/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8156707
Please return to your containment board.

>>8156707
I needed to take my tin foil hat off to use to smoke dope off of. Sorry.

whats supposed to happen ?

>>8156707
Learn how to link, faggot.
>>>/x/thread/17831154

waiting for the links and overview OP

>>8156707
what the fuck did I just read?

>>8156707
I'm very disappointed by your thread OP. I love reading about zanny conspiracy theories, and yours doesn't even have a factual element in it. You're just proposing to call oil "blood" for some reason, but you're not explaining what it is that blood would carry.

I rate it 3/10 on the Timecube scale.

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?

What would be the purpose of classifying the Earth as a living being if it doesn't actively respond to stimuli?

Why is its blood petroleum? Why not magma? The Earth has a lot more magma than petroleum.

>>8156707
>>8156747
fuck off retard

>>8156747
A planet is not alive by any remotely scientific definition of the word. Abiogenic petroleum, should any significant amount actually exist, has no bearing on this. How would an abiotic chemical reaction be evidence of "living earth" anyway?

In short, this is /x/ bullshit, so go back there.

>>8156747
yeah research into entropy

>oil is blood of the Earth

Blood only functions is a medium to carry nutrients through the body. For this it MUST circulate in a circulatory system. Oil in the earth is stagnant and trapped in pockets. It's more accurate to compare oil to pus, cyst, or a zit. And we're here to pop it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKM7fmLnypU

now get the fuck off /sci/

>>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.

>>8156791
Learn how to logic, you dunce.

>>8156791
>Planet Earth is host to Carbon Based Life. And the Main component of petroleum is Carbon
lots of hydrogen in there too mate, why are you ignoring that?

>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.
You do realize an abiogenic reaction literally means a chemical reaction that occurs sponatously and without the assistance or influence of anything living? You're literally working against yourself. More importantly, the planet does not create ANY carbon*. All the Earth's carbon was created by a long dead star(s). In addition, petroleum does not "replenish" the biosphere in any way, or at least it didn't until we started burning the stuff. Carbon in the biosphere is sourced from atmospheric CO2, meaning that prior to humans burning petroleum, fossil fuels were just a sink for carbon. Storing it away were life can't use it.

>Adding to this is the obvious similarity in the appearance of human blood and crude petroleum
They're both liquids, that's literally the only visual similarity. They have completely different colors, turbidity and viscosity.


*There may be some fission process that makes carbon here on Earth, I don't know nearly enough to say either way. If it does exist, its negligible.

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

>>8156823
You have to post a scientific statement to get a scientific response. "blood and oil kinda look alike, therefore Earth is alive" is not scientific, its retarded.

>>8156823
>make pants-on-head retarded conjecture
>expect serious responses

Get out.

>>8156823
Oh yeah?

>>8156823
It's bedtime, kiddo. Gotta rest up for middle school.

>>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.

>>8156823
I told you read up on entropy. then we can talk science, you need to understand how entropy works first

>>8156823
>expecting one board of 4chan to be drastically different from other boards of 4chan because the title is more brainy
Other than that....
>>8156830
>>8156833

>>8156877
Make your point already.

Gaia Hypothesis is legit, but petroleum is not even close to being "blood of the earth". That's taking a good idea and inserting stupid into it. The idea that previous forms of life set the stage for more complex life(oxygenating the atmosphere), is neato torpedo, and I think the emergence of intelligence is again setting the stage for even more complex life(or artificial life) far in the future. Or maybe not so far.

>>8156884
my point is people who wish to construct a scientifically based conspiracy theory are too lazy to read the science and just want the fame, bitches and money.

>>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.

>>8156892
>wikipedia
>accepted internet archive
oh my keks

>>8156868
Im sorry op but you clearly have absolutely no background in chemistry. If plants could use hydrocarbons from petroleum, say, like fucking hexane, why then would they photosynthesize and obtain their carbon from CO2. Youre literally saying plants and life can use petroleum as a source of energy to grow, which is absolutely retarded

>>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.

