Greetings Veeky Forums

fuck off retard

A planet is not alive by any remotely scientific definition of the word. Abiogenic petroleum, should any significant amount actually exist, has no bearing on this. How would an abiotic chemical reaction be evidence of "living earth" anyway?

In short, this is /x/ bullshit, so go back there.

yeah research into entropy

>oil is blood of the Earth

Blood only functions is a medium to carry nutrients through the body. For this it MUST circulate in a circulatory system. Oil in the earth is stagnant and trapped in pockets. It's more accurate to compare oil to pus, cyst, or a zit. And we're here to pop it.

youtube.com/watch?v=AKM7fmLnypU

now get the fuck off Veeky Forums

Planet Earth is host to Carbon Based Life. And the Main component of petroleum is Carbon.

Abiogenic petroleum would prove that the planet creates its own supply of carbon, and makes it flow under the soil to replenish the outer biosphere with its main building block.

This is quite akin to the creation and function of blood in us humans. But it obviously won't be the exact same process, as the difference in size and composition of a human and its host planet must be factored in.

Adding to this is the obvious similarity in the appearance of human blood and crude petroleum.

Learn how to logic, you dunce.

>Planet Earth is host to Carbon Based Life. And the Main component of petroleum is Carbon
lots of hydrogen in there too mate, why are you ignoring that?

>Abiogenic petroleum would prove that the planet creates its own supply of carbon, and makes it flow under the soil to replenish the outer biosphere with its main building block.
You do realize an abiogenic reaction literally means a chemical reaction that occurs sponatously and without the assistance or influence of anything living? You're literally working against yourself. More importantly, the planet does not create ANY carbon*. All the Earth's carbon was created by a long dead star(s). In addition, petroleum does not "replenish" the biosphere in any way, or at least it didn't until we started burning the stuff. Carbon in the biosphere is sourced from atmospheric CO2, meaning that prior to humans burning petroleum, fossil fuels were just a sink for carbon. Storing it away were life can't use it.

>Adding to this is the obvious similarity in the appearance of human blood and crude petroleum
They're both liquids, that's literally the only visual similarity. They have completely different colors, turbidity and viscosity.

*There may be some fission process that makes carbon here on Earth, I don't know nearly enough to say either way. If it does exist, its negligible.

I have to say, I am IMPRESSED by the EXTREMELY SCIENTIFIC replies im getting here.

You have to post a scientific statement to get a scientific response. "blood and oil kinda look alike, therefore Earth is alive" is not scientific, its retarded.

>make pants-on-head retarded conjecture
>expect serious responses

Get out.

Oh yeah?

It's bedtime, kiddo. Gotta rest up for middle school.

>lots of hydrogen in there too mate, why are you ignoring that?
Quoting from the provided link on petroleum
"It consists of hydrocarbons of various molecular weights and other organic compounds."
Did you even examine the source material?

>You do realize an abiogenic reaction literally means a chemical reaction that occurs sponatously and without the assistance or influence of anything living?
Exactly. The Earth creates its own source of Hydrocarbons that enriches the soil plants grow on with the chemical compounds they use as food.
This is quite akin to how blood in humans flows through the body to provide oxigen to the surrounding cells.

All this, in turn, is supporting evidence for the Gaia Hypotesis.

I told you read up on entropy. then we can talk science, you need to understand how entropy works first

>expecting one board of Veeky Forums to be drastically different from other boards of Veeky Forums because the title is more brainy
Other than that....

Make your point already.

Gaia Hypothesis is legit, but petroleum is not even close to being "blood of the earth". That's taking a good idea and inserting stupid into it. The idea that previous forms of life set the stage for more complex life(oxygenating the atmosphere), is neato torpedo, and I think the emergence of intelligence is again setting the stage for even more complex life(or artificial life) far in the future. Or maybe not so far.

my point is people who wish to construct a scientifically based conspiracy theory are too lazy to read the science and just want the fame, bitches and money.

>>expecting one board of Veeky Forums to be drastically different from other boards of Veeky Forums because the title is more brainy

haha true. but since everyone at /x/ is always asking for proof. I intend to bring it. hence my posting here.

>You have to post a scientific statement to get a scientific response.

I DID post Scientific data, complete with links from an accepted internet archive.

