Oil molecule contains huge amount of energy in it's bonds. We put
this energy to use by breaking down these bonds via oxidation aka
burning. The law of conservation of energy states that energy
cannot be created or destroyed. It simply changes it's forms. So in
order for a molecule to contain energy, the molecule has to be the
result of a process capable of delivering such amount of energy.
Organic decay simply does not generate necessary amount of energy
to produce oil. Thermodynamic calculation shows that oil can only
be created at temperatures and pressures found deep inside a
planet, far deeper than any fossil remains could be present. It is
quite obvious that oil is a by- product of geothermal activity.
So according to this logic, you don’t believe that coal is a fossil
fuel either? After all, breaking its chemical bonds also liberates a
large amount of energy. Or does “organic decay” generate enough
energy for coal, but not for oil? Actually, organic decay doesn’t
generate hydrocarbons, it concentrates them by removing impurities.
In the case of coal, it leaves a relatively pure form of carbon
behind, which when rapidly oxidized creates heat and CO2. Or is it
your position that coal was also created by mysterious inorganic
geothermal processes? And that God put all those fossils of organic
life forms in it to test our faith?
The “abiotic” theory of oil’s origin has been around for a while,
and was revived by the Soviet Union in its anti-scientific phase, but
has overwhelmingly been discarded by geologists. Contrary to the
predictions of its proponents, oil stubbornly refuses to be found at
great depths or in igneous rocks, but is often found in the locations
indicated by conventional geology - mostly depressions in the earth
where ancient seas would have deposited large quantities of dead
algae, which were subsequently covered over by more recent rock
strata.
Coal can be converted into oil by subjecting it to heat and
pressure, much like that found inside the earth (not at any
particularly great depth, but typical of the places it’s found.) Some
shales (sedimentary fossiliferous rocks, not formed deep inside the
planet) also can contain significant amounts of oil, which can be
extracted by relatively simple methods involving heat and pressure.
Most proponents of the abiotic oil origin theory admit that oil can
have been produced from biomass; they just say it’s not the only way
it can happen. Taking the position that abiotic oil is the only sort
that’s possible puts you in a tiny minority way out on the fringes of
science, most of whom are long since discredited and deceased. Are
you sure you don’t want to revisit those thermodynamic calculations
of yours, find your errors, and slowly back away from this one? (Nah,
didn’t think so…)
So according to this logic, you don't believe that coal is a
fossil fuel either?
It is not logic, it is hard science. It is thermo-dynamically
impossible to produce oil via decay of organic matter. Can’t say
anything about coal. Never looked at it in details. Considering huge
disparity in density of coal and oil, there may be some basis, or may
be not.
The "abiotic" theory of oil's origin has been around for a while,
and was revived by the Soviet Union in its anti-scientific phase,
but has overwhelmingly been discarded by geologists.
There is a lot of negative can be said about Soviet Union, but been
anti-scientific is not one of them. Science had always been revered
there, so you need to check your sources. And if you look where do
they drill for oil in Ukraine for instance, it would become quite
obvious how nonsensical your statements are.
Coal can be converted into oil by subjecting it to heat and
pressure, much like that found inside the earth (not at any
particularly great depth, but typical of the places it's found.)
There is no secret how to make synthetic oil. The problem is to make
it economically. One has to put in more energy than one can get out
of it. And it is exactly as predicted by non-organic (abiotic) theory
of oil origin.
Coal can be converted into oil by subjecting it to heat and
pressure, much like that found inside the earth (not at any
particularly great depth, but typical of the places it's found.)
According to you theory then, God can create a baby in a mother’s
womb or in a lab in a petrie dish. Is it still a baby even if it has
been created in a different way than you thought before? Or, is it
not a baby after all.
Problem with the thermodynamic calculations is they only look at the
bonds in the start and end product and then the energy taken to
reverse engineer the molecule. We dont make synthetic oil out of
water and carbon dioxide, coal or plant material is used.
Photosynthesis is a bloody clever process, likewise fermentation and
in the lab this is used to make the precursors for other more
complicated molecules that would be next to impossible to produce by
other methods but no-one argues that drug molecules are formed by
vulcanism.
I have seen a Nobel laureate struggle to use an electric pencil
sharpener but he didnt argue that they cant possibly work because he
couldnt make it work. Nick royall
The Russian “prospectors” for oil have never given up on the abiotic
theory of oil. And as for the production of synthetic oil, ask
someone from South Africa how efficent SASOL 1 and SASOL 2 were. Of
course, if they had given up on the internal combustion engine and
been content to run their cars via steam produced by coal, they might
not have ventured into syn oil in the first place. Now, can we find
an alternative theory as to how to produce gold or diamonds and put
it into production economically? Now I need to get back to cutting
porcelain tile for the kitchen floor.
WhoooHooo, Bit of a leap here,no? I thought that babies actually
grew from the fertilisation of an egg by a sperm, which induced cell
division and differentiation, eventually developing into a baby.The
fertilization can be in a womb or in vitro but if viable, the result
is a human child. Either imaginary or real intermediaries might have
some input but it is essentially a natural process, without direct
and personalized divine intervention.
Actually, biotic theories of oil formation don’t rely on decay to
produce high energy compounds. The compounds are produced in living
tissue which is later converted by decay into oil and coal.
And you don’t even have to have decay to get petroleum like
compounds. Many plants can be harvested for natural lipids.
(Everything from some species of algae to seeds like soy, sunflower,
peanuts, etc.) That’s the basis of biodiesel, after all.