There is "No such thing" as "Fossil fuel"?

Im a BM wrote:
It would be very difficult to have any meaningful "debate" about climate change

Im a BM wrote:
without sometimes making reference to "fossil fuel".

Im a BM wrote:
"Fossil Fuel" is a very common term that is almost universally understood to refer to petroleum, natural gas, and coal mined from underground deposits.

Im a BM wrote:
But among the tiny religious cult of anti scientists here at climate-debate.com,

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
It would be very difficult to have any meaningful "debate" about climate change

Climate cannot change.

Im a BM wrote:
without sometimes making reference to "fossil fuel".

Fossils aren't used as fuel.

Im a BM wrote:
"Fossil Fuel" is a very common term that is almost universally understood to refer to petroleum, natural gas, and coal mined from underground deposits.

None of these are fossils. Oil and natural are hydrocarbons, coal is primarily carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
But among the tiny religious cult of anti scientists here at climate-debate.com,

You are describing yourself. Your religion is not science.

Im a BM wrote:
Yet, pretty much everyone I know will be able to understand what I refer to if I say "fossil fuel".

Im a BM wrote:
Petroleum, coal, and natural gas are called "fossil fuel". Get over it.

Im a BM wrote:
And even minimally educated people WON'T think that the term implies that fossils NEED fuel, or that fossils ARE fuel.

Im a BM wrote:
But if the only goal is to be a troll and distract from any meaningful discussion..

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Yet, pretty much everyone I know will be able to understand what I refer to if I say "fossil fuel".

Fossils are not used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

Im a BM wrote:
Petroleum, coal, and natural gas are called "fossil fuel". Get over it.

Oil is not a fossil. Coal is not a fossil. Natural gas is not a fossil.

Im a BM wrote:
And even minimally educated people WON'T think that the term implies that fossils NEED fuel, or that fossils ARE fuel.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
But if the only goal is to be a troll and distract from any meaningful discussion..

You aren't having any meaningful discussion.

Im a BM wrote:
The term "fossil fuel"

Im a BM wrote:
has been commonly understood to refer to petroleum, coal, and natural gas mined from underground deposits as long a I can remember.

Im a BM wrote:
And I am a 65 year old scientist.

Im a BM wrote:
This ARTIFICIAL "controversy" over terminology is one reason that no "..discussion ever gets out of the starting gate".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The term "fossil fuel"

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

Im a BM wrote:
has been commonly understood to refer to petroleum, coal, and natural gas mined from underground deposits as long a I can remember.

Oil is not a fossil.
Coal is not a fossil (though it may contain fossils).
Methane is not a fossil.

Im a BM wrote:
And I am a 65 year old scientist.

You deny and discard science, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You also deny and discard chemistry. You also deny and discard mathematics.

Your religion is not science.

Im a BM wrote:
This ARTIFICIAL "controversy" over terminology is one reason that no "..discussion ever gets out of the starting gate".

You can't blame your word games on anybody else, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
It would be very difficult to have any meaningful "debate" about climate change without sometimes making reference to "fossil fuel".

"Fossil Fuel" is a very common term that is almost universally understood to refer to petroleum, natural gas, and coal mined from underground deposits.

But among the tiny religious cult of anti scientists here at climate-debate.com, "fossil fuel" is a "meaningless buzzword".

The list of "meaningless buzzwords" is very long, according to the local trolls.

It includes "fossil fuel" and "climate change", among many others.

The inability to comprehend that these terms actually make sense to just about everyone else is the cause of perpetual word games that derail every attempt to discuss ANYTHING else.

An entomologist might come here and want to say something about a particular species of "butterfly" that just went extinct.

DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

Butter does not fly.

Flies are not made of butter.

"Butterfly" is a "meaningless buzzword".

No discussion of mass extinction allowed before endless word games about the need for unambiguous definition of terms such as "butterfly" can be resolved.

Which they cannot.

"Fossil fuel"? Fossils do not require fuel. Meaningless buzzword.

Because the trolls will ALWAYS refuse to believe that "fossil fuel" or "climate change" are valid terms that refer to something everyone ELSE is able to understand in context, and have meaningful communication about.

Nearly all the trolls abandoned this site after Google stopped supplying new members to ambush. Google no longer lists climate-debate.com as a valid discussion site for inquiries such as "climate change discussion site". About one new member per year now joins to post more than once.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
It would be very difficult to have any meaningful "debate" about climate change without sometimes making reference to "fossil fuel".

"Fossil Fuel" is a very common term that is almost universally understood to refer to petroleum, natural gas, and coal mined from underground deposits.

But among the tiny religious cult of anti scientists here at climate-debate.com, "fossil fuel" is a "meaningless buzzword".

The list of "meaningless buzzwords" is very long, according to the local trolls.

It includes "fossil fuel" and "climate change", among many others.

The inability to comprehend that these terms actually make sense to just about everyone else is the cause of perpetual word games that derail every attempt to discuss ANYTHING else.

An entomologist might come here and want to say something about a particular species of "butterfly" that just went extinct.

DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

Butter does not fly.

Flies are not made of butter.

"Butterfly" is a "meaningless buzzword".

No discussion of mass extinction allowed before endless word games about the need for unambiguous definition of terms such as "butterfly" can be resolved.

Which they cannot.

"Fossil fuel"? Fossils do not require fuel. Meaningless buzzword.

Because the trolls will ALWAYS refuse to believe that "fossil fuel" or "climate change" are valid terms that refer to something everyone ELSE is able to understand in context, and have meaningful communication about.

Nearly all the trolls abandoned this site after Google stopped supplying new members to ambush. Google no longer lists climate-debate.com as a valid discussion site for inquiries such as "climate change discussion site". About one new member per year now joins to post more than once.

Fossil fuels can kind of be a religious discussion too, Like how did all these mass graves squeezing life forms into oil form?

Im a BM wrote:
It would be very difficult to have any meaningful "debate" about climate change without sometimes making reference to "fossil fuel".

Im a BM wrote:
"Fossil Fuel" is a very common term that is almost universally understood to refer to petroleum, natural gas, and coal mined from underground deposits.

