Peak oil deniers and evolution deniers, any differance?

[Desert_Eagle]

Well based on the facts I can't really tell the differance between Peak oil deniers and evolution deniers. Both seem to ignore geological facts and reality. If 30% of the US population is dumb enough not to believe in evolution, it's no wonder that 95% of the US population is dumb enough not to believe in peak oil.

[Dark_Magneto]

It's because there is a severe disconnect between creationism (which primarily insists of quoting scripture and attacking evolutionary strawmen) and reality.

The people that think the earth is 6 thousand years old based on all the "evidences" of Creationism, which have either been falsified or depend on miracles of a psychotic god based on lies and deceit, also think that the oil was miraculously created by god and that he can and will do it again.

What I find very interesting here is that most creationists are followng a recently invented philosophy created by the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are the sole and exclusive source of American young earth creationism.

I strongly recommend reading Ronald L. Numbers, "The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism" 1993 Berkeley: University of California Press for more info. He shows categorically that all young earth creationists are honoring JW preaching.

People that are heavily religious often view science as a direct assault on their faith, but they fail to realize that there is only a challenge to one's faith from science if their faith is depending on falsehoods.

I think that every Christian should pay close attention to Augustine of Hippo (Saint Augustine to some people) (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) gave to Christians trying to interpret Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. {Augustine here has refered to 1 Timothy 1.7}

This advice is commended by Thomas Aquinas,

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Summa Theologica

H.L. Mencken pointed out that it was a fundament of the human psyche to reject that which is true but unpleasant and to embrace that which is obviously false, yet comforting.

I have had people alienate me for nothing more than awakening them from their hopeless optimism into a true reality. I give them theblue pill and they hate me for it. They
re like Cypher from the Matrix.

I think this passage summed this sentiment up best:

Galatians 4:16 - So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?

But yeah. As far as peak oil goes, there is no more debate. The debate on it's validity has been over in the scientific circles ever since 1970 when Hubbert was proven right, to the chagrin of the cornucopian flat-earth (http://www.mnforsustain.org/bartlett_a_malthus_flat_earth_society.htm) optimists.

The Onion spoke best of the dissonance that is rapidly forming some months ago with the following blurb:

Public Outraged As Price Of Fast-Depleting, Non-Renewable Resource Skyrockets (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43906&rss=1)

[Basan]

1st of all, I'd like to see the real study connecting those two claims - The Creationist goers with the Peak Oil deniers. Then perhaps, we could get something goin' on here. :angel:

2nd of all, I'd also like you to dig for similar threads around here before starting petty feuds with Creationists and with Environmentalist deniers all in the same bag. As you can see Dark_Magneto already posted some things about Peak Oil and we here mostly agreed with it. If you're going through all over that crap again, at least get a new perpective on the whole thing. :P
And we debated too many times around the crummy attitudes Bush took, still takes, and those were scarcely, if never, done over at the IR 'arena'.
As for Creationism vs. whatever, I do believe that lately it's better to only poke it with a meter long pole because if not one Christian, fully believing in Creationism, in these last centuries has swiftly converted to a mild stance over it (as in, accepting that Evolution could have very well be the solution), I don't think that it'll just occur with your present flame bait. :shiftyl:

3rd but not the least, I do know that you've came from BF and that prob'ly good diplo' manners aren't exactly your thing, but repeating things over and over won't make you look good, only stubborn headed. Every time I take a peep at the IR nowadays am always getting the urge to keep away and mostly is caused by your innept abillity to produce anything different from the extreme bashing stance over Bush's actions. :P

I'm generally against Bush, but you DE are starting to get liberals a bad name around here. And that's what is really concerning me. :concern: I'm beggining to draw a pattern of you, and quite frankly ain't growing that fondly of what am concluding so far. Try and get out of the box in thinking patterns, will ya? There are vaster things able to be debated upon than just that Bush this, Bush that s**t. ;)

[Desert_Eagle]

First of all, I create threads at my own discretion. You can either read them or not, the choice is not difficult at all.

