I would like to challenge OilIsMastery, Buffalo Roam and Madanthonywayne to join me for a debate not on the origins of oil, but its irrelevance...

Since they all subscribe to the abiotic oil theory, I will join them and agree that oil is continuously being replenished. Nevertheless I will debate them that it is pretty much irrelevant at the current rate of world's usage....

I don't understand what the debate is. Hydrocarbons are infinite and, as you admit, "continuously being replenished." In what way is that irrelevant?

"There has not been any 'debate' about the origin of hydrocarbons for over a century. Competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological material since the last quarter of the 19th century." -- Jack F. Kenney, 2002

National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976

I will gladly debate this issue.

A summary of my argument:

Continuously can mean a whole range of rates of replenishment (assuming this happens at all, and the percieved effect is not simply the result of draining). If all the world's oil reserves filled through abiotic oil, then that means it took billions of years, and we know they are running out fast. If that is the case, then abiotic oil is irrelevent since we don't have billions of years to wait for refilling. Even if oil is biotic, the timescale of replenishment is not at all practical.

Let the battle begin! (not here, but in the appropriate thread)

I should have known...


I don't understand what the debate is. Hydrocarbons are infinite and, as you admit, "continuously being replenished." In what way is that irrelevant?

The debate is about the rate of replenishment. Unless you can prove that it is a signifficantly few years, (let's say less than 50) I will prove it to you, that it is irrelevant because the current rate of usage is so fast, that your little replenishing oilwells don't have time to get refilled before we run out of it.

Somebody used the analogy of the hunting of the dodos into extinction, hey, that was me!!

I am not sure which side Spidergoat wants to be on, I am assuming on mine (the winning side), because he is saying the same as me.

What is the rate of replenishment?

To stay at my favorite dodo analogy, if Mauritus had 100K birds and every year there were 2K new eggs, then not counting hunting and natural death the rate of replenishment for dodo was 2% per year.


Wrong. It doesn't take billions of years for oil to form.

Cool! So did you just formally agree to the debate? Of course I expect you to show/prove a different number than millions of years. I will go with 500*, just for argument's sake...

* I can go as low as 150, because that's when the really big industrial usage started after Colonel Drake's Pennsylvania drill...and those wells are not replenishing, yet....

We do see wells refilling.


Excellent! So you shouldn't have a problem calculating the rate of replenishment. Are you ready for the debate?

By the way, for the sake of the debate I am on your side and saying that oil needs 300 years (pulled it out of my ass) to replenish.(you know, like for a tree to grow big enough to be cut down) Unfortunatelly for us, this 300 years is still too long...

300 years (pulled it out of my ass)
You haven't been following the rules.

http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=101


C. Stating Opinions
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.

This is a proposal for a debate. Let's save it for the actual event!

Are you ready for the debate?
I'm still not sure what the debate is.

I say infinite hydrocarbons are relevant, you say infinite hydrocarbons are irrelevant. Is that it?

I think the proposal has failed, due to the lack of mental capacity of our potential opponent.

I think the proposal has failed, due to the lack of mental capacity of our potential opponent.

quite the contrary - the capacity of OIM to be mental know no bounds

I think the proposal has failed, due to the lack of mental capacity of our potential opponent.

Unfortunatelly, I tend to agree, but Buffalo Roam or MAW might jump in...

I will try one more time really slow:

OIM: I want you to show/prove what you think the replenishment rate for oil is. I came up with a random small number of 300 years, just to be on your side,agreeing that oil is abiotic. Then you ask me for proof. There is no proof, that is the point!

So again, how many years does the average oilwell need (according to your understanding) to get refilled as the oil is being continuously created??? Rather simple question, any abiotic fan should be able to answer it...

syzygys if this challange was to go ahead i would have sent you some infomation on the murry river to use as an example. Water IS a reuable resorce but the water in the murry has been so over alocated that its now almost compleatly dead as a system.

Yes. And they do. Eugene Island for example

Already explained in post #30.

the depletion profile is adequately explained by replenishment from deeper reservoirs of normal biologically derived petroleum.

I wonder, can I challenge myself and argue for both sides???

Moderator note: 35 posts have been deleted.

Members are advised to review the rules for the Formal Debates forum.

In particular, remember that Proposal threads are to agree on who the debaters are to be, what is the topic of the debate, and by what rules the formal debate is to be conducted. The actual debate should occur once that has been agreed.

Therefore, all posts in this thread that have attempted to debate the topic rather than organise a Formal debate have been deleted.

---

On a personal note, I think this looks like an excellent subject for a formal debate.

Perhaps I could suggest a topic...

"That we will never run out of oil."

OilIsMastery will obviously argue the affirmative, since he believes in constant replenishment.

Now, who wants to argue the negative?

And what rules do you want? (You might like to start by reading the Standard Rules in the sticky thread at the top of the Formal Debates forum.)

You delete everything but ad hominem attacks against me?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1929380&postcount=10

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1929384&postcount=11

:shrug:

Those posts were at least centred around a discussion of the arranging of a debate.

