Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[Youwerecreated]

Dr Spetner has taken plenty of classes genetics. That is a bad argument on your part I have taken plenty of classes on genetics . Many know about genetics and don't believe mutations are the engine that drives macro. Fact is macro only exists in ones mind or their text books.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Sigh.

You people just don't comprehend, do you?

And that is why you aren't scientists or even employed in the scientific field.

Didn't we used to have someone who was? I don't remember who...if it was California Girl...Foxy??? I don't remember. You'll notice they avoid the shit out of these ridiculous threads, though.

Trust me when I read threads where people talk about T-Rex eating grass or sabertooth cats eating cactuses I don't read them for their intellectual prowess, it's for entertainment reasons only.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Back online people,buckle up.

 

[AllieBaba]

The theory that T-Rex ate grass is just as viable as any other theory. We really know very little about dinosaurs. I remember when people were being laughed at for saying they were more closely related to birds than to lizards.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Titan’s Organic Hydrocarbons Dwarf Earth’s Oil Reserves

By John Borland
February 13, 2008 |
11:54 am |
Categories: Space




Before we get too excited here, let’s remember. There’s still an energy problem. Global warming, too. Nobody’s going to be importing oil substitutes from Titan anytime soon.

That said, data from the Cassini probe orbiting Saturn has shown that the ringed planet’s moon has "hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth," according to research reported in the Geophysical Research Letters. The stuff is literally falling from the sky.

Lakes are scattered across the moon, with each of several dozen holding more hydrocarbon liquid – largely in the form of methane and ethane — than all of Earth’s oil and gas reserves.




"Titan is just covered in carbon-bearing material — it’s a giant factory of organic chemicals," said (Johns Hopkins University physicist, and Cassini radar team member Ralph) Lorenz. "This vast carbon inventory is an important window into the geology and climate history of Titan."

Naturally, there’s a greenhouse effect involved (just remember that before you get too excited about new reserves of burnable organics). As methane escapes into the moon’s atmosphere, it breaks down and escapes into space – but meanwhile, it’s keeping the surface of the moon at a comparatively comfortable negative 290 degrees Fahrenheit.

Scientists are more interested in seeing how far an environment like that can progress in producing the complex carbon molecules that ultimately lead to life, however.


"We are carbon-based life, and understanding how far along the chain of complexity towards life that chemistry can go in an environment like
Titan will be important in understanding the origins of life throughout the universe," added Lorenz.

The Cassini probe’s next Titan flyby will be on Feb. 22.


Titan’s Organic Hydrocarbons Dwarf Earth’s Oil Reserves | Wired Science | Wired.com

 

[Dr.Drock]

The theory that T-Rex ate grass is just as viable as any other theory. We really know very little about dinosaurs. I remember when people were being laughed at for saying they were more closely related to birds than to lizards.

The theories that T-Rex was a herbivore or carnivore are equally accredited theories?

Please, provide all the great many educated sources you have that hold that point of view.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oil Without End? Revisionists say oil isn't a fossil fuel. That could mean there's lots more of it.

By Julie Creswell
February 17, 2003
(FORTUNE Magazine) – In the quiet waters off the coast of Vietnam lies an area known as Bach Ho, or White Tiger Field. There, and in the nearby Black Bear and Black Lion fields, exploration companies are drilling more than a mile into solid granite--so-called basement rock--for oil. That's a puzzle: Oil isn't supposed to be found in basement rock, which never rose near the surface of the earth where ancient plants grew and dinosaurs walked. Yet oil is there. Last year the White Tiger Field and nearby areas produced 338,000 barrels per day, and they are estimated to hold about 600 million barrels more.

Oil and natural gas are being found in places no one expected and in greater quantities than anticipated just a decade ago. In the mid-1990s the world's reserves of oil were thought to total about 890 billion barrels. Today reserves stand at 1.1 trillion barrels; the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that continued reserve growth, along with undiscovered resources, could bring world oil estimates to as much as three trillion barrels. "We're finding there are pretty substantial oil reserves in the world," says Tom Ahlbrandt, world energy project chief at the USGS. "New exploration and drilling technologies are making major new discoveries possible."

More from Fortune
Can the Murdochs plead the Fifth?

