Why do vitalist/biogenic retards in the biology and geology communities think a lack of C13 isotope is proof of photosynthesis and biological activity? E.g. here (http://www.chemie.de/news/e/84187/) and here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25624508/).

Stars totally lacking in C13 have been observed, yet there is no photosynthesis occuring on those stars.

Trick question, there are no such retards in the examples given; however, you have managed to demonstrated your own illiteracy quite well.


"Our data do not prove the existence of life 4.25 billion years ago," says Menneken From the first article. Emphasis mine. To clarify further for you: it never claims what you said it claims. You made a strawman argument.


"There's an advantage for organisms to use the lighter isotopes," Kotler explained. This shows up, for example, as a higher percentage of the isotope carbon-12 versus carbon-13 in biological samples. Ah look, the second article explained why a lackng of C-13 is indicative of life... but wait, it doesn't say that it prooves life. Congrats, on your second strawman.


-Andrew

You made no attempt to answer the opening question. Literally no attempt whatsoever.

Lack of C13 isotope means nothing.

You made no attempt to answer the opening question. Literally no attempt whatsoever.

Lack of C13 isotope means nothing.

How do you answer a question based of a false premise?

How do you answer a question based of a false premise?
A question is not a premise...:rolleyes:

Here's a premise that isn't false: lack of C13 isotope means absolutely nothing.

I guess that they believe that biological processes can distinguish between the isotopes and use more carbon 12 and less carbon 13.

A question is not a premise...:rolleyes:

Here's a premise that isn't false: lack of C13 isotope means absolutely nothing.

I never said a question was a premise hence i used the phrase based on. Your sources disagree with you about the C13 isotope.

isnt cabon 13 whats used to do carbon dating because it breaks down faster than cabon 12 because its radio active?

If thats right then it has nothing to do with wether something is ALIVE or not, it can however TELL you when something was alive because the body (tree, whatever) absorbs both carbon 12 and 13 in the same rate. Then when the thing dies the carbon 13 starts being broken down in comparison to the carbon 12

I never said a question was a premise hence i used the phrase based on. Your sources disagree with you about the C13 isotope.

You're absolutely right, dude. He misunderstood your statement just as badly as he misunderstood his own source that he linked to!

This joker has about THE WORST reading comprehension of anyone I've ever seen. Yet he claims to be an investment broker. HAH!!! I wouldn't trust him to invest my pocket change!!!!! :bugeye: He wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between an oil exploration company and an oil production company. Sheesh!!!!!!

(Before he posts ANYTHING else, I think he should be required to spend a year in a remedial reading class.)

I love OilIsMastery.. his humbleness and understanding awes me ! :)

I love OilIsMastery.. his humbleness and understanding awes me ! :)

True. Except possibly an idiot that THINKS he's brilliant! And we've got at least two prime examples of that here. One being the OP of this thread and the other who lives in Scotland and thinks he's a scientist! ;)

(Edit): HA!! That's NOT what I originally quoted and responded to, but it will do. Heh-heh!

True. Except possibly an idiot that THINKS he's brilliant! And we've got at least two prime examples of that here. One being the OP of this thread and the other who lives in Scotland and thinks he's a scientist! ;)
His sort of understanding often goes hand in hand with the kind of humbleness he displays :)



HA!! That's NOT what i originally quoted and responded to, but it will do. Heh-heh!
LOL Shh ! :p

isnt cabon 13 whats used to do carbon dating because it breaks down faster than cabon 12 because its radio active?

If thats right then it has nothing to do with wether something is ALIVE or not, it can however TELL you when something was alive because the body (tree, whatever) absorbs both carbon 12 and 13 in the same rate. Then when the thing dies the carbon 13 starts being broken down in comparison to the carbon 12

That's carbon 14. Carbon 13 is stable and I haven't found anything for it to be a product of, either.

ops my apologises

I guess that they believe that biological processes can distinguish between the isotopes and use more carbon 12 and less carbon 13.
Why do they believe that is the opening question.


Your sources disagree with you about the C13 isotope.
How so?


