(January 9, 2014 at 10:34 am)Drich Wrote: From what I saw you said nothing of substance, just empty conjecture. Now if you want me to revisit something specifically just highlight it.

You must not have been paying very close attention, since I repeated a number of the questions I posed the first time around, and you're answering them now. Other than them, I frankly have no interest in retreading old ground just to read your obfuscations of what I asked later.

Quote:As mentioned in the artical found in psychology today, the soul is not a physical object, but a word that describes self awareness.

So, are you now saying that evolved man, before Adam and Eve entered their world, were not self aware? Despite having functioning societies and cultures, they weren't self aware?

Or are you trying to bait and switch the magic soul you actually mean, with a less offensive, watered down version?

Quote:What you seem to be looking for is scientific proof that a soul exists as you currently understand the existance of a soul. which by all reason and measure of logic is a fools errand.

Well, I guess what I'm asking is, if you're fully admitting that you can't detect the soul using science, how did you detect it? And if you can't detect it in an objectively verifiable way, how could you possibly have been initially justified in accepting your claim to be true?

Quote:(But it does support my assertion a few posts back that people like you first come up with a concept and then look for proof to support it rather than honestly gather information and form a conclusion to where ever it leads.)

How is me asking you, openly and in a public forum, for evidence of your claim, in any way indicative of a desire to ignore such evidence against my position that you can provide? Do tell.

I merely reported on the actual content of the link you gave; that I find your evidence unconvincing and only tangentially related to what you're trying to prove isn't a mark of some bias in me. You want me to believe you? Get better proof.

In the meantime, quit your petty obfuscations.

Quote:In the above mentioned artical the soul is identified as a catch all term for self awareness, it even goes as far as seperating itself from the 'spiritual' defination.. But it seems you did not read the whole artical. I guess I am not the only one guilty of that.

No, that was me being charitable, Drich, because I can't imagine you seriously thought that the idea that the soul means self awareness actually aids the position you're espousing, for the reasons I detailed above when you first brought this up. I gave you more credit than you evidently deserved.

If you're seriously saying that mankind wasn't self aware before Adam and Eve bred a soul into the gene pool, I'd remind you that cows are self aware, and yet you're asking us to believe that an entire civilization could have been erected by a race of people who weren't sentient?

Quote:When the bible identified Adam "as being a living soul." and through the oral tradition of the Jews that says the soul of man is given by the father, and the body or blood of man is given by the mother.

Do you still not understand how little weight I put in old Jewish mythology? Besides, I was asking for proof of your interbreeding claim, not a fictional story to confirm your idea of spirit genealogy.

Quote:is it your contention that religion=souls?
I did not say man was a blank slate, I said man was little more than a troop of monkeys. meaning they were without a soul, not without minds of their own.

So now you seem to be going back on your "the soul is self awareness" claim from earlier.

Quote:Where he built the city of Enoch... Do you know the difference between a city and a house? do you know the difference between a house and a villiage, a village and a town, and town and a city? aside from the size and shape of the buildings POPULATION is what seperates these communities.

He may have built a city, but that doesn't justify your claim that there were already people there to inhabit it; that's an unjustified assumption to cover for the bible, a book that's not exactly lacking in nonsensical events. Perhaps he was building it for future generations.

Quote:So it is you estimation that in 6000 years of telling and retelling this story no one has caught this error aside from you and your peers?

No, it's my estimation that the book stubbornly hasn't changed in that length of time because it hasn't needed to; it's hardly been lacking for idiotic defenders willing to call even the most egregious of errors inerrant, now has it?

Quote:They are only responsiable for what they understand.

But you got it right, despite offering no mechanism through which that can be confirmed, eh?

Quote:I believe because I stood before Christ, and went though judgement, and for a brief moment felt the love and completeness that welcomed all who believe. I want to experience that love and completeness for eternity.

That's why I believe god is a psychotropic drug, then.

Quote:that wasn't the question now was it?

I don't really understand why you think the second sentence of my response wasn't an answer to your question.

Drich Wrote:I believe because I stood before Christ, and went though judgement, and for a brief moment felt the love and completeness that welcomed all who believe. I want to experience that love and completeness for eternity.

I thought we've already been through this, Drich. Thinking you had aids for a few weeks does not equate to a NDE in any way whatsoever. You are seriously gettin on my nerves with this bullshit. And it's insulting to the people who actually have had NDEs here on the forum and never fucking got past the hospital bed much less, heavenly judgement.