Im a BM wrote:
But among the tiny religious cult of anti scientists here at climate-debate.com, "fossil fuel" is a "meaningless buzzword".

Im a BM wrote:
The list of "meaningless buzzwords" is very long, according to the local trolls.

Im a BM wrote:
It includes "fossil fuel" and "climate change", among many others.

Im a BM wrote:
The inability to comprehend that these terms actually make sense to just about everyone else is the cause of perpetual word games that derail every attempt to discuss ANYTHING else.

Im a BM wrote:
An entomologist might come here and want to say something about a particular species of "butterfly" that just went extinct.

Im a BM wrote:
DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

Butter does not fly.

Flies are not made of butter.

"Butterfly" is a "meaningless buzzword".

Im a BM wrote:
No discussion of mass extinction allowed before endless word games about the need for unambiguous definition of terms such as "butterfly" can be resolved.

Im a BM wrote:
Which they cannot.

"Fossil fuel"? Fossils do not require fuel. Meaningless buzzword.

Im a BM wrote:
Because the trolls will ALWAYS refuse to believe that "fossil fuel" or "climate change" are valid terms that refer to something everyone ELSE is able to understand in context, and have meaningful communication about.

Im a BM wrote:
Nearly all the trolls abandoned this site after Google stopped supplying new members to ambush. Google no longer lists climate-debate.com as a valid discussion site for inquiries such as "climate change discussion site". About one new member per year now joins to post more than once.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
It would be very difficult to have any meaningful "debate" about climate change without sometimes making reference to "fossil fuel".

"Fossil Fuel" is a very common term that is almost universally understood to refer to petroleum, natural gas, and coal mined from underground deposits.

But among the tiny religious cult of anti scientists here at climate-debate.com, "fossil fuel" is a "meaningless buzzword".

The list of "meaningless buzzwords" is very long, according to the local trolls.

It includes "fossil fuel" and "climate change", among many others.

The inability to comprehend that these terms actually make sense to just about everyone else is the cause of perpetual word games that derail every attempt to discuss ANYTHING else.

An entomologist might come here and want to say something about a particular species of "butterfly" that just went extinct.

DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

Butter does not fly.

Flies are not made of butter.

"Butterfly" is a "meaningless buzzword".

No discussion of mass extinction allowed before endless word games about the need for unambiguous definition of terms such as "butterfly" can be resolved.

Which they cannot.

"Fossil fuel"? Fossils do not require fuel. Meaningless buzzword.

Because the trolls will ALWAYS refuse to believe that "fossil fuel" or "climate change" are valid terms that refer to something everyone ELSE is able to understand in context, and have meaningful communication about.

Nearly all the trolls abandoned this site after Google stopped supplying new members to ambush. Google no longer lists climate-debate.com as a valid discussion site for inquiries such as "climate change discussion site". About one new member per year now joins to post more than once.

Fossil fuels can kind of be a religious discussion too, Like how did all these mass graves squeezing life forms into oil form?

Im a BM wrote:
For a person to be able to follow discussion of current events,

Im a BM wrote:
they need to understand that "fossil fuel" is a name for material humans extract from underground to use for combustion.

Im a BM wrote:
It wouldn't matter if the original term coined for it were "dragon poop".

Im a BM wrote:
Once everyone learns that "dragon poop" refers to petroleum, natural gas, or coal that humans extract from underground to use for combustion,

Im a BM wrote:
we can discuss the implications of dragon poop combustion in climate change.

Im a BM wrote:
Don't overthink it.

Im a BM wrote:
Nobody would think it means the material literally came from the bowels of a dragon.

Im a BM wrote:
Natural gas doesn't make a good "fossil" for any paleontology museums.

Im a BM wrote:
But we all know that natural gas IS "fossil fuel".

Im a BM wrote:
Because they decided to call it that instead of dragon poop.

Im a BM wrote:
There were two main kinds of "mass graves" in which the accumulation of corpses was eventually transformed into natural gas and petroleum or coal.

Im a BM wrote:
Terrestrial wetland swamps of the Coal Age were one kind of mass grave.

Im a BM wrote:
Nearly all the biomass of corpses were dead vegetation.

Vegetation contains relatively little hydrocarbon (lipids, etc.)

Im a BM wrote:
and is mainly cellulose and polyphenols such as tannin and lignin.

Im a BM wrote:
Under waterlogged conditions, little oxygen gets in to facilitate aerobic decomposition,

Im a BM wrote:
and the swampland piles up undecomposed peat year after year.

Im a BM wrote:
Millions of years later, that material of average chemical composition CH2O (meaning equal parts carbon and oxygen, plus hydrogen) gets baked and pressed. The hydrogen gets consumed by combining with the oxygen to make water. What is left behind is just the carbon, as coal. Methane is formed in the process as well.

Im a BM wrote:
Shallow seas of the continental shelf were the other kind of mass grave.

Im a BM wrote:
Marine photosynthesis rained down dead microorganisms to the sea floor. Piling up year after year, dead plankton and bacteria. Not like land plants in the swamp. These dead microorganisms had an average chemical composition closer to C4H16O (meaning four times as much carbon as oxygen, plus hydrogen), because they were rich in fatty oils, lipids, etc., and had very little cellulose or polyphenol. Millions of years later, that material was baked and pressed. With relatively little oxygen content, most of the hydrogen stayed with
the carbon, and only a little water formed. It left behind hydrocarbons, mainly. Petroleum.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Fossil fuels can kind of be a religious discussion too, Like how did all these mass graves squeezing life forms into oil form?

What 'mass graves'?

Oil (petroleum) is created naturally by Earth processes. No animals necessary. You can find it pretty much anywhere you care to drill, if you drill deep enough. Oil is a renewable fuel.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Fossil fuels can kind of be a religious discussion too, Like how did all these mass graves squeezing life forms into oil form?

What 'mass graves'?

Oil (petroleum) is created naturally by Earth processes. No animals necessary. You can find it pretty much anywhere you care to drill, if you drill deep enough. Oil is a renewable fuel.

The oil had to have been processed from dead life forms.