This joker has about THE WORST reading comprehension of anyone I've ever seen. Yet he claims to be an investment broker. HAH!!!
I've never made any such claim. You are making things up again. Please stay on topic and avoid ad hominem fallacies if you are capable of intelligent debate. I'm skeptical.

His sort of understanding often goes hand in hand with the kind of humbleness he displays :)
Asking questions is indeed a kind of humbleness. It's people like you who aren't asking questions who display utter lack of humility.

I've never made any such claim. You are making things up again. Please stay on topic and avoid ad hominem fallacies if you are capable of intelligent debate. I'm skeptical.

A slight - VERY slight mistake - on my part! You claim to be in investment banking AND to be a hedge fund manager. That's very, very close to what I said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (In your personal profile in your blog: http://www.blogger.com/profile/13457713647671999890 )

And you've shown multiple time here that you cannot read and understand the simplest of things! :bugeye: So you are either a LIAR or have just been given a job by some realtive that feels sorry for you.

Now... who's the least intelligent between us, eh???? :bugeye:

mistake - on my part!
Once again you have made a factual error: at least now you are aware of it.

Once again you have made a factual error: at least now you are aware of it.

It was simply a mistake of similar terms that mean practically the same thing, dummy!

Do you deny the rest of it??????????????????????? Your own blog profile says you are LYING through your teeth if you try to deny it. :bugeye:

It was simply a mistake of similar terms that mean practically the same thing, dummy!
So let me get this straight, when you make a mistake that makes me a dummy? Please refrain from ad hominem if you are capable of intelligent debate.


Do you deny the rest of it??????????????????????? Your own blog profile says you are LYING through your teeth if you try to deny it. :bugeye:
You aren't intelligent enough to determine what truth and lies are. Please address the topic of C13 isotope if you have more than one braincell.

So let me get this straight, when you make a mistake that makes me a dummy? Please refrain from ad hominem if you are capable of intelligent debate.


You aren't intelligent enough to determine what truth and lies are. Please address the topic of C13 isotope if you have more than one braincell.

Nope. Not until you admit that you LIED about being a hedge fund manager. And there's nothing ad hominem about trying to get you to tell the truth. So face up - or face out!!!!:mad:

Nope. Not until you admit that you LIED about being a hedge fund manager.
Stop obssessing over me and try to debate the science. I didn't lie; you are a moron.

Stop obssessing over me and try to debate the science. I didn't lie; you are a moron.

I would be glad to debate science but you've yet to produce a single piece of it, especially in this thread. And you did lie according to your blog which you've tried to contradict here. And I'm not obsessing over anything - I simply dislike liars and people who promote bad science.

I would be glad to debate science but you've yet to produce a single piece of it, especially in this thread. And you did lie according to your blog which you've tried to contradict here.

He lies constantly.
When I said that PAHs can have an biological origin he started yelling that I said that Carbon atoms are alive.
Maybe he just doesn't understand much of anything, but I'm having trouble believing anyone can be that stupid.

I said that PAHs can have an biological origin
LOL. Moron. PAHs can only be formed at pressures above 30 kilobar.

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=genesis+of+hydrocarbons+and+the+origin+of +petroleum&searchid=1085470440708_510&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0

http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.htm

LOL. Moron. PAHs can only be formed at pressures above 30 kilobar.

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=genesis+of+hydrocarbons+and+the+origin+of +petroleum&searchid=1085470440708_510&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0

http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.htm

Eh, I meant hydrocarbons.
Even so, I suspect oil endures those pressures.

I made a mistake taking you off ignore.
Bye again :wave:

Eh, I meant hydrocarbons.
PAHs ARE hydrocarbons...:rolleyes:

I would be glad to debate science but you've yet to produce a single piece of it, especially in this thread. And you did lie according to your blog which you've tried to contradict here. And I'm not obsessing over anything - I simply dislike liars and people who promote bad science.

Life is hell when you turn off the air conditioning so that you can afford gasoline for the car.

Life is hell when you turn off the air conditioning so that you can afford gasoline for the car.
Congress and biogenic fossil fuel cultists are making your life hell. However the commodity price is currently in free fall.

