Talk:Abiotic oil

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Rather silly argument against.

Basically, the reason we know oil is biogenic is the isotope ratios edit: and presence of certain chemicals which indicate biological origin. "No oil company has ever successfully found a well using the theory" is, first off, factually BS, and secondarily, the fact that this guy did successfully find oil does not in any way prove it valid either. Irrespective of the ideas about oil's origin, everyone agrees that the oil you could actually reach needs to be cooked out at high temperatures and then collected in a trap. It's almost as stupid as arguing that nobody predicted an eclipse using geocentric model. Just because a theory is wrong, doesn't make it an awesome guide where oil can't be found. Dmytry (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The isotope ratios are more consistent with pore migration than biology, and the trace biological chemicals in oil are due to deep-Earth bacteria and archaea, which were predicted from these markers to be living down there, and subsequently found. The theory of abiotic origin is valid, because it is true, and it is denied by mentally defective morons like you. Idiot. Although you are an idiot, you are right that predicting deposits is not the main test of a theory. It is held up as the main test, because by any other metric, the biogenic theory falls flat on its face.74.73.177.13 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to argue that because someone “found some” it disproves a theory? That’s some backwards logic. We once assumed that no natural reactors would happen until we discovered there was a natural reactor at one point. 99.999999% of oil on Earth is most definitely biogenetic; however there is still the possibility that some fields and other planets might create conditions in which natural hydrocarbons create petroleum chains. 24.140.194.76 (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The real thing?

Theoretically, if the water processing rate and efficiency is high enough, can this oil be considered "abiotic"?

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.228.145.163 / talk / contribs}

Hey numbskull, ALL OIL IS ABIOTIC. It's all produced in the mantle, where it is thermodynamically preferred for methane to make chains. The "evidence" claimed against the theory is mentally retarded farting by so-called experts that can't get their head out of their ass. The theory is misrepresented here because the "skeptics" on this site have a negative intelligence, as these idiots never learned how to think without political guidance. ^{— Unsigned, by: 32.213.155.46 / talk / contribs}

(Rogal Dorn voice) No. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yo, RETARD, you think I don't know that STUPID FUCKING MORONS say the opposite? You need to actually KNOW SOME CHEMISTRY and KNOW SOME BIOLOGY to see that they are full of shit. But YOU DON'T, ASSWIPE, and the evidence is that they say crap like "All these molecules are biological" and YOU FUCKING BELIEVE THAT SHIT. You wouldn't know a lipid or a phosphate group if it bit you in the leg.141.226.218.117 (talk)

Perhaps. But you have yet to demonstrate that you know what you're talking about either. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(deindent) Ok, here I will demonstrate it. Commercial Helium comes from oil fields (google it). Helium is produced by alpha decay (google it), alpha elements are found predominantly in the middle of the Earth, in MANTLE, because they are heavy. How did the Helium then get into the oil? It is a smoking gun for deep-earth origins, there's no other way to concentrate Helium. There's no Helium left on Earth that wasn't born as an alpha-particle somewhere inside the Earth (there's no source for this obvious fact, you have to USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN).

This piece of evidence is found in Gold's book. It's open and shut, the theory is correct. FUCKING IDIOT. All you had to do what READ THE BOOK YOU FUCKING REFERENCE IN THIS ARTICLE, instead of just heckling it.

As for oil chemistry, oil is C-H chains, pentane, hexane, septane, octane, nonane. Together with Benzene and other aromatics, all together, without OXYGEN or NITROGEN. This stuff is only found in living things in protein side-chains and in lipid side-chains, and is contaminated with NITROGEN and OXYGEN. It is IMPOSSIBLE to remove Oxygen, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to segregate the C-H parts away from the Nitrogen. That's why oil can't EVER come from living tissues. Ever. It's impossible. Living tissues turn into KEROGEN, not into OIL, and by KEROGEN, I don't mean the heavy SHALE OIL FRAUDULENT IDIOTS IN OIL COMPANIES call KEROGEN, but actual Kerogen, which is Nitrogen and Oxygen rich.

The source? I FUCKING NOTICED IT FOR MYSELF while reviewing biochemistry and oil chemistry. ^{— Unsigned, by: 141.226.218.117 / talk / contribs}

Bronze?

Seems kinds of short.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 10:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you dumbfucks realized you are wrong yet?

If so, apologize and grovel below. Repeat the following: "We're SO SORRY. We realize now how wrong we were! We won't ever doubt glorious Soviet Union science again." Good dog.^{— Unsigned, by: 141.226.218.117 / talk / contribs}

...