How to avoid pacifying performance reviews

iOS favored over Android, even without new iPhone -- Survey


FORTUNE 500
Current Issue
Subscribe to Fortune
The increase in reserve estimates is fueling the offbeat theories of maverick scientists who believe that the expression "fossil fuels" is a misnomer and that the earth contains a virtually endless supply of oil. Their ideas fly in the face of the conventional wisdom that oil and natural gas come from the remains of animals and plants buried millions of years ago. Subterranean heat and pressure, mainstream science says, transformed this organic dreck into coal and oil. Though their theories vary, the upstarts believe instead that wellsprings of oil and gas lie deep within the earth, deeper than most oil companies drill, and that supplies are constantly replenished. "With the White Tiger Field in Vietnam, 90% of the production is coming from basement rock, where there were never any fossils," argues C. Warren Hunt, a geologist in Calgary. "What they've been teaching us in school about oil coming from fossils is wrong."

If true, the theories may mean we can stress less about running out of oil: There's more where that came from! We can also worry less about tensions in the Middle East or other hot spots cutting off our long-term supply. Problem is, most scientists scoff at such theories. Oil companies maintain that even if the rebels are right, the cost of searching for and extracting deep oil is prohibitive. ConocoPhillips, the $38-billion-a-year giant, is drilling for oil in the basement rock of the Black Lion Field off the coast of Vietnam. The company says the field is "unique," and the project is economically feasible because the oil is found at relatively shallow levels in the basement rock. "If you drill deeper into basement rock, you're probably going to find some hydrocarbons, but the chance of finding giant fields is pretty small," says Roger Pinkerton, ConocoPhillips's recently retired head of global exploration. He argues that there are much more accessible--albeit environmentally controversial--sources that will yield plenty of oil for the foreseeable future: to name two, the East Coast of the U.S. and Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge.

Drilling deep into granite probably will never make economic sense unless the industrialized world runs dangerously low on oil or is cut off from its supply. But in the meantime scientists like Thomas Gold, a retired Cornell astronomy professor, are content with poking holes in traditional theories surrounding fossil fuels. It isn't just that hydrocarbons are being discovered in anomalous places like basement rock; Gold notes that primitive hydrocarbons like methane are also found in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, and other planets.

He laid out his theories, which he believes better address those inconsistencies, in his 1998 book, The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels. He argues that natural gas and oil were created with the earth's formation and reside deep inside the planet. Intense heat and pressure push them from there toward the surface. As to why biological matter (what some deem fossils) is found in oil, Gold says hydrocarbons attract a primitive type of microbe called archaea that lives deep underground; it feeds on and contaminates the oil.

Controversial yet renowned, Gold is credited with figuring out in the 1960s that pulsars were actually radio emissions from rapidly spinning collapsed stars, or neutron stars. To test his non-fossil-fuel theory, Gold in the 1980s persuaded the Swedish government to drill deep in a region near Siljan Lake, about 150 miles north of Stockholm. The Swedes drilled about four miles into basement rock and produced some 80 barrels of oil before the equipment became hopelessly gummed up with putty-like iron oxide. To Gold and his supporters, those 80 barrels were wet, black evidence that oil is no fossil fuel. Critics countered that the oil was merely regurgitated fluid and contaminants from the drilling operation. Because of equipment failures and ballooning costs, the project was abandoned.

Gold insists that the Siljan Lake results have led Soviet scientists and explorers to drill more than 300 deep wells into basement rock since then, producing some oil--but not vast amounts. (In fact, Russian scientists have entertained theories similar to Gold's for as long as 100 years.) "The U.S. petroleum geological community has a viewpoint firmly opposed to the notion of oil being of nonbiological origin--but not the Russian, Chinese, or Vietnamese," says Gold. "The U.S. has ignored completely the obviously very important Swedish results."

Gold isn't the only Western researcher to offer an alternative theory of where oil comes from. Other scientists argue that seismic activity on the ocean floor triggers a geochemical reaction between carbon and hydrogen that produces oil and natural gas. Still others say that bacteria deep within the earth--not dead dinosaurs--are making more oil every day. Scientists from around the world will gather in London this June to debate the origins of oil at a conference sponsored by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and Britain's Institute of Petroleum.