(January 8, 2014 at 12:26 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 7, 2014 at 6:31 pm)Belac Enrobso Wrote: Drich there's a hole in your theory, Eden would have been submerged for quite some time (hundreds of thousands of years) to allow the formation of all of the oil that is now there, correct? How could Adam and Eve survive in the garden of Eden when it was submerged. After all oil only forms from dead aquatic plant and marine life, hence why there were no dinosaurs in "Eden".

Maybe look up Gondwana, and tell me again how the region in question was on the sea floor. You would think you would have checked ALL your facts before giving me an oppertunity to make you look foolish, but hey, nobody's perfect eh?

*note the text that says Arabia, right there submerged under the Tethys Ocean.

Drich Wrote:

(January 7, 2014 at 7:41 pm)Bunny Wrote: Crude oil is formed from the decayed remnants of aquatic plants and animals that lived hundreds of millions of years ago.

says scientist who believe that petroleum is a fossil based fuel. There are other 'scientists' who believe oil is a byproduct of Teutonic activity. The point? No one knows for sure, at best you have a theory you like Kinda like I do.

Not really, no. I'm just gonna assume you mean tectonic activity and address you as such.

If you want to go with already debunked 'scientists' theories from the 1600's, go ahead. I'll stick with modern science. What's more, your own tectonic theorists have been proven wrong already, and their theories still require "magic" energy sources for the convection of tectonic plates; which, if it were to somehow be plausible for a magical energy source to cause such friction (you're an earth expansionist theorist, aren't you?), it would still be impossible for plate tectonics to be a plausible theory, because it's a theory without an energy source to power geodynamic activity.

wiki Wrote:Herndon ... found a serious problem [6]. Indeed, the critical assumption of mantle convection is truly the Achilles heel of plate tectonics.
When a fluid is heated from beneath, it expands becoming lighter, less dense, than the fluid above it. This top-heavy arrangement is unstable, so fluid motions result as the fluid attempts to restore stability. The top-heavy arrangement occurs because the temperature at the bottom is hotter than at the top. This is convection. Not only is the Earth’s mantle not a fluid, but the weight of over-burden rock causes compression within the mantle, which increases with depth. Matter at the bottom of the mantle is about 62% more dense than at the top, as shown in the figure at right. Heating bottom-rock causes a miniscule increase in volume, hence miniscule decrease in density, much, much less than 1%. This is far, far too little to make the "parcel" of bottom-mantle light enough to float to the top, not enough to make the mantle top-heavy; the result is no mantle-convection at all.

Often Earth-mantle convection is (wrongly) "justified" by calculating a high Rayleigh Number. But, as discovered by J. Marvin Herndon, Lord Rayleigh's derivation was based upon constant density and, thus, is not applicable to the Earth's mantle [6].

So, unequivocally, plate tectonics theory is not correct. Why? Because the crucial underlying part is physically impossible, which means that plate tectonics theory is wrong. That might not be surprising as plate tectonics is an incomplete theory, a theory without an energy source to power geodynamic activity.

Drich Wrote:

Bunny Wrote:Large portions of the modern day Middle East were once submerged under a large, now non-existent sea called the Tethys Sea.

Sorry bunny no, well 2/3's no. Tethys was not one large ocean in the region being discussed. It was 3 seperate bodies of water that occupied different portions of the Arabian plate at one time or another. 'Scientist' project that roughly 1/2 of the Arabian plate was submerged at one point or another. And, of that 1/2 only 1/3 of it was under water at a time.
http://www.geoexpro.com/article/Why_So_M...94fc1.aspx
(Tethys is discussed in the paragraph under the fourth pic from the top.)

I don't see any disagreement with what I said. We're in agreement. You're an idiot.

Quote:http://www.sepmstrata.org/page.aspx?pageid=133


The Late Ordovician was characterized by the expanding of the polar glaciers across Gondwana and most of western parts of Arabia (Husseini, 1991).