>wikipedia
>accepted internet archive
oh my keks

Im sorry op but you clearly have absolutely no background in chemistry. If plants could use hydrocarbons from petroleum, say, like fucking hexane, why then would they photosynthesize and obtain their carbon from CO2. Youre literally saying plants and life can use petroleum as a source of energy to grow, which is absolutely retarded

well, give me an scientifically accepted online archive and I'll look up all my posted links there to corroborate. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

>Youre literally saying plants and life can use petroleum as a source of energy to grow,

Wrong. I'm saying that the petroleum flowing underground provides hydrocarbons to the soil the plants grow on.

OP, I think the board you were looking for was Veeky Forums. Maybe they would roleplay this being possible with you. You could set it in CoC and you could be a that film noir detective working against big fish oil.

>plants grow on hydrocarbons

u wot

I didn't realize that the tomato plants I'm growing in pots in my living room get watered with crude oil. I finally realized I'm doing it all wrong.

Yeah,this seems like a grest idea for a CoC campaing with earth as a great old one: Terrha would be the new great old one and the investigators would try to fight it. Already decided what my next session will be about

Also, try watering a plant with hexane and tell me how that ends up.

I would urge anyone considering replying to this conspiratard to read the /x/ thread linked in the original post and take a look at some of the ridiculous shit this guy and others are saying. I had never spent much time on /x/ before and after today I doubt I'll be returning any time soon unless someone else like OP shows up on Veeky Forums again.
Here's my favorite thing that he's had to say so far:
"
>Oil doesn't do anything for the Earth.
Mind explaining that one? How do you know it serves no purpose? Why would it be there if it has no purpose?

I think you are just repeating what the government says. But I could be wrong; go ahead, explain.
"

You are quoting Albert Einstein, Isaac M
Newton or Stephen Hawking there? I think that may be the fourth law of thermosynamics if im not mistaken

>Mind explaining that one? How do you know it serves no purpose? Why would it be there if it has no purpose?
>I think you are just repeating what the government says. But I could be wrong; go ahead, explain.

As you can see, I gave that user a chance to explain and answer my questions. Obviously, user didn't explain or answer anything. So, what's your point?

Ya know that not everything has a reason to exist right? Like you and me, why do we exist? Whats our purpose in the universe? Does the universe/earth care? You are just trying to create conections that don't exist

Don't worry, OP will come in here with some woo about how we all have an inherent purpose in the universe because of the life-force that ties us together

yeah how could i forget the fith law of thermodynamics " Gravity doesnt exist, the earth is flat, theres a life force that ties us humans and our souls, H2O = Hg and that because H2O = Hg | 2O = G | 2 = G/O and because there is no gravity G = 0 so 2 = 0. Almost had forgotten that one

luddite status

>Ya know that not everything has a reason to exist right? Like you and me, why do we exist? Whats our purpose in the universe? Does the universe/earth care? You are just trying to create conections that don't exist

Check the address bar in your browser, mate. This isn't /x/

This is Veeky Forums, but none of you have posted anything remotely scientific. None of you have addressed any of my points with valid evidence.
What's wrong, kids? haha

>Obviously, user didn't explain or answer anything
There's literally an answer two posts below that. It's quoted and everything.

Oh, so you're a troll.

>There's literally an answer two posts below that. It's quoted and everything.

Sure, there is.
>pic related

And as you can see that answer(the only one that can be considered scientific and backed by facts) is the one that gave me the link on Abiogenic Petroleum.

Verify the thread if you like.

So you didn't read the whole post

Of course i read it. Its a bunch of claims without evidence to back them up.

I posted links to back up all my claims.

ARE YOU GOING TO BACK UP YOUR REFUTALS WITH FACTS? OR ARE YOU GOING TO NITPICK MY POSTS WITHOUT ADDRESSING MY INITIAL CLAIM IN A TRULY SCIENTIFIC WAY?

Different user here, not interested in the debate. But for your information, the few intelligent people here tend to be frustrated by a relatively high percentage of threads being "please disprove my theory extrapolated from wiki articles with real scientific papers for me." It's kind of a bit of work, and it's work that you should be capable of yourself before sharing.

I am not asking Veeky Forums to prove or disprove anything.
And if you had taken the liberty of actually reading my first two post you would know that.

>I would like a scientific perspective on this because if i am going to prove a conspiracy theory, I need scientific facts to back my views and/or claims.

