Thursday, May 29, 2008
Abiogenesis - the facts from Thomas Gold
SEMP: Oil Doesn't Come from Squashed Ferns and Fish??
What IS the evidence for each of the two theories of the origin of oil? Two main observations have favored the biogenic (ferns and fish) origin of petroleum.
1. “Petroleum contains groups of molecules [e.g., “hopanoids,” a material coming from bacterial cell-walls], which are clearly identified as the breakdown products of complex, but common, organic molecules that occur in plants, and that could not have been built up in a non-biological process.” (6)
2. “Petroleum is mostly found in sedimentary deposits and only rarely in the primary rocks of the crust below; even among the sediments, it favors those that are geologically young. In many cases such sediment appears to be rich in carbonaceous materials that were interpreted as of biological origin, and as source material for the petroleum
39 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. shipbuilder said...
Can anyone explain why every theory favoured by NWO conspiracists points toward just continuing as we are - screw the earth, forget about future generations. Apparently we have unlimited oil and no MMGW, so keep on truckin'. Somehow this just doesn't fit in with a mass change to a new ethical paradigm?
On the other hand, if the NWO theorists were a bunch of greedy, self-interested, self-promoting charlatans, bitter that they have finally been left in the same boat as the rest of the world, screwed by the powerful for decades, then it makes perfect sense. After all, 'preservation of personal wealth' seems to be the main priority.
2. lvmreader said...
@shipbuilder,
What is a NWO conspiracist exactly? Are you the only person on the plant qualified to say what is "truth" and what is "conspiracy"?
3. sold 2 rent 1 said...
I do fear that shipbuilder will be the last to learn the truth and move to the new consciousness.
Remember this is an evolutionary test.
Open your mind to new ideas.
Don't cling to your old consciousness
Don't paint yourself into a corner
4. titaniccaptain said...
God created the heavans and the earth and the oil.......there that was simple.
5. Davip said...
Whether Ship is qualified depends on what he does, but he is right to emphasise the 'carry on as we are and screw the Earth' aspect of the argument against most of those on here (and in the world generally) whose notions of societal interest are wrapped up in self-interest, as exemplified by those who seek to make capitol out of selling to rent.
As a practising geologist of 20 years standing, I can tell you that Gold's ideas of the origin of hydrocarbons are nonsense; rarely have I seen more specious reasoning, even from the geophysical community who generally make a buisiness out of misunderstanding the nature of geological evidence.
I don't really get into the side debates on here and I'm not entirely sure what Ship is railing about but he draws our attention to what is probably the biggest problem humanity faces; if his diatribe is against the sort of uninformed nonsense spouted by Gold (and the VIs who doubtless buy into it) then he is almost certainly right. If you won't take your truth on oil from a geologist then there is little doubt on what side of the fence the conspiracy lies...
6. Davip said...
BTW, I hope the biblical reference was jokey; those who see our planet as nothing more than a 'resource' are generally also those for whom such pie-in-the-sky is the only food for their troubled little souls...
7. James said...
s2r1 - I thought that was me?
8. d'oh said...
Can someone explain to me how it is relevant, with respect to peak oil, whether our oil reserves were formed from fossils or produced some other way? In the case of the former they were produced over a period of 300 million years or so, in the latter case they were produced over over a period of 3000 million years. The simple fact of the matter is that we have used approximately half of the easily accessible stuff in a period of 100 years...this isn't going to be replenished quickly is it!
9. Andy G said...
I believe that oil was formed from the squidgy brains of ancient conspiracy theorists.
10. drewster said...
@d'oh - You're right.
It doesn't matter how the oil was created. The wells are running dry now.
11. shipbuilder said...
Lvmreader – firstly, I was not referring directly to anyone on this blog. By ‘NWO conspiracists’, I mean the originators and publicists of the theory that there is a conspiracy amongst the global financial and political elite to enslave us under one world government. We all know the websites claiming to have the ‘truth’ behind 9/11, 7/7 and so on, with little credible evidence.
I first came across them a few years ago, after I had my own ‘moment of clarity’ about how the world works, because initially, they seemed to take what I had been thinking to a new conclusion.
