/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8157031
Of course i read it. Its a bunch of claims without evidence to back them up.

I posted links to back up all my claims.

ARE YOU GOING TO BACK UP YOUR REFUTALS WITH FACTS? OR ARE YOU GOING TO NITPICK MY POSTS WITHOUT ADDRESSING MY INITIAL CLAIM IN A TRULY SCIENTIFIC WAY?

>>8156997
>There's literally an answer two posts below that. It's quoted and everything.

Sure, there is.
>pic related

And as you can see that answer(the only one that can be considered scientific and backed by facts) is the one that gave me the link on Abiogenic Petroleum.

Verify the thread if you like.

>>8156967
>Ya know that not everything has a reason to exist right? Like you and me, why do we exist? Whats our purpose in the universe? Does the universe/earth care? You are just trying to create conections that don't exist

Check the address bar in your browser, mate. This isn't /x/

This is /sci/, but none of you have posted anything remotely scientific. None of you have addressed any of my points with valid evidence.
What's wrong, kids? haha

>>8156942
>Mind explaining that one? How do you know it serves no purpose? Why would it be there if it has no purpose?
>I think you are just repeating what the government says. But I could be wrong; go ahead, explain.

As you can see, I gave that Anon a chance to explain and answer my questions. Obviously, anon didn't explain or answer anything. So, what's your point?

>>8156905
well, give me an scientifically accepted online archive and I'll look up all my posted links there to corroborate. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

>>8156910
>Youre literally saying plants and life can use petroleum as a source of energy to grow,

Wrong. I'm saying that the petroleum flowing underground provides hydrocarbons to the soil the plants grow on.

>>8156879
>>expecting one board of 4chan to be drastically different from other boards of 4chan because the title is more brainy

haha true. but since everyone at /x/ is always asking for proof. I intend to bring it. hence my posting here.

>>8156830
>You have to post a scientific statement to get a scientific response.

I DID post Scientific data, complete with links from an accepted internet archive.

>>8156877
Make your point already.

>>8156820
>lots of hydrogen in there too mate, why are you ignoring that?
Quoting from the provided link on petroleum
"It consists of hydrocarbons of various molecular weights and other organic compounds."
Did you even examine the source material?

>You do realize an abiogenic reaction literally means a chemical reaction that occurs sponatously and without the assistance or influence of anything living?
Exactly. The Earth creates its own source of Hydrocarbons that enriches the soil plants grow on with the chemical compounds they use as food.
This is quite akin to how blood in humans flows through the body to provide oxigen to the surrounding cells.

All this, in turn, is supporting evidence for the Gaia Hypotesis.

I have to say, I am IMPRESSED by the EXTREMELY SCIENTIFIC replies im getting here.

>>8156758
>>8156763
>>8156772

Planet Earth is host to Carbon Based Life. And the Main component of petroleum is Carbon.

Abiogenic petroleum would prove that the planet creates its own supply of carbon, and makes it flow under the soil to replenish the outer biosphere with its main building block.

This is quite akin to the creation and function of blood in us humans. But it obviously won't be the exact same process, as the difference in size and composition of a human and its host planet must be factored in.

Adding to this is the obvious similarity in the appearance of human blood and crude petroleum.

My claim is that petroleum [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum ] is the blood of Planet Earth. Meaning that the Earth is actually a Living being as stated by the Gaia Hypotesis. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis ]

In that thread someone posted about Abiogenic Petroleum in the thread. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin ]
Which is petroleum formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms.

Abiogenic petroleum is the proof that the Gaia Hypotesis is true, and more than a mere hypotesis.
But. Both ideas are being refuted despite all the evidence supporting them.

Quoting from the wikipedia links:
- For the Abiogenic Petroleum
>Scientists in the former Soviet Union widely held that significant petroleum deposits could be attributed to abiogenic origin, though this view fell out of favor toward the end of the 20th century because they did not make useful predictions for the discovery of oil deposits.

- For the Gaia Hypotesis
The hypothesis was initially criticized for being teleological and contradicting principles of natural selection, but later refinements resulted in ideas framed by the Gaia hypothesis being used in fields such as Earth system science, biogeochemistry, systems ecology, and the emerging subject of geophysiology. Nevertheless, the Gaia hypothesis continues to attract criticism, and today some scientists consider it to be only weakly supported by, or at odds with, the available evidence. In 2006, the Geological Society of London awarded Lovelock the Wollaston Medal in part for his work on the Gaia hypothesis.

I'm sure I don't need to explain what is wrong with these two quotes.

Any input?

Greetings /sci/,
I am visiting here from the paranormal board where I made a 'what if' thread with a tone of conspiracy about Petroleum and the Gaia Hypotesis.

boards.4chan.org/x/thread/17831154

I would like a scientific perspective on this because if i am going to prove a conspiracy theory, I need scientific facts to back my views and/or claims.

I will post all the links i'm working with and a brief overview of my claims.

Alright, let's go.