That is why they call oil a fossil fuel.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Fossil fuels can kind of be a religious discussion too, Like how did all these mass graves squeezing life forms into oil form?

What 'mass graves'?

Oil (petroleum) is created naturally by Earth processes. No animals necessary. You can find it pretty much anywhere you care to drill, if you drill deep enough. Oil is a renewable fuel.

The oil had to have been processed from dead life forms.

That is why they call oil a fossil fuel.

Im a BM wrote:

Terrestrial wetland swamps of the Coal Age were one kind of mass grave. Nearly all the biomass of corpses were dead vegetation. Vegetation contains relatively little hydrocarbon (lipids, etc.) and is mainly cellulose and polyphenols such as tannin and lignin. Under waterlogged conditions, little oxygen gets in to facilitate aerobic decomposition, and the swampland piles up undecomposed peat year after year. Millions of years later, that material of average chemical composition CH2O (meaning equal parts carbon and oxygen, plus hydrogen) gets baked and pressed. The hydrogen gets consumed by combining with the oxygen to make water. What is left behind is just the carbon, as coal. Methane is formed in the process as well.

Shallow seas of the continental shelf were the other kind of mass grave. Marine photosynthesis rained down dead microorganisms to the sea floor. Piling up year after year, dead plankton and bacteria. Not like land plants in the swamp. These dead microorganisms had an average chemical composition closer to C4H16O (meaning four times as much carbon as oxygen, plus hydrogen), because they were rich in fatty oils, lipids, etc., and had very little cellulose or polyphenol. Millions of years later, that material was baked and pressed. With relatively little oxygen content, most of the hydrogen stayed with the carbon, and only a little water formed. It left behind hydrocarbons, mainly. Petroleum.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Terrestrial wetland swamps of the Coal Age were one kind of mass grave. Nearly all the biomass of corpses were dead vegetation. Vegetation contains relatively little hydrocarbon (lipids, etc.) and is mainly cellulose and polyphenols such as tannin and lignin. Under waterlogged conditions, little oxygen gets in to facilitate aerobic decomposition, and the swampland piles up undecomposed peat year after year. Millions of years later, that material of average chemical composition CH2O (meaning equal parts carbon and oxygen, plus hydrogen) gets baked and pressed. The hydrogen gets consumed by combining with the oxygen to make water. What is left behind is just the carbon, as coal. Methane is formed in the process as well.

Shallow seas of the continental shelf were the other kind of mass grave. Marine photosynthesis rained down dead microorganisms to the sea floor. Piling up year after year, dead plankton and bacteria. Not like land plants in the swamp. These dead microorganisms had an average chemical composition closer to C4H16O (meaning four times as much carbon as oxygen, plus hydrogen), because they were rich in fatty oils, lipids, etc., and had very little cellulose or polyphenol. Millions of years later, that material was baked and pressed. With relatively little oxygen content, most of the hydrogen stayed with the carbon, and only a little water formed. It left behind hydrocarbons, mainly. Petroleum.

So being underwater seems to be a major hypothesis in the formation of fossil fuel deposits?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Terrestrial wetland swamps of the Coal Age were one kind of mass grave. Nearly all the biomass of corpses were dead vegetation. Vegetation contains relatively little hydrocarbon (lipids, etc.) and is mainly cellulose and polyphenols such as tannin and lignin. Under waterlogged conditions, little oxygen gets in to facilitate aerobic decomposition, and the swampland piles up undecomposed peat year after year. Millions of years later, that material of average chemical composition CH2O (meaning equal parts carbon and oxygen, plus hydrogen) gets baked and pressed. The hydrogen gets consumed by combining with the oxygen to make water. What is left behind is just the carbon, as coal. Methane is formed in the process as well.

Shallow seas of the continental shelf were the other kind of mass grave. Marine photosynthesis rained down dead microorganisms to the sea floor. Piling up year after year, dead plankton and bacteria. Not like land plants in the swamp. These dead microorganisms had an average chemical composition closer to C4H16O (meaning four times as much carbon as oxygen, plus hydrogen), because they were rich in fatty oils, lipids, etc., and had very little cellulose or polyphenol. Millions of years later, that material was baked and pressed. With relatively little oxygen content, most of the hydrogen stayed with the carbon, and only a little water formed. It left behind hydrocarbons, mainly. Petroleum.

So being underwater seems to be a major hypothesis in the formation of fossil fuel deposits?

Yes. In both cases, waterlogged conditions impede the entry of oxygen, without which aerobic decomposition of organic matter cannot occur. In the swamp, atmospheric O2 aerates water at the surface, but low oxygen conditions prevail below. In the sea, the water column is generally well aerated except at the bottom. Oxygen reaches microbial corpses on top of the pile on the sea floor, but low oxygen conditions prevail beneath that thin contact, and corpses pile up without aerobically rotting.

I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point. It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Terrestrial wetland swamps of the Coal Age were one kind of mass grave. Nearly all the biomass of corpses were dead vegetation. Vegetation contains relatively little hydrocarbon (lipids, etc.) and is mainly cellulose and polyphenols such as tannin and lignin. Under waterlogged conditions, little oxygen gets in to facilitate aerobic decomposition, and the swampland piles up undecomposed peat year after year. Millions of years later, that material of average chemical composition CH2O (meaning equal parts carbon and oxygen, plus hydrogen) gets baked and pressed. The hydrogen gets consumed by combining with the oxygen to make water. What is left behind is just the carbon, as coal. Methane is formed in the process as well.

Shallow seas of the continental shelf were the other kind of mass grave. Marine photosynthesis rained down dead microorganisms to the sea floor. Piling up year after year, dead plankton and bacteria. Not like land plants in the swamp. These dead microorganisms had an average chemical composition closer to C4H16O (meaning four times as much carbon as oxygen, plus hydrogen), because they were rich in fatty oils, lipids, etc., and had very little cellulose or polyphenol. Millions of years later, that material was baked and pressed. With relatively little oxygen content, most of the hydrogen stayed with the carbon, and only a little water formed. It left behind hydrocarbons, mainly. Petroleum.

So being underwater seems to be a major hypothesis in the formation of fossil fuel deposits?