I was disappointed to find that they had common themes – while claiming a concern for truth, justice and freedom for mankind, the underlying message was one of anti-Semitism, misogyny, greed, self-interest, self-promotion (wanna buy a DVD?, listen to my show?), anti-environmentalism and an obsession with money (gold).
All of these traits made me realise that they were simply a type of old-style US conservatives – individualistic, obsessed with ‘federal government’ and utterly paranoid.
Anything that fitted with this world view became ‘the truth’ and anything that they hated became a target – hence feminism, MMGW, peak oil are all part of the big plot. The one big trick they have is mixing credible proven and known facts – the history of the federal reserve, economics and so on, in with pseudo-science and any amount of unconnected theories. The hope is that the gloss of fact will rub off on the fiction, and so when, for example, the inevitable bust follows the boom, they can step forward and say – ‘look – I told you – I was right, so I’m right about 9/11 and peak oil as well!’
To someone like me, the first question was – if these people are genuinely concerned, where were they in the decades when the majority of the world has been in poverty and under the cosh of the greedy few? The answer is, true to form, they didn’t care until the pain reached their door.
You ask how I can say what is truth and what is not?
The answer is that I do not know the truth, nor do I claim to, and never have. What I have done is look at the evidence and motives behind the claims, and found in favour of time-tested, common-sense, proven, credible and peer-reviewed theories and evidence of the way the world works, and formed my own opinion about it. Like everyone else, I rely on those with greater knowledge and who have put their blood and sweat into real research, not paranoid ranters with a dodgy website.
I post this because when others try to push this twisted view of events, it discredits the real evidence of oppression and injustice in the world and makes the job of those actually doing something about it (as opposed to sitting at a computer) a lot harder.
12. titaniccaptain said...
We all have opinions on here its just that im the only one who is right :-)
13. James said...
Davip - glad to see an authority on here. s2r1 is the resident conspiracist who believes whatever article he's found on the web - as long as it goes against accepted thinking. Reason is entirely beyond him. I look forward to him responding to your points, though I'm not holding my breath.
14. letthemfall said...
I'm not quite sure what this unorthodox theory of oil formation has to do with the economy and conspiracy theories, but it is an interesting example of scientists stepping outside their subject area and sounding wacky. Another astronomer, Fred Hoyle, believed the bacteria e-coli came from space (a notion thoroughly demolished by Harry Kroto). Hoyle was wrong, and I'd be very surprised if Gold wasn't too.
15. Mytimeisnigh said...
@ shipbuilder
"All of these traits made me realise that they were simply a type of old-style US conservatives – individualistic, obsessed with ‘federal government’ and utterly paranoid.
Anything that fitted with this world view became ‘the truth’ and anything that they hated became a target – hence feminism, MMGW, peak oil are all part of the big plot".
I enjoyed reading your post, very enlightening.
I don't like the idea that people are on this site are anti feminism. I thought this site was about a house price crash that we all need, want or agree is the right thing to happen. Girl Power!
16. lvmreader said...
@letfhemfall,
But isn't it great that we can debate these things. Without someone passing a law and accusing us of "Oil-Formation-by-Dinoausr-and-Vegetation-Denial" or some other questionable "law".
There were many people who believed the Sun (and the rest of the Universe) revolved around the Earth and they were "right" for centuries, jailing all those others who dared voice a contrary opinion.
There were those who believed the official account of 9/11 and were given official credentials to spout their nonsense, but in just the last 9 months, more and more public figures have stepped forward pointing out the inconsistencies.
I do believe Gold has a point - how did the coal get into the cells of the fossils, if it was not first some sort of liquid?
17. Ah-so said...
An academic debate about the formation of oil millions of years ago...so what on earth has this got to do with house prices? NOTHING!!
18. shipbuilder said...
5. Davip said...
I'm not entirely sure what Ship is railing about.
13. letthemfall said...
I'm not quite sure what this unorthodox theory of oil formation has to do with the economy and conspiracy theories
Abiogenic oil is a favourite theory of those who believe that there is a plot for one world government and that peak oil is a conspiracy by to transfer wealth and prepare us for a lower standard of living. It is the only reason it is posted here.