Context? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This is it. While BoN is inflammatory, his content on the surface doesn't appear to be in malice. Perhaps someone should verify BoN was correcting things instead of disregarding them as a troll and reverting?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 17:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright. So, let's assume he is a good-faith editor (unlikely, but still). Is their edit worthwhile, purely on a factual basis? In my judgment, it's not. If you disagree, then bring his revisions back, I won't mind. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I am NOT a good faith editor! I am just putting correct material up. On THIS WIKI, only bullshit is put up by "good faith" editors. I am aware that you are TOO FUCKING STUPID to check the science. I'm the same guy who came here 5 years ago, but with time, people eventually realize how FUCKING STUPID they were. This theory has nothing to do with CO, it's about Methane, and there are 5 decades of references in Russian about it, and a reasonable book by Gold. ^{— Unsigned, by: 141.226.218.117 / talk} 01:40, 1 September 2017

To:141.@Reverend Black Percy, FuzzyCatPotato, and DiamondDisc1Then enlighten us, o intelligent editor, by providing citations. If we're so stupid, and abiotic oil is clearly feasible, then provide one (one!) post-Soviet, peer-reviewed paper demonstrating its feasibility. And once you have done so, add it as a citation to your edit(s). RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘First of all, .141: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.

Apart from that, I was just about to ask the same question that RoninMacbeth managed to beat me to: You make a lot of claims but your latest extensive edit contain no sources at at and the closest you get to one is your vague passing reference to "a reasonable book by Gold" — considering your claim that sources abound, please provide a selection of them. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears that .141 refers to being this 04:09, 24 May 2011 BoN and back then there was exactly one source (a blog link which unfortunately no longer works that was added to the external links section), a passing mention of "Thomas Gold, J.F. Kenney and many others", and an unsourced quote of Fred Hoyle. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. BoN's claims are mostly unsourced, just like the original. It doesn't help their case that they're acting trolly.

@141.226.218.117 don't expect to take your edits very seriously without proper citations. If you claim our stuff is bullshit, provide a suggested wiki article on the talkpage (the article is protected for a week) with sources.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 03:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I did look into a part of BoN's edit. From what I fact-checked, it's mostly correct and needed some extra detail. However, BoN pushes FOR abiotic oil, which is against what the article is trying to say.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 03:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

From what you factchecked, is it accurate enough to justify reevaluating our position on the matter? RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I fact checked the bullet points. I have looked into the stuff at the bottom, not so much. BoN's is bring up points that certain biologists have concluded to be evidence of abiotic oil; however, the issue is not so clear cut. See Wikipedia's article on it. I don't think either version is better. The research on the matter is ongoing and has not reached a conclusion confirming or denying the existence of abiotic oil. The article needs to reflect this.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 04:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

THE RESEARCH IS NOT ONGOING, YOU IDIOT. IT WAS SETTLED IN THE USSR, IN THE 1960s. It's just that this is YOUR FUCKING WESTERN VERSION OF LYSENKOISM! You have a big POWER STRUCTURE which is denying OBVIOUS WELL ESTABLISHED SCIENCE, and YOU RETARDS ARE PART OF IT. Unintentionally. And you call yourselves SKEPTICS? Fucking shame on you.

You have a bunch of fraudulent professional pseudoscientists in oil companies that are denying the OBVIOUS fact that petroleum is not made from living things. It's obvious in chemistry, it's obvious in trace contamination, it's obvious in location of finds, it's obvious in oil-well drilling in USSR and Vietnam, it's simply OBVIOUSLY TRUE.

But your RETARDED petroleum establishment, because of FUCKING CAPITALISM can't change enough to admit it. This is CAPITALIST LYSENKOISM, and you are blind to it. Skeptics my ass. You aren't skeptics, you are idiots. Go fuck youselves.

THE REASON I DO NOT PROVIDE REFERENCES IS BECAUSE I DON'T GET MY KNOWLEDGE FROM REFERENCES. I FIGURED THIS OUT FOR MYSELF. BUT IN THIS CASE, I WASN'T THE FIRST, AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF REFERENCES. STILL, I DON'T USE REFERENCES, AND I NEVER WILL. ONLY PIECES OF SHIT LIKE YOU REPLACE REFERENCES FOR THINKING. ^{— Unsigned, by: 141.226.218.117 / talk / contribs}

Let's play a little game: Seeing how many logical fallacies you can cram into one expletive-filled rant. I'll start.

1. Shill gambit
2. Appeal to (unknown) authority
3. Appeal to motive
4. Ad hominem

So far, so good. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, this conversation got a whole lot unreasonable.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's been unreasonable since the beginning. It's only now that I've given up the pretense. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

-【ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

On the subject of 'proving' abiotic oil with pure thought alone

“”If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it properly and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake.

—Richard Dawkins

Publish a fucking paper and stop whining about having 0 references. Until then, your ramblings have all the scientific credentials that Alex Jones does. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 13:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)