In the Early Silurian, sea level rose in response to deglaciation and resulted in the widespread deposition of the upward-coarsening Qalibah Formation, which consists of a lower Qusaiba member and an upper Sharawara member (Mahmoud et al., 1992). The Qusaiba member at the base of Qalibah Formation is an organic-rich shale corresponding to a maximum flooding surface. This "hot shale" unit ranges in thickness from 20-70 m. On the basis of carbon isotope and biomarker data, the basal Qusaiba shale is believed to be the principal source for the low-sulfur, light oil discovered in Paleozoic reservoirs of central and eastern Saudi Arabia (McGillivray and Husseini, 1992). According to Vail (1977), a hiatus associated with a global sea-level drop occurred in the late stages of Silurian.



n the Late Permian, the Arabian-Gondwana/Iranian-Laurasia super continent was fragmented when the crust was stretched, and by the Early Triassic eventually rifted along the Zagros line to form the Neo-Tethys Sea (eastern margin of the Arabian Plate) (Beydoun, 1991). During the Jurassic the Arabian plate was relatively tectonically stable and was located at the Equator enabling the development of a wide shallow shelf on the western passive margin of the Neo-Tethys on which carbonates accumulated over the shelf and inner platform. Most of the Arabian Gulf petroleum source-reservoir-seals accumulated during the Jurassic and Cretaceous.

The climate became more humid towards the end of Early Jurassic. As a result, evaporites deposition was rare. Intrashelf depressions such as the Gotnia, the South Rub' AlKhali, and the Arabian Basins were created as a result of tectonic differentiation and rising sea level.

The major formation of the Arabian platform was initiated in the Late Callovian, and caused the deposition of the organic rich rocks that form the major source formation in the anoxic intrashelf basins of the Middle East (e.g., Gotnia Basin and Arabian Basin). The carbonate deposition on the shelf kept pace with changes in sea level until the end of Jurassic when the major evaporitic seals were deposited during a fall in sea level as the climate became predominantly arid.

The onset of the Alpine-Himalayan orogeny started in the late Cretaceous. The Neo-Tethys began to close and as a result of compression and foredeep developed in eastern Arabia. The re-organization of the Indian Ocean spreading centers (as a result of fast northward motion of Indian plate) thrust fragments of ocean crust upon the eastern Arabian plate continental margins (Semail ophiolite of Oman) (Hulver, 2000). This tectonic motion produced a major hiatus of sedimentation across the Arabian plate and the Pre-Aruma unconformity (PAU). Additionally, the "Hercynian" structures were rejuvenated and started forming the major eastern Arabian petroleum traps (e.g. the Ghawar anticline) (Beydoun, 1991).

So let's review what happened up there shall we? First, deglaciation floods everything, creating the Tethys Sea--Lots, and lots of organic material in a world sized sea. Climate change causes a decrease in sea levels and major evaporitic seals were deposited. The african shelf collides with the european shelf, shifting the arabian shelf counterclockwise, and all the biological matter was covered in a shale of rock and left to cook.

Now let's look at how real science says fossil fuels are formed.

Quote:http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energyle...ormed.html
During the millions of years that passed, the dead plants and animals slowly decomposed into organic materials and formed fossil fuels. Different types of fossil fuels were formed depending on what combination of animal and plant debris was present, how long the material was buried, and what conditions of temperature and pressure existed when they were decomposing.

For example, oil and natural gas were created from organisms that lived in the water and were buried under ocean or river sediments. Long after the great prehistoric seas and rivers vanished, heat, pressure and bacteria combined to compress and "cook" the organic material under layers of silt. In most areas, a thick liquid called oil formed first, but in deeper, hot regions underground, the cooking process continued until natural gas was formed. Over time, some of this oil and natural gas began working its way upward through the earth's crust until they ran into rock formations called "caprocks" that are dense enough to prevent them from seeping to the surface. It is from under these caprocks that most oil and natural gas is produced today.

[/quote]

Drich Wrote:

Bunny Wrote:Why wont you just outright say where you believe the garden was?

I have a few times. Well as close as I can because as I have already explained we only know where two of the four rivers mentioned in genesis are.

Really? Where? In this thread that we're talking in right now? Or are you asking me to read an entire Other thread just to address you in this one which is highly inconvenient and kinda dickish of you? Or do you mean in the great "Drich's revised version of History" on this forum? Cuz, you know, I don't follow every single post of yours; just the blatantly retarded ones.