>My claim is that petroleum [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum ] is the blood of Planet Earth. Meaning that the Earth is actually a Living being as stated by the Gaia Hypotesis. [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis ]

In other words; I asked for an examination of my claims and the evidence I posted to back it up.

And if you consider wikipedia is not evidence then see:
>well, give me an scientifically accepted online archive and I'll look up all my posted links there to corroborate.

Nice sage, bro

God, I fucking hate /x/ so much. Get off of this fucking board. Wikipedia is not a credible source. No one will give a counter argument that's in anyway scientific; your claim is shit, and anyone who researches a counter argument is an autist unable to form an argument. Please, stop spamming shit like this on the board. It's not science and needs to fucking stay on /x/.

>Wikipedia is not a credible source.

Hey, faggot.
Do you know how to read or do you need some help?

And if you consider wikipedia is not evidence then see:
>well, give me an scientifically accepted online archive and I'll look up all my posted links there to corroborate.

Ty bro. Sage in all fields.

Typical /x/ faggot, wanting to be spoonfed.

OP, once again, is the biggest fucking faggot.

wow, your science is amazing

Sure is. Back to your hole

If anything, you are the one that belongs there.

None of you have posted any refutal backed by evidence. All you have done is insult and ridicule, exactly like you do when you go low key shitposting on /x/.

>I hereby appoint myself emperor of Veeky Forums.

Hey I'm not that guy, but I haven't been attempting to be scientific. I just hate name/trip fags and want to piss you off so much that you leave.

It's probably kingchem with a new trip.
fuck off faggot.
read a book nigger.

Better than the fucking fairy queen I guess

People here are trying to make you leave and are just shitposting. This obviously won't work because you are either completely retarded or also shitposting.

>I haven't been attempting to be scientific.
Nobody has.

>I just hate name/trip fags
Why would you put more emphasis on the device used to avoid impersonation and disruption of the information posted, rather than the information itself?

>and want to piss you off so much that you leave.
Not gonna happen, sorry. all you are achieving is the complete opposite.
All you are doing is amusing me and feeding my ego because none can refute my arguments in a decent and evidence backed manner.

I know your ego is being fed. There are 22 unique posters in this thread calling you autistic. No one agrees with you. You still think are fucking right though. You are obviously delusional and not worth responding to, but it's so fun to know a person like this exists.

>No one agrees with you.
im not asking anybody to agree with me.
(OP)
>I would like a scientific perspective on this because if i am going to prove a conspiracy theory, I need scientific facts to back my views and/or claims.

>You still think are fucking right though
Of course I fucking do believe I am right.
Your behaviour proves me right.
This is Veeky Forums yet all of you incessantly shitpost and insult me without even addressing my points and arguments. You are a joke.

>"hurr you're reaaaaallly scientific! #sarcastic XD"
>Oh I know nobody has been trying to be scientific
..?

I care about the namefagging because anonymity is what makes people regard all information with equal judgment. For some reason you pretend people care that it's "you" posting on a Hungarian blood sausage weighing board.

Kek, so many namefags say shit like "you won't get me to leave" but it always happens eventually.

I'm not going to read your /x/ thread, sorry, but I'll try to put you on the right track for building a scientific paper on your theory.
There is this concept called Occam's Razor, which states that the theory with the least assumptions is probably the truest one. Granted, the statement doesn't always hold, but I think you'll agree with me that less assumptions = more believable. Keep this in mind as you move forward
When you refer to "the Earth," what exactly are you referring to? Is it the mantle, core, etc. not including all of the organisms on its surface?
When you say that "the Earth is alive", what do you mean? Do you mean to imply that the Earth is capable of reproduction, or that it is capable of intelligent response to stimuli? Coke is capable of response to mentos, for example, but we would not say that Coke is alive.
Why petroleum, and why blood? Okay, there are loads of carbon in petroleum, but why would you then go to say it was blood? You mention that it helps to sustain the plants on the Earth's surface or something of that nature , but why then is petroleum significant? Plants need sunlight and water as well; are the processes which deliver these nutrients to the plant part of some greater lifeform too? If not, why? Please realize that any perceived superficial similarity of petroleum to blood that you may have is not actually support for your claim. Moreover, petroleum does not flow, nor does it have any properties similar to blood (apart from being a liquid). You might ask me to prove the lack of similarities, but I believe even an elementary understanding of blood is sifficient. The onus is on you, who has the very, very unpopular theory, to come prepared with responses to such basic refutations. You will have a more successful thread if you attach a pastebin to the OP with responses to common queries.
(cont'd)

why u ignoring these posts op

(You)#
Kek, I'm not that guy, but you do realize it shows the (OP) automatically, right? Like, see how retarded my reply to (you) looks? Fucking newfags.

