not providing a specific mechanism about oxidation and hydrocarbon production to demonstrate your claims, it's not possible to examine your claims in any more detail. The NASA paper required very specific rocks, like an iron ore which is full of oxygen in it's compounds. The majority of the oxygen in the ground isn't in that form.
Also, your case involved talking about the carbon in the universe and claiming all carbon chemistry was organic. Just as now you're under the impression that if there's oxygen in a compound in the ground it can oxidise things. Which is wrong.
Straw man fallacy.
Argument from Ignorance fallacy.
The two statements are presented as if they contradict each other when in fact they do not.
Only a retard thinks that oxidation doesn't take place in the earth's crust. Methane has a 7 year halflife (hardly a "fossil" fuel).
Glasby is the one who made the claim about oxidation and you're right, he provided no specific mechanism. All I said was that the crust is more oxidizing than the mantle, which is self-evident to any normal person (Vernadsky 1933).
That's the thread in the chemistry forum.
I never said that. I said the crust is more oxidizing than the mantle, which is correct.
Last edited:
Total falsehood, you said:
Which is clearly meant to imply that the oxidizing potential of the crust neccessarily has something to do with its oxygen content, neccessetating the explanation from both myself and Alphanumeric that Oxidation is possible without Oxygen (in fact Oxidation, strictly speaking, is defined as the loss of electrons, or an increase in oxidation number - therefore any 'thing' capable of removing electrons from some other 'thing' is capable of oxidizing that thing).
Last edited:
This troll has been fed enough.
If anyone is worried about having been misrepresented by this troll, with half quotes and false claims and so forth, so that they fear a bystander might mistake the troll's version for their actual opinion,
no need: anyone with any sense can see what has been happening with this guy in every thread he enters, and no one whose opinion is worth anything is mistaking his versions for yours. You have no need of self-defense, and no hope of even holding a reasonable discussion with the guy.
If anyone is worried about having been misrepresented by this troll, with half quotes and false claims and so forth, so that they fear a bystander might mistake the troll's version for their actual opinion,
no need: anyone with any sense can see what has been happening with this guy in every thread he enters, and no one whose opinion is worth anything is mistaking his versions for yours. You have no need of self-defense, and no hope of even holding a reasonable discussion with the guy.
The one that doesn't look like much of a case?Oily said:
That doesn't hold anything because it all fell apart a while back, you just haven't noticed all your stuff getting scattered and looking lost, along the road behind you? I'd go back and have a go at picking some of it up, if I were you.
I know that not feeding the trolls has been suggested, but I just have to say this.
Some how I don't think it's been Glasby that's been owned.
First off, the statement is a fallacy, for two main reasons.
Finally, I would like to point something out that seems to have eluded the poster of the article (aside from the fact that he is now calling someone incompetent that he himself was perfectly happy quoting not so long ago).
The entire article talks about the BIOGENESIS of the petroleum at Lake Baikal. INCLUDING sections of the article that are quoted from the researcher directly - which serves to directly contradict the opening post of this thread, which, if you've forgotten boldly proclaims:
Congratulations, I couldn't have done a better job of taking your argument to pieces myself.
Some how I don't think it's been Glasby that's been owned.
First off, the statement is a fallacy, for two main reasons.
[*]1. Glasby wasn't considering production methods, merely putting forward a balanced historical perspective (a point that OIM never quite got, but was one of the reasons I linked to the paper).
[*]2. Stating that Methane is (in this case) an oxidation product in an oxidizing environment doesn't really contradict Glasby, especially when one considers the broader context (for example, i've mentioned several times now, without response, that at least one oil field occurs in an area of reduced oxidation, and suggested that this may be important - having reducing conditions).
Finally, I would like to point something out that seems to have eluded the poster of the article (aside from the fact that he is now calling someone incompetent that he himself was perfectly happy quoting not so long ago).
The entire article talks about the BIOGENESIS of the petroleum at Lake Baikal. INCLUDING sections of the article that are quoted from the researcher directly - which serves to directly contradict the opening post of this thread, which, if you've forgotten boldly proclaims:
Congratulations, I couldn't have done a better job of taking your argument to pieces myself.