I don't care if you disapprove of discussions involving Bush's failures as a president, thats not my problem nor does it concern me in the slightest. Since you've never actually formed any kind of logical refutation to anything I've posted, all I can assume is that your feelings are unwarranted and based on emotions. If you disagree with anything I posted about president Bush, please feel free to reply in the threads in question.

And also note the irony that you chose to save your rant for this thread, which has absolutely nothing to do with president Bush. Your post is self-contradictory and ironic by virtue of placement.

[Basan]

Curious, I still don't see any basis for relating creationists with peak oil deniers and afterall, that's your thread (without a link even). :smirk:

And by your convenient dismissal upon my request for a thorough search around for similar threads, in Peak Oil, Bush mistakes' bashing or conservatives freaking it all becomes more clearer and clearer that you're only trying to sprout the usual conservative vs. liberal thing goin' on to merely vent yourself on it. If you'd really seen those then you'd realized by now that usually me, KingsCrab, Schwitzer and a few others are generally on the liberal side.

But when it heavily drags liberals name into the gutter, then it concerns me and starts poking my yard. If I keep seeing these showing up with no good basic arguement construction, I'll start hitting the report button more often. Fine with you? :rolleyes: Pfft, summing up I couldn't care less on how you look but if you wish to plainly vent I advise ya to go into the other areas on this forum.

[Dark_Magneto]

1st of all, I'd like to see the real study connecting those two claims - The Creationist goers with the Peak Oil deniers. Then perhaps, we could get something goin' on here. :angel:

Curious, I still don't see any basis for relating creationists with peak oil deniers and afterall, that's your thread (without a link even). :smirk:.

Is abiotic oil a new argument for Creationism? (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47529)

It's a big apologetic article as a response to people pointing out how Creationists purport the theory of oil being an inorganic substance (abiotic) in order to shoehorn that into thir young-earth delusions. They claim that it's merely coincidence that they happen to be creationists pusghing this so-called "theory", but their front is totally transparent since you only find these types of people spouting this kind of nonsense.

Abiotic oil is a huge red herring. Nobody, and I mean nobody who is credible in the industry believes in this crap. Nobody is investing money searching for abiotic oil. There was one example in Sweden where a well was drilled 4 miles deep in search of "abiotic" oil and it turned out to be one of the world's deepest "wild goose chases".

Renewable commercially signifigant sums of oil are pipedreams at best, not a science. Oil is a finite resource formed in the geological past by ancient biomass. We've known this for over a hundred years, and now that reality is rearing it's ugly head, people would like to rewrite the facts to allow them to believe in unlimited growth and infinite energy. Well reguardless, reality is not going to agree, and we will slam into the wall where the ideals that people like to believe goes against the unimpeachable facts of geological science.

Incidentally, I don't see any of these advocates of abiotic oil scrambling to buy up these long-depleted oil fields.

Isotopic evidence provides a clear link to the organic origins. No one in the industry gives the slightest credence to these theories: after drilling for 150 years they know a bit about it.

Finally, even if we assumed full credibility for "renewable oil" by assuming that the earth's 2 trillion barrels of oil (total discoveries) had an abiotic origin and have accumulated over the 4 billion years that the earth has had its present crust, it only yields an accumulation/renewal rate of 500 barrels per year. We are currently using oil at 80+ million barrels per day. The "renewal rate" wouldn't be of much help.

Unless you can refute the laws of thermodynamics, which some economists seem to think (as demand increases, entropy will decrease to meet market demands), then oil will deplete. And the wolf is at the door (http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/).

More info:

The “Abiotic Oil” Controversy (http://www.energybulletin.net/2423.html)

Inorganic origin of oil: Much ado about nothing? (http://www.geotimes.org/nov02/NN_oil.html)

Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics? (http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/37531.php)

[CrabTasterMan]

Sorry, what is a peak oil denier?

