Do we REALLY know if Dinosaurs ---> Motor Oil?
- Thread starter Daryll
- Start date
- Status
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
Dating has been carried out by thinkers and scientist, who use a methodological approach to see what can be learned...they don't start with a given number, then choose facts to back it up.
Quote:
I'm not sure what's more worth pointing out: the fact that the 4.5 billion estimate is the result of decades and decades of rigorous accumulation of evidence,
I beg to differ with my good collegue's.
The early geologists made an assumption about the age of rocks in order to supoport other, prevailing "bandwagon" theories.
All scientists use a methodological approach to science and are biased in one or the other metaphysical views.
Quote:
The logic that is presented in those magazines is circular in nature, involving a presumption that "first we know", and a statement of age, then a refutation of evidence, based on the first premise, then the provision of "modern evidence" to support the strawman thus created.
It's always circular.
A great example is opalised/fossilised fenceposts, purportedly refuting the fact that fossils are old, when a chemistry lab can produce the results in weeks...
It's an implosion of defined preconceptions defining a "point/singularity" of view, rather than an exploration of the evidence providing and expanding point of reference.
Speaking of point singularities, the BB cosmology model is based on such and physicists and mathematicians have pointed out that singularities are an anethema to science, yet it is still being clung to for a priori reasons.
Dating has been carried out by thinkers and scientist, who use a methodological approach to see what can be learned...they don't start with a given number, then choose facts to back it up.
Quote:
I'm not sure what's more worth pointing out: the fact that the 4.5 billion estimate is the result of decades and decades of rigorous accumulation of evidence,
I beg to differ with my good collegue's.
The early geologists made an assumption about the age of rocks in order to supoport other, prevailing "bandwagon" theories.
All scientists use a methodological approach to science and are biased in one or the other metaphysical views.
Quote:
The logic that is presented in those magazines is circular in nature, involving a presumption that "first we know", and a statement of age, then a refutation of evidence, based on the first premise, then the provision of "modern evidence" to support the strawman thus created.
It's always circular.
A great example is opalised/fossilised fenceposts, purportedly refuting the fact that fossils are old, when a chemistry lab can produce the results in weeks...
It's an implosion of defined preconceptions defining a "point/singularity" of view, rather than an exploration of the evidence providing and expanding point of reference.
Speaking of point singularities, the BB cosmology model is based on such and physicists and mathematicians have pointed out that singularities are an anethema to science, yet it is still being clung to for a priori reasons.
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
The popular theory of petroleum genesis is that algae and other organisms of marine environments were somehow buried, pressurized, and cooked deep in an earth refinery, so to speak.
BTW, there is no such thing as a "pool" of oil.
Most of the oil that formed "in situ" is pushed to other places and often resides in porous limestone or sandstone rocks.
BTW, there is no such thing as a "pool" of oil.
Most of the oil that formed "in situ" is pushed to other places and often resides in porous limestone or sandstone rocks.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
The early geologists made an assumption about the age of rocks in order to supoport other, prevailing "bandwagon" theories.
Nazism played an important role in the success of the major German auto makes. Dare you to say that every Volkswagen on the road supports Hitler.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
All scientists use a methodological approach to science and are biased in one or the other metaphysical views.
Methodology has no necessary ties to metaphysics. Scientists come from all sorts of metaphysical traditions and belief systems.
But even granting your assertion, it wouldn't imply that all metaphysical traditions and belief systems are equally valid or valuable, would it?
The fact of the matter is this: of the people who devote their lives to a painstakingly honest and rigorous study of the natural world, essentially none whatsoever conclude in favor of a young earth. The fact that people are capable of twisting the facts into compatibility with any given belief system has no bearing on the validity of those facts.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Speaking of point singularities, the BB cosmology model is based on such and physicists and mathematicians have pointed out that singularities are an anethema to science, yet it is still being clung to for a priori reasons.
The currently accepted version of the Big Bang model is not "clung to." It is accepted as the best current explanation for what we observe. There is a Nobel Prize, a free ticket to any tenured professorship in the world, and a great deal of fame in science circles waiting for anyone who can overturn that explanation.
What the does this have to do with the age of the earth, by the way?
The early geologists made an assumption about the age of rocks in order to supoport other, prevailing "bandwagon" theories.