Would you like me to delete them?

Hey James, you went a bit heavy handed with te deletion. We were trying to explain to OIM what the debate is about, so the deletion was unnecessery. It just underlines my point of the subforum's rules as anal. In the debate with 4 responses only we wouldn't even have got this far, so these deleted parts were necessery.

So hold on your little finger next time, there is no harm having a discussion in the proposal thread. Otherwise this subforum will be just like I said it is, without activity and unneccessery...

Those posts were at least centred around a discussion of the arranging of a debate.

Would you like me to delete them?
Are you serious?

Oilismastery is as big a hoax as peak oil is...well peaking.
Peaking like duck!
Beiging like a soiled arabian carpet
Yeah! serious, wake up mods!

Hey James, you went a bit heavy handed with te deletion. We were trying to explain to OIM what the debate is about, so the deletion was unnecessery. It just underlines my point of the subforum's rules as anal. In the debate with 4 responses only we wouldn't even have got this far, so these deleted parts were necessery.

So hold on your little finger next time, there is no harm having a discussion in the proposal thread. Otherwise this subforum will be just like I said it is, without activity and unneccessery...
All of my posts supporting abiotic petroleum origin with scientific evidence and scientific links were deleted, whereas all the ad hominem attacks (against the rules) against me that have nothing at all to do with the debate were left in. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here and frankly I'm not surprised because I'm used to it.

All of my posts supporting abiotic petroleum origin were deleted, whereas all the ad hominem attacks against me that had nothing to do with the debate were left in. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here and frankly I'm not surprised because I'm used to it.

You should be.
This is not a commercial site.
Take your bullshit elsewhere.
Fuck!, Fuck! I know the Sci admin has taken a holiday but this is fucking ridiculous.
Either the management has a big stake in dirty oil or they have taken leave of their senses.

Which is it? Fess up!

OilIsMastery, this discussion is about the rules and format of the debate, and the specific subject we will be debating. This thread is not for the actual debate.

It's my opinion that OilIsMastery is being deliberately obtuse, as most sociopaths on his side of the argument usually are. The debate format will need to be quite strict.

Spidergoat, ad hominem personal attacks just prove you have no scientific ground on which to debate.

I'm doing no such thing, it's a statement of fact. If you were able to grasp the simplest scientific concepts, you wouldn't be holding your position. Your motivation is to feel superior to actual experts in the field. Your lack of compassion for the human condition allows you to endorse views that would be disasterous if widely held.

OilIsMastery, this discussion is about the rules and format of the debate, and the specific subject we will be debating. This thread is not for the actual debate.


I which case may I propose a rule that in order to demonstrate that the origins of oil are relevant, it must be shown that the majority (over 50%) of commercially viable and currently operating oil wells are refilling on a 3-10 year cycle. in other words a few Isolated and exceptional cases do not prove a trend.

can I also suggest the prior to the debate starting OIM follows this llink and makes a few purchases:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=phonics&x=0&y=0

Moderator note: 5 more posts attempting to debate the topic in the Proposal thread have been removed.

Members are again advised to read the rules of the Formal Debates forum before posting in it.

All of my posts supporting abiotic petroleum origin with scientific evidence and scientific links were deleted...

Yes, because a Proposal thread in the Formal Debates forum is for organising a debate, not for debating. What did you not understand about my previous explanation? Have you read the rules of this subforum?

I also asked you whether you wanted two posts deleted. From your failure to answer that question, I assume you do not.

So where are BR and MAW? Pussies. I assume BR finally so the light but not man enough to acknowledge it....

Syzygys ummm james was a little over zelous with his deletions. Mad actually answered your question by saying he didnt know why he was included because he doesnt belive in oils crackpottery

Oh, OK, I didn't see it. I wasn't sure about him, but his views are generally the same as BR's that's why I thought. My bad.

By the way did just one moderator criticize (correctly) the other? :)



Perhaps I could suggest a topic...
"That we will never run out of oil."

Let me explain why I chose the topic the way how it is:

When you are dealing with unreasonable people, you have to use a different kind of approach than what you would use with logical people. So I don't debate OIM on abiotic oil, but join his side by agreeing with him on the abiotic nature of oil. So he is kind of screwed from the get go. What I disaggree with him is the speed of oilcreation, and proving that even if oil was abiotic, when it has a slow creation time/replenishment rate, that is just the same as if it was made millions of years ago, because we will use it up much faster than it could be replenished.

Now to prove me wrong, the only thing he could do is to prove that oil is created in a much shorter time than my suggested 300 years. Of course he can not prove that. All his argument for abiotic oil is irrelevant by the way if we ever debate this, because again, I am not debating him on that topic, I actually agreed with him.

I know, I am evil... :)

P.S.: The sad part is that he is not smart enough to understand this whole thing and will keep posting irrelevant websites as evidence...

Come on this is the "Intelligent Forum". Were are da smart peeple at?

I started the debate, so we don't need to waste good arguments here for James to delete...

Ops forgot to post this:/ my bad

Debate has started so
Debate thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83148)
Disscussion thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83169)