19. Gardeniadotnet said...
Analyse this:
How to generate an unlimited quantity of plants.
1. Choose a plant that can be cloned vegetatively as the “mother plant.”
2. Take cuttings from this plant ensuring that it remains viable for future propagation.
3. The plants produced are then used, along with the original mother plant for further propagation ie. they become the new mother plants.
4. Repeat this process as required until the desired quantity of plants is achieved.
In the early stages of this process an approximate doubling rate can be established for the plant in question. This rate of exponential growth can be used to project the likely quantity of plants that will subsequently be produced.
20. icarus said...
Davip - You've got to say more than "believe me I'm an expert".
Shipbuilder - you yourself are playing the conflation trick that you identify in other people's arguments. It is possible to argue that there is a political and financial elite (not necessarily monolithic, and with varying degrees of global reach etc.) without believing that its aim is enslavement and world government. Do central banks make decisions they believe are in the best interests of the economy as a whole, or do they do what their owners want? I tend towards the latter without being a conspiracy nut.
21. shipbuilder said...
15. lvmreader said...
"@letfhemfall,
But isn't it great that we can debate these things. Without someone passing a law and accusing us of "Oil-Formation-by-Dinoausr-and-Vegetation-Denial" or some other questionable "law".
There were many people who believed the Sun (and the rest of the Universe) revolved around the Earth and they were "right" for centuries, jailing all those others who dared voice a contrary opinion.
There were those who believed the official account of 9/11 and were given official credentials to spout their nonsense, but in just the last 9 months, more and more public figures have stepped forward pointing out the inconsistencies."
It IS great that we can debate these things - and as part of a debate one should expect theories to be challenged and motives questioned. No-one is passing any 'law' as far as I can see.
Of course, the fact that general opinion was proved wrong about the Sun is no proof whatsoever for the theory that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack. Actual evidence to the contrary, rather than 'doubt' over existing evidence is also required.
22. gardeniadotnet said...
This may seem OT, but please give feedback:
To generate an unlimited quantity of plants....
1. Choose a plant that can be cloned vegetatively as the “mother plant.”
2. Take cuttings from this plant ensuring that it remains viable for future propagation.
3. The plants produced are then used, along with the original mother plant for further propagation ie. they become the new mother plants.
4. Repeat this process as required until the desired quantity of plants is achieved.
In the early stages of this process an approximate doubling rate can be established for the plant in question. This rate of exponential growth can be used to project the likely quantity of plants that will subsequently be produced.
23. plato said...
My only question here is really aimed at :
Davip : " I can tell you that Gold's ideas of the origin of hydrocarbons are nonsense"
OK so now if I say I believe you because I should as a geologist of 20years. Could you break down and disprove the important geological points in the article as listed by Gold, in favour of his theory, so that I may see why he is wrong and get a fair contradiction.
This is purely for scientfic knowledge on my part.
24. gardeniadotnet said...
Oh, by the way, I have my "doubling time" down to 2 weeks.
You do the math(s)!
25. shipbuilder said...
17. icarus said...
Davip - You've got to say more than "believe me I'm an expert".
Shipbuilder - you yourself are playing the conflation trick that you identify in other people's arguments. It is possible to argue that there is a political and financial elite (not necessarily monolithic, and with varying degrees of global reach etc.) without believing that its aim is enslavement and world government. Do central banks make decisions they believe are in the best interests of the economy as a whole, or do they do what their owners want? I tend towards the latter without being a conspiracy nut.
And Icarus I hold exactly the same opinion, as I have argued on here many times. The irony is that I agree with a lot of what these people say, but, like you, stop short of the 'planned one world government' angle. In other words we agree with general left-leaning mainstream opinion.
My problem is, as I said, the real motives of these people and the fact that it turns people off the real debate against oppression, poverty and injustice.
People were pointing out corporate interests in government and unfair economics for decades - where were these voices then? There are people living and creating real alternatives to greed-driven materialism, yet they say nothing of them.
26. gardeniadotnet said...
Within the next few days I'll have a quarter of a million plants.The amount of plant material being generated on a daily basis has to be seen to be believed!
27. gardeniadotnet said...