Nazism played an important role in the success of the major German auto makes. Dare you to say that every Volkswagen on the road supports Hitler.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
All scientists use a methodological approach to science and are biased in one or the other metaphysical views.
Methodology has no necessary ties to metaphysics. Scientists come from all sorts of metaphysical traditions and belief systems.
But even granting your assertion, it wouldn't imply that all metaphysical traditions and belief systems are equally valid or valuable, would it?
The fact of the matter is this: of the people who devote their lives to a painstakingly honest and rigorous study of the natural world, essentially none whatsoever conclude in favor of a young earth. The fact that people are capable of twisting the facts into compatibility with any given belief system has no bearing on the validity of those facts.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Speaking of point singularities, the BB cosmology model is based on such and physicists and mathematicians have pointed out that singularities are an anethema to science, yet it is still being clung to for a priori reasons.
The currently accepted version of the Big Bang model is not "clung to." It is accepted as the best current explanation for what we observe. There is a Nobel Prize, a free ticket to any tenured professorship in the world, and a great deal of fame in science circles waiting for anyone who can overturn that explanation.
What the does this have to do with the age of the earth, by the way?
So what kind of dinosaur would have made the best crude oil? I guess it would be the big fat ones. How about plants? Plants with oil seeds or oily leaves probably would have worked best. If we move on down to algae and microscopic life, then it's only fitting that modern algae is being groomed to consume oil spills - that's recycling on a really long timeline. From ashes to ashes, dust to dust, and algae to algae.
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
Methodology has no necessary ties to metaphysics.
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with nature of being and reality.
Claiming that science is independent from metaphysics is itself a metaphysical assertion.
Quote:
Were there THAT many dinosaurs?
I cannot recall the exact study or it's authors, but off the top of my head I recall that the calculations showed there could not have have been enough dinosaur material to create all the oil that has been consumed or account for the reserves discovered to-date.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is this: of the people who devote their lives to a painstakingly honest and rigorous study of the natural world, essentially none whatsoever conclude in favor of a young earth. The fact that people are capable of twisting the facts into compatibility with any given belief system has no bearing on the validity of those facts.
No, the crux of the matter is that the data is interpreted according to a particular worldview.
Methodology has no necessary ties to metaphysics.
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with nature of being and reality.
Claiming that science is independent from metaphysics is itself a metaphysical assertion.
Quote:
Were there THAT many dinosaurs?
I cannot recall the exact study or it's authors, but off the top of my head I recall that the calculations showed there could not have have been enough dinosaur material to create all the oil that has been consumed or account for the reserves discovered to-date.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is this: of the people who devote their lives to a painstakingly honest and rigorous study of the natural world, essentially none whatsoever conclude in favor of a young earth. The fact that people are capable of twisting the facts into compatibility with any given belief system has no bearing on the validity of those facts.
No, the crux of the matter is that the data is interpreted according to a particular worldview.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I cannot recall the exact study or it's authors, but off the top of my head I recall that the calculations showed there could not have have been enough dinosaur material to create all the oil that has been consumed or account for the reserves discovered to-date.
I find it staggering the size and spread of Australias coal reserves (well the size of coal reserves in general), and there's a pretty clear scientific path that it was once vegetation..
Given that there is an order of magnitude more coal reserves than oil, and coal was clearly of vegetable origin, then the assertion that there is more oil than can be accounted for of biological origin is clearly not the case.
I cannot recall the exact study or it's authors, but off the top of my head I recall that the calculations showed there could not have have been enough dinosaur material to create all the oil that has been consumed or account for the reserves discovered to-date.
I find it staggering the size and spread of Australias coal reserves (well the size of coal reserves in general), and there's a pretty clear scientific path that it was once vegetation..
Given that there is an order of magnitude more coal reserves than oil, and coal was clearly of vegetable origin, then the assertion that there is more oil than can be accounted for of biological origin is clearly not the case.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with nature of being and reality.
Correct. And?
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Claiming that science is independent from metaphysics is itself a metaphysical assertion.
I didn't quite say that. What I said was that methodology is not necessarily tied to metaphysics. In other words, one's methodology does not necessarily imply one's metaphysics. Science is based on methodological naturalism, whether or not the scientists themselves are metaphysical naturalists.
But again, what are you getting at? Are you trying to say that just because there are multiple metaphysical interpretations, they are all equally valid?