I find that a lot of people believe in the Bible Shit. They take it too literally. The damn scriptures are "words of God" to them, but not the words of God to the entire population on Earth: a lot of people don't give a fuck about the Bible. I daresay I'm a Christian but I am disgusted with people believing every single word of the Bible, which was probably somewhat mistranslated into many human tongues each with different cultural perceptions, giving account of SOME stuff that have never been proved. Whenever they got some problems with reality they gotta pull out their bible and object to it, which is full of contradictions itself. Despite the reality of people 1500 years ago lived in an era without the our "complete version" of today's Bible, ppl back then thought it was the complete word of THE LORD. If so, what makes them think its complete today?

[Dark_Magneto]

Sorry, what is a peak oil denier?

A person that believes oil depletion is a myth.

The logic of their position demands that if you started drinking from a glass and never stopped, it would never go below half empty.

Read here (http://members.home.nl/peakoil/introduction.html) for a brief overview on the subject of "peak" oil.

[Desert_Eagle]

Exxcon CEO who recently retired with a $150 million dollar retirement package, laughs at the notion that petrofuels will be replaced in the future, and Bush's plan to use ethanol.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/19/news/newsmakers/exxon_raymond.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

On the topic of alternative energy sources, Raymond poured scorn on the notion that petroleum-based fuels will be supplanted in the near future.

When President Bush's suggestion of using ethanol produced from switchgrass as an alternative to gasoline came up, Raymond shook his head and grinned sarcastically.

Yet, despite his view that gasoline is not about to be supplanted as the main motor fuel in this country - and that it was the job of the oil industry to tackle new investments over the long term without reference to the short-term price environment - he predicted that no new oil refineries would be built in the United States because, even for a company as big as ExxonMobil, "the risk of the investment would be extraordinarily high."

Your damn right the risk would be too high. Why would you build more refineries when there is less oil? Curiously, no mention of the geological fact known as peak oil.

If you have been going to cnn.com recently you will notice that gas and oil prices are the hot topic. I have seen no less than 8 differant explanations for high gas and oil prices, but there is no mention of peak oil in any media outlet that I could find. Why is that? Does anybody have an idea?

I don't think CNN has a vested interest in keeping it secret. It just boggles my mind.

[Basan]

Since have read all those articles (except the Wolf at the door one) am more convinced, than what I already was, that this "biotic oil" shenanigan is mostly led by oil fearing tycoons for the overthrow of the oil industry for other alternatives from even rising. They perhaps went in a joint venture with extremelly conservative Christians along side, by masking it a lil' and recruiting the whole flock to their whims.
Kinda theory conspiracy my arguement might look, I know, but at least that's he way am seeing it under the current light of day (read: the bigger oil companies are even practicing higher prices than the smaller ones, which isn't that much of a logic to supposedly keep the monopoly upon the market in the long term run).

[Dark_Magneto]

You know, it really ceases to amaze me how people can have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and still claim to know what is going on.

The abiotic oil theory was dead before it even got off the ground. Oil at depths abiotic advocates suggest would be cracked int natural gas due to heat from the mantle. All natural gas consists of is oil that went down to the depths the abiotic oil people are talking about. There is not, never was, and never will be oil at those depths, because it gets turned into natural gas!

But does this unimpeachable geologic fact dissuede their cornucopian fantasies in the slightest? Nope.

[Yoda]

You know, it really ceases to amaze me how people can have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and still claim to know what is going on.

I agree with this.

This thread is a joke. How can you relate people denying a proven fact with people who don't believe a fantasy? You've worded this thread as though evolution is an absolute scientific "fact", although it clearly isn't. Anyone who thinks that evolution is a certainty has no clear what they're talking about.

[GenocideAlive]

You know, it really ceases to amaze me how people can have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and still claim to know what is going on.