Yes. In both cases, waterlogged conditions impede the entry of oxygen, without which aerobic decomposition of organic matter cannot occur. In the swamp, atmospheric O2 aerates water at the surface, but low oxygen conditions prevail below. In the sea, the water column is generally well aerated except at the bottom. Oxygen reaches microbial corpses on top of the pile on the sea floor, but low oxygen conditions prevail beneath that thin contact, and corpses pile up without aerobically rotting.

I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point. It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

How about the shale deposits in Saskatchewan and Alberta Canada, Was that area underwater?

Side note, there are some pretty cool dinosaur exhibits you can find in the Badlands, Alberta.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point. It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

How about the shale deposits in Saskatchewan and Alberta Canada, Was that area underwater?

Side note, there are some pretty cool dinosaur exhibits you can find in the Badlands, Alberta.

So, here's what I just did. I Googled the inquiry:

"Did the shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta form under shallow seas?"

Google was kind enough to give the following answer:

"Yes, the significant shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are part of the vast Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, were indeed formed under shallow seas."

Google tends to be right about these things.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point. It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

How about the shale deposits in Saskatchewan and Alberta Canada, Was that area underwater?

Side note, there are some pretty cool dinosaur exhibits you can find in the Badlands, Alberta.

So, here's what I just did. I Googled the inquiry:

"Did the shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta form under shallow seas?"

Google was kind enough to give the following answer:

"Yes, the significant shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are part of the vast Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, were indeed formed under shallow seas."

Google tends to be right about these things.

That clever Google, I never would have guessed it.

Well goes to show, must have been some kind of huge catastrophe that dried up the shallow seas that once covered the Great Canadian Plains.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point. It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

How about the shale deposits in Saskatchewan and Alberta Canada, Was that area underwater?

Side note, there are some pretty cool dinosaur exhibits you can find in the Badlands, Alberta.

So, here's what I just did. I Googled the inquiry:

"Did the shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta form under shallow seas?"

Google was kind enough to give the following answer:

"Yes, the significant shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are part of the vast Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, were indeed formed under shallow seas."

Google tends to be right about these things.

That clever Google, I never would have guessed it.

Well goes to show, must have been some kind of huge catastrophe that dried up the shallow seas that once covered the Great Canadian Plains.

Our lives as mortal creatures are so short, it is difficult to grasp the geologic time scale.

If the Himalayas were to suddenly rise ten thousands meters, or even just rise hundreds of meters within the space of a human life time, it would certainly be catastrophic. Tectonic uplift goes by the geologic time scale, and it was a very slow process to get Mt Everest so high up there.

The former shallow seas did not become great plains overnight. It is very unlikely that any single great catastrophic event was associated with the long, slow process.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point. It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

How about the shale deposits in Saskatchewan and Alberta Canada, Was that area underwater?

Side note, there are some pretty cool dinosaur exhibits you can find in the Badlands, Alberta.

So, here's what I just did. I Googled the inquiry:

"Did the shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta form under shallow seas?"

Google was kind enough to give the following answer:

"Yes, the significant shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are part of the vast Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, were indeed formed under shallow seas."

Google tends to be right about these things.

That clever Google, I never would have guessed it.

Well goes to show, must have been some kind of huge catastrophe that dried up the shallow seas that once covered the Great Canadian Plains.

Our lives as mortal creatures are so short, it is difficult to grasp the geologic time scale.

If the Himalayas were to suddenly rise ten thousands meters, or even just rise hundreds of meters within the space of a human life time, it would certainly be catastrophic. Tectonic uplift goes by the geologic time scale, and it was a very slow process to get Mt Everest so high up there.

The former shallow seas did not become great plains overnight. It is very unlikely that any single great catastrophic event was associated with the long, slow process.

I was thinking more like rapid evaporation from scorched Earth, which resulted from a hole shattered into the Sky.

In other words Climate Change catastrophe.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night believes in magic petroleum, formed from purely inorganic material in the Earth's crust, without any living organisms involved.

Im a BM wrote:
Basically from hydrogen combining with inorganic carbon such as carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Similar to what methanogenic bacteria in the real world do,

Im a BM wrote:
but they won't give credit to ANY organism for photosynthetic production of the original organic carbon, or biological chemogenesis. Magic petroleum don't need no stinkin' corpses or critters to form.

Im a BM wrote:
But Into the Night doesn't even believe in VEGETABLE OIL!
He STILL insists that terrestrial plants do not contain hydrocarbons.

Im a BM wrote:
Magic petroleum? Of course! Vegetable oil? How "gullible" do you think I am?

Spongy Iris wrote:

So being underwater seems to be a major hypothesis in the formation of fossil fuel deposits?

Im a BM wrote:
Yes. In both cases, waterlogged conditions impede the entry of oxygen,

Im a BM wrote:
without which aerobic decomposition of organic matter cannot occur.

Im a BM wrote:
In the swamp, atmospheric O2 aerates water at the surface, but low oxygen conditions prevail below.

Im a BM wrote:
In the sea, the water column is generally well aerated except at the bottom.

Im a BM wrote:
Oxygen reaches microbial corpses on top of the pile on the sea floor,

Im a BM wrote:
but low oxygen conditions prevail beneath that thin contact, and corpses pile up without aerobically rotting.

Im a BM wrote:
I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point.

Im a BM wrote:
It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point. It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

How about the shale deposits in Saskatchewan and Alberta Canada, Was that area underwater?

Side note, there are some pretty cool dinosaur exhibits you can find in the Badlands, Alberta.

So, here's what I just did. I Googled the inquiry:

"Did the shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta form under shallow seas?"

Google was kind enough to give the following answer:

"Yes, the significant shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are part of the vast Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, were indeed formed under shallow seas."

Google tends to be right about these things.

That clever Google, I never would have guessed it.

Well goes to show, must have been some kind of huge catastrophe that dried up the shallow seas that once covered the Great Canadian Plains.

Our lives as mortal creatures are so short, it is difficult to grasp the geologic time scale.