OP, I think the board you were looking for was /tg/. Maybe they would roleplay this being possible with you. You could set it in CoC and you could be a that film noir detective working against big fish oil.

>>8156919

>plants grow on hydrocarbons

u wot

I didn't realize that the tomato plants I'm growing in pots in my living room get watered with crude oil. I finally realized I'm doing it all wrong.

>>8156920
Yeah,this seems like a grest idea for a CoC campaing with earth as a great old one: Terrha would be the new great old one and the investigators would try to fight it. Already decided what my next session will be about

>>8156919

Also, try watering a plant with hexane and tell me how that ends up.

I would urge anyone considering replying to this conspiratard to read the /x/ thread linked in the original post and take a look at some of the ridiculous shit this guy and others are saying. I had never spent much time on /x/ before and after today I doubt I'll be returning any time soon unless someone else like OP shows up on /sci/ again.
Here's my favorite thing that he's had to say so far:
"
>Oil doesn't do anything for the Earth.
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.
"

>>8156942
You are quoting Albert Einstein, Isaac M
Newton or Stephen Hawking there? I think that may be the fourth law of thermosynamics if im not mistaken

>>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?

>>8156961
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

>>8156967
Don't worry, OP will come in here with some woo about how we all have an inherent purpose in the universe because of the life-force that ties us together

>>8156968
yeah how could i forget the fith law of thermodynamics " Gravity doesnt exist, the earth is flat, theres a life force that ties us humans and our souls, H2O = Hg and that because H2O = Hg | 2O = G | 2 = G/O and because there is no gravity G = 0 so 2 = 0. Almost had forgotten that one

luddite status

>>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

>>8156961
>Obviously, anon didn't explain or answer anything
There's literally an answer two posts below that. It's quoted and everything.

>>8156991
Oh, so you're a troll.

>>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.

>>8157014
So you didn't read the whole post

>>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?

>>8157040
Different anon here, not interested in the debate. But for your information, the few intelligent people here tend to be frustrated by a relatively high percentage of threads being "please disprove my theory extrapolated from wiki articles with real scientific papers for me." It's kind of a bit of work, and it's work that you should be capable of yourself before sharing.

>>8157056
I am not asking /sci/ to prove or disprove anything.
And if you had taken the liberty of actually reading my first two post you would know that.

>>8156707
>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.

>>8156747
>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 other words; I asked for an examination of my claims and the evidence I posted to back it up.

And if you consider wikipedia is not evidence then see:
>>8156919
>well, give me an scientifically accepted online archive and I'll look up all my posted links there to corroborate.

>>8156856
Nice sage, bro

God, I fucking hate /x/ so much. Get off of this fucking board. Wikipedia is not a credible source. No one will give a counter argument that's in anyway scientific; your claim is shit, and anyone who researches a counter argument is an autist unable to form an argument. Please, stop spamming shit like this on the board. It's not science and needs to fucking stay on /x/.

>>8157104
>Wikipedia is not a credible source.


Hey, faggot.
Do you know how to read or do you need some help?


And if you consider wikipedia is not evidence then see:
>>8156919
>well, give me an scientifically accepted online archive and I'll look up all my posted links there to corroborate.

>>8157099
Ty bro. Sage in all fields.

>>8157120
Typical /x/ faggot, wanting to be spoonfed.

OP, once again, is the biggest fucking faggot.

>>8157137
>>8157142
wow, your science is amazing

>>8157154
Sure is. Back to your hole >>>/x/

>>8157176
If anything, you are the one that belongs there.

None of you have posted any refutal backed by evidence. All you have done is insult and ridicule, exactly like you do when you go low key shitposting on /x/.

>I hereby appoint myself emperor of /sci/.

>>8157189
Hey I'm not that guy, but I haven't been attempting to be scientific. I just hate name/trip fags and want to piss you off so much that you leave.

>>8157198
It's probably kingchem with a new trip.
>>8157189
fuck off faggot.
read a book nigger.

