Moontanman

While I am the first to say that the subject of alien space craft visiting the Earth needs more real investigation than the subject has received so far, nondiscript lights in the sky neither prove nor disprove anything...

Gold suggest life as we know it could exist down to 10 kilometers, if the temp thresh hold is higher (and some scientists suspect it is as much as twice as high as we now know) life could exist much deeper, this deep hot biosphere uses upwelling hydrocarbons and oxides of metals and sulfer as an energy source and a source of hydrogen. The bio markers often cited in oil are from microbes eating the oil not from surface life crushed by over burden. I read your link, it is obvious I am not qualified to argue this and Gold is dead, I'll have to reread Gold's book but if my memory serves me correctly his theory is not being interpreted the way Gold asserts in his book. Gold argues that microbes can convert methane to heavier hydrocarbons in the deep hot biosphere, your link asserts they cannot... I'll let Gold speak for himself. http://www.pnas.org/content/89/13/6045.full.pdf

I think it's also worth pointing out that much of the elements produced are short lived radioactive isotopes of other wise stable elements and they release a lot of heat as they decay. It's how partial melting can occur on relatively small bodies.

He is saying the material that formed the primordial Earth consisted of hydrocarbon bearing asteroids and that as the earth warms up these hydrocarbons are being released (possibly great heat disassociated them) and as they up well up microbes that exist at these depths metabolize them and form the familiar hydrocarbons we see today. He is suggesting this has been going on since the formation of the Earth and these hydrocarbons form the basis of a Deep hot biosphere who's end result is oil and coal, methane would be the original gas being produced abiotically (if i understand correctly) but microbes turn it into heavier hydrocarbons as they feed on it. If you are really intrigued I suggest you read his book, any good library should have it, it's not along book 300 pages or so, took me only three hours to read it but it changed my mind completely about the origin of oil. coal was the hardest part to swallow but he explained it quite well too. Oil wells up naturally all over the earth, some estimates put the natural upwelling of oil as greater than the oil being harvested by humans, satellites can see it as it wells up in the oceans and spreads out, black smokers deep in the ocean produce lots of methane as well from igneous rocks. . Oh yeah, according to Gold helium is a big indicator that hydrocarbons are abiotic, helium is most often associated with oil and natural gas.

It's the idea that animals as successful as dinosaurs would, even if it was only one species, remain confined to as small a region as this dinosaur is reported from that really bothers me. A sauropod dinosaur should pretty much spread out with no other animals being able to prey on it and occupy much of the entire Continent of Africa and it should have speciated as well. A population of sauropod dinosaurs should have spread everywhere and left huge numbers of fossils after the KT bountry...

I think it should be pointed out that the video portrays the earth expanding in 40 million years or so, that would mean adding two or three earth masses to the earth in that time span. Such an addition should be quite energetic and would leave the earth molten, possibly even leave the out layers of the earth as Gaseous rock. I mean really? Really? REALLY?

I can honestly see how one might think the expanding earth fits the ide of the earths continents once being close together and how they seem to fit together but there is no mechanism that would allow for the expansion of the earth. How ever there is a mechanism that explains plate tectonics. The energy to drive plate tectonics comes from radioactive decay and gravitational compression. There is even a school of thought that says there is a huge ball of uranium and thorium at the center of the earth about 5 miles across, a natural nuclear fission reactor kept from exploding by the gravitational pressure of the earth. All of these things are possible and violate no laws of thermodynamics. The idea of the earth expanding has no mechanism and does violate the laws of nature. Until you come up with a mechanism for the earths expansion i see no reason to entertain a theory that doesn't explain anything any better than the current theory and violates the basic laws of nature as well. Come up with a mechanism and then your theory will be looked at less sceptically.

It's also unlikely there will be large pure deposits of precious metals like gold or silver or even copper, it is thought, by some at least, that biological processes concentrate there metals on the earth. At the very least geological processes are required to concentrate then and this doesn't occur on small bodies.

Quite possibly your biology teaxher was thinking of his or her experinces with tube steak Marat, sounds like the perfect hobby for that guy... and I've heard that clowns taste funny...

I think the Trojan asteroids would be our best best, lots of volatiles, and organics. I think space construction will be with carbon Nano tubes more than metals so the possibility of organics and maybe even hydrocarbon ices would make them good targets for colonization. There are more than one million Trojans larger than 1 kilometer in orbit near Jupiter, they are all relatively close together and would be easier to exploit than the main belt asteroids that are much further apart and in widely varying orbits.