At this point most scientists believe there's a perfectly logical explanation for why fossil fuels can be found in basement rock. "These are fractured rocks where the basement rock has been uplifted and the adjacent sedimentary rocks [that hold decaying plants and animals] pushed into that space," says USGS research geologist Gregory Ulmishek. He adds, "Geology is an empirical science, and we are sure that all the oil and gas that has been found in 150 years of exploration is of a biological nature." Of course, even long-standing scientific doctrines have been proved wrong. There was that little dogma about the earth's being flat.


Oil Without End? Revisionists say oil isn't a fossil fuel. That could mean there's lots more of it. - February 17, 2003

 

[Youwerecreated]

The mysterious Origin and supply of Oil.





It runs modern society and fuels serious political tension. But where does oil really come from, and how much is left? The far-out possibilities might surprise you.

Nature has been transmuting dead life into black gold for millions of years using little more than heat, pressure and time, scientists tell us.

But with gas prices spiking more than $1 per gallon in the United States this year and some experts predicting that the end of oil is near, scientists still don't know for sure where oil comes from, how long it took to make, or how much there is.





Oil and Gas Royalties 1031 Exchange Oil & Gas Royalties | Buy Oil and Gas Royalties | ORRI Cash Flow

Immediate Cash Flow Properties Small Investment. 1,462 Wells.


Rare Earths Investment Pele Mountain - Rare Earth Investment Opportunity

Mine Developer With Large Resources Trading Symbol: GOLDF


Oil reserves www.shell.us/Alaska

Shell is Ready to Explore Off the Alaskan Coast. Find Out More Online

Ads by Google


A so-called fossil fuel, petroleum is believed by most scientists to be the transformed remains of long dead organisms. The majority of petroleum is thought to come from the fossils of plants and tiny marine organisms. Larger animals might contribute to the mix as well.

"Even some of the dinosaurs may have gotten involved in some of this," says William Thomas, a geologists at the University of Kentucky. "[Although] I think it would be quite rare and a very small and insignificant contribution."

But another theory holds that more oil was in Earth from the beginning than what's been produced by dead animals, but that we've yet to tap it.

How it works

In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.

Left alone, the kerogen molecules eventually crack, breaking up into shorter and lighter molecules composed almost solely of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Depending on how liquid or gaseous this mixture is, it will turn into either petroleum or natural gas.

So how long does this process take?

Scientists aren't really sure, but they figure it's probably on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.

"It's certainly not an instantaneous process," Thomas told LiveScience. "The rate at which petroleum is forming is not going to be the solution to our petroleum supplies."

The United States' latest reminder of its petroleum dependency occurred when hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck the Gulf of Mexico, where the majority of the country's oil platforms and refineries are located. Many analysts predicted gas prices would surge to $4 and $5 per gallon, but the fears turned out to be overblown. Many of the structures suffered only glancing blows and were operating again soon afterwards.













POWERING THE FUTURE
10 Ways to Run
the 21st Century








SPECIAL REPORT
Thinking Beyond Oil


Still, the average price of regular gas nationwide is about $2.94 a gallon now, according to the American Automobile Association. It was $1.77 at the beginning of the year.

Alternative source

The idea that petroleum is formed from dead organic matter is known as the "biogenic theory" of petroleum formation and was first proposed by a Russian scientist almost 250 years ago.

In the 1950's, however, a few Russian scientists began questioning this traditional view and proposed instead that petroleum could form naturally deep inside the Earth.

This so-called "abiogenic" petroleum might seep upward through cracks formed by asteroid impacts to form underground pools, according to one hypothesis. Some geologists have suggested probing ancient impact craters in the search for oil.

Abiogenic sources of oil have been found, but never in commercially profitable amounts. The controversy isn't over whether naturally forming oil reserves exist, said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It's over how much they contribute to Earth's overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out.

If abiogenic petroleum sources are indeed found to be abundant, it would mean Earth contains vast reserves of untapped petroleum and, since other rocky objects formed from the same raw material as Earth, that crude oil might exist on other planets or moons in the solar system, scientists say.

