This is orthogneiss. Eoarchean orthogneiss from the Isua greenstone belt in Greenland was presumably formed before (3.8 Ga) all life on planet Earth. By definition, orthogneiss is NOT a sedimentary rock. Orthogneiss is a metamorphic rock which comes from the igneous (volcanic) rock granite. It contains bands of black graphite which is pure carbon. This igneous carbon is the inorganic mantle source of carbon found in hydrocarbons.
"We will consider it quite sufficient to recall that chemists of high standing in the scientific world, such as Berthelot and Mendeljeff, have long ago (1866 and 1877 respectively) suggested very probable forms such as carbides under which carbon could exist in the interior fluid magma, and probable reactions under which hydrocarbon compounds could have been generated." -- Eugene Coste, 1903
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
12 comments:
OIL IS MASTERY WEBSITE SETS OUT CHAIN OF EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS HYDROCARBONS PROCEEDED LIFE ON EARTH
In this post and the five proceeding posts, OilIsMastery sets out scientific evidence that hydrocarbons appear in the geologic record before life.
The evidence is available in the posts and at the left-hand column by direct link. It's advisable to review the evidence and discussions in the articles.
Caution: The "fossil" theory is so embedded in geologic assumptions that the clear import of the scientific evidence is obscured from most in the geologic community.
But these posts make the oil before life hypothesis so explicit, that to ignore the hypothesis is ignore the scientific method.
Geologists are challenged to respond with something more intelligent than "it's impossible."
Clearly, there is enough scientific evidence presented in this and the five proceeding posts to easily say, "it's possible."
Actually, there is more than enough evidence to say it's possible; rather, there is enough evidence to say it's highly probable.
Are geologists going to meet the challenge like good scientists when presented evidence that contradicts their theory?
Elemental carbon in the form of graphite; "Oil inclusions" in rocks older than the first recorded evidence of life; coal formations (which are claimed by oil geologists to derive from land plants) before the presence of land plants in the geologic record; this is a chain of scientific evidence of substantial weight.
Cyanobacteria (blue green algae), the most primitive of photosynthesis producing life, and the earliest life found in the geologic record consumes oil for energy.
This evidence suggests the cyanobacteria evolved in an environment where there was oil to consume for energy. The logical conclusion is unescapable: Since cyanobacteria are the first signs of life, this life evolved with the capability to consume an energy source already available in the Earth's environment.
The science establishing Earth as an abiotic system is firm, substantial, and unavoidable.
The hypothesis that hydrocarbons proceeded life is key and fundamental to the petroleum controversy.
Prove this hypothesis and it makes the "fossil" theory untenable.
Anaconda ... answer me this: Why is biogenic petroleum theory untenable if abiogenic petroleum theory is true? Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't there be both abiogenically- and biogenically-derived petroleum?
brianr,
Why can't there be both?
At a theoretical level, the "fossil" theory of oil formation violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of increasing entropy of energy. In other words, you can't generate high potential energy molecules from low potential energy molecules at the relative low pressures present in the crust.
Also, there isn't alot of evidence to suggest that any organic detritus turns into petroleum.
Lignite coal, brown coal, converted from peat bogs, is about it.
Your question is a broad one.
And so a short anwer is difficult.
There are a series of evidences that disprove organic detritus as a source of petroleum.
One strong item of evidence is the "source rock" argument made by "fossil" theory advocates themselves. This rock is impermiable to oil and even gas, that's why it traps the oil and gas, yet to believe "fossil" theory this impermiable rock has to be permiable to the "kerogen" turning to oil and then migrating away. In essense, "fossil" theorists want to have it both ways, no can do, but "fossil" theory is forced into this untenable claim because the only traces at all of "organic detritus" are in the impermiable rock -- shales, mudstones, limestones, and even sandstones.
Another reason:
If all oil has at least traces of diamondoids that only form in the deep mantel. If some oil was a remnant of organic detritus how would these diamondoids get into the oil.
There's only one way for diamondoids to get into the oil, if the oil was formed in the mantel with the diamondoids.
Admittedly, a specific question is easier to answer because you don't have to go down a laundry list of reasons.
In that regard, your question is a good one because it challenges this writer to encapsulate a reasonably short answer that makes sense.
There certainly are additional proofs, but admittedly this website is more about proving the existence of abiotic oil.
This writer will have to collect additional proofs together in bullet point form. And, put it together.
Good question, and this answer probably didn't answer the question to your satisfaction.
But that is exactly why dialogue is important. It shows the weaknesses in both sides of an argument, and lets either side know a particular question needs to have a better answer put together, if there is a better answer.
Partly, proof of oil proceeding life makes "fossil" theory untenable because a cardinal principle of "fossil theory" is that abiotic theory is "impossible."
Once "fossil" theory acknowledges abiotic theory, it creates all kinds of problems for "fossil" theory, that's why they are determined not to do it.
Best regards,
Anaconda
Thanks for your answer.
You say: "At a theoretical level, the "fossil" theory of oil formation violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of increasing entropy of energy. In other words, you can't generate high potential energy molecules from low potential energy molecules at the relative low pressures present in the crust."
Since you cited this reason first, I presume that it is one of the key reasons leading you to conclude that biogenic petroleum does not occur. Can you please expand on this point alone?
You are correct, it is difficult to answer these complex questions in short answers ... if we go through them one at a time, we'll have a better chance of getting to the bottom of it.
In response to the questions, "Why is biogenic petroleum theory untenable if abiogenic petroleum theory is true? Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't there be both abiogenically- and biogenically-derived petroleum?"