Drich Wrote:

Bunny Wrote:Telling us to get a map and research before you making us look like fools is foolish, to say the least. If you truly think your 'layman theory' is correct beyond all doubt, and that there are NO fossils coming out of that region, then by all means Drich--put it up for scrutiny. I've already pointed out to you how your 'garden oil deposits' are incorrect, lets keep goin.

so it is your opinion that 'fossil fuel scientists' would admit to there have being the garden of Eden as the primary source for all the oil in that region if they had proof?

Ummm.. DUH. Science isn't based upon what it wants to disprove, it's a culmination of FACTS, data, observations, with CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE FACTS, not the other way around like you're trying to do (poorly).
If I'm giving an opinion on the matter, it's my opinion that 'fossil fuel scientists' aka: scientists have proven beyond doubt what has happened, and 'creationist scientists' refuse to accept the findings because it contradicts what they believe to be true and invalidates their book as being truth. Therefore they grasp at unfounded, impossible theories such as those you have spewed forth, in order to justify their scrutiny of well-founded TRUTH.

Drich Wrote:

Bunny Wrote:Also your 'theory' has already been done. Unless this is you?

---

The Dinosaurs Story -Science vs. The Bible posted 5/21/2008 8:39:05 PM | 4 kudos what's this? report abuse tagged: dinosaurs, bible

justsayyeah7

Dinosaurs have been a fascination of mankind ever since the first dinosaur bones were discovered in the 1820's. The word dinosaur means 'terrible lizard.'

Dinosaurs are always thought of as huge monsters when in reality most of them were the size of elephants or smaller.

Most scientists(excluding creationist scientists) tell us dinosaurs lived for millions of years, millions of years ago. This is just theories of these scientists of course since there is no measuring stick they use to prove this. The scientists that believe dinosaurs lived millions of years ago are evolutionists and they try to fit the story of dinosaurs into their evolution views. The problem with the evolution theories is that the dinosaur bones do not show it. Ever go to a dinosaur museum and see a partial Triceratops? No. But if the dinosaurs evolved then where is the partial Triceratops? Every Triceratops in every museum is 100% Triceratops. There is no fossil evidence of animals that are part dinosaur and part something else. These scientists also believe that dinosaurs and humans never lived on the eath at the same time. The only reason these types of theories exists is because these scientists like to try and disprove the bible and promote their evolution views.

The bible on the other hand gives us clues to dinosaurs and humans living on the planet at the same time. First off, bible scholars tell us that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1 can only mean an ordinary day in this context. So when the bible tells us that God created the earth in 6 days, then it was 6 actual days. Some scientists will tell you that 'who knows how long each day was, each day could have represented years.' That is them using theories with no proof again.

In Genesis 1 we read that God created beasts of the earth and man on the 6th day and then on the 7th day He rested. The book of Genesis was written by Moses in the 16th Century BC and describes events that took place between the 4th and 3rd Millieneum before Christ. That means roughly 4,000 to 3,000 years BC. That would show that dinosaurs lived only 5,000 to 6,000 years ago.

So since the bible tells us that beasts and man were created on the same day, that would say that man and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time.

Then what happened to the dinosaurs? Evolution scientists will tell you many different theories to the dinosaurs demise. Here are some of those theories;

Dinosaurs starved to death; they died from overeating; they were poisoned; they became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals ate their eggs. Other causes include-volcanic dust, poisonous gases, comets, sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_89453/Th...Bible.html econstipation, parasites, shrinking brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the composition of air, etc.

It is obvious that evolutionist don't know what happened and are just guessing. Why else would they have so many different reasons? In the bible, scholars believe that the flood that covered the entire earth is the reason. This is when we had the story of Noah's Ark. The creatures that could fit were placed inside the Ark by either pairs or in sevens and the rest all drowned. This would include the large dinosaurs that were too large to fit in the ark and they drowned too. The creatures who drowned were buried under the mud created by the flood.

One fact that I find interesting is that no dinosaur fossils have ever been found in the Iraq/Saudi Arabia region(also know back then as the Garden of Eden). This is the region that people lived in prior to the flood. Dinosaurs have been found in every region in the world except this one is very interesting and makes the story of the bible even more believable.

So if you care about this subject then I hope you enjoyed this blog. As I see it, you can either believe the theories that date back to the 1820's or you can believe documents that were written 1,600 BC. Me personally, I believe written documents over someones theory anyday.

---

So? All this says in Common with what I said is there are no fossils found in that region... It's the truth, I do not understand your point.