But does this unimpeachable geologic fact dissuede their cornucopian fantasies in the slightest? Nope.
You sure throw around a lot of insults for someone that didn't cite any sources that aren't self-endorsing. There's gotta be a news outlet or a scientific journal that references peak oil, right? A geological journal? Something? I'd prefer to see something that isn't on the internet and that is actually scientific.
You've worded this thread as though evolution is an absolute scientific "fact", although it clearly isn't. Anyone who thinks that evolution is a certainty has no clear what they're talking about.
GROSS IRONY FTW. Please, Yoda, explain to my why Evolution isn't scientific fact.

Given that everybody in science considers it fact but a bunch of Christian propagandists are running around saying "nuh-uh" behind their backs and Christians are gobbling it up, what do you have in the way of proof that Evolution isn't what scientists say it is? Or explain to me how you are any source on the topic of Evolution, the years of research you've done or the incredible knowledge you bring to bear on the topic.

If you can't do either, STFU is thx.

[frazz]

This thread is a joke. How can you relate people denying a proven fact with people who don't believe a fantasy? You've worded this thread as though evolution is an absolute scientific "fact", although it clearly isn't. Anyone who thinks that evolution is a certainty has no clear what they're talking about.
the difference between non evolutionists and peak oil deniers is clear in DE's post anyway. Even if all non evolutionists are peak oil deniers(which they're not), that would leave 60 percent of America denying peak oil but believing evolution.
This thread is a joke. (was that not clear when a dozen IBTL posts came?) It is purely an attack on non evolutionists, and a very poor one as well.

[Basan]

... You've worded this thread as though evolution is an absolute scientific "fact", although it clearly isn't. Anyone who thinks that evolution is a certainty has no clear what they're talking about.

Clearly, you're thinking in the only other option presented (http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html), right? *Cough*Creation*Cough* Think it over, then. :angel:

... There's gotta be a news outlet or a scientific journal that references peak oil, right? A geological journal? Something? I'd prefer to see something that isn't on the internet and that is actually scientific.

Question is how? Mail it to ya? :o
And I do recall to have seen some links about it, just not sure where... but since you're not taking links... no can do, in whatever way possible for IR. :smirk: Never the less, I'll try to fetch a few.

Edit add:
- Oil Analyst pisses off Saudis (http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2004/04/12/newscolumn1.html).
- OPEC cuts production margin and tries to rise base prices (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4084989.stm).
- Oil history prices (http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm).
-End edit.

the difference between non evolutionists and peak oil deniers is clear in DE's post anyway. Even if all non evolutionists are peak oil deniers(which they're not), that would leave 60 percent of America denying peak oil but believing evolution.
This thread is a joke. (was that not clear when a dozen IBTL posts came?) It is purely an attack on non evolutionists, and a very poor one as well.

I'd seriously like to know what "IBTL (http://acronyms.tfd.com/IBTL)" means... :o and if any it's correct, please pin point it.
As far as we're goin' on here I'm trying to solely reply to the peak oil part in which I believe, no matter how hard some try to link it with the evolution theory (read, mostly through the inverted onus of evidence). :P

Resuming, kinda: Although I still haven't seen any link(s) relating the 30% non-evolucionist U.S. citizens and the 95% non-peak oil believers, I'd still like to see so. And preferably a relating both one(s), as 'someone' already stated in the 1st post here. :)

[Yoda]

GROSS IRONY FTW. Please, Yoda, explain to my why Evolution isn't scientific fact.

According to www.thefreedictionary.com (http://www.thefreedictionary.com), Scientific fact means "an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)." Clearly evolution has not been "confirmed repeatedly", it has not been "confirmed" scientifically at all. And it isn't accepted as true by everyone, either.


Given that everybody in science considers it fact but a bunch of Christian propagandists are running around saying "nuh-uh" behind their backs and Christians are gobbling it up

Sorry, what was it? Gross irony FTW? I could say that here, except that it actually would be true. Many scientists who actually look at the issue with an open mind see the complete unlikelihood of evolution.


what do you have in the way of proof that Evolution isn't what scientists say it is? Or explain to me how you are any source on the topic of Evolution, the years of research you've done or the incredible knowledge you bring to bear on the topic.