If the Himalayas were to suddenly rise ten thousands meters, or even just rise hundreds of meters within the space of a human life time, it would certainly be catastrophic. Tectonic uplift goes by the geologic time scale, and it was a very slow process to get Mt Everest so high up there.

The former shallow seas did not become great plains overnight. It is very unlikely that any single great catastrophic event was associated with the long, slow process.

I was thinking more like rapid evaporation from scorched Earth, which resulted from a hole shattered into the Sky.

In other words Climate Change catastrophe.

Consider that the oil is now found in what was once the floor of a shallow sea.

Pretty much has to have been BELOW sea level for that to work. So, just spitballing some theoreticals, something changes to be so hot that shallow sea evaporated. It most likely would have remained at an elevation that if not technically below sea level, at least just as close to the exact center of the Earth as it was before. When seas filled back up, it would have been underwater again.

However, the sea wasn't taken off the top by evaporation. The floor just got pushed up underneath it. Eventually pushed up high enough to be well above sea level in the great plains we know today.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point. It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

How about the shale deposits in Saskatchewan and Alberta Canada, Was that area underwater?

Side note, there are some pretty cool dinosaur exhibits you can find in the Badlands, Alberta.

So, here's what I just did. I Googled the inquiry:

"Did the shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta form under shallow seas?"

Google was kind enough to give the following answer:

"Yes, the significant shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are part of the vast Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, were indeed formed under shallow seas."

Google tends to be right about these things.

That clever Google, I never would have guessed it.

Well goes to show, must have been some kind of huge catastrophe that dried up the shallow seas that once covered the Great Canadian Plains.

Our lives as mortal creatures are so short, it is difficult to grasp the geologic time scale.

If the Himalayas were to suddenly rise ten thousands meters, or even just rise hundreds of meters within the space of a human life time, it would certainly be catastrophic. Tectonic uplift goes by the geologic time scale, and it was a very slow process to get Mt Everest so high up there.

The former shallow seas did not become great plains overnight. It is very unlikely that any single great catastrophic event was associated with the long, slow process.

I was thinking more like rapid evaporation from scorched Earth, which resulted from a hole shattered into the Sky.

In other words Climate Change catastrophe.

Consider that the oil is now found in what was once the floor of a shallow sea.

Pretty much has to have been BELOW sea level for that to work. So, just spitballing some theoreticals, something changes to be so hot that shallow sea evaporated. It most likely would have remained at an elevation that if not technically below sea level, at least just as close to the exact center of the Earth as it was before. When seas filled back up, it would have been underwater again.

However, the sea wasn't taken off the top by evaporation. The floor just got pushed up underneath it. Eventually pushed up high enough to be well above sea level in the great plains we know today.

Oil can be found pretty anywhere you care to drill for it, if you go deep enough.
Nothing in the Great Plains was 'pushed up'. There was no 'shallow sea'.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point. It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

How about the shale deposits in Saskatchewan and Alberta Canada, Was that area underwater?

Side note, there are some pretty cool dinosaur exhibits you can find in the Badlands, Alberta.

So, here's what I just did. I Googled the inquiry:

"Did the shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta form under shallow seas?"

Google was kind enough to give the following answer:

"Yes, the significant shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are part of the vast Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, were indeed formed under shallow seas."

Google tends to be right about these things.

That clever Google, I never would have guessed it.

Well goes to show, must have been some kind of huge catastrophe that dried up the shallow seas that once covered the Great Canadian Plains.

Our lives as mortal creatures are so short, it is difficult to grasp the geologic time scale.

If the Himalayas were to suddenly rise ten thousands meters, or even just rise hundreds of meters within the space of a human life time, it would certainly be catastrophic. Tectonic uplift goes by the geologic time scale, and it was a very slow process to get Mt Everest so high up there.

The former shallow seas did not become great plains overnight. It is very unlikely that any single great catastrophic event was associated with the long, slow process.

I was thinking more like rapid evaporation from scorched Earth, which resulted from a hole shattered into the Sky.

In other words Climate Change catastrophe.

Consider that the oil is now found in what was once the floor of a shallow sea.

Pretty much has to have been BELOW sea level for that to work. So, just spitballing some theoreticals, something changes to be so hot that shallow sea evaporated. It most likely would have remained at an elevation that if not technically below sea level, at least just as close to the exact center of the Earth as it was before. When seas filled back up, it would have been underwater again.

However, the sea wasn't taken off the top by evaporation. The floor just got pushed up underneath it. Eventually pushed up high enough to be well above sea level in the great plains we know today.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point. It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

How about the shale deposits in Saskatchewan and Alberta Canada, Was that area underwater?

Side note, there are some pretty cool dinosaur exhibits you can find in the Badlands, Alberta.

So, here's what I just did. I Googled the inquiry:

"Did the shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta form under shallow seas?"

Google was kind enough to give the following answer:

"Yes, the significant shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are part of the vast Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, were indeed formed under shallow seas."

Google tends to be right about these things.

That clever Google, I never would have guessed it.

Well goes to show, must have been some kind of huge catastrophe that dried up the shallow seas that once covered the Great Canadian Plains.

Our lives as mortal creatures are so short, it is difficult to grasp the geologic time scale.

If the Himalayas were to suddenly rise ten thousands meters, or even just rise hundreds of meters within the space of a human life time, it would certainly be catastrophic. Tectonic uplift goes by the geologic time scale, and it was a very slow process to get Mt Everest so high up there.

The former shallow seas did not become great plains overnight. It is very unlikely that any single great catastrophic event was associated with the long, slow process.

I was thinking more like rapid evaporation from scorched Earth, which resulted from a hole shattered into the Sky.

In other words Climate Change catastrophe.

Consider that the oil is now found in what was once the floor of a shallow sea.

Pretty much has to have been BELOW sea level for that to work. So, just spitballing some theoreticals, something changes to be so hot that shallow sea evaporated. It most likely would have remained at an elevation that if not technically below sea level, at least just as close to the exact center of the Earth as it was before. When seas filled back up, it would have been underwater again.

However, the sea wasn't taken off the top by evaporation. The floor just got pushed up underneath it. Eventually pushed up high enough to be well above sea level in the great plains we know today.