>>8157206
Better than the fucking fairy queen I guess

>>8157189
People here are trying to make you leave and are just shitposting. This obviously won't work because you are either completely retarded or also shitposting.

>>8157198
>I haven't been attempting to be scientific.
Nobody has.

>I just hate name/trip fags
Why would you put more emphasis on the device used to avoid impersonation and disruption of the information posted, rather than the information itself?

>and want to piss you off so much that you leave.
Not gonna happen, sorry. all you are achieving is the complete opposite.
All you are doing is amusing me and feeding my ego because none can refute my arguments in a decent and evidence backed manner.

>>8157219
I know your ego is being fed. There are 22 unique posters in this thread calling you autistic. No one agrees with you. You still think are fucking right though. You are obviously delusional and not worth responding to, but it's so fun to know a person like this exists.

>>8157229
>No one agrees with you.
im not asking anybody to agree with me.
>>8156707 (OP)
>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.


>You still think are fucking right though
Of course I fucking do believe I am right.
Your behaviour proves me right.
This is /sci/ yet all of you incessantly shitpost and insult me without even addressing my points and arguments. You are a joke.

>>8157219
>"hurr you're reaaaaallly scientific! #sarcastic XD"
>Oh I know nobody has been trying to be scientific
..?

I care about the namefagging because anonymity is what makes people regard all information with equal judgment. For some reason you pretend people care that it's "you" posting on a Hungarian blood sausage weighing board.

Kek, so many namefags say shit like "you won't get me to leave" but it always happens eventually.

>>8157036
I'm not going to read your /x/ thread, sorry, but I'll try to put you on the right track for building a scientific paper on your theory.
There is this concept called Occam's Razor, which states that the theory with the least assumptions is probably the truest one. Granted, the statement doesn't always hold, but I think you'll agree with me that less assumptions = more believable. Keep this in mind as you move forward
When you refer to "the Earth," what exactly are you referring to? Is it the mantle, core, etc. not including all of the organisms on its surface?
When you say that "the Earth is alive", what do you mean? Do you mean to imply that the Earth is capable of reproduction, or that it is capable of intelligent response to stimuli? Coke is capable of response to mentos, for example, but we would not say that Coke is alive.
Why petroleum, and why blood? Okay, there are loads of carbon in petroleum, but why would you then go to say it was blood? You mention that it helps to sustain the plants on the Earth's surface or something of that nature , but why then is petroleum significant? Plants need sunlight and water as well; are the processes which deliver these nutrients to the plant part of some greater lifeform too? If not, why? Please realize that any perceived superficial similarity of petroleum to blood that you may have is not actually support for your claim. Moreover, petroleum does not flow, nor does it have any properties similar to blood (apart from being a liquid). You might ask me to prove the lack of similarities, but I believe even an elementary understanding of blood is sifficient. The onus is on you, who has the very, very unpopular theory, to come prepared with responses to such basic refutations. You will have a more successful thread if you attach a pastebin to the OP with responses to common queries.
(cont'd)

>>8156929
>>8156932
>>8156888
>>8156910

why u ignoring these posts op

>>8157256 (You)#
Kek, I'm not that guy, but you do realize it shows the (OP) automatically, right? Like, see how retarded my reply to (you) looks? Fucking newfags.

>>8157256
>Of course I fucking do believe I am right.
This is the cringiest part of this entire topic. From the first post on. Science doesn't look to prove itself right, it looks to disprove itself. You cannot prove something right. You can only show failure to prove it wrong. The difference between conspiracy theorists and scientists is that conspiracy theorists are more interested in loose evidence in agreement than rigorous attempts to prove they are wrong.