Both processes for making petroleum likely require thousands of years. Even if Earth does contain far more oil than currently thought, it's inevitable that reserves will one day run out. Scientists disagree sharply, however, on when that will occur. And, some say, a global crisis could begin as soon as increasing demand is greater than supply, a possibility that might be measured in years rather than decades, some analysts argue


The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil | LiveScience

 

[cbirch2]

Oh and by the way,the only Wikipedia you should concern yourself with is creation Wikipedia. Least those guys can be trusted and actually hold degrees in what they speak on.

Im sure they all have degrees. Degrees from universities that arent accredited...

Only someone that truly doesnt understand science would trust a source that has an open bias. Im sure once piece of information favoring evolution is going to make it into creation wiki...right...

Why do you think science has some sort of agenda. Scientists might, science does not. The debate about evolution among the people actually knowledgeable about the subject took place 150 - 100 years ago. Only people that have no idea what their talking about argue anything else.

You think DNA being perfect has something to do with mutations during the DNA replication process. You think atoms could have decayed at a different rate in the past. You dont understand the taxonomic classification system. You run away from the argument every time you get proved wrong. You have no idea what your talking about, none at all, yet you think you actually know something.

Yeah scientists working in the science community with degrees from schools that are not accredited. What a disingenuous person you are. You do realize we differ in our views because of our presuppositions ? Denounced that explained to you ? Both sides look at the same evidence. Do you understand creationist also work with macro evolutionist ? Did you not understand that scientist may believe in evolution and still believe God was the cause ? Didn't you understand this article that this thread was based on ?

Lol as if you've looked at any evidence....

 

[cbirch2]

What the fuck is "full evolution"?

Now you're just making shit up.

Sorry. I should have said "speciation". But since your making up your own terms for evolution i figured i might as well talk to you on your own level.

I'll just call you instead of genius, spin doctor.

Ill just call you stupid. Since what you called macroevolution is the same thing as speciation.

 

[cbirch2]

That is a definition of speciation, not of evolution, you moron.

This is why I don't take anything you idiots say seriously, or engage. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation because you have some serious issues when it comes to understanding basic English.

Either that or you're just dishonest.

LOL. Earlier in the post you were mad that we were proving evolution rather than speciation.

Now your mad that were proving speciation rather than evolution. Make up your mind

 

[Youwerecreated]

Friday, September 18, 2009Swedish scientists discover animal and plant fossils are not necessary to form crude oil; Crude Oil a renewable resource
Revolutionary discovery means world may not run out of crude

Sep 13, 2009
Stephanie Dearing
Digital Journal

A team of scientists based at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden have made a "revolutionary" discovery about how hydrocarbon is formed, learning that animal and plant fossils are not necessary to form crude oil.

The discovery, the scientists say, means that the world will never run out of crude oil. Currently, theory states that crude oil is formed very slowly - over millions of years - from the remains of dead plants and animals. Buried under rock, over time the pressure and temperature of natural earth processes results in the creation of crude oil. But that theory is now old news, as the scientists, led by Vladimir Kutcherov, say they have proven that fossilized plants and animals are not needed to create hydrocarbons.

“Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden,”
Kutcherov told Science Daily.

The article, titled Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper mantle conditions, and published in Nature Geoscience, states that

"Whether hydrocarbons can also be produced from abiogenic precursor molecules under the high-pressure, high-temperature conditions characteristic of the upper mantle remains an open question. It has been proposed that hydrocarbons generated in the upper mantle could be transported through deep faults to shallower regions in the Earth’s crust, and contribute to petroleum reserves."

[...]

Kutcherov had recently proven that hydrocarbons can be created out of water, calcium carbonate and iron, and this means that crude oil is a sustainable, renewable resource, according to reports. However, this discovery does not mean that emissions from the combustion of hydrocarbons do not create climate change.

Kutcherov is a professor at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden.

Last year Science Magazine published an article that said crude oil is created by an abiotic process and not from fossil fuels. These recent discoveries were found by building on a German process referred to as the Fischer-Tropsch type (FTT) genesis. Germany had plenty of coal but very little petroleum, which prompted a serious push by German scientists to find a way to create a substitute fuel. The FTT process was developed and patented in the 1920s, and was subsequently used throughout World War II by Germany and Japan. The process has been the basis for the creation of jet fuel made from water in the United States, as reported by Wired magazine.

