Robert Palmer

If you look closely you will see the windmills they are a mile apart, I have seen them all stop. End the Net zero nonsense.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

@IanGianni @JonHlluk @ABridgen I concur, the hybrid theory’s are clearly correct as both ways create hydrocarbons. It then becomes a debate about volume of production.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

@IanGianni @JonHlluk @ABridgen Deep earth theory replaces prehistoric organic material with the extremophile microbes we discovered around the methane vents in the 80’s. This organic mass is estimated to be twice that of all the water on the planet and is the basis of all complex hydrocarbons.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

Yes you are right main stream science is looking at hybrid theories. However this is just as big a shock by many who have not heard of abiogenesis of hydrocarbons as a pure deep earth origin.
I am a deep earth purist, the whole concept of fossil fuel is a myth, the reduction theory as I like to call it is entirely false, excluding the first 10% or so. The hydrocarbons we use are all formed by carbonisation from rising methane not reduction as the false FF theory suggests.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

Actually I get little abuse you are alone in you vulgarity. Most people like and are interested in the idea, I have another person who is interested in debate and defending the Fossil Fuel theory. And I have you my young friend and I wish you well. I hope you grow into a better version of yourself.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

But you can’t explain it in simple terms? They just claim everything transforms with heat and pressure. No — heat and pressure simply cook things and flatten them. Materials don’t spontaneously metamorphose into something entirely different without a genuine dynamic process. That dynamic process is provided by the upward methane flow in the Deep Earth origin theory.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

I think last time you got stuck on steroids and couldn’t grasp the Deep Earth origin theory — which also predicts that life began subterraneanly, not on the surface. Your thinking seemed to short-circuit when confronted with Richard Dawkins’ ideas on how simple molecules can evolve into more complex forms.
The simple organic markers in oil, according to this view, come from simple ancient microbes. It appears this entire framework is too much for you to take in or fully comprehend.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

@Jim_Cornelius @ParaPaul78 @Wingerlar @JonHlluk @ABridgen Dumb bots can’t understand or comprehend.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

“ ‘Precursors’ is simply a fancy scientific word used to disguise alchemy. Living organisms are present in most—if not all—oils, which means these deposits are biologically active. Fossil fuel believers maintain that the methane originates from still-active prehistoric organic material. Yet when it comes to kerogens, the explanations are far from clear. They are said to form ‘as if by magic,’ carbonizing roughly 90% of the organic material while conveniently leaving behind a residue—again, as if by magic.”

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

@philipemmel @ABridgen That’s the other explanation life is ubiquitous.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

@diary4kg @grok @ABridgen This is nonsense you have forced grok to say they have found organic material and contradict it self later in the post.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

This is the crux of the discussion. I believe that all organic material is carbonized by rising methane from deep within the Earth. This leads to the hypothesis that life itself originates underground, rather than on the surface as the current scientific consensus holds.
Building on Richard Dawkins’ concept of simple molecules gradually developing into more complex ones, we propose that the simple organic compounds found in oil are the products of simple microbes. In essence, the organic markers are reversed: instead of complex surface-derived organics breaking down over time, these were always simple underground organics from the beginning.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

@omnisophos @Billsam390 @ABridgen Thats exactly what flat earthers said when people first stated suggesting the earth may be round. More and more fact point to the 18th Century Fossil Fuel theory is wrong. Just because a lot of people believe done not make it right.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

@MrPLC Know fact that can be evidenced in laboratory

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

@andytheviking @ABridgen Yes the argument is where those markers come from contemporary microbes which we discovered around the methane vents in the 80s or prehistoric organic material?

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

@omnisophos @Billsam390 @ABridgen Russian Ukraine have always rejected the fossil fuel theory. South Africa, China and Indonesia are moving towards the deep earth origin theory.
Global warming is a separate issue.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

@omnisophos @Billsam390 @ABridgen The rise of C02 is a different case. I concentrate of the origin of oil not its effects.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

@andytheviking @ABridgen Prehistoric detritus is the consensus , my arguments are that it is contemporary microbes not prehistoric material. The dino juice comments are for effect. These contemporary microbes were discovered in the 80’s originally around the deep ocean methane vents.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

@MrPLC @Billsam390 @ABridgen Your rudeness indicates you are a bot.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

This article is wrong as it states the compounds are biological in origin. You have hit the academic arguments here. The IPCC and other scientific organisations do not argue that abiogenesis does not create hydrocarbons. Instead they argue that it is a small scale and insignificant source of hydrocarbons. I argue that all hydrocarbons come from carbonisation which starts from abiogenic methane.

[Robert Palmer @robert74682]

@ParaPaul78 @Wingerlar @JonHlluk @ABridgen The Deep hot biosphere by Thomas Gold. This should open your mind.