>>8157262
Because OP is a troll. :,^(

>>8157260
(cont'd)
Of course, with lenient definitions of "the Earth" and what it means for the Earth to be "alive", I could agree with the statement "the Earth is alive". However, I think the same logic might prove that simple chemical reactions prove life for the reactants.
Finally, what is the significance of the Earth being a living organism? If this is something you aren't concerned with, please ignore the question as well as the following ones. Do you think that the discovery that the Earth is alive would have any bearing on our view of the planet?
Do you think that planets, in general, were all alove at some point? How would you apply your logic to determining the whether or not Venus (or Mars) is alive, or does it not apply? Would the presence of petroleum alone imply life?
Are stars possibly alive as well, and how would we determine that? They certainly have a lot flowing within them.

>>8157262
the first two are obviously trolls.
the third one wasn't there. which means tampering with the thread.
and the fourth one i actually quoted.

now if you excuse me, i have to write my answers for >>8157260

>>8157271
Please don't.

>>8157271
Do it OP. Don't listen to >>8157294 because they're a faggot. I need your sweet autism screen shot for memes.

>>8157260
>When you refer to "the Earth," what exactly are you referring to? Is it the mantle, core, etc. not including all of the organisms on its surface?
The whole of it. From the nucleus to the outer reaches of the atmosphere. And its electromagnetic fields.

>When you say that "the Earth is alive", what do you mean?
Read up on the Gaia Hypothesis, and you'll know what i mean.

>why then is petroleum significant?
that comes in for the conspiracy theory part of my original thread on /x/
I stated that "what if" petroleum is actually the planet's blood. Then somebody posted the link on Abiogenic Petroleum, which is further confirmation that petroleum can actually be the planet's blood. Because the planet naturally creating a liquid that contains high levels hydrocarbons; which are the primary building block of life on its surface; is evidence that ( quoting the article on the Gaia Hypotesis) "organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet."

>Plants need sunlight and water as well;
Yes, obviously. Petroleum just supplies the soil plants grow on with carbons, which plants use as nutrients.
An analog to this is how us humans get oxigenated by our blood but also need food and water. its not that hard to comprehend.

>are the processes which deliver these nutrients to the plant part of some greater lifeform too?
see my previous quote.


>Moreover, petroleum does not flow,
You have no way of knowing this, nor proving it to me or anybody else. The whole planet is riddled with miles over miles of caverns.

>nor does it have any properties similar to blood (apart from being a liquid)
colors are similar. texture is similar. they both carry a lot of different chemicals useful to the organism that holds them. both are stored under the surface of the organism.

anything else?

>>8157300
>I need your sweet autism screen shot for memes.
oh, i have one for you, mate

>>8157310
>An analog to this is how us humans get oxigenated by our blood but also need food and water. its not that hard to comprehend
that's not a good analogy
water is also "beneath the surface", which you i assume you mean to say "comes with the organism". why not pick water to be the blood? petroleum is entirely irrelevant to the life of some organisms, or at the very least, no more relevant than water.

>>8156747
>Any input?
Yeah, you're a complete idiot

>>8157325
>that's not a good analogy
that's an opinion.

>why not pick water to be the blood?
what is basic biology?
what is the function of water in our cells as opposed to the function of blood?

in any case, there are also petroleum reserves at the bottom of the ocean. Chemicals from this reserves are obviously filtering through the seabed into the water, and are being used by microorganisms as food and so goes the food chain.

>>8157328
oh, look! more insults. lovely.

I don't get why you react so negatively to this information that could change the world and our society for the better, its like you like being raped by the powers that be.

>>8157368
Take your meds.

>>8157352
>oh, look! more insults
What did you expect kiddo? You come to an science board and make unsubstantiated and unscientific claims. Which you then try to prove by linking unproven hypotheses together.
So you score 10/10 on the chart of oh-my-god-what-a-retarded-dumb-fuck-!

Maybe you should first learn a thing or two about science and the scientific method.

>>8157312
I'm not saying that there isn't shit going beyond that we don't understand. Pointless conjecture like conspiracy theories are not based using any kind of real rationale. It's all shitty guess work.

