Originally posted by nonpoint
Now it is known that Fossil Fuels are created by the decaying dinosaurs and plants.

Coal was created by organic plant material from ancient swamps, but oil was created from ancient marine life, not dinosaurs.

True, thanks for the correction.

When we think of dinosaurs, we think of the land creatures. Dinosaurs were also marine animals, however, the idea was too examine why Oil rigs dig so deep (around 40,000 ft. sometimes) and find oil. There is no way that ancient marine life is down that far.

I think the oil deposits are mainly from the earliest single celled life that existed in the seas, or even perhaps partially created from the original organic soup mixture that life supposedly evolved from. Plate tectonic movements over the hundreds of millions of years since then would certainly be capable of moving those deposits deeper into the Earth.

My personal opinion is NO.

truthseeka I think it may be a combination of the two. As for Abiogenesis it was refuted a ways back and shouldn't even be counted as a theory anymore(more like a dead-end)

Corsi makes a huge boo-boo when he says:

Scientists proposing the abiotic theory of oil have argued that the "Fossil-Fuel" theory fundamentally violates the second law of thermodynamics, a principle which specifies that energy disperses when permitted, such that the energy flow never reverses.

Either Corsi or the scientists to whom he refers conveniently leave out one basic step which all biotic-oil adherents (e.g., 99 percent of today's scientists and engneeers) discuss: energy inputs in the form of heat.

This is exactly what Seppo Korpela means, when he describes the process of kerogen turning to oil:

When kerogen is found at depths of between 6,000 and 13,000 feet, and when the temperature and pressure are "right," the kerogen "in the source rock will be cracked into oil. This zone is called the oil window. At depths greater than 13,000 ft. temperatures are so high that oil is cracked into gas."

If you crank in the heat inputs to the kerogen-into-hydrocarbon equation, I don't think we're violating any second law of thermodynamics; indeed, I'd be willing to bet the equation is an endothermic one!

I'm sure Dr. Corsi is a fine fellow who doesn't kick his dog or beat his kids, but his expertise is in poly sci, not geological or chemical engineering.


[edit on 5-12-2005 by Off_The_Street]

Although the people making a case for abiotic genesis make some good points, it seems the isotope analysis of the carbon in petroleum pretty much clinches that most hydrocarbons do, in fact, come from biological material.

Ive said this exact same thing in many posts, and it still puzzles me.


this was in the article

So, if what Heinberg asserts is true, we should have no problem discovering the precise laboratory-proven formula under which ancient plant and animal life decay into hydrocarbon fuel.

We should get away from using "fossil fuels", they pollute to much

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think the oil deposits are mainly from the earliest single celled life that existed in the seas, or even perhaps partially created from the original organic soup mixture that life supposedly evolved from.

Well that's what the official theories tells us so are you just agreeing with that or did you arrive at the conclusion independently? Dont take the comment too seriously btw.

Plate tectonic movements over the hundreds of millions of years since then would certainly be capable of moving those deposits deeper into the Earth.

Well the plate tectonics theory, continental drift theory really, only came into it's own ( meaning the detractors had mostly died out) in the early 1960's 60 years after Wegener first suggested it. By that time we had used plenty of oil with no handy explanation as to why oil were distributed the way it was observed to be ( ai totally randomly) so i do not think this will suffice as an argument now anymore than it could be used then. We really can not explain oil distribution but since we also do not know much about ancient biological mass distribution lets just pretend it's related and watch people try to prove us wrong, somehow..... That, i think, is the game being played.

Coal was created by organic plant material from ancient swamps, but oil was created from ancient marine life, not dinosaurs.

Is what the theory tells us. A few, of my many, objections are noted above....

Although the people making a case for abiotic genesis make some good points, it seems the isotope analysis of the carbon in petroleum pretty much clinches that most hydrocarbons do, in fact, come from biological material.

Isoptope analysis do not prove all that much and considering the percentages involved it should not discourage you from doing your own research. Gold, for instance, theorizes that carbon-bearing molecules diffusing through a porous mass, in any process, results in fractionation that favors the lighter 13C isotope since petroleum shows the 13C depletion to an even greater degree than its supposed organic source matter, but in a ratio similar to that of the lipid fractions of those organisms.

Now i was once quite fascinated with the Abiotic theory but have since come to realise that it's a comparatively small issue since we have so much oil anyways. I have kept track of the theory as it gained momentum in the west and the disorganized mess of abookmark folder, that i put all the information in, is by no means small.

Stellar






[edit on 25-12-2005 by StellarX]

Originally posted by sardion2000
truthseeka I think it may be a combination of the two. As for Abiogenesis it was refuted a ways back and shouldn't even be counted as a theory anymore(more like a dead-end)

I have read all the threads on ATS concerning that topic and i can assure you that it was NOT refuted. The few who tried to argue for the abiotic theory were notwhere near well enough informed to put up a serious defense and that is never a good way to change minds. Anything can be considered a theory but not many theories are usefull.

Stellar

have you ever wondered why fossile plants appear actually embedded in coal deposits? i mean if the plants were the actual source, where's the surrounding coal from?

Originally posted by Long Lance
have you ever wondered why fossile plants appear actually embedded in coal deposits? i mean if the plants were the actual source, where's the surrounding coal from?

I have wondered about that , as people are supposed to, and the conclusion is pretty obvious to me. Is'nt it strange how people will tow the line without asking these questions?

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Long Lance
have you ever wondered why fossile plants appear actually embedded in coal deposits? i mean if the plants were the actual source, where's the surrounding coal from?

I have wondered about that , as people are supposed to, and the conclusion is pretty obvious to me. Is'nt it strange how people will tow the line without asking these questions?

Stellar

D'uh, yeah i think it's obvious, too, but in times of universal deceit.... you get my drift, don't you