>Of course I fucking do believe I am right.
This is the cringiest part of this entire topic. From the first post on. Science doesn't look to prove itself right, it looks to disprove itself. You cannot prove something right. You can only show failure to prove it wrong. The difference between conspiracy theorists and scientists is that conspiracy theorists are more interested in loose evidence in agreement than rigorous attempts to prove they are wrong.

Because OP is a troll. :,^(

(cont'd)
Of course, with lenient definitions of "the Earth" and what it means for the Earth to be "alive", I could agree with the statement "the Earth is alive". However, I think the same logic might prove that simple chemical reactions prove life for the reactants.
Finally, what is the significance of the Earth being a living organism? If this is something you aren't concerned with, please ignore the question as well as the following ones. Do you think that the discovery that the Earth is alive would have any bearing on our view of the planet?
Do you think that planets, in general, were all alove at some point? How would you apply your logic to determining the whether or not Venus (or Mars) is alive, or does it not apply? Would the presence of petroleum alone imply life?
Are stars possibly alive as well, and how would we determine that? They certainly have a lot flowing within them.

the first two are obviously trolls.
the third one wasn't there. which means tampering with the thread.
and the fourth one i actually quoted.

now if you excuse me, i have to write my answers for

Please don't.

Do it OP. Don't listen to because they're a faggot. I need your sweet autism screen shot for memes.

>When you refer to "the Earth," what exactly are you referring to? Is it the mantle, core, etc. not including all of the organisms on its surface?
The whole of it. From the nucleus to the outer reaches of the atmosphere. And its electromagnetic fields.

>When you say that "the Earth is alive", what do you mean?
Read up on the Gaia Hypothesis, and you'll know what i mean.

>why then is petroleum significant?
that comes in for the conspiracy theory part of my original thread on /x/
I stated that "what if" petroleum is actually the planet's blood. Then somebody posted the link on Abiogenic Petroleum, which is further confirmation that petroleum can actually be the planet's blood. Because the planet naturally creating a liquid that contains high levels hydrocarbons; which are the primary building block of life on its surface; is evidence that ( quoting the article on the Gaia Hypotesis) "organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet."

>Plants need sunlight and water as well;
Yes, obviously. Petroleum just supplies the soil plants grow on with carbons, which plants use as nutrients.
An analog to this is how us humans get oxigenated by our blood but also need food and water. its not that hard to comprehend.

>are the processes which deliver these nutrients to the plant part of some greater lifeform too?
see my previous quote.

>Moreover, petroleum does not flow,
You have no way of knowing this, nor proving it to me or anybody else. The whole planet is riddled with miles over miles of caverns.

>nor does it have any properties similar to blood (apart from being a liquid)
colors are similar. texture is similar. they both carry a lot of different chemicals useful to the organism that holds them. both are stored under the surface of the organism.

anything else?

>I need your sweet autism screen shot for memes.
oh, i have one for you, mate

>An analog to this is how us humans get oxigenated by our blood but also need food and water. its not that hard to comprehend
that's not a good analogy
water is also "beneath the surface", which you i assume you mean to say "comes with the organism". why not pick water to be the blood? petroleum is entirely irrelevant to the life of some organisms, or at the very least, no more relevant than water.

>Any input?
Yeah, you're a complete idiot

>that's not a good analogy
that's an opinion.

>why not pick water to be the blood?
what is basic biology?
what is the function of water in our cells as opposed to the function of blood?

in any case, there are also petroleum reserves at the bottom of the ocean. Chemicals from this reserves are obviously filtering through the seabed into the water, and are being used by microorganisms as food and so goes the food chain.

oh, look! more insults. lovely.

I don't get why you react so negatively to this information that could change the world and our society for the better, its like you like being raped by the powers that be.

Take your meds.

>oh, look! more insults
What did you expect kiddo? You come to an science board and make unsubstantiated and unscientific claims. Which you then try to prove by linking unproven hypotheses together.
So you score 10/10 on the chart of oh-my-god-what-a-retarded-dumb-fuck-!