>>8157368
>>>/x/
Go be with the other delusional nut jobs

>>8157374
This. There are tons of things going on that qualify as conspiracy, but that the fact that conspiracy somewhere exists does not justify believing in, for example, a global flat-earth conspiracy. Conspiracy theorist isn't used to label anyone who suggests any conspiracy exists at all, it's used to label people who are so set on their particular brands of world-wide conspiracy that they disregard plausibility and counter-evidence.

>>8157373
>linking unproven hypotheses together.
hahaha ok lets see how unproven they are.

>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
THAT'S REEEAALY UNPROVEN. RIGHT?

>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.
COMPLETLY UNPROVEN. YEP. DEFINETLY.


ITS LIKE YOU IDIOTS HAVE ONLY HALF A BRAIN. HAHAHAHA

>>8156707
>I need scientific facts to back my views and/or claims.

Arse backwards, buddy. Your views and/or claims need to reflect the scientific facts, not the other way around.
Otherwise your confirmation bias will be leading you around by the nose.

>>8157388
>Your views and/or claims need to reflect the scientific facts

See:
>>8156747
>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.

>>8157387
GAIA HYPOTHESIS NOT ENTIRELY CONTRADICTED
GAIA HYPOTHESIS PROVEN
SCIENCE BTFO
REMEMBER THE DAY

I lost 63 IQ points since i started reading this thread.
And since IQ is 100% genetic, that's quite the feat, OP.

>>8157388
Don't bother, he's shown consistently throughout the thread he has no fucking clue what confirmation bias is or how the scientific method works, anything in the way of HIS AMAZING DISCOVERY obviously out to get him.
>>8157392 Case in point.

>>8157396
if i am wrong, like you said; it shouldn't be hard for you to post some FACTS that completely and undoubtedly PROVE me wrong.

BUT. EVERYTHING you have posted so far is utter shit, insults and disrespect.

NOT A SINGLE LINK HAS BEEN POSTED BY ANY OF YOU TO REFUTE MY ARGUMENTS. NO DATA. NO SCIENTIFIC FACT HAS BEEN POSTED BY ANY ONE OF YOU.

>>8157396
Sometimes you've just gotta try... Somewhere in there is a rational human bean just begging to be dug out from under that lifetime of gullibility!

>>8157403
>autism, the post

>>8157403
>NOT A SINGLE LINK HAS BEEN POSTED BY ANY OF YOU TO REFUTE MY ARGUMENTS. NO DATA. NO SCIENTIFIC FACT HAS BEEN POSTED BY ANY ONE OF YOU.

Sorry buddy. Arse backwards again. You are making the claim, you need to provide the evidence. The serious posts to you have raised their issues with the links you provided and you've heartily ignored them. Instead, you need to address the issues and try again later.

>>8157411
Great refutal.

>>8157310
>the whole planet is riddled with miles over miles of caverns.

Petroleum doesn't lay in caverns. And it's quite easy to determine it doesn't flow. Just inject a marker and watch how it diffuses.

>>8157415
>you need to provide the evidence.
i did provide peer reviewed studies by award winning scientists.

> In 2006, the Geological Society of London awarded Lovelock the Wollaston Medal in part for his work on the Gaia hypothesis

Try harder.

>The serious posts to you have raised their issues with the links you provided and you've heartily ignored them

See:
>>8156919
>well, give me an scientifically accepted online archive and I'll look up all my posted links there to corroborate.

Still waiting. Try even harder.

>>8156747
Carbon is one of the most common elements in the universe.

There's, thus, probably a whole lotta abiogenic petroleum out there. We know it happens, we just don't think it happens in significant quantities to be a factor in the oil we use when set next to the goads of biogenic petroleum laying about. (Nor do we expect to find asteroids or other planets full of it - though diamonds are another thing.)

How one leaps from a complex chemical chain that can, really, happen just about anywhere in the universe warm enough, to "THE BLOOD OF GIA" is a whole other thing though. Can't really discuss the latter within the scope of /sci/.

>>8157426
Brah, petroleum kills planets. Petroleum kills just about everything, with a few fungal and bacterial exceptions, that aren't exactly prolific.