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
No, the crux of the matter is that the data is interpreted according to a particular worldview.
By the scientists, or by the consumers of their conclusions?
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with nature of being and reality.
Correct. And?
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Claiming that science is independent from metaphysics is itself a metaphysical assertion.
I didn't quite say that. What I said was that methodology is not necessarily tied to metaphysics. In other words, one's methodology does not necessarily imply one's metaphysics. Science is based on methodological naturalism, whether or not the scientists themselves are metaphysical naturalists.
But again, what are you getting at? Are you trying to say that just because there are multiple metaphysical interpretations, they are all equally valid?
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
No, the crux of the matter is that the data is interpreted according to a particular worldview.
By the scientists, or by the consumers of their conclusions?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I cannot recall the exact study or it's authors, but off the top of my head I recall that the calculations showed there could not have have been enough dinosaur material to create all the oil that has been consumed or account for the reserves discovered to-date.
I find it staggering the size and spread of Australias coal reserves (well the size of coal reserves in general), and there's a pretty clear scientific path that it was once vegetation..
Given that there is an order of magnitude more coal reserves than oil, and coal was clearly of vegetable origin, then the assertion that there is more oil than can be accounted for of biological origin is clearly not the case.
Well, he did say dinosaurs, not biological organisms in general. What you're saying and what he's saying are compatible.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I cannot recall the exact study or it's authors, but off the top of my head I recall that the calculations showed there could not have have been enough dinosaur material to create all the oil that has been consumed or account for the reserves discovered to-date.
I find it staggering the size and spread of Australias coal reserves (well the size of coal reserves in general), and there's a pretty clear scientific path that it was once vegetation..
Given that there is an order of magnitude more coal reserves than oil, and coal was clearly of vegetable origin, then the assertion that there is more oil than can be accounted for of biological origin is clearly not the case.
Well, he did say dinosaurs, not biological organisms in general. What you're saying and what he's saying are compatible.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
Given that there is an order of magnitude more coal reserves than oil, and coal was clearly of vegetable origin, then the assertion that there is more oil than can be accounted for of biological origin is clearly not the case.
What the study was saying, as best I recall, was there would not have been enough dinosaur material to convert to oil. This did not imply that there wasn't enough other plant or biological material to produce oil.
And it may be that the origin of oil has two sources, with the upper layers of sediments having entrained enough biological material of plant and algae material to produce oil, with the deeper reserves being produced by methane outgassing from the mantle.
I think coal is mostly of plant material origin. Break open a chunk of coal and mostly what you see are imprints of fern-like plants.
Given that there is an order of magnitude more coal reserves than oil, and coal was clearly of vegetable origin, then the assertion that there is more oil than can be accounted for of biological origin is clearly not the case.
What the study was saying, as best I recall, was there would not have been enough dinosaur material to convert to oil. This did not imply that there wasn't enough other plant or biological material to produce oil.
And it may be that the origin of oil has two sources, with the upper layers of sediments having entrained enough biological material of plant and algae material to produce oil, with the deeper reserves being produced by methane outgassing from the mantle.
I think coal is mostly of plant material origin. Break open a chunk of coal and mostly what you see are imprints of fern-like plants.
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
From 1960 to 1984 or so, the porphyrin theory of oil genesis was prevalent, which said that oil could have been derived from plant material and animal blood:
Porphyrins
Porphyrins are organic molecules that are structurally very similar to both chlorophyll in plants and hemoglobin in animal blood. They are classified as tetrapyrrole compounds and often contain metals such as nickel and vanadium. Porphyrins are readily destroyed by oxidizing conditions (oxygen) and by heat.
The origin of petroleum is within an anaerobic (non- or low-oxygen) reducing environment. The presence of porphyrins in some petroleums means that anaerobic conditions developed early in the life of such petroleums, for chlorophyll derivatives, such as porphyrins, are easily and rapidly oxidized and decomposed under aerobic conditions.
Thus geologists maintain that the porphyrins in crude oils are evidence of the petroleum source rocks having been deposited under reducing conditions.
References
1. Tissot, B.P., and Welte, D.H., Petroleum Formation and Occurrence, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 409–410, 1984.
