Intelligent Dinosaurs

[Mokele]

I dunno, given the fact that we actually find giant logs and such made of coal, with dead animals inside, I find the abiogenic idea rather farfetched.

[Moontanman]

I dunno, given the fact that we actually find giant logs and such made of coal, with dead animals inside, I find the abiogenic idea rather farfetched.

 

Actually fossils in coal are quite rare. Many reasons have been proposed, one idea is that fossils are destroyed by the heat and pressure precesses that make coal. One thing pointed out by Gold (I personally found it very difficult to think of coal as abiotic) were cases where logs were fossilized by coal and the log would continue above the coal seam as a fossil made of other minerals. He proposed that the coal was originally a thick liquid and the logs and or other fossils were in place before the coal was deposited and the coal hydrocarbons replaced the fossilized tissue much like other fossils are made when carbonate rocks (or other types of minerals) replace the bone when other fossils are formed. One thing that supported the idea of coal as a thick liquid is that there is often coal deposits above oil reservoirs where the oil has transformed into coal.

[SH3RL0CK]

Abiogenic or not, the coal and oil are still very much older than the dinosaurs.

[Moontanman]

Abiogenic or not, the coal and oil are still very much older than the dinosaurs.

 

I'm not sure what your point is in saying this.

[Sisyphus]

I'm not sure what your point is in saying this.

 

I would assume the point is that they weren't burned 65 million years ago and replaced in the intervening time.

[Moontanman]

I'm not sure that is exactly obvious, has oil just been sitting underground since having been made at some arbitrary time? Geological processes have destroyed much oil and created even more. The same would have to be true for coal as well. Even if they are abiotic you would have to assume that geological processes destroy far more oil and gas than we have used in the past few hundred years. Oil bubbles to the surface naturally all over the globe and is consumed by bacteria.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219101658.htm

 

http://blog.taragana.com/n/ocean-bubbling-up-half-its-oil-reserves-from-seafloor-11495/

 

Since these processes have been going on far longer than we have been around you would have to assume that much of the worlds oil over time has just seeped to the surface and been consumed by bacteria. Over many millions of years this would have consumed far more oil than we have consumed. Coal is also exposed the surface naturally and is swept away by erosion. To think that hydrocarbons were totally sequestered until humans found them is an unreasonable assumption.

[SH3RL0CK]

I'm not sure what your point is in saying this.

 

This is to get back to the main point of the thread, were there intelligent dinosaurs? No. The best evidence for this, IMO, is that the coal and oil created prior to the dinosaurs is there (see my post # 11 and DH's post #16) and in geologic layers clearly dating the coal and oil prior. As far as oil, and coal "as a thick liquid" replacing these layers over millions of years, I think it more likely that the mines would be filled in more quickly from a collapse from above than seepage from below.

 

Sisyphus is right, my point is that the dinosaurs didn't burn up the coal and oil (we know this because we are doing so now); the genesis question notwithstanding.

 

Edit - just saw Mootanmans latest post, but I still am doubtful regarding this idea. Still, I'll take a look at the links and possibly reply.

[insane_alien]

Since these processes have been going on far longer than we have been around you would have to assume that much of the worlds oil over time has just seeped to the surface and been consumed by bacteria. Over many millions of years this would have consumed far more oil than we have consumed. Coal is also exposed the surface naturally and is swept away by erosion. To think that hydrocarbons were totally sequestered until humans found them is an unreasonable assumption.

 

not ro mention coal seam fires several of these were reported in the exploration of the north american continent by european settlers and there is one in austrailia thats been burning for 6000 years.

 

of course a lot of these(particularly in china) have been ignited by human activity but they can start naturally as well, a lightning strike, brush fire etc. etc.

[foodchain]

Well in all reality how would you gauge the intelligence, just by a human standard, such as could they make a tool or what not? I mean some tigers in the wild kill humans as prey, they actually can go into the water and sneak up and snatch people off of boats. Lions have been found to cause panic and then ambush in the confusion killing people. So basically what is the gauge of intelligence here. I mean maybe they had some kind of world view similar to the sci-fi creatures like Predator or something.

 

Humans evolved in a social context or selection/mutation may produce an "alien" intelligence, maybe these creatures did not do that, nor had faculties for it like language, just a thought.

[Moontanman]

For the content of this post assume intelligence on a human scale at least but not necessarily the same or even similar technology.

 

Sh3rlock, let me know when you get the links read. With all the folding, subduction, and erosion of the last 65 million years, to assume the hydrocarbons we are using now were just sitting around waiting for us to find them 65 million years ago is a stretch even if we didn't see oil seeping the surface all over the planet.

 

I don't think that the oil we see now is a good reason to assume no inteligent dinosaurs. I am sure there are plenty of other good reasons but this dog won't hunt.

[Mr Skeptic]

Wouldn't geologically created coal/oil also date as old? The certainly wouldn't have carbon 14 like carbon taken from the atmosphere.

[D H]

C-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. It's all gone in less than 100,000 years.

[dr.syntax]

C-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. It's all gone in less than 100,000 years.

 

REPLY: Explain how it can ALL be gone. However many times you split the number in half there is always some left. I don`t understand how it could be otherwise. ...ds

Edited October 23, 2009 by dr.syntax
I figured out what he meant

[D H]

Explain how it can ALL be gone.

There are about 10⁷⁹ atoms in the visible universe (see here and here).

 

Suppose that every atom in the observable universe is magically converted to ¹⁴C. How many atoms of ¹⁴C would you expect to find after 65 million years of decay? 65 million years is 11,343 times the half life of ¹⁴C. As [math]10^{79} \approx 2^{263}[/math], after 65 million years of decay, one would expect to see 2^-11080 atoms of ¹⁴C in this magically converted universe.

 

In short, after 65 million years of decay, there is absolutely nothing left.

[SH3RL0CK]

Sh3rlock, let me know when you get the links read. With all the folding, subduction, and erosion of the last 65 million years, to assume the hydrocarbons we are using now were just sitting around waiting for us to find them 65 million years ago is a stretch even if we didn't see oil seeping the surface all over the planet.

 

I've taken a look at these links, I remain unconvinced of both the idea of abiotic genesis of oil, and that the oil must always leak away quickly. The article stated that the actual amount of oil leaking was unknown. There would be some level of leakage which would not deplete the oil reserves, even after geologic times. Also, it isn't clear that all oil deposits leak; it is quite possible (likely even) that some leak and some do not. Therefore the oil leaking out into the ocean today might be oil created very recently by biological processes.

 

With regards to folding, subduction, and other geological processes, clearly if fossils can survive and be found, why not coal and oil? So why shouldn't we assume that the hydrocarbons were created at the time they appear (by geologists) to have been created?

 

What happens in nature is that there is a carbon cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

 

Had the dinosaurs burned coal and oil as we do, there would not be any left from before 65 million years ago for us to burn today.

[Sisyphus]

Yeah, to say that fossil fuels wouldn't survive for 65 million years is no different than saying that any rock can't survive for 65 million years. Ancient rock layers are exposed and erode all the time, that doesn't mean they're not ancient, or that they (those specific layers) are being "renewed."