Most plants live off nitrates and phosphates in the soil, coupled with photosynthesis.

>>8157426
>being this much in denial
>being this autistic

>>8157426
Ooooh, ok. So this is based entirely on your misunderstanding of what the gaia hypothesis is.. got it!

Gaia Hypothesis: Life on earth regulates the habitability of earth

That is the extent of Lovelock's claim. He doesn't claim that the earth itself is a distinct living organism. (Except in the hand-waviest way, meant only to be poetic.)

>>8157441
kills plants* rather

Though, I suppose you could kill planets, with the right application - especially if you listen to the climate change shills.

>>8157431
>There's, thus, probably a whole lotta abiogenic petroleum out there. We know it happens
You are Admitting I'm right.

>we just don't think it happens
Science is not "what you think". Where are the facts to back your claims? Counterarguments need evidence to back them up, you scrub.

>How one leaps from a complex chemical chain that can, really, happen just about anywhere in the universe warm enough, to "THE BLOOD OF GIA" is a whole other thing though.

You will know if you read the information on the subject, which i provided links for. Instead of acting like a child and posting insults like a fat angry americunt.

>>8157310
Petroleum is ~98% hydrocarbons, which plants do not need to extract from the soil to grow.
It is actually fairly difficuly to grow plants on soil that is contaminated by hydrocarbons (e.g. oil and oil products).
Just this simple fact crushes your entire theory.

>>8157450
Jeeze, and I was trying to be nice.

The links I'm seeing from you:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Don't lead to any such conclusion.

Petroleum is toxic to almost all life.

As the very abiogenic petroleum article you link suggests, while it happens, the prevailing evidence is that it doesn't happen enough, compared to the biogenic sources. Abiogenic petrol is rarer than uranium.

...and the Gia hypothesis doesn't suggest the Earth itself is a single living organism, only that life collectively regulates life.

Even if it did, and abiogenic petrol was common, there's no way to go from there, to a toxic substance being the life blood of the planet. There's a lot more granite, pumus, and iron flowing around this rock, and you don't somehow jump to the conclusion that any one of those is the blood of the goddess.

Though I suppose it's much more commonly, and much more accurately, said of water.

>>8157441
Petroleum kills when misused by humans. Not while acting out its natural purpose.

Try drinking a gallon of your own blood, see what happens.

>>8157443
Obviously, you are trolling. But you unknowingly got real close to understanding.

Please tell us what thing do you know that :
uses its individual parts and foreign materials to form a synergistic self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for its life?

>>8157460
>Try drinking a gallon of your own blood, see what happens.
Well, assuming I siphoned it off slowly over a few months and stored it proper, and didn't drink the whole gallon at once, it'd be pretty nutritious, actually.

But petroleum is toxic whether its source is natural or man made. Lakes, rivers, small plots of ocean, and the entire ecosystems surrounding them have literally been destroyed when erosion gives way to natural crude oil seepage. It isn't even terribly unusual, and often more destructive than even the Exxon Valdez incident. Shit's toxic, regardless of where it comes from.

>>8157460
This is the poetic hand-waveyness I was talking about... Twisting someone else's words to try and make it fit your cracked pot is extremely dishonest. I'm convinced you care more about "winning" arguments instead of being actually right.

>>8157468
I see you ignored the RELEVANT FACT, so i'll post it again for you.

Petroleum kills when misused by humans. Not while acting out its natural purpose.

> I'm convinced you care more about "winning" arguments instead of being actually right.
I AM right. I already won.

Now, please answer my question.
What thing do you know that :
uses its individual parts and foreign materials to form a synergistic self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for its life?

I can give you a hint if you're struggling. ;)

I see you ignored the RELEVANT FACT, so i'll post it again for you.

Petroleum kills when misused by humans. Not while acting out its natural purpose.


>>8157476
> I'm convinced you care more about "winning" arguments instead of being actually right.
I AM right. I already won.

