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.
Proposal: The origins of oil is irrelevant
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
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=aps&field-keywords=phonics&x=0&y=0
Last edited:
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.
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?
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...
By the way did just one moderator criticize (correctly) the other?
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...
Last edited:
- Status