Fossil fuels, is it really just dead dino juice?

[Jin]

Luckily in your case, you look like the fool you are.



Methane on Titan - you are trying to suggest that the prescence of methane on Titan means either:

There was fossil life on Titan
or
Methane cannot be a Fossil Fuel.

All I'm going to say is - Carbon is the 4th most abundant chemical in the Universe, Hydrogen is the most abundant. And that there is more than one way to prove Yokel is an idiot.

Maybe there were dinosaurs on Titan. Dont be so closed minded!

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah, measuring all elements that the universe contains v's the elemtns that comprise a piece of steel... awesome argument bro. Yokel wins.

It's the same principle - the only difference being the size and the margin of Error.

So which is it? Either you can't say its 2% Carbon steel (with all the expected properties of such a peice of Steel) because no one counted all the Atoms OR that I am right that we can take samples and with an acceptable margin on error make fairly accurate extrapolations based on that.

[TheDemonLord]

Hey numb nuts, tell us about how carbon is a chemical hahaha,

so what if the primordial goo was actually crude oil??

It's a Chemical....

A Chemical Element.

well considering we have a pretty good idea of what the Primordial goo possibly was : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...02656/abstract

You will note that Adenine isn't Crude Oil.

[jonbuoy]

Oil from plant/primitive life seems plausible. There are sea creature fossils high on Everest and looking at how things changed from Pangea stranger things have happened. Look how deeply buried Roman ruins are and that was only yesterday in the grand scheme of life on Earth. If life has been around for 3.8 billion years it would seem to be enough time to make a fair bit of ooze. Don't know if you've ever walked on mud flats but if you dig down you quickly come accross a black layer of oozing decomposing sludge - bury that under high pressure and cook for a few million years and I could see it turning into something else.

[mashman]

It's the same principle - the only difference being the size and the margin of Error.

So which is it? Either you can't say its 2% Carbon steel (with all the expected properties of such a peice of Steel) because no one counted all the Atoms OR that I am right that we can take samples and with an acceptable margin on error make fairly accurate extrapolations based on that.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaa margin of error ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

And yet you persist. I'd commend your persistence, but you lost a wee while ago.

[bogan]

It's the same principle - the only difference being the size and the margin of Error.

So which is it? Either you can't say its 2% Carbon steel (with all the expected properties of such a peice of Steel) because no one counted all the Atoms OR that I am right that we can take samples and with an acceptable margin on error make fairly accurate extrapolations based on that.

He's not too good with numbers. Ask him how 50/50 chances work

[Woodman]

Thought this was old news, and the term "fossil fuels" was just a colloquialism.

But hey if theirs a conspiracy out there then I'm down for a laugh.

[Voltaire]

I'm going to go out on a Conspiracy Theory limb here..." The Stone Age did not end due to lack of stones"

[Woodman]

I'm going to go out on a Conspiracy Theory limb here..." The Stone Age did not end due to lack of stones"

You are correct, it was a false flag perpetrated by the bronze age jews to turn people away from stones. The fact is we would all be better off with stones in every way.

[TheDemonLord]

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaa margin of error ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

And yet you persist. I'd commend your persistence, but you lost a wee while ago.

I see you didn't bother to refute anything - I'll ask again - is 2% carbon Steel, 2% carbon steel (with all the associated properties) even if no one counted all the atoms? Or is testing a sample an accurate enough method to extrapolate?

Pick one.

[TheDemonLord]

You are correct, it was a false flag perpetrated by the bronze age jews to turn people away from stones. The fact is we would all be better off with stones in every way.

(Post up a Youtube link with some fuckwit waffling on for 3 hours trying to proove this, without ever actually proving it or post up to a 'news' site where the coverage is so blatantly biased it is vomit inducing)

[mashman]

Pick one.

Fuckin priceless ... happy christmas to you and yours bro.

[yokel]

Oil from plant/primitive life seems plausible. There are sea creature fossils high on Everest and looking at how things changed from Pangea stranger things have happened. Look how deeply buried Roman ruins are and that was only yesterday in the grand scheme of life on Earth. If life has been around for 3.8 billion years it would seem to be enough time to make a fair bit of ooze. Don't know if you've ever walked on mud flats but if you dig down you quickly come accross a black layer of oozing decomposing sludge - bury that under high pressure and cook for a few million years and I could see it turning into something else.

Yes it does seem plausible, otherwise it would not be accepted.
but something being plausible does not mean that's what it is.

Lets not forget this fossil fuel hypothesis was from the late 1800's.

[yokel]

(Post up a Youtube link with some fuckwit waffling on for 3 hours trying to proove this, without ever actually proving it or post up to a 'news' site where the coverage is so blatantly biased it is vomit inducing)

Only blatantly biased thing round here is ya informational bulimic self.

Happy holidays

[jonbuoy]

Yes it does seem plausible, otherwise it would not be accepted.
but something being plausible does not mean that's what it is.

Lets not forget this fossil fuel hypothesis was from the late 1800's.

Yup and a lot of great scientists theories and research from that time is still valid today.