2. Russell, W.L., Principles of Petroleum Geology, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, p. 25, 1960.
Porphyrins
Porphyrins are organic molecules that are structurally very similar to both chlorophyll in plants and hemoglobin in animal blood. They are classified as tetrapyrrole compounds and often contain metals such as nickel and vanadium. Porphyrins are readily destroyed by oxidizing conditions (oxygen) and by heat.
The origin of petroleum is within an anaerobic (non- or low-oxygen) reducing environment. The presence of porphyrins in some petroleums means that anaerobic conditions developed early in the life of such petroleums, for chlorophyll derivatives, such as porphyrins, are easily and rapidly oxidized and decomposed under aerobic conditions.
Thus geologists maintain that the porphyrins in crude oils are evidence of the petroleum source rocks having been deposited under reducing conditions.
References
1. Tissot, B.P., and Welte, D.H., Petroleum Formation and Occurrence, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 409–410, 1984.
2. Russell, W.L., Principles of Petroleum Geology, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, p. 25, 1960.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
By the scientists, or by the consumers of their conclusions?
I am speaking of the scientists themselves.
To say that science and scientists are somehow dispassionate, and indpendent of ideology and moral convictions, is naive.
By the scientists, or by the consumers of their conclusions?
I am speaking of the scientists themselves.
To say that science and scientists are somehow dispassionate, and indpendent of ideology and moral convictions, is naive.
Science can only measure the natural. It is impossible for it to measure or quantify the supernatural. Man attempts to explain the origins of the universe through what can be observed and tested. The currently accepted view is that one day the universe spontaneously appeared out of nothing aka big bang (which seems rather antithetical).
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
...we really know if oil is the decay product of dinosaurs.
To answer the OP's original question, dinosaurs could not have been the only source of starting material.
It appears that plant material, algae, and other marine life may have contributed to the huge reserves.
...we really know if oil is the decay product of dinosaurs.
To answer the OP's original question, dinosaurs could not have been the only source of starting material.
It appears that plant material, algae, and other marine life may have contributed to the huge reserves.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
“We don’t know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.”
G Chesterton
“We don’t know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.”
G Chesterton
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
Originally Posted By: outoforder
Your time frame is correct. The oil was created largely by mass burial of organic matter during the worldwide flood of Noah's day.
So by your reasoning, synthetic oil is is being produced by all the plastic bags and bottles in all of our landfills?
Originally Posted By: outoforder
Your time frame is correct. The oil was created largely by mass burial of organic matter during the worldwide flood of Noah's day.
So by your reasoning, synthetic oil is is being produced by all the plastic bags and bottles in all of our landfills?
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
So by your reasoning, synthetic oil is is being produced by all the plastic bags and bottles in all of our landfills?
Associated with both natural oil and coal production (according to current theories) is a certain type of clay and mineralization process that has to be present. Add to that scenario the proper amount of pressure and heat, and I seriously doubt that landfills would provide the proper conversion setting.
However, there are companies that process plastics back to oils.
So by your reasoning, synthetic oil is is being produced by all the plastic bags and bottles in all of our landfills?
Associated with both natural oil and coal production (according to current theories) is a certain type of clay and mineralization process that has to be present. Add to that scenario the proper amount of pressure and heat, and I seriously doubt that landfills would provide the proper conversion setting.
However, there are companies that process plastics back to oils.
Well, I stumbled upon this tread and am left somewhat surprised at its journey.
For the origin of oil question, the only thing that I can add to MoleKule's contribution is that many modern algae use lipid as their primary storage of excess calories. Some species can approach 50% neutral lipid (oil) on a dry-matter basis. The cumbersome part of the argument is that these same organisms tend to float, live or dead, and can generally accumulate only at the surface (bogs and shallows). These can later be buried to account for their modern location.
As to MoleKule's other assertions, it is worth noting that people that call themselves scientists are, in fact, people. They can have all of the biases and shortcomings that can be attributed to our species. However, it is not a given that all of science is tainted with such biases. The passage of time allows different perspectives and different biases to evaluate science. In the end, science itself approaches an evidence based system. Scientists cannot survive a similar passage of time and must always be separated from the science.
One of the more difficult tasks that I have with my graduate students is teaching them to evaluate the data in scientific papers before they allow their own positions to be tainted by the author's conclusions. I try to teach them to then ask themselves if they agree with authors based on the presented data and ALL other data with which they are familiar. Their natural tendency is to think that the paper has proven something based on their reading of the authors conclusions. It is generally more important to know what a scientist has observed than to know what they have concluded.