DwayneD.L.Rabon
Registered Senior Member
Maybe this will in the discussion, The below map shows the world with the current Atmospheric content of oxygen converted to water, which about 21% to 24% of the earths atmopshere, the remainder being Nitrogen.
The map it self sets the stage of former life on our planet, the world it self looks different today as the earths water has evaporated leaveing the current surface features we would see on a normal map. Also in the evaporation of sea water the earth has formed our oxygen atmosphere.
The surface land that is exsposed in the below map defines a unique area, as it is the primary locations of dinosaur nest found around the world. Which nearly defines in addition that dinosuars lived in a time when nitrogen was the only major atmospheric componet untill oxygen had evaporated into the air. it also defines that oxygen dependant lifeforms had to gain oxygen form the sea, simular to the way fish with their gills exstract oxygen from water.
In this prehistroric enviroment we would exspect to find abundant sea planet life, exspecially swamp and marsh lands.
The fossil record supports the orientaion of the below map, and we can exspect to find gas and oil depostits that are organically/ orginating from biological life in center spots of biolocialy activity, at least fossil fuels.
[/url][/IMG]
The map it self sets the stage of former life on our planet, the world it self looks different today as the earths water has evaporated leaveing the current surface features we would see on a normal map. Also in the evaporation of sea water the earth has formed our oxygen atmosphere.
The surface land that is exsposed in the below map defines a unique area, as it is the primary locations of dinosaur nest found around the world. Which nearly defines in addition that dinosuars lived in a time when nitrogen was the only major atmospheric componet untill oxygen had evaporated into the air. it also defines that oxygen dependant lifeforms had to gain oxygen form the sea, simular to the way fish with their gills exstract oxygen from water.
In this prehistroric enviroment we would exspect to find abundant sea planet life, exspecially swamp and marsh lands.
The fossil record supports the orientaion of the below map, and we can exspect to find gas and oil depostits that are organically/ orginating from biological life in center spots of biolocialy activity, at least fossil fuels.
So, if you're a moron who thinks oxygen is always present as elemental O2, and animals can live kilometers below the surface, in rocks, and breathe the oxygen that's "down there"; know next to no chemistry, or what "oxidation" and "reduction" actually mean; know nothing about mining, or drilling - you can then invent an amazing (but really really stupid) idea about abiogenesis.
Or at least show everyone you can spell it.
Or at least show everyone you can spell it.
Life is irrelevant to this discussion. This isn't the Biology Forum.
How many dinosaurs does it take to make a barrel of oil? How many dinosaurs live on Titan? How did dinosaurs construct a time machine to travel back in time to the Archaean and deposit oil in volcanic rock?
LOL. That map is worthless and has less than zero to do with oil deposits. Ghawar, Burgan, Cantarelle, and Pennsylvania aren't even on your worthless biology map. Russia, the largest petroleum producer in the world, is in total darkness on your retarded map...
Here is a real map:
Are you sure it's a "real" map?OIM said:
You could be imagining that, you know. After all, your imagination does seem to be capable of dreaming up all sorts of completely unrealistic stuff - like chemistry, animals in rocks that breathe mineral oxides, biology that requires time-travel; I don't know, there just seems to be a complete lack of any realistic grasp of it, given anything you've had to say about oil, or the planet you're living on.
It's all very well claiming that you aren't a retard, and everyone else is. But you look like a retard - actually a moronic retard - who simply has nothing remotely substantive to support your imagined claims about oil.
Anytime you have to face something that shows you've made a mistaken conclusion, you ignore it. That's exactly what retards do. Moronic retards repeat the performance, more or less on cue. Just like pressing a button, you get the moronic response from retards of that kind (you know, moronic retards like you).
Last edited:
Falsehood. The evolution of life must be considered when considering the evolution of the atmosphere. Without life to replenish it, Oxygen would be present in the atmosphere in, at best trace amounts.
Strawman. Nobody is claiming that Dinosaurs exclusively are responsible for oil.
Strawman. The conditions on Titan are very different to the conditions on earth. There is no Ultraviolet light in the earths mantle to produce hydrocarbons.
Strawman. There is evidence to support the presence of life on earth in the Archaen.
- Status