I don't believe the oil deposits, say in Alberta and Saskatchewan, formed from a shallow sea that once covered that land.

There are significant salt and potash deposits in that area, but they are not uniformly spread out.

Perhaps the process of subduction did raise that land from the sea. But if so, it would have happened before life became abundant enough to leave behind oil deposits.

What I think is more likely to be the bodies of water in that area, where marine life could have thrived, were the fresh water glacial lakes.

Apparently those filled up about 12000 years ago after global warming began.... Let there be light!

Lake Agassiz was believed to be the biggest glacier lake that covered most of Manitoba and part of Eastern Saskatchewan. There were apparently also significant glacier lakes over Edmonton and Calgary Alberta.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point. It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

How about the shale deposits in Saskatchewan and Alberta Canada, Was that area underwater?

Side note, there are some pretty cool dinosaur exhibits you can find in the Badlands, Alberta.

So, here's what I just did. I Googled the inquiry:

"Did the shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta form under shallow seas?"

Google was kind enough to give the following answer:

"Yes, the significant shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are part of the vast Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, were indeed formed under shallow seas."

Google tends to be right about these things.

That clever Google, I never would have guessed it.

Well goes to show, must have been some kind of huge catastrophe that dried up the shallow seas that once covered the Great Canadian Plains.

Our lives as mortal creatures are so short, it is difficult to grasp the geologic time scale.

If the Himalayas were to suddenly rise ten thousands meters, or even just rise hundreds of meters within the space of a human life time, it would certainly be catastrophic. Tectonic uplift goes by the geologic time scale, and it was a very slow process to get Mt Everest so high up there.

The former shallow seas did not become great plains overnight. It is very unlikely that any single great catastrophic event was associated with the long, slow process.

I was thinking more like rapid evaporation from scorched Earth, which resulted from a hole shattered into the Sky.

In other words Climate Change catastrophe.

Consider that the oil is now found in what was once the floor of a shallow sea.

Pretty much has to have been BELOW sea level for that to work. So, just spitballing some theoreticals, something changes to be so hot that shallow sea evaporated. It most likely would have remained at an elevation that if not technically below sea level, at least just as close to the exact center of the Earth as it was before. When seas filled back up, it would have been underwater again.

However, the sea wasn't taken off the top by evaporation. The floor just got pushed up underneath it. Eventually pushed up high enough to be well above sea level in the great plains we know today.

I don't believe the oil deposits, say in Alberta and Saskatchewan, formed from a shallow sea that once covered that land.

There are significant salt and potash deposits in that area, but they are not uniformly spread out.

Perhaps the process of subduction did raise that land from the sea. But if so, it would have happened before life became abundant enough to leave behind oil deposits.

What I think is more likely to be the bodies of water in that area, where marine life could have thrived, were the fresh water glacial lakes.

Apparently those filled up about 12000 years ago after global warming began.... Let there be light!

Lake Agassiz was believed to be the biggest glacier lake that covered most of Manitoba and part of Eastern Saskatchewan. There were apparently also significant glacier lakes over Edmonton and Calgary Alberta.

One of the features of objective reality that I like the best is the fact that no BELIEF is required in order for it to be "true".

Note the time frame difference - 12K years ago a big freshwater lake. 240M years ago was a more typical age for ancient oil field formation.

The "Coal Age" had its peak in the period from 419M to 359M years ago, also known as the "Devonian" in geologic time. Scientists were able to make sense of THIS one more than a century and a half ago. The "Coal Age" is a real thing in all the geology textbooks. But nobody can be required to "believe" this if it is incompatible with their religious beliefs.

The same guy who made the magic petroleum theory famous had a similar theory that COAL formed from material of purely geologic, abiotic origin. That one flopped, and didn't really make it into the popular culture. But, boy do the zealots love that magic petroleum! Maybe someone should recycle the magic coal theory for them. Its time may have come!

As a college instructor, I never made it my mission to persuade a reflexive naysayer. Evolution is part of natural history, but it is not compatible with the religious beliefs of some students. They can believe whatever they want. I won't lose any sleep over it if they are unable to grasp the concepts. But they knew better than to expect to get exam credit for invoking "intelligent design". They could pout about it if they wanted, but there was zero value explaining it to them more than once. My attention was for the other 98% of the students who were less resistant to the information I offered.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point. It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

How about the shale deposits in Saskatchewan and Alberta Canada, Was that area underwater?

Side note, there are some pretty cool dinosaur exhibits you can find in the Badlands, Alberta.

So, here's what I just did. I Googled the inquiry:

"Did the shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta form under shallow seas?"

Google was kind enough to give the following answer:

"Yes, the significant shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are part of the vast Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, were indeed formed under shallow seas."

Google tends to be right about these things.

That clever Google, I never would have guessed it.

Well goes to show, must have been some kind of huge catastrophe that dried up the shallow seas that once covered the Great Canadian Plains.

Our lives as mortal creatures are so short, it is difficult to grasp the geologic time scale.

If the Himalayas were to suddenly rise ten thousands meters, or even just rise hundreds of meters within the space of a human life time, it would certainly be catastrophic. Tectonic uplift goes by the geologic time scale, and it was a very slow process to get Mt Everest so high up there.

The former shallow seas did not become great plains overnight. It is very unlikely that any single great catastrophic event was associated with the long, slow process.

I was thinking more like rapid evaporation from scorched Earth, which resulted from a hole shattered into the Sky.

In other words Climate Change catastrophe.

Consider that the oil is now found in what was once the floor of a shallow sea.

Pretty much has to have been BELOW sea level for that to work. So, just spitballing some theoreticals, something changes to be so hot that shallow sea evaporated. It most likely would have remained at an elevation that if not technically below sea level, at least just as close to the exact center of the Earth as it was before. When seas filled back up, it would have been underwater again.

However, the sea wasn't taken off the top by evaporation. The floor just got pushed up underneath it. Eventually pushed up high enough to be well above sea level in the great plains we know today.

I don't believe the oil deposits, say in Alberta and Saskatchewan, formed from a shallow sea that once covered that land.