The answer to these questions is simple. Chemistry and astronomy are more fundamental and elemental than biology and geology. All of the chemical elements are abiotic. Oxygen for example is the third most common element in the universe. To suggest that oxygen is only formed biogenically through photosynthesis is absurd because that would mean oxygen is not a chemical element. So too with carbon. All of the carbon compounds including the Fullerenes can be thought of as having an abiotic origin since they existed before all life on Earth.
OilIsMastery ... I want to make sure I understand this. So, because the element carbon exists inorganically, that means that organic carbon cannot exist? This is my question ... why the either/or choice?
Secondly, your analogy with oxygen is strange, you say: "To suggest that oxygen is only formed biogenically through photosynthesis is absurd because that would mean oxygen is not a chemical element".
Who has suggested that?
Saying oxygen and carbon are organic is meaningless since they are chemical elements and are prior to and more fundamental than life on Earth. The material cause is abiotic chemical elements. And such elements exist compounded on the other planets, moons, asteroids, meteoroids, and interplanetary dust, all of which are devoid of life. 7 different hydrocarbons on Titan; not one living organism.
BrianR:
The second law of thermodynamics is a elemental physical and chemical law.
No scientist has ever observed or postulated that this law can be violated. It is a law of first priority.
J. F. Kenney has stated this law and its application to the exitence of organic detritus and its supposed conversion by "diagenesis" into petroleum.
The operation of chemical and physical laws act by compulsion -- if this is true, then that must be true.
Review his paper and challenge the portions you disagree with.
But no "fossil" theorist has ever challenged Kenney's conclusions in a scientifically rigorous manner.
Most simply ignore it and the few others that mention it, never and this writer repeats, never have challenged it on a goodfaith scientific basis.
If you can find one who does -- bring it forward, please, because this writer looked high and low, and couldn't find one scientific refutation of Kenney's application of the second law of thermodynamics to the question of the possibility of organic detritus being converted into petroleum.
Please feel free to ask follow up questions.
Best regards,
Anaconda
OilIsMastery ... so, because all matter is traced back to fundamental elements, the idea of organic origin of hydrocarbons is untenable? Is that correct? I realize you believe petroleum can be abiogenic, my question is that do you think that ALL petroleum is abiogenic? Please answer that.
Anaconda ... my original question was for you to expand on your comment that said:
"...you can't generate high potential energy molecules from low potential energy molecules at the relative low pressures present in the crust."
Please explain. What's a 'high potential energy molecule'? What pressures? Etc. If you are going to cite someone, that's fine, that's science, but give me the specific citation (if it's a long book, give me page numbers). Even better, paraphrase the significance of their results.
Yes, I personally believe all hydrocarbons are abiotic in origin, unless you want to claim that the elements are biogenic because God created them. If cyanobacteria photosynthesize (emphasis on synthesis) oxygen, does that mean the third most common element in the universe is biogenic? If a cow farts methane, does that mean that methane is biogenic? If I piss water, does that mean water is biogenic? I suggest to you that the term biogenic is meaningless and incorrect based upon viewing the universe through the solipsistic earthly lens of biology. Geobiology is to geochemistry what astrology is to astronomy.
To BrianR:
My apology for not citing the specific J.F. Kenney scientific paper.
Reference,
Gas Resources,
Scientific publications,
The Constraints of the Laws of Therodynamics upon Evolution of Hydrocarbons: Prohibition of Hydrocarbon Genesis at Low Pressure, 2001.
(Available by direct link at left-hand column, under Introduction To The Science Of Abiotic Petroleum Origin)
So, this paper is immediately available, here, at the Oil Is Mastery Website. As one can see many other scientific papers and abstracts are also available.
Back to your question:
You wanted further explanation of the statement, "... you can't generate high potential energy molecules from low potential molecules..."
The concept of the stored potential chemical energy of a molecule is that molecules of various construction and element types have different potentials to release energy when they react with other elements, say oxygen.
This difference in stored potential chemical energy is qualified by describing them on a continuum, with some molecules having high stored potential chemical energy at one end of the continuum or spectrum, and other molecules having a low stored potential chemical energy at the other end of the continuum or spectrum.
In example: Hydrocarbons have high stored chemical energy potential because when they react with, say, oxygen, the amount of chemical energy released during the reaction is high. That is why gasoline is so flammable and explosive, and when properly harnessed can do a lot of work by mass of the molecules available.
An opposing example is water with almost no stored potential chemical energy.
Water would be refered to as a low stored potential chemical energy molecule.
But let's go to the relevant molecule in this discussion. The organic detritus that "fossil" theory claims turns into petroleum.
While it has a much higher stored chemical potential energy level than water, which has almost none, organic detritus -- or the lipids that "fossil" theory says turns into oil, still have substanially less stored chemical potential energy than petroleum.
The second law of thermodynamics states that it can't simply transmute to a higher stored chemical potential energy level. The law of increasing entropy bars that. There must be an injection of energy into the molecule to decrease its entropy or increase its energy per the law of the conservation of energy: Energy can neither be destroyed nor created, but only dispersed or concentrated.
Kenney states that the relatively low heat and pressure (pressure is a kind of energy state) of the crustal environment, where organic detritus is claimed to turn into petroleum does not inject enough energy into the molecule to allow it to jump up to the high stored potential chemical energy state of petroleum.
Rather, Kenney postulates that only the ultra-high heat and pressure environment of the Earth's mantel can inject the necessary energy into the molecule to make it form the higher stored potential chemical energy state of petroleum.
Therefore, petroleum can not be created out of the organic detritus in the crustal environment.
So, petroleum can not be both abiotic and "fossil" derived, only abiotic.
Please feel free to pose follow up questions.
Best regards,
Anaconda
Post a Comment