I honestly doubt that you've done years of research or have any knowledge at all.

http://ucg.org.au/offers/ev.asp?gclid=CNq6mqLgy4QCFRlZDgod1Xws8w


The theory of evolution, long taught in schools and assumed to be true by many in the scientific community, is increasingly questioned by scientists and university professors in various fields.

Why do questions arise? It is because, as scientific knowledge has increased, reasearchers have not been able to confirm basic assumptions of the evolutionary theory - and in fact some have been refuted outright.

[altf4FTW]

Clearly evolution has not been "confirmed repeatedly", it has not been "confirmed" scientifically at all. And it isn't accepted as true by everyone, either.
In the definition of confirmed meaning, "evidence suggesting," then yes, evolution has so much confirmation of its existance that it is near irrefutable. Evidence is obviously, fossil records, biological mutations, case studies of evolution in certain animals, etc. And being not accepted by everyone doesn't make it any less of a scientific fact. The world being round isn't accepted by everyone, but is without a doubt, scientific fact.

Besides, there is nothing 'scientific' ID. Basically, no falsifiable hypothesis about Intelligent Design can be constructed and is a logical fallacy. Evolution, in a sense, is completely testable. Give me a planet with similar conditions to ancient earth, and 4.3 billion years, and I'll give you some scientific evidence proving evolution true.

Secondly, seeing that the website you have 'supposed' evidence from is named 'the United Church of God,' I see no reason to say the information is in any way non-biased toward the subject. I'm not going to try to throw this into a whole attack on Creationism. And complete unlikelyhood? Obviously, the argument only works when you completely ignore the number of chances for the occurance to happen in the universe. Please think of a creative argument attacking evolution rather than one this boring to counter.

To the comments of the existance of a 6000 year old earth, I see this as the most absurd argument in creationist existance. If they can deny simple particle physics, then there is no reason that I cannot say that I built a time machine and witnessed evolution.

One last comment, before the issue of 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' is brought up, I would like it known that the two terms were coined by the creationist lobby in an attempt to make there beliefs seem more accepting of tests of natural selection and Darwin's theories. The two terms refer to the same thing, however, and is equivilant to arguing one is a number yet one hundred is not.

[GenocideAlive]

According to www.thefreedictionary.com (http://www.thefreedictionary.com), Scientific fact means "an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)." Clearly evolution has not been "confirmed repeatedly", it has not been "confirmed" scientifically at all. And it isn't accepted as true by everyone, either. It has been done as both. The only people that have the gall to argue as such are creationists and their propagandist mouthpieces that are desperate to prevent their entire hokey-assed religion from being disproven in one fell swoop. Some people contend that both could have occurred as a means of reconciling this fact, but the vast majority cling to the Bible over what's sitting in front of them.
Sorry, what was it? Gross irony FTW? I could say that here, except that it actually would be true. Many scientists who actually look at the issue with an open mind see the complete unlikelihood of evolution. Ahahaha! As altf4 put it, the "unlikely" argument is trite and boring. Evolution over the number of planets similar to Earth is an overwhelming probability. I believe Sagan calculated that there are at least 20 other planets that have evolved life and technology to the point we have. And by the way, you can lecture me about having an open mind when Christianity no longer forms the basis for your entire life; as for me, I was born and raised Christian, I looked at the facts.
I honestly doubt that you've done years of research or have any knowledge at all. I've got a career in research and development dealing with RNA. I have a degree in microbiology. What's your degree? What's your experience? What's your career?

And your link doesn't even refute Evolution, it just sits around and tries to create some sort of inductive reasoning trash-talk. This, assuming your fucking church is some sort of source on science.

What a sham, someone should lock this thread. Not only was it made to attack people, the defense these people are putting up is fucking sad.

[Nuts]

What a sham, someone should lock this thread. Not only was it made to attack people, the defense these people are putting up is fucking sad.

Agreed. This thread has run its course. If you want to create a new peak oil thread, that's fine, but let's stick to a single topic without the flame bait.