Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> >When I post something like this, it is intended to expand people's
> thinking. 

Ditto when I point out the weaknesses in the posit.  What's the point of 
posting something to get people to thinking and then when they think about it 
and 
conclude otherwise to take umbrage at it??

>> assigned belief and intent to my post that I did not intend.

Bev, in my reply to your post, besides using the passive voice 'you' meaning 
'someone, anyone', where have I addressed your beliefs  or you personally at 
all??  Who is doing the assigning here?

> 
> 
> >No, no, no...Oil contains all the isotopes, mostly C12 and C13.
> C14 is made in the atmosphere, not inside the Earth. 

Right, it establishes my point.


 >>  Fossil fuels have almost
> zero C14, and IMO, what little it does have is there from 'mixing' or
> contamination.

Fossil fuels have almost zero C14 because every source of carbon contains 
almost zero C14.  It, as you point out, is only made in the upper atmosphere 
and 
occurs as less than on part in a trillion of availble carbon.  It is 
implausable that atmospheric C14 would have a chance to mix with the expected 
C12 and 
C13 of carbon that would have been present when the mantle was formed.  The 
reason there is so little C14 in fossil fuels is because they have been in 
the 
ground so long, most of it has decayed into C13.  That there is any at all is 
a 
strong indicator of biological and therefore atmospheric origin.





> 
> >I find it interesting that you will consider non-Western ideas and
> theories when it comes to medicine, government, and philosophy, but when
> it comes to scientific exploration, you tow the Western theory/party
> line of the fossil fuel origin and Peak Oil theory and exclude any other
> contradictory evidence that might point to a slightly different
> conclusion.

Two things in refeverse order of importance.  First that is no contradictory 
evidence of much wieght.  Sticking strictly with a scientific model, the 
overwhelming evindence is against an abiotic origin of fossil fuels.  
Aboiticicst 
raise some interesting questions but none of them pass muster.

But that's a trifle compared to this:

Why would you find that odd?  Here is the thing:  if someone is going to 
describe a phenomenon using the scientific method and scientific 
measurements, 
then by God stick with it.  If it is a scientific study that is being 
forwarded 
and a scientific hypothesis that is being defended, then stick with science 
to 
do it. 

Peak Oil analysis takes into account all known and extant data concerning the 
existence of petroleum.  New data might surface that force a different 
conclusion.  It hasn't happened yet, might some time, but it hasn't happened 
yet.

There are huge gaping holes in the Abiotic Oil theory that are not explained 
and there are other data used to support it that do not pass muster.  I am 
going to include the major ones at the end of this post because few people 
will 
be interested in reading that far.  But you, Bev, I invite to read them and 
then tell me that you think petroleum might have an abiotic origin.

So you see, if I am going to use science as a tool, I am not going to 
half-ass do it.  If someone  uses science, stick to science.

If someone wants to expand their experince into othe modes of thinking, then 
do that.  But don't expect any results if that excursion into aternatives is 
just bending science a little or only considering things that science 
validates 
or can be discussed in scientific terms.  It's the doo-doo pile so many step 
in trying to think of atsrology as some sort of astronomy-lite or 
unenlighened 
astronomy.  They (as astronomy and astrology) are two different modes of 
thinking altogether, it does no good to try to explain the one in terms of 
the 
other.

It is a challenge most people are not up to to try to think in terms of 
another system of reality without referencing it back to western scientific 
thought 
as if western science is THE truth that actually and really explains the 
silly notions held by others before they knew better.

Want to try it?  Cut a slice of carrot like a disk.  What does it look like?  
Most readily see that it looks exactly like a human eye.

Science and chemistry tell us now of days that the phytochemicals in a carrot 
are marvelously protective of our eyesight and will even prevent and reverse 
macular degeneration.   

But another mode of thinking altogether says that in the natural world there 
is a "doctrine of signatures" where Nature left her mark on everything.  It 
is 
not coincidnece that a slice of carrot looks like and eye.    (Remember all 
the news about how lycopene in tomatoes protects the heart, a tomato has four 
chambers and is red.  A newly recommended treatment for enhancing the 
neuro-transmitters in the brain is to eat walnuts ... that are in a hard 
skill and look 
just like a brain).  Can you let you mind explore that mode of thinking 
without referencing the reality back to science as the standard?  Most people 
can't.

If one is  to make use of an alternate way of looking at things, look at 
things in that alternate way.  Within the paradigm of the 'doctrine of 
signatures' 
(as an example) the thinking needs to be consistent, but it doesn't have to 
be consistent with science (an vice versa).

Now back to the abiotic oil.  Here are some characteristics of petroleum.  
Look over the list, it can be verified if you are that interested, and then 
tell 
me that there is any possibility at all that petroleum has an abiotic origin:

1) The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.  If 
any signicant amout of oil were from a hydrocarbon lake, why would oil only 
occur in sedementary rock?

2) The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by 
biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the 
petroleum, 
essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).   Biomarkers are organic 
compounds of specific biological origin identifying whether the petroluem is 
primarily of bacterial origin, or what type of plant the organic material 
came 
from.  How did those compounds get in the abiotic oil?

3) The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the 
history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only 
in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in 
Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers 
of 
bacteria).

3) The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional 
environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only 
in 
terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions 
only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only 
bacterial 
biomarkers).

4) Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100  (C) degrees 
(precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the 
abiogenic postulate).

5) The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory 
(complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.

6) The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological 
fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation 
of 
light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

7) The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the 
source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is 
clear evidence of post migration tectonism).  That is, if oil were coming 
from 
from some hydrocarbon lake below, why is there always a biologically active 
geological layer above the deposit. 

8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in 
igneous and metamorphic rocks.

Etc.  there's a lot more evidence than this but it gives you an idea why 
petrologist dismiss the abiotic theory out of hand.  




James