Now, please answer my question.
What thing do you know that :
uses its individual parts and foreign materials to form a synergistic self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for its life?

I can give you a hint if you're struggling. ;)

>>8157468
I see you ignored the RELEVANT FACT, so i'll post it again for you.

Petroleum kills when misused by humans. Not while acting out its natural purpose.


>>8157476
> I'm convinced you care more about "winning" arguments instead of being actually right.
I AM right. I already won.

Now, please answer my question.
What thing do you know that :
uses its individual parts and foreign materials to form a synergistic self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for its life?

I can give you a hint if you're struggling. ;)

>>8157486
>Petroleum kills when misused by humans. Not while acting out its natural purpose.
I already pointed out to you that petroleum kills, in nature, without mankind being involved.

If you wanted to call water the blood of all life on the planet, you might be onto something. But petroleum is about as anti-life as substances get. It's like zombified dead toxic black goo come back to kill the living, save when harnessed by man to actually do something constructive.

>>8157495
> Not while acting out its natural purpose.
And what's that?

>>8157486
Taking a dump in the middle of the court mid-game does not constitute winning, nor is this something that can be won. You can continue to be demonstrably wrong with your fingers in your ears and your mind on your pet theory, if you really really want to. The only person it hurts is you.

Also, your question is attempting to insert the earth as a whole into the category of living things, which it is not. Learn that things have accepted definitions and stretching those definitions only makes you look dishonest.

>>8157498
>I already pointed out to you that petroleum kills, in nature, without mankind being involved.
Where is petroleum naturally located? Which is petroleum's natural location?
UNDERGROUND.
In deep holes and caverns of the Earth.

What does petroleum kill in its natural place deep underground?
NOTHING.

Geez, It's like dealing with little kids.

>>8157507
...you know blood is used quite extensively by the body right?
The Earth does nothing with petroleum

>>8157507
There's this thing called erosion. That black goo comes to the surface in all sorts of ways, and when crude oil seeps into an ecosystem, through entirely natural means, as it often does, it kills everything in it.

It's not as if man first discovered oil when he just happened to be drilling 10,000 foot deep holes one days. This shit comes to the surface all over the place, and it's never good when it does. (Lest you happen to be the Beverly Hill Billies.)

>>8157506
>Taking a dump in the middle of the court mid-game does not constitute winning
Should I start quoting all your posts containing insults and blatant disrespect? Because they perfectly qualify for that analogy.


>Also, your question is attempting to
my question is attempting to get an answer, which you have not provided.

I'll post it again for you,

What thing do you know that :
>uses its individual parts and foreign materials to form a synergistic self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for its life?

>>8157516
He may as well just re-quote himself to you as well, as he already explained it to you. The theory merely states that life is dependent on life. That the biosphere is sustained by the life within it in cyclical fashion. That does not equate to "The Earth is Alive" - as the Earth will go on, whether the biosphere can sustain life or not.

>>8157524
...although if the Earth were alive...

ALL HAIL HELLSTAR REMINA!

>>8157516
Level of perceived disrespect does not change the content. And your attitude dooms you to remain wrong. Do you apply this attitude to all aspects of your life, I wonder? Teacher says you got a math problem wrong, do you argue the point despite being shown the answer? Cashier doesn't smile at you as they ring up $5 for a $5 item, do you then argue with the that it's actually $4? Cop says "get on the fucking ground" do you talk back?

I addressed your question appropriately. It is a dishonest attempt at including something in a category it does not belong.

>>8157527
D-do we get to sacrifice virgins to it?

>>8157533
Yes please!

>>8157512
>There's this thing called erosion. That black goo comes to the surface in all sorts of ways, and when crude oil seeps into an ecosystem, through entirely natural means, as it often does, it kills everything in it.

Yeah, this may be true. But, there is a reason why it happens naturally.
Like when you cut yourself. Blood is not supposed to be outside of you; But it flows out through the cut to serve its natural purpose and help it heal.
You can not tell me, or prove to my why petroleum flows out to the surface naturally. It can be to come in contact with the elements present on the athmosphere, or to distribute its chemicals to the area where the leak happens.
But one thing is clear. NONE of us can say, without a doubt, the exact purpose of such a thing.