According to wikki the chemical phytane occurs in Archaea bacteria, which are the bacteria Gold says eat the upwelling hydrocarbons, but Gold does address porphyrins in oil on page 134 to 138 of his book. Porphyrins such as hemoglobin and chlorophyll are attributed to biologic debris but the ones found in oil do not contain iron or magnesium but only vanadium and nickle neither of which are used by surface life forms. I'm not doing his book much credit i am sure but he does address this issue. If you like I'll try to quote him verbatum. According to Gold and other earlier authors it comes from deep in the earth via hydrocarbons from accretion debris like carbonnaceous chondrites and elemental hydrogen upwelling from the mantle, catalysts cause the reaction that makes methane, bacteria use the hydrogen and leave behind every larger molecules of hydrocarbons with less and less hydrogen. the end result is coal, intermediary results are the various hydrocarbons. Coal is often associated with oil deposits as well as other hydrocarbons like methane. All of these hydrocarbons contain helium in concentration 100's of times higher than the surrounding rocks. There is no chemical means to have concentrated helium the helium is dissolved in the oil because it comes from deep under ground where they both come from.

lemur, i honestly don't understand why abortion on demand with no guilt would allow sexual freedom any more than birth control being readily available with no guilt. 100 years ago it was condoms that were illegal and the idea of family planning obscene. i am not going to argue for abortion here lemur, i simply cannot, it's too much of an emotional issue for me but I honestly cannot see why i should have the right to tell some one else who is pregnant what she can and cannot do.

This is a straw man argument, why does sexual freedom hinge on abortion? There is more than enough birth control to keep abortion from ever being necessary but the main thrust of sexual regulation is to restrict birth control, abortion is just a buzz word used to inflame the masses from the real issue.. birth control and the right to have sex any way you and a partner want.

No, it is demonstrably false, homo sapiens did not move out of Africa until around 50,000 years ago, that falsifies your entire premise.

I would think the salt in your urine would be the deciding factor in plant growth most microbes as well.

You made the claim read the rules of this forum. I know personally hundreds of people who are nudists and are ethical people. World wide their are many millions of nudists, I see no reason to label these people as unethical, and I see no evidence they are unethical and I see no connection between nudity and ethical behavior but you said their is, now show some evidence of this...

I understand that at this time the main stream view is that almost all hydrocarbons are biology reworked by geology but as I said there are other schools of thought and they do have considerable evidence that mainstream science seems to be less than willing to look at. In his book Thomas Gold give a huge amount of evidence as to why mainstream science is incorrect in this assumption. While i am not an expert and do not pretend to be, the evidence of abiotic hydrocarbons being the main source of hydrocarbon in the Earth is over whelming, the evidence against is somewhat less than overwhelming to say the least... Science in the former Soviet Union used this evidence to find oil in places mainstream science predicts there would be no oil. Thomas Gold used his theory to find oil in places where there should be no oil, not to mention life in those places as well. Naturally occurring hydrocarbons contain undeniable evidence of it's deep abiotic origins, evidence that is ignored by mainstream science because it is not possible, not because it does not exist...

The last I heard about the dinosaur "death pose" of long necked dinosaurs and other creatures was that it was from tendons shrinking after death, not a prolonged death.

I've seen it argued quite a bit but sexual restrictions are mainly religious and religion is a difficult thing to argue, if you believe then my disbelief doesn't matter and there are far more believers than non believers and believers pretty much make the rules and if you are not a believer then you have little to no political power. Try to get elected in the USA if you are not a beleiver...

Simply wearing safety equipment (an apron) would be enough to protect you while cooking, lol There is no nudist rule that says you must expose yourself to harm because you are a nudist. Do you have any proof of this? A great many people are family nudists. A great many people already do... Again do you have any proof that nudity has anything to do with being a less than successful society? Addictive? Ethical?

I'm not sure it is accurate to say the government wants to restrict your sexual freedoms but it is the goal of many religions. They often work through government to accomplish this. While abortion is the buzz word that the religious right uses to convince others of their cause it is really birth control and sexual freedom that is their target. Planned parenthood is about much more than abortion on demand but i agree that sexual freedom is really their target and I see no benefit to restricting the sexual freedoms of adults. .

I think the political left is mainly responsible for suppressing this information although the right has to take some of the blame as well. Oil is a heated political issue, the left can't embrace this because it calls into question some of their most favored ideas about peak oil and the need for alternate energy sources. The right has problems with it because it was the main theory of the Soviets and of course they can't be right about anything. It's sad when politics gets in the way of seeking the truth. Most scientific journals wouldn't even accept papers that discussed even the possibility of abiogenic oil. Thomas Gold makes a great case for oil being geology reworked by biology instead of the current theory of biology reworked by geology. Thoma Gold's book "The Deep Hot Biosphere" will one day be recognized as an important step in the direction of understanding not only oil but planetary formation and the formation of life it's self. Great link BTW Jackson...

Join a nudist group, be nude all you want. I did. I'm not sure what you mean by this I could agree to that for the most part...

As a child my hair was white blond and straight, both my parents had dark hair but by the time I was 5 or 6 my hair had begun to darken and was dark brown and very curly by the time I was a teen ager. (now it's white again, lol) Hair color is not an indicator of parenthood. If it's important to you get a DNA test but the next time a dullard suggests he is not your child suggest their parents were never married...

Exactly! Where do you think all those Centaurs came from???