Maybe you should first learn a thing or two about science and the scientific method.

I'm not saying that there isn't shit going beyond that we don't understand. Pointless conjecture like conspiracy theories are not based using any kind of real rationale. It's all shitty guess work.

Go be with the other delusional nut jobs

This. There are tons of things going on that qualify as conspiracy, but that the fact that conspiracy somewhere exists does not justify believing in, for example, a global flat-earth conspiracy. Conspiracy theorist isn't used to label anyone who suggests any conspiracy exists at all, it's used to label people who are so set on their particular brands of world-wide conspiracy that they disregard plausibility and counter-evidence.

>linking unproven hypotheses together.
hahaha ok lets see how unproven they are.

>but later refinements resulted in ideas framed by the Gaia hypothesis being used in fields such as Earth system science, biogeochemistry, systems ecology, and the emerging subject of geophysiology
THAT'S REEEAALY UNPROVEN. RIGHT?

>Scientists in the former Soviet Union widely held that significant petroleum deposits could be attributed to abiogenic origin, though this view fell out of favor toward the end of the 20th century because they did not make useful predictions for the discovery of oil deposits.
COMPLETLY UNPROVEN. YEP. DEFINETLY.

ITS LIKE YOU IDIOTS HAVE ONLY HALF A BRAIN. HAHAHAHA

>I need scientific facts to back my views and/or claims.

Arse backwards, buddy. Your views and/or claims need to reflect the scientific facts, not the other way around.
Otherwise your confirmation bias will be leading you around by the nose.

>Your views and/or claims need to reflect the scientific facts

See:
>My claim is that petroleum [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum ] is the blood of Planet Earth. Meaning that the Earth is actually a Living being as stated by the Gaia Hypotesis. [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis ]
>In that thread someone posted about Abiogenic Petroleum in the thread. [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin ]
>Which is petroleum formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms.
>Abiogenic petroleum is the proof that the Gaia Hypotesis is true, and more than a mere hypotesis.
>But. Both ideas are being refuted despite all the evidence supporting them.

GAIA HYPOTHESIS NOT ENTIRELY CONTRADICTED
GAIA HYPOTHESIS PROVEN
SCIENCE BTFO
REMEMBER THE DAY

I lost 63 IQ points since i started reading this thread.
And since IQ is 100% genetic, that's quite the feat, OP.

Don't bother, he's shown consistently throughout the thread he has no fucking clue what confirmation bias is or how the scientific method works, anything in the way of HIS AMAZING DISCOVERY obviously out to get him.
Case in point.

if i am wrong, like you said; it shouldn't be hard for you to post some FACTS that completely and undoubtedly PROVE me wrong.

BUT. EVERYTHING you have posted so far is utter shit, insults and disrespect.

NOT A SINGLE LINK HAS BEEN POSTED BY ANY OF YOU TO REFUTE MY ARGUMENTS. NO DATA. NO SCIENTIFIC FACT HAS BEEN POSTED BY ANY ONE OF YOU.

Sometimes you've just gotta try... Somewhere in there is a rational human bean just begging to be dug out from under that lifetime of gullibility!

>autism, the post

>NOT A SINGLE LINK HAS BEEN POSTED BY ANY OF YOU TO REFUTE MY ARGUMENTS. NO DATA. NO SCIENTIFIC FACT HAS BEEN POSTED BY ANY ONE OF YOU.

Sorry buddy. Arse backwards again. You are making the claim, you need to provide the evidence. The serious posts to you have raised their issues with the links you provided and you've heartily ignored them. Instead, you need to address the issues and try again later.

Great refutal.

>the whole planet is riddled with miles over miles of caverns.

Petroleum doesn't lay in caverns. And it's quite easy to determine it doesn't flow. Just inject a marker and watch how it diffuses.

>you need to provide the evidence.
i did provide peer reviewed studies by award winning scientists.

> In 2006, the Geological Society of London awarded Lovelock the Wollaston Medal in part for his work on the Gaia hypothesis

Try harder.

>The serious posts to you have raised their issues with the links you provided and you've heartily ignored them

See:
>well, give me an scientifically accepted online archive and I'll look up all my posted links there to corroborate.

Still waiting. Try even harder.