>>8157524
>The theory merely states that life is dependent on life.
>That the biosphere is sustained by the life within it in cyclical fashion.

Hypotesis. Its called Gaia Hypotesis.
Anyway. You said it yourself, life is dependent on life. Only a living planet can harbor life of its own.

> the Earth will go on, whether the biosphere can sustain life or not.
OBVIOUSLY.

>>8157528
>It is a dishonest attempt at including something in a category it does not belong.

>Teacher says you got a math problem wrong
>Cashier doesn't smile
>Cop says

hahahaa, ok

>>8157537
>But one thing is clear. NONE of us can say, without a doubt, the exact purpose of such a thing.
Purpose is a spook. Only man creates and assigns purpose.

Function, maybe, but crude oil has no function within the natural biosphere, except to destroy. It'd be simple enough to prove how petroleum flows to the surface, but to say why would be an entirely manufactured conjecture. We just know the result is usually lots of death.

>OBVIOUSLY.
Then it obviously isn't alive. It thus has no blood. One can look at the biosphere and the chemical components within it as a single organism, but even if one were to do so, petroleum, natural or otherwise, is a poison to that organism. (Save maybe in the age of man, and only insomuch as he has found a use for it, countered by the further poisoning the effort causes.)

>>8157542
Man, I really hope you learn one day. Seeing people like you, living in your fantasy world, depresses me so much.

>>8157545
>Purpose is a spook. Only man creates and assigns purpose.
>Function, maybe, but crude oil has no function within the natural biosphere
Both are baseless claims.

>Then it obviously isn't alive
Oh my, another baseless claim.

remember kids. counterarguments need facts to back them up

>>8157546
read your own post many, many ,many times over.

>>8157554
>baseless claims
Then prove to me the existence of something else that creates and defines purpose, find me another function for crude oil in nature, and explain to me how something can be alive without life.

2/3 of those could win you messiah-hood.

>>8156747
>Any input?
yes, are you fucking retarded?

Ladies, ladies, when are you going to learn that you can't argue with someone unwilling to be wrong? You could go on about how every word in his claim is subject to definition, "life", "blood", "purpose", but the heart of the matter is that anyone with a brain is more interested in disproving their theory than proving it. You have come up with something USEFUL when attempts to disprove it do not stick.

>>8156707

Oh shit. Hahahaha
I have actually read the whole thread.

I myself have absolutely no motivation to argue with this retard, but to everyone who wants to have a nice discussion with op and maybe tries to help op in his retardness

One thing becomes clear: Op is a fucking uneducated double IQ digit brainlet. The only way to help him would be to explain the whole processes involved WITH WIKIPEDIA SOURCES.

1.)OP needs to learn the link between oil and hydrocarbons
2.)OP needs to learn he distribution and geology of oil
3.)OP needs to learn how plants work on a biological 8th grade level
4.)OP needs to learn what blood is on a 10th grade level
5.)OP needs to learn what ground water is and its geology, circulation and composition.

tl;dr
Op is a 80-90 IQ high school dropout.
But don't be mad OP, you have the chance to learn something here and not one day produce kids which lower the human survival chance

>>8157646

I find it utterly disturbing to read what op thinks.
I mean, if op is over the age of maybe 18 or 20 he is a completely lost cause. He will never in his life produce any meta value for society.
Sure he will maybe make his friends laugh and let them feel better about themselves, or he will maybe farm some vegetables in a gardening projects for retards (and possibly make a lot of people sick because he watered the plants with crude oil)

This is a real problem of our society I think. There should be programs in place for every citizen easily accessible which produce a life long education. Maybe there will be a whole new economy around educating the people who are less educated than yourself after the robots kill 90% of all jobs.

Like a pyramid of student-teacher interconnections