Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I knew this thread would end up here sooner or later. That's why in my very first post I asked "Are we supposed to shut up about this too?"
No, you don't have to shut up. But refusing to accept established science simply because it's all sciencey isn't going to get you a lot of praise from those of us who value science. You can yell it from the mountaintops. But some science nerd is going to come up behind you and say, "Um, that's not true, and here are the facts..." So you don't need to "shut up about this too," but neither do I. See how that works? And as much as it is your right to deny science, many of us feel that we must defend it. Now more than ever, unfortunately. And the wacky thing about science is this: if new information comes forward (verified, provable, real information), we change with it. But we don't have to replace scientific thought with "and then magic happened."
The post you quoted mostly means that science IS. Facts exist. They do NOT require your acceptance to be facts. You don't have to believe it, this isn't Peter Pan. It IS, whether you believe it or not. Think of all the facts out there you (the general "you," that is) don't know about--are they untrue because you haven't believed them yet? No. They ARE.
The old "Sinclair" sign wasn't meant to be taken that literally.
"Drive with care, and buy Sinclair"
Mr. Foster's Sinclair station was a block and a half from my house. They had a soda machine out front that kept the bottles of soda at just the right temperature that they formed soft ice crystals when opened.
It became a BP station, then closed before I got my driver's license, so I never got to buy fuel there.
Mr. Foster's Sinclair station was a block and a half from my house. They had a soda machine out front that kept the bottles of soda at just the right temperature that they formed soft ice crystals when opened.
It became a BP station, then closed before I got my driver's license, so I never got to buy fuel there.
Take a drive out to Colorado, plenty of Sinclair stations out there.
No, you don't have to shut up. But refusing to accept established science simply because it's all sciencey isn't going to get you a lot of praise from those of us who value science. You can yell it from the mountaintops. But some science nerd is going to come up behind you and say, "Um, that's not true, and here are the facts..." So you don't need to "shut up about this too," but neither do I. See how that works? And as much as it is your right to deny science, many of us feel that we must defend it. Now more than ever, unfortunately. And the wacky thing about science is this: if new information comes forward (verified, provable, real information), we change with it. But we don't have to replace scientific thought with "and then magic happened."
The post you quoted mostly means that science IS. Facts exist. They do NOT require your acceptance to be facts. You don't have to believe it, this isn't Peter Pan. It IS, whether you believe it or not. Think of all the facts out there you (the general "you," that is) don't know about--are they untrue because you haven't believed them yet? No. They ARE.
So, Mr. science guy, what does science say about fresh oil being produced as we speak?
I am not being snarky. I really want to know the basis for this conventional wisdom. Why is it considered "settled?" Are we supposed to shut up about this too? If the theory didn't exist and somebody came up with it, would it be believable? Just how many tons of meat do you need to make billions and billions of barrels of oil with no end in sight?
Very small organisms, both plant and animal types, that are often categorized as plankton, made up more of the source of crude oil, than larger plants and animals did.
More recently, some scientists have proposed that oil could also be formed without once-living materials - an abiogenic process. I don't know much about these ideas, but find them intriguing. I could not find a decent, plain-English explanation.
I read a theory about that many years ago. There were a bunch of Russians in the 1950's who thought it came from comets and asteroids as the solar system was being formed.
I figure there's some basis for it but don't have a clue about percentages. Maybe a few percent abiogenic but mostly from decomposition of organisms?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