PAHs ARE hydrocarbons...:rolleyes:

But not all hydrocarbons are PAHs.. :rolleyes:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120045321/abstract


The isotopic abundance of presumably-pristine primordial carbon has been determined by analyzing carbon dioxide entrapped in a 8.65 carat natural diamond of African origin. The results were 12C = 98.9275% and13C = 1.0725%, which giveδ13C = -35.2‰/00. This value is well within the range used to assign a biogenic origin to carbon-containing compounds, i.e., more negative than -18.0‰/00. Similar negative values have been reported for some natural diamonds and carbon-bearing meteorites. It is concluded, therefore, that stable carbon isotopes can be an unreliable criterion for assigning a biogenic origin to petroleum.
Owned.

"The subject of organic chemistry was wrongly taken by petroleum geologists long ago to mean chemistry of biologic origins. You can still have a book of organic chemistry that has nothing to do with organisms at all." -- Thomas Gold, 2002

Owned.

Why do vitalist/biogenic retards in the biology and geology communities think a lack of C13 isotope is proof of photosynthesis and biological activity? E.g. here (http://www.chemie.de/news/e/84187/) and Talks about the difference of the 2 isotopes. the 666 is stable, the other is spun

kind of like you


here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25624508/).

talks about how chemical reactions share a life of their own

and that on mars; the base 'reactants' exist............... life on mars

as well; all over the universe

but that life is simply following the rules of 'purposed to continue'

if the environment is good, the reactions continue.....




Stars totally lacking in C13 have been observed, have you takin' a sample?

or better still, until you comprhend what the differences are of isotopes are

such that the 666 one is a littel more stable and the others have additional mass.




yet there is no photosynthesis occuring on those stars. it seems your idea of photosynthesis into these articles is a creations all by itself

does it bug you to realize you are branded with the number of the beast in every cell in your body?

C-12 is ................ 6 electrons, 6 protons, and 6 neutrons


oil is not biotic? What a crock!

ie........ haven't you nothiced hydrocarbons are based on carbon? and then realize most all life in existence (cellular) is based on the carbon atom?

are you a closet case religious nut; that seems to argue with anyone as long as you can find article to stand on?

like the blind leading the blind

that article on
Originally Posted by OilIsMastery
LOL. Moron. PAHs can only be formed at pressures above 30 kilobar.

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10...=&FIRSTINDEX=0

basically proves how stupid the laws of entropy are.


so rather than suggest, their math is correct maybe you should accept that what we actually experience shares that their math MUST BE incorrect?

"you are a moron "

is exactly what you are.

someone incapable of maintaining the integrity of science; which means to maintain honesty of experience over the ignorance of beliefs

Bishadi, read it and weep: EVIDENCE THAT STABLE CARBON ISOTOPES ARE NOT A RELIABLE CRITERION FOR DISTINGUISHING BIOGENIC FROM NON-BIOGENIC PETROLEUM (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120045321/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0).

hey monkey oil man; (you ancestor also be a monkey too)

so for you to have me read your link, then answer

"why does the isotope make a difference?"


so either you have a clue or like ooosual..... you bark and actually have no clue what any of it means or why it occurs..

you opened a post about photosynthesis between to links that share nothing related..... and now arguing about oil......

which basically would mean between your 2 arguments that on mars there is oil too

"why does the isotope make a difference?"
Lack of C13 isotope is meaningless.


which basically would mean between your 2 arguments that on mars there is oil too
Correct. There is abiogenic CH4 on Mars. Therefore there must be petroleum at great depth due to the laws of physics and pressure.

Lack of C13 isotope is meaningless. c-13 has spin or energy upon a stable mass

so since the life of mass is primarily the energy upon the mass, then c-13 in relation to life is relevant





Correct. There is abiogenic CH4 on Mars. Therefore there must be petroleum at great depth due to the laws of physics and pressure.

you seems to follow laws you really know nothing about, as well as the pressure to do the homework probably just kills you

try common sense; ch4 comes from standard _ _ it.

meaning is a pile of manure all pressured up to make methene ch4?

maybe you should read up on the c-h bond or even the carbon cycle

we can all see the math is goofy maybe try some common sense

you are really a funny dude as you try this hard to maintain a point