• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] New data: Maybe oil isn't from dead dinos

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rick W
  • Start date Start date
R

Rick W

Guest
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=56480
New data: Maybe oil isn't from dead dinos

Interesting viewpoint.
I think it's taught that the oil we know was from plant life, not from animals. I could be wrong but that's not the point anyway.
I've seen some of this "Oil isn't from what we thought" debate going on but haven't really looked too hard at it. The article brings up some good points though.

So, do we really know without any shadow of doubt that our present oil was once living, regardless if animal or plant.
 
No we don't. But there is ONLY speculation as to the 'fluid' on Titan BEING 'oil'. Read the article carefully and you will see that what is offered is PURELY speculation. it's what those that make the statements 'believe', not necessarily what IS.

MEC
 
From the article:
WND previously reported NASA conclusions that the methane found on Titan is not of biological origin.
Methane is a hydrocarbon, and it would be in its liquid state on Titan (it's liquid between -160 and -182 °C, avg. temperature on Titan is -179°C)

I have no idea how the WND author can derive any conclusions about the origin of mineral oil from the origin of methane on Titan. These are two entirely different substances.
 
jwu said:
I have no idea how the WND author can derive any conclusions about the origin of mineral oil from the origin of methane on Titan. These are two entirely different substances.
according to a team of Johns Hopkins University scientists
I didn't realize scientists from Johns Hopkins were on WND's staff. Learn something every day.
Mineral oil???

Anyway,
I'm neither here nor there with the idea but this isn't the first time I've seen this subject come up. (elsewhere of course, not here on this board)

Environmental Literacy Council - Abiotic Theory

There is an alternative theory about the formation of oil and gas deposits that could change estimates of potential future oil reserves. According to this theory, oil is not a fossil fuel at all, but was formed deep in the Earth's crust from inorganic materials. The theory was first proposed in the 1950s by Russian and Ukranian scientists. Based on the theory, successful exploratory drilling has been undertaken in the Caspian Sea region, Western Siberia, and the Dneiper-Donets Basin.

The prevailing explanation for the formation of oil and gas deposits is that they are the remains of plant and animal life that died millions of years ago and were compressed by heat and pressure over the years. Russian and Ukranian geologists argue that formation of oil deposits requires the high pressures only found in the deep mantle and that the hydrocarbon contents in sediments do not exhibit sufficient organic material to supply the enormous amounts of petroleum found in supergiant oil fields.

The abyssal, abiotic theory of oil formation continues to receive attention due to the work of retired Cornell astronomy professor Thomas Gold, known for several theories that were initially dismissed but eventually proven true, including the existence of neutron stars. He has also been wrong, however; he was a proponent of the "steady state" theory of the universe, which has since been discarded for the "Big Bang" theory. Gold's theory of oil formation, which he expounded in a book entitled The Deep Hot Biosphere, is that hydrogen and carbon, under high temperatures and pressures found in the mantle during the formation of the Earth, form hydrocarbon molecules which have gradually leaked up to the surface through cracks in rocks. The organic materials which are found in petroleum deposits are easily explained by the metabolism of bacteria which have been found in extreme environments similar to Earth's mantle. These hyperthermophiles, or bacteria which thrive in extreme environments, have been found in hydrothermal vents, at the bottom of volcanoes, and in places where scientists formerly believed life was not possible. Gold argues that the mantle contains vast numbers of these bacteria.

The abiogenic origin of petroleum deposits would explain some phenomena that are not currently understood, such as why petroleum deposits almost always contain biologically inert helium. Based on his theory, Gold persuaded the Swedish State Power Board to drill for oil in a rock that had been fractured by an ancient meteorite. It was a good test of his theory because the rock was not sedimentary and would not contain remains of plant or marine life. The drilling was successful, although not enough oil was found to make the field commercially viable. The abiotic theory, if true, could affect estimates of how much oil remains in the Earth's crust.

The abiogenic origin theory of oil formation is rejected by most geologists, who argue that the composition of hydrocarbons found in commercial oil fields have a low content of 13C isotopes, similar to that found in marine and terrestrial plants; whereas hydrocarbons from abiotic origins such as methane have a higher content of 13C isotopes.

"The abiotic theory, if true, could affect estimates of how much oil remains in the Earth's crust."

That's good right? Why would it be a bad thing?
:smt017

Hey. Wouldn't that be a hoot if oil was found to be a renewable energy source. lol
:)
 
I didn't realize scientists from Johns Hopkins were on WND's staff. Learn something every day.
The scientists from John Hopkins university didn't claim any such thing. They merely compared the quantities of Titan's surface hydrocarbons (which they explicitly identify as methane and ethanol) with the earth's oil reserves.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the question if oil is of biotic origin. The assertion that this might be "new evidence" of abiotic origin of oil is completely made up by the WND author.

Even if the existence of extraterrestrial methane would in any way constitute such evidence, it couldn't be "new" evidence - it has been known for quite some time that there is plenty of extraterrestrial methane. E.g. the planet neptune's blue color is caused be the methane in its atmosphere.

Mineral oil???
Ah, my bad...in my native language petroleum (crude oil) is called mineral oil, so i assumed it to be called the same way in English. Mineral oil basically is the translation of "petroleum" into English, literally it would be "rock oil":
"(Latin Petroleum f. Latin petra f. Greek ÀέÄÃÂα - rock + Latin oleum f. Greek έλαιον - oil)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crude_oil

"The abiotic theory, if true, could affect estimates of how much oil remains in the Earth's crust."

That's good right? Why would it be a bad thing?
:smt017

Hey. Wouldn't that be a hoot if oil was found to be a renewable energy source. lol
It could be a good thing - it could also mean that there is less oil than expected.

Keep in mind, if oil regenerates or not is not even a question of biotic or abiotic origin - according to the biotic model oil is being generated right now as well.
What matters for us is if it is being generated at a sufficient rate. If e.g. 5% of the annual consumption of oil were regenerated each year, then we still won't be able to sustain the current rate of consumption. On the long term we'd have to fall back to a consumption rate like in the year 1900.

My major issue in this thread is the quality of the WND article though. It's very poor journalism at best and outright deception at worst.
 
Back
Top