That's the most persuasive argument that diamonds and helium come from Jurassic and Cretaceous algae that I've ever seen.
Scientific Retards
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
- Status
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Huh? Helium is inert. It is not produced by chemical (or biochemical) reactions in significant quantities. No one ever said that helium is produced by biological processes.
But as for carbon, it occurs naturally in the earth's crust and everywhere else in the universe. But the creation of petroleum from the remains of organic material is hardly a remarkable theory since the physics and chemistry of it is pretty simple, and because we know that before the ascendence of herbivorous animal life there were colossal deposits of dead plants all over the planet. The conversion of dead plants under to peat and then to coal, oil and natural gas under pressure is pretty straightforward. To claim that this has not happened is an extraordinary assertion which, according to the Rule of Laplace, must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obligated to treat it with respect.
Diamonds come in two types: hazburgitic, which are formed from inorganic carbon buried deep in the earth's crust; and eclogitic, which are formed from organic carbon closer to the surface.
The word "theory" is used too loosely. It's often used where "hypothesis" would be better. A true theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and peer-reviewed so extensively that its probability of ever being falsified is estimated to be comfortably low. Therefore it can be safely integrated into the canon of science, which is robust enough that an occasional falsification does not bring the canon down. Laymen are accustomed to the "theories" of psychologists, linguists, police detectives, management consultants, educators, et al., which by the standards of science are only hypotheses with unacceptably high probabilities of falsifiability. A scientific theory is "true beyond a reasonable doubt." The everyday kind of theory is, at best, "probably true." Note that only the theories of mathematics can ever be proven "100% true" because they are based entirely on abstractions and do not rely on empirical observation and testing.
The biogenic origin of at least SOME crude oil is a proper scientific theory--true beyond a reasonable doubt. To say that ALL crude oil is of biogenic origin is only a hypothesis, which may be in the process of being falsified as we speak.
No one on this thread is performing original scientific research; some of it is secondary but most of it is tertiary. Citation of authority is acceptable evidence on SciForums. It can be challenged, but the burden of falsification is on the challenger.
You haven't gone deep enough into the theory of relativity. Laymen's limited understanding of it is only valid for motion in a straight line. It becomes much more complicated when the path of motion is curved, because inconsistent forces of acceleration come into play. You can in fact use the laws of physics to determine which object is stationary and which is revolving, although at the decidedly sub-relativistic velocity of the earth in its orbit this may not be practically possible with today's measurement tools.
Well okay, Panda said it better but it took more words.
Helium is an abiomarker associated with petroleum.
It is? LOL.
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
It is? Not to me or any petroleum geologist or scientist in the world that I know or have heard of. The only "geologists" (no offense) in the world that I know of who say that are Colin Campbell and Kenneth Deffeyes.
"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time." -- Fred Hoyle, 1982.
"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.
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
Last edited:
You're a laugh a minute - but I guess I'll have to fling some education at you and see if it sticks.
I'm simplifying this quite a lot for you now - no-one says I can't be nice on occasion.
Abiogenic advocates such as Gold and others have noticed that abiogenic methane is almost invariably associated with helium - both occur within the mantle in large quantities.
Biogenic methane does not contain helium.
Therefore, by examining the helium content of commercial gas deposits and comparing them with mantle derived fluids that contain methane and helium, it is possble to determine both whether or not it comes from abiogenic carbon source at all, and/or how much of it comes from an abiogenic carbon source.
When this experiment was carried out it found that most commercial gas deposits appeared to contain in the region of 0.0002% abiogenic methane - the commercial deposit with the highest abiogenic methane content was around 0.12%.
So you can see this experiment does not say that helium is a biological product -quite the opposite in fact.
So now you understand how foolish you were being in your comments about helium, lets move on to diamondoids.
Diamonds as you rightly point out are derived predominantly from abiogenic carbon sources - as such they have a pretty distinctive signature of carbon isotopes inside them. this is very different from the carbon isotope signature of things from a biogenic carbon source.
Therefore, when comparing the isotopie ratios of diamondoids found in crude oil with diamonds of known abiotic origin, and to to carbon isotope ratios found in biotic carbon sources, it should be possible to determine whether the diamondoids were derived from biotic or abiotic carbon - i.e were made in the mantle or in the crust.
The results showed that the diamondoids were made up of carbon that had originally come from a biotic origin - furthermore it showed the same isotope ratios as the biomarkers present in oil.
So this article does not say that organisms produced the diamonoids - it merely says that they were derived froma carbon source that was originally biotic.
Last edited:
Since you know for a fact that molecular diamondoids and helium are abiomarkers let's move on to Carbonaceous Meteorites: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81761
Helium is - diamonoids are not.
you only score 50%
however I'm inclined to give you an F for only understanding half the sylabus
explain the relevance of the link please
What a breathtaking command of rhetoric !
I don't see the relevance of this link either - diamonds and diamondoids are two different things.
If there was an assosiation with oil and diamonds - such as they were both created in the mantle by similar processes as you seem to be asserting, them we would find oil associatedwith Kimberlites - we don't - so your point is utterly irrelevant for a change
You are hijacking this thread. Please take your squabbles elsewhere.
Edit: Never mind. Had a brain fart.
Edit: Never mind. Had a brain fart.
Last edited:
We are totally on topic - the title is Scientific Retards and we have our very own Scientific Retard right here in the form of OIM.
I am merely prodding him into further exposing his scientific fuckwittery
Can't see how that could be any more ON topic
unreferenced - inadmissable
you could have edited the article to add that yourself for all I know
it doesn't make a definitive claim anyway - and is contradicted by isotopic analysis of diamondoids
We are well aware of your ridiculous claim that molecular diamondoids come from Jurassic and Cretaceous algae.
Bugger - I knew I should have read that article fully before I shot him down - as the wiki article does it for him - and hammers another nail in his "I can barely read or comprehend properly" coffin
The full quote reads:
Referenced by the same peer review I shot him to bits with yesterday
Seriously if this ins't proof that there is a god in heaven I dunno what is
He's correct for once in his life. If it wasn't for "scientists" like synthesizer-patel making claims like those in the original post we would have nothing to talk about.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Bugger - I knew I should have read that article fully before I shot him down - as the wiki article does it for him - and hammers another nail in his "I can barely read or comprehend properly" coffin
The full quote reads:
Referenced by the same peer review I shot him to bits with yesterday
Seriously if this ins't proof that there is a god in heaven I dunno what is
HA !
:bravo::worship:
ROFL. Nice edit. Just write your own reality.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Edit ? :crazy:
- Status