There are significant salt and potash deposits in that area, but they are not uniformly spread out.

Perhaps the process of subduction did raise that land from the sea. But if so, it would have happened before life became abundant enough to leave behind oil deposits.

What I think is more likely to be the bodies of water in that area, where marine life could have thrived, were the fresh water glacial lakes.

Apparently those filled up about 12000 years ago after global warming began.... Let there be light!

Lake Agassiz was believed to be the biggest glacier lake that covered most of Manitoba and part of Eastern Saskatchewan. There were apparently also significant glacier lakes over Edmonton and Calgary Alberta.

One of the features of objective reality that I like the best is the fact that no BELIEF is required in order for it to be "true".

Note the time frame difference - 12K years ago a big freshwater lake. 240M years ago was a more typical age for ancient oil field formation.

The "Coal Age" had its peak in the period from 419M to 359M years ago, also known as the "Devonian" in geologic time. Scientists were able to make sense of THIS one more than a century and a half ago. The "Coal Age" is a real thing in all the geology textbooks. But nobody can be required to "believe" this if it is incompatible with their religious beliefs.

The same guy who made the magic petroleum theory famous had a similar theory that COAL formed from material of purely geologic, abiotic origin. That one flopped, and didn't really make it into the popular culture. But, boy do the zealots love that magic petroleum! Maybe someone should recycle the magic coal theory for them. Its time may have come!

As a college instructor, I never made it my mission to persuade a reflexive naysayer. Evolution is part of natural history, but it is not compatible with the religious beliefs of some students. They can believe whatever they want. I won't lose any sleep over it if they are unable to grasp the concepts. But they knew better than to expect to get exam credit for invoking "intelligent design". They could pout about it if they wanted, but there was zero value explaining it to them more than once. My attention was for the other 98% of the students who were less resistant to the information I offered.

And you know the age of the coal and oil how?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

And you know the age of the coal and oil how?

The term "Coal Age" preceded me by several generations. In fact, the Devonian was just the prelude to when the biggest coal deposits formed.

How do I, personally, "know the age of coal and oil.."? Multiple, independent lines of evidence all lead to the same conclusion. Let's see if Google is willing to break it down for us.

Hey, Google! Here's a question for ya.

"How do we know the age of coal and oil?"

We're counting on you, Google!

And let's find out what Google thinks the answer is..

Google says: "Scientists determine the age of coal and oil by dating the surrounding rock layers (stratigraphy) and using radiometric dating of minerals within those rocks."

They were able to take this a very long way with stratigraphy ALONE. Deeper layers are older. They got laid down first, and younger layers piled on top of them. Even if they couldn't nail the exact age, the time sequence for deposition was unambiguous. And then you find the exact same sequence of layers in some other part of the world and say, "wow!" Later they developed the luxury of narrowing the dates more precisely, mainly through analysis of isotopes, and radioisotopes especially.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

And you know the age of the coal and oil how?

The term "Coal Age" preceded me by several generations. In fact, the Devonian was just the prelude to when the biggest coal deposits formed.

How do I, personally, "know the age of coal and oil.."? Multiple, independent lines of evidence all lead to the same conclusion. Let's see if Google is willing to break it down for us.

Hey, Google! Here's a question for ya.

"How do we know the age of coal and oil?"

We're counting on you, Google!

And let's find out what Google thinks the answer is..

Google says: "Scientists determine the age of coal and oil by dating the surrounding rock layers (stratigraphy) and using radiometric dating of minerals within those rocks."

They were able to take this a very long way with stratigraphy ALONE. Deeper layers are older. They got laid down first, and younger layers piled on top of them. Even if they couldn't nail the exact age, the time sequence for deposition was unambiguous. And then you find the exact same sequence of layers in some other part of the world and say, "wow!" Later they developed the luxury of narrowing the dates more precisely, mainly through analysis of isotopes, and radioisotopes especially.

The catastrophic hole in the sky throws the conclusions of the rock's ages out the window IMO, because the hole in the sky increased radiation from the Sun and Moon, enough to destroy all life on land, which makes the rock's appear to age much faster in a shorter time span.

But one interesting detail you mentioned shows the greatest deterioration from radiation is from the inside out, not the outside in. IMO that would be the Moon sucking energy outward, not the Sun emitting energy inward.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

And you know the age of the coal and oil how?

The term "Coal Age" preceded me by several generations. In fact, the Devonian was just the prelude to when the biggest coal deposits formed.

How do I, personally, "know the age of coal and oil.."? Multiple, independent lines of evidence all lead to the same conclusion. Let's see if Google is willing to break it down for us.

Hey, Google! Here's a question for ya.

"How do we know the age of coal and oil?"

We're counting on you, Google!

And let's find out what Google thinks the answer is..

Google says: "Scientists determine the age of coal and oil by dating the surrounding rock layers (stratigraphy) and using radiometric dating of minerals within those rocks."

They were able to take this a very long way with stratigraphy ALONE. Deeper layers are older. They got laid down first, and younger layers piled on top of them. Even if they couldn't nail the exact age, the time sequence for deposition was unambiguous. And then you find the exact same sequence of layers in some other part of the world and say, "wow!" Later they developed the luxury of narrowing the dates more precisely, mainly through analysis of isotopes, and radioisotopes especially.

The catastrophic hole in the sky throws the conclusions of the rock's ages out the window IMO, because the hole in the sky increased radiation from the Sun and Moon, enough to destroy all life on land, which makes the rock's appear to age much faster in a shorter time span.

But one interesting detail you mentioned shows the greatest deterioration from radiation is from the inside out, not the outside in. IMO that would be the Moon sucking energy outward, not the Sun emitting energy inward.

That is it appears to be sucking outward from the shallow amount of the Earth's surface we can measure.

This is Swan's cue to say, microwaves cook food from the outside not the inside.

Alas, He never reacts the way I invite him to.

Im a BM wrote:

"IMO that would be the moon sucking.." - Spongy Iris

It was the summer of 1980 when I first learned about the Earth and gravity.

"There is no gravity. The Earth SUCKS!"

