Oil not from the Dinosaurs after all?
Dr. Gold strongly believes that oil is a 'renewable, primordial soup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attached by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs.'"=Interesting, read the whole article. I certainly have no expertise in evaluating these claims, although assuming the facts are as represented something is going on here. (via Vodkapundit)
posted by Dave Justus | 9/29/2005 12:22:00 PM
4 Comments:
This perplexed me...so I went to a higher power, my professor of geology (phd etc.). According to him, Gold has been pushing this research for a long time. It isn't supported by many reputable scientists though. Apparently, there are many (complicated) things that fly in the face of evidence. One of the simpler things he explained last night is that if you look at living animals and plants, we have hemoglobin and chlorophyll respectively. In humans or animals, hemoglobin carries iron, in chlorophyll, some other metal (bear with me). In petroleum, we can trace, with ease, the byproducts and breakdowns of this chemical structure to show that it comes from organic matter. My professor explained that while he appreciates Golds questions, it isn't supported by any of the evidence.
As background, he worked as a professional geologist in the petroleum and nuclear industries before teaching at Penn. Fairly reliable I'd say.
Just thought I'd share.
Interesting stuff Katinula, although I am not surprised, the article makes it clear that this theory is currently very controversial.
The biggest thing in it's favor to me is if these oil reservoirs are refilling it has to be coming from somewhere. Unless another theory can explain it, that lends some support to this theory.
It also seems from the article, although this is hard to evaluate for sure, that this theory is gaining adherents in the petroleum community. That is a sign that a theory may become generally accepted. We all know that this takes time, and established scientists are slow (and rightfully so often) to abandon their existing models.
I don't count myself a 'believer' in this, but it is a theory I will keep an eye on and watch how it evolves. Most radical new scientific theories are just plain wrong of course, but occassionally they are right and it often takes a generation before they become commonly accepted.
Let's talk about this seriously:
it's crap. It's a case of creationists making an effort to justify their "science." The only reason Gold doesn't buy the dinosaurs-to-oil theory is because he doesn't think the earth is old enough to have progressed through such long-term geological events.
I looked up a bit on Gold. He has been spectacularly right on occasion (identifing radio signals as distant galaxies) and spectacularly wrong on occassion (steady state universe, deep dust on the moon) but he is a very respected scientist in a number of disciplines. Google him, pretty amazing.
One thing he certainly is not is a 'young earth creationist.'
Post a Comment
<< Home