Discovery backs theory oil not ‘fossil fuel’ By Jerome R. Corsi
The Bear on May 29 2008 at 8:25 am | Filed under: Oil and Gas
A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a “fossil fuel” derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.
The lead scientist on the study ? Giora Proskurowski of the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle ? says the hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in the Lost City Hydrothermal Field were produced by the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in the mantle of the earth.
The abiotic theory of the origin of oil directly challenges the conventional scientific theory that hydrocarbons are organic in nature, created by the deterioration of biological material deposited millions of years ago in sedimentary rock and converted to hydrocarbons under intense heat and pressure.
While organic theorists have posited that the material required to produce hydrocarbons in sedimentary rock came from dinosaurs and ancient forests, more recent argument have suggested living organisms as small as plankton may have been the origin.
2 Responses to “Discovery backs theory oil not ‘fossil fuel’ By Jerome R. Corsi”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Just as we’ve said, and even if it turns out to still be dinosaurs, you can’t let the claim that oil is not a renewable resource stand. Let’s take the logic of it, for just a second. I was made once, and the theory is that a dinosaur “turned into oil” somehow. Sure, no more dinosaurs, but what was it about THAT decaying body that’s not the same as ANY decaying body? And we certainly have lots of decaying bodies, even if you skip the humans. The dead mosquito population alone should fill a large reserve back up.
We’ve often speculated that the process that makes oil is somewhat quicker than “millions of years per barrel”, an assumption that others make, even if they don’t state such, since their assumption is that it’s NOT renewable, meaning we could burn it up faster than it’s made. I wonder even that it might be made FASTER if we start draining the pools of it laying around.
Ridiculous? No, what’s ridiculous is scientists deciding that anything is ridiculous until they’ve determined the truth, not theory. Scientists, and Science, must worship facts and reject the Scientific Satan of unsupported conjecture except where it promotes discovery of truth.
should say “It was made once, and the….”