Perhaps a modern day Archimedes had written it on the wall in the stall of the public restroom, after running naked into the street shouting "Eureka!", overwhelmed by the joy of his discovery.

While I have never seen anything published that explicitly asserts that the MOON sucks as well, it would be entirely consistent with what we already know here on Earth where we can directly observe the phenomenon up close.

Lunar suction is not just plausible, it is PREDICTABLE that the moon should suck too, being made of the same stuff as our sucky planet.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point. It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

How about the shale deposits in Saskatchewan and Alberta Canada, Was that area underwater?

Side note, there are some pretty cool dinosaur exhibits you can find in the Badlands, Alberta.

So, here's what I just did. I Googled the inquiry:

"Did the shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta form under shallow seas?"

Google was kind enough to give the following answer:

"Yes, the significant shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are part of the vast Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, were indeed formed under shallow seas."

Google tends to be right about these things.

That clever Google, I never would have guessed it.

Well goes to show, must have been some kind of huge catastrophe that dried up the shallow seas that once covered the Great Canadian Plains.

Our lives as mortal creatures are so short, it is difficult to grasp the geologic time scale.

If the Himalayas were to suddenly rise ten thousands meters, or even just rise hundreds of meters within the space of a human life time, it would certainly be catastrophic. Tectonic uplift goes by the geologic time scale, and it was a very slow process to get Mt Everest so high up there.

The former shallow seas did not become great plains overnight. It is very unlikely that any single great catastrophic event was associated with the long, slow process.

I was thinking more like rapid evaporation from scorched Earth, which resulted from a hole shattered into the Sky.

In other words Climate Change catastrophe.

Consider that the oil is now found in what was once the floor of a shallow sea.

Pretty much has to have been BELOW sea level for that to work. So, just spitballing some theoreticals, something changes to be so hot that shallow sea evaporated. It most likely would have remained at an elevation that if not technically below sea level, at least just as close to the exact center of the Earth as it was before. When seas filled back up, it would have been underwater again.

However, the sea wasn't taken off the top by evaporation. The floor just got pushed up underneath it. Eventually pushed up high enough to be well above sea level in the great plains we know today.

Oil can be found pretty anywhere you care to drill for it, if you go deep enough.
Nothing in the Great Plains was 'pushed up'. There was no 'shallow sea'.

Im a BM wrote:
[/b]I am SUPER GOD wrote:[/b]

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

I would suggest that it is way beyond "hypothesis" at this point. It is the story of what happened, consistent with tons and tons of physical evidence.

How about the shale deposits in Saskatchewan and Alberta Canada, Was that area underwater?

Side note, there are some pretty cool dinosaur exhibits you can find in the Badlands, Alberta.

So, here's what I just did. I Googled the inquiry:

"Did the shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta form under shallow seas?"

Google was kind enough to give the following answer:

"Yes, the significant shale oil deposits of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are part of the vast Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, were indeed formed under shallow seas."

Google tends to be right about these things.

That clever Google, I never would have guessed it.

Well goes to show, must have been some kind of huge catastrophe that dried up the shallow seas that once covered the Great Canadian Plains.

Our lives as mortal creatures are so short, it is difficult to grasp the geologic time scale.

If the Himalayas were to suddenly rise ten thousands meters, or even just rise hundreds of meters within the space of a human life time, it would certainly be catastrophic. Tectonic uplift goes by the geologic time scale, and it was a very slow process to get Mt Everest so high up there.

The former shallow seas did not become great plains overnight. It is very unlikely that any single great catastrophic event was associated with the long, slow process.

I was thinking more like rapid evaporation from scorched Earth, which resulted from a hole shattered into the Sky.

In other words Climate Change catastrophe.

Consider that the oil is now found in what was once the floor of a shallow sea.

Pretty much has to have been BELOW sea level for that to work. So, just spitballing some theoreticals, something changes to be so hot that shallow sea evaporated. It most likely would have remained at an elevation that if not technically below sea level, at least just as close to the exact center of the Earth as it was before. When seas filled back up, it would have been underwater again.

However, the sea wasn't taken off the top by evaporation. The floor just got pushed up underneath it. Eventually pushed up high enough to be well above sea level in the great plains we know today.

Oil can be found pretty anywhere you care to drill for it, if you go deep enough.
Nothing in the Great Plains was 'pushed up'. There was no 'shallow sea'.

Okay, this means you would believe that the thin sea floor around the Hawaiian Islands would be a good place to drill for oil.

I actually read something written by a scientifically illiterate moron who insisted that there actually ARE productive oil wells tapping the magic petroleum that comes up so easily there due to the position of the "hot spot" under the Pacific sea floor around these islands.

It is amazing how delusional some people are.

This freakin' IDIOT actually claimed that there are productive oil wells around Hawaii!

I predict he will stand by the moronic assertion that abiotic petroleum generation in the Earth's crust is REAL and accounts for some measurable fraction of the total oil to be found. YES, even in Hawaii, he will insist.

Then when asked WHERE in Hawaii can one find the magic petroleum wells?

He'll simply say, "RQAA". Because if you blinked when he wrote it the first time, it's your responsibility to go back and figure out where it was hidden.

Im a BM wrote:
Okay, this means you would believe that the thin sea floor around the Hawaiian Islands would be a good place to drill for oil.

Im a BM wrote:
I actually read something written by a scientifically illiterate moron who insisted that there actually ARE productive oil wells tapping the magic petroleum that comes up so easily there due to the position of the "hot spot" under the Pacific sea floor around these islands.

Im a BM wrote:
It is amazing how delusional some people are.

This freakin' IDIOT actually claimed that there are productive oil wells around Hawaii!

Im a BM wrote:
I predict he will stand by the moronic assertion that abiotic petroleum generation in the Earth's crust is REAL and accounts for some measurable fraction of the total oil to be found. YES, even in Hawaii, he will insist.

Im a BM wrote:
Then when asked WHERE in Hawaii can one find the magic petroleum wells?

Im a BM wrote:
He'll simply say, "RQAA". Because if you blinked when he wrote it the first time, it's your responsibility to go back and figure out where it was hidden.