Get this: according to Plate Tectonics mythology, Earth is the only planet in the universe with subduction zones.
Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth?
Abstract. Plate tectonics [allegedly] governs the topography and motions of the surface of Earth, and the loss of heat from Earth's interior, but appears to be found uniquely on Earth in the Solar System. Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth? This is one of the major questions in earth and planetary sciences research, and raises a wide range of related questionsUT Dallas Geosciences Faculty Profile: Robert Stern
“Earth is the only planet with plate tectonics. That means it’s special in space, and it’s probably special in time, too. There must have been a time when the Earth didn’t have plate tectonics. The Earth had a very different tectonic, geologic style. There were no mid-ocean ridges with continents moving apart. There were no subduction zones where oceanic crust would have been going down,” Stern explained.LOL. Wow they are really desperate now.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
6 comments:
Clearly it's an expanding iron core instead of Plate Tectonics unless somebody has a better explanation for the most current map of the age of the Oceanic Lithosphere put out by NOAA.
For the rest of the story: The Age of Continents (slide 3)
WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT IN A MAJORITY VIEW
I discovered a website in the course of my internet researches. The website is called Sedimentary Basins and Petroleum Geology. and it had a post entitled Abiogenic Oil.
My second comment on the linked website raises the issue discussed in the below comment.
The point of my comment is this: Part of the "fossil" geology community states Abiotic Oil exists, but only in small non-commercial quanities.
This group of geologists insists that everybody (petroleum geology community) agrees with this proposition.
Why abiotic hydrocarbons would be limted to small non-commercial amounts is never explained by this group of geologists.
But there is another group of geologists that strongly maintain 99.99999% of all oil & gas is biogenic.
Essentially, all oil & gas is biogenic, there is no abiotic hydrocarbons.
Clearly, these two groups don't agree and they have a hard time acknowledging each other exist, even though they are both in the majority "fossil" theory view of the origin of hydrocarbons.
The following is speculative:
The first group thinks to itself: There is so much evidence abiotic hydrocarbons exist that to deny that existence is untenable and puts us in the bad position of being in denial in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.
Better to acknowledge abiotic hydrocarbon's existence, but maintain it only exists in minute quanities.
The second group thinks to itself: We can't open the door even a crack to the possibility of Abiotic Oil because if we do, then the door will be 'pushed open' and then 'broken down'. Abiotic Oil will become an established fact.
Why? Because they realize what I do -- once you acknowledge the existence of abiotic hydrocarbons, there is no limiting factor known that would restrict abiotic hydrocarbons to non-commercial quanities. ( This is the argument I make in my first comment on the linked post.)
The gig would be up.
So they stone wall.
What this division between the two gruops reveals is that both groups don't have conclusive scientific evidence for "fossil" theory.
If they did have conclusive evidence for "fossil" theory there would be much less strain and division regarding abiotic hydrocarbons.
Sadly, "fossil" theory's assumptions and presuppositions lead to an incoherent understanding of Earth's geology.
How much more advanced would science's understanding be of Earth if scientists weren't hung up on defending an outdated theory ("fossil" theory) that on solid scientific grounds has a hard time being defended?
Defending untenable ideas stunts your ability to accept new more viable ideas.
Could that be why Expanding Earth theory is having such a hard time even being discussed much less accepted when the scientific evidence is so substantial?
There certainly is enough scientific evidence supporting Expanding Earth theory to warrant discussion, yet the geology community would rather not.
There certainly is enough scientific evidence supporting Abiotic Oil theory to warrant discussion, yet the geology community would rather not.
Is there a pattern here?
The majority of the geological community has gotten ossified defending outdated theories.
This group would rather spend their time describing uncontroversial patterns in rocks.
A group-think mentality has taken hold of a large segment of the geological community.
Assumptions are the death-nell for vibrant science.
Excellent point. A very keen observation of the two types of fundamentalists in geology.
To OilIsMastery:
What's also interesting about the divide in the "fossil" geology community is this:
Surely, both sides are well read in the literature of the petroleum geology community.
So when geologist Michael D. Lewan, of the Untied States Geological Survey, states: "No one doubts that inorganic hydrocarbons may occur in association with hydrothermal systems (2005)."
Plus Lewan stated in 2002: "I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons."
Surely, Lewan is aware of M.R. Mello and J.M. Moldowan stating: "...can provide irrefutable proof that 99.99999% of all the oil and gas...have a biologic origin (2005)," and that others share Mello and Moldowan's view.
So it would seem Lewan makes a statement that surely he knows can't be true, yet he says it anyway.
What does that leave an objective person to think?
Can you imagine the arrogance and ignorance of people who say such things?
Behold: Hubris.
GEOLOGISTS ADMIT THEIR LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF VOLCANISM
For readers of this website the admission that geologists have limited understanding of volcanic mechanisms is no surprise.
But this report from Science Daily (Oct. 9,2008) entitled: Deep Magma Matters: Volcanic Eruptions More Complex And Harder To Predict confirms what has been stated many times here.
A interesting picture of a volcano is seen here in flaming color.
The lead sentence of the report states it clearly: "New research by a team of US and UK scientists into volcanoes has found that they function in a far more complex way than previously thought, making future eruptions even harder to predict."
Volcanoes are "far more complex" and surely the reason is that science doesn't understand all the various forces at work in a volcano.
I suggest it is not just the "forces" scientists don't understand, but also the chemical reactions.
It has been stated on the Oil Is Mastery website that hydrogen and carbon have a strong chemical affinity for each other that is perhaps only slighly less than the affinity carbon and oxygen have for each other.
In discussions and challenges (mostly challenges) those opposed to Abiotic Oil theory have raised the question of why oxygen doesn't react with hydrocarbons in the deep Earth?
Perhaps the answer is simple, oxygen is tied up in other minerals and isn't free to react with carbon or hydrogen.
Post a Comment