While Kucherov's experiments have been proven in the laboratory, they have yet to be translated into reality, and there is no word on how long the world might have to wait to take advantage of the new discoveries.

Thy Weapon of War: Swedish scientists discover animal and plant fossils are not necessary to form crude oil; Crude Oil a renewable resource

 

[cbirch2]

I haven't lost the debate, you retard. The only point I've made is that evolution doesn't count for speciation (and you lost that one a long, long time ago). And that you and cbirch are too stupid to argue in this field. Also proven long, long ago.

A disclaimer about my ex...yes, he's a Rhode's scholar and happens to be quite learned about biology, genetics, certain history and math...

Sadly, he's a complete backward retread in all over areas of his life.

I wouldn't want anyone to think I am overly impressed by his creds cuz believe me, they accounted for little in everyday living.

Lol no allie is just too afraid to answer my one question. I offered to go question for question in a very simple debate. You declined.

 

[cbirch2]

The theory that T-Rex ate grass is just as viable as any other theory. We really know very little about dinosaurs. I remember when people were being laughed at for saying they were more closely related to birds than to lizards.

Yea im sure the T-REX needed sharp claws and fangs to take down that grass.

Im sure the T-REX spent his entire day eating entire square miles to get hundreds of pounds of grass a day. Im sure other skeletons havent been found inside TREX skeletons either.

No, that theory is no as valid as others.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Im sure they all have degrees. Degrees from universities that arent accredited...

Only someone that truly doesnt understand science would trust a source that has an open bias. Im sure once piece of information favoring evolution is going to make it into creation wiki...right...

Why do you think science has some sort of agenda. Scientists might, science does not. The debate about evolution among the people actually knowledgeable about the subject took place 150 - 100 years ago. Only people that have no idea what their talking about argue anything else.

You think DNA being perfect has something to do with mutations during the DNA replication process. You think atoms could have decayed at a different rate in the past. You dont understand the taxonomic classification system. You run away from the argument every time you get proved wrong. You have no idea what your talking about, none at all, yet you think you actually know something.

Yeah scientists working in the science community with degrees from schools that are not accredited. What a disingenuous person you are. You do realize we differ in our views because of our presuppositions ? Denounced that explained to you ? Both sides look at the same evidence. Do you understand creationist also work with macro evolutionist ? Did you not understand that scientist may believe in evolution and still believe God was the cause ? Didn't you understand this article that this thread was based on ?

Lol as if you've looked at any evidence....

Did you not understand my response to another poster yesterday about the Drosophila ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Notice how they ignore real scientists.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The theory that T-Rex ate grass is just as viable as any other theory. We really know very little about dinosaurs. I remember when people were being laughed at for saying they were more closely related to birds than to lizards.

Yea im sure the T-REX needed sharp claws and fangs to take down that grass.

Im sure the T-REX spent his entire day eating entire square miles to get hundreds of pounds of grass a day. Im sure other skeletons havent been found inside TREX skeletons either.

No, that theory is no as valid as others.

The skeletons put inside the skeletons of T-Rex, the claws, the teeth, were all just put there by God to test your faith.


Heathen scientists be damned.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Notice how they ignore real scientists.

What's the point of your oil posts? Do they disprove evolution or specifically the aspect of evolution called speciation?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dr Spetner has taken plenty of classes genetics. That is a bad argument on your part I have taken plenty of classes on genetics . Many know about genetics and don't believe mutations are the engine that drives macro. Fact is macro only exists in ones mind or their text books.

If I asked you a simple question about genetics, something from a first college course in genetics, would you be sure and answer it for me?

Compare and contrast genetic drift from speciation. Too hard?

How many chromosomes does a chimapnzee have, and how many does a human being have?
(easily researched on the internet, so here is the SECOND part of the exam question)

What accounts for the speciation? When did it occur, and what factors were most likely involved? What proof do we have? When did we discover this proof? Which chromosomes are involved?

Do you want your theory or mine ?

Oh while i answer your question will you tell us how a gene pool gets smaller if there is no loss of information in other words gene depletion ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Notice how they ignore real scientists.

What's the point of your oil posts? Do they disprove evolution or specifically the aspect of evolution called speciation?

I thought you said you read the whole 9 pages.

Uh oh.