Of course everything goes out the window when someone that calls themselves a scientist falsifies, alters, or hides data.
A belief is only valuable up to the point where evidence demonstrates that it is incorrect. Evidence is only valuable up to the point where it is not believed.
For the origin of oil question, the only thing that I can add to MoleKule's contribution is that many modern algae use lipid as their primary storage of excess calories. Some species can approach 50% neutral lipid (oil) on a dry-matter basis. The cumbersome part of the argument is that these same organisms tend to float, live or dead, and can generally accumulate only at the surface (bogs and shallows). These can later be buried to account for their modern location.
As to MoleKule's other assertions, it is worth noting that people that call themselves scientists are, in fact, people. They can have all of the biases and shortcomings that can be attributed to our species. However, it is not a given that all of science is tainted with such biases. The passage of time allows different perspectives and different biases to evaluate science. In the end, science itself approaches an evidence based system. Scientists cannot survive a similar passage of time and must always be separated from the science.
One of the more difficult tasks that I have with my graduate students is teaching them to evaluate the data in scientific papers before they allow their own positions to be tainted by the author's conclusions. I try to teach them to then ask themselves if they agree with authors based on the presented data and ALL other data with which they are familiar. Their natural tendency is to think that the paper has proven something based on their reading of the authors conclusions. It is generally more important to know what a scientist has observed than to know what they have concluded.
Of course everything goes out the window when someone that calls themselves a scientist falsifies, alters, or hides data.
A belief is only valuable up to the point where evidence demonstrates that it is incorrect. Evidence is only valuable up to the point where it is not believed.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
One of the more difficult tasks that I have with my graduate students is teaching them to evaluate the data in scientific papers before they allow their own positions to be tainted by the author's conclusions. I try to teach them to then ask themselves if they agree with authors based on the presented data and ALL other data with which they are familiar. Their natural tendency is to think that the paper has proven something based on their reading of the authors conclusions. It is generally more important to know what a scientist has observed than to know what they have concluded.
That's good and I bet your students come away from your classes knowing how to think for themselves, which is something too many profs do not do.
I attempted to convey the same message regarding critical thinking to my students as well.
Quote:
Of course everything goes out the window when someone that calls themselves a scientist falsifies, alters, or hides data.
I wasn't impyling that scientists go out of their way to falsify information. I have seen what I perceive to be much bias in the climatology area in particular. It seems that government grants and such like tend to influence conclusions since in academia, it is publish or perish as they say.
Furthermore, if you are a scientist that presents data and conclusions contrary to the current consensus or status quo, or you question the prevailing theory, you can really get pounced on and your funding might dry up as well.
When I studied philisophy of science in both undergrad and graduate studies, I was most impressed with Thomas Kuhn's views on "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
Unfotunately, good philosophy of science like Kuhn's work are no longer taught to physicists, biologists, geologists, etc.
One of the more difficult tasks that I have with my graduate students is teaching them to evaluate the data in scientific papers before they allow their own positions to be tainted by the author's conclusions. I try to teach them to then ask themselves if they agree with authors based on the presented data and ALL other data with which they are familiar. Their natural tendency is to think that the paper has proven something based on their reading of the authors conclusions. It is generally more important to know what a scientist has observed than to know what they have concluded.
That's good and I bet your students come away from your classes knowing how to think for themselves, which is something too many profs do not do.
I attempted to convey the same message regarding critical thinking to my students as well.
Quote:
Of course everything goes out the window when someone that calls themselves a scientist falsifies, alters, or hides data.
I wasn't impyling that scientists go out of their way to falsify information. I have seen what I perceive to be much bias in the climatology area in particular. It seems that government grants and such like tend to influence conclusions since in academia, it is publish or perish as they say.
Furthermore, if you are a scientist that presents data and conclusions contrary to the current consensus or status quo, or you question the prevailing theory, you can really get pounced on and your funding might dry up as well.
When I studied philisophy of science in both undergrad and graduate studies, I was most impressed with Thomas Kuhn's views on "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
Unfotunately, good philosophy of science like Kuhn's work are no longer taught to physicists, biologists, geologists, etc.
Last edited:
- Status