My sense of social responsibility requires me to add the following:
PLEASE NOTE:The exponential growth technique described above is NOT to be used on "illegal" plants ( if you know what I mean!)
Ray Bishop
Director, Gardenia.net
28. James said...
plato - not to speak on davip's behalf, but I'd say that when challenging an established theory, accepted by the majority of specialists in the field, that the burden of proof rather rests with the challenger, wouldn't you?
29. p. doff said...
Think you're on the wrong blogsite gardenia.
30. sold 2 rent 1 said...
gardeniadotnet,
Off-topic postings are only allowed if they are a conspiracy theory!!!!!!
If your plant growing technique has been surpressed by the NWO for decades then you qualify... else goodbye
31. gardeniadotnet said...
@s2r1
Thought YOU of all people would understand the implications of what I've achieved. Frankly, I'm disappointed and so, I imagine is Professor Bartlett.
32. plato said...
james @ 25
There is my problem. I can't work out who is right concerning the evolution of oil. Consequently I was hoping for an expert criticism on specific points raised by Thomas Gold, like the occurrence of oil only in sedimentary deposits not being true and the references to methane and coal. I see these as plausible points so I need to see them disproved to form an unbiased opinion.
33. sold 2 rent 1 said...
garden,
So you have developed a technique for cloning plants exponentially.
Can't you just sell your plants for a load of money?
Why do you need to promote this on HPC?
The food production problem is about available fertile land and water availability, not plant cloning.
How does your technique really help?
34. gardeniadotnet said...
str1,
>Can't you just sell your plants for a load of money?
Yes I can, and I will. But it's bigger than that.
I need someone with influence to take this further.
Think food production.
Think biofuel.
Food for thought: corn ethanol - 1 harvest per month. My system - 1 harvest per month at least.
Ray
35. gardeniadotnet said...
Oops! Should read corn ethanol - 1 harvest per YEAR. See what I mean? I'm an amateur!
36. Davip8 said...
@James, it is true that the burden of proof is on the dissenter. However, a couple of examples of the problems with the sort of geo-logic offered by Gold and repeated here by some others. "How did the coal get into the cells of the fossils, if it was not first some sort of liquid". By extension, we might ask how the sandstone or limestone got into the fossil clam, fern or bacterium if it was also not some kind of liquid. It's called lithification (or petrefaction, of old); this is what turns organisms into fossils, mud into mudstone, sand into sandstone, and, of course, organing material into hydrocarbons. No mystery, no conspiracy. Coal, oil and natural gas are dominant stratigraphically (i.e., in certain strata) at those levels where vegetation was most abundant (the Carboniferous of the Coal Measures, more than 300 My BP); there are no hydrocarbons of Archaean age, i.e., before the existence of life; similarly, hydrocarbons are abundant in meteorites and cometary material because organics (e.g., complex amino acids) are also abundant in these planetary materials. Where organic material is abundant, and it's degradation is retarded by burial (anoxia), you get hydrocarbons. Go strike a match over some thawing permafrozen peat in Alaska and you'll appreciate this, ditto the peat you buy from the garden centre. Did the hydrocarbons in peat come up from the base of the Earth's crust or where they produced by the degradation of the planty material that forms 99% of that peat? Why anyone would go to the trouble of postulating such alternative hypotheses when the weight of observational, rational scientific evidence suggests otherwise is a puzzle, but one that conspiracy theorists, creationists, holcaust and global warming deniers and those with generally too much time on their hands are doubtless happy to answer for us...
37. p. doff said...
Well said Davip8. Unfortunately there are too many nutters on this site who want to believe there is some NWO conspiracy behind everything. You are therefore wasting your time and, like many other sensible/sane posters, you will undoubtedly give up and move on. More's the pity as the nutters seem to be succeeding in their desire to influence and are starting to outnumber the sane on this site.
38. lvmreader said...
I love debate chaps/chapesses. It teaches us all sorts of things.
39. Davip8 said...
@p. doff: I may be, but It's difficult not to respond when I see some of the uninformed claptrap on here [e.g., http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/newsblog/2008/05/blog-wow-13807.php], and, in truth, if my observations change even one opinion then its worthwhile.