Not true. All of it covers exactly what you've been saying in this thread and the Other one you made me review. My point, sir, is that you're by far not the first to throw this shit around, and those before you have been refuted to the point that you saying it again and thinking it's revolutionary is just embarrassing for you.

Drich Wrote:I guess this is another opportunity for me to gloat, because you puffed yourself up on info someone else provided you blindly.. Meaning ms. Foo foo didnt provide any reference material verifying what she said was accurate or even close...

Gloating seems to be the only thing you're good at.

Drich Wrote:Who needs story tellers when you are good with blind faith, and someone who sounds like she knows what she is talking about... how does that differ from story telling again?

I think it's been made quite evident that you've been holding a bluff hand all along. I'd suggest to you to take your information from real scientific websites, rather than religious conspiracy theorist ones. Just a suggestion.

(January 9, 2014 at 11:20 am)Bunny Wrote:

Drich Wrote:I believe because I stood before Christ, and went though judgement, and for a brief moment felt the love and completeness that welcomed all who believe. I want to experience that love and completeness for eternity.

I thought we've already been through this, Drich. Thinking you had aids for a few weeks does not equate to a NDE in any way whatsoever. You are seriously gettin on my nerves with this bullshit. And it's insulting to the people who actually have had NDEs here on the forum and never fucking got past the hospital bed much less, heavenly judgement.

Sorry for the confussion ms. foo foo
http://atheistforums.org/thread-15622.html

oh, and also you are aware the geoexpro is the goto source for people in that field right? (Geoexpro being the site I quoted from) Which your conflicting data only further supports my orginal assertion, that you guys don't have any real evidence as to the orgins of the oil, and how it was developed. Only a general idea (that changes from group to group.) based on a larger theory. This is hardly the 'evidence' needed to topple my arguement, because it is not in a position to disprove other conflicting arguements based on the same data let alone difinitivly state that the land the garden of eden was on was under completely under water for most of the earth's past..

Let me get this straight. You stop breathing while sleeping. Got a sleep study attesting to this occurrence? How do you even know you weren't just having a vivid nightmare?
My 02 levels drop to the 60s when I sleep--It took until my 20s to figure this fact out though, and I lived at 8k feet altitude until recently. I had sleep paralysis once while I felt a man ontop of me sucking my blood out of my neck. Doesn't mean it actually happened. Nor do I go around saying, "I've felt the teeth of vampires in my neck and I'm here to tell you they're real!"

Nextly, your response was not even a real response to the information and points I posited to you. Kinda intellectually lazy, what you sent as a 'response'. Try again. Again, just because you say you're still right doesn't mean that I didn't just show you that you're flat out wrong. The burden lies on you now, to demonstrate how the scientific community's widespread opinion on matters, and peer reviewed experimentation dictating your theory to be incorrect, are themselves incorrect.

Also, I've been calling you by your name purposefully rather than Drippy or Slippy or Drichy-kins. So I'd rather ask for the same professional courtesy bestowed upon you. I know it's tempting, that little bunny fu fu. But it's a temporary means to an end and I'm not changing my name back until it's time, just because you can't help being childish when adults are talking.

(January 9, 2014 at 5:26 pm)Lolita Wrote: Let me get this straight. You stop breathing while sleeping. Got a sleep study attesting to this occurrence? How do you even know you weren't just having a vivid nightmare?
My 02 levels drop to the 60s when I sleep--It took until my 20s to figure this fact out though, and I lived at 8k feet altitude until recently. I had sleep paralysis once while I felt a man ontop of me sucking my blood out of my neck. Doesn't mean it actually happened. Nor do I go around saying, "I've felt the teeth of vampires in my neck and I'm here to tell you they're real!"

I'm sorry if my life's experience do not match up to your own but God was still able to use my humble experience to a profound effect. Imagine what someone like you could possible experience, if you simply a/s/k.

Quote:your response was not even a real response to the information and points I posited to you. Kinda intellectually lazy, what you sent as a 'response'. Try again. Again, just because you say you're still right doesn't mean that I didn't just show you that you're flat out wrong. The burden lies on you now, to demonstrate how the scientific community's widespread opinion on matters, and peer reviewed experimentation dictating your theory to be incorrect, are themselves incorrect.

why? The fact that two modern science based theories contradict one another disqualifies both as both being legitimate, and because my source is used by the oil industry, and your source was what? Wiki? Not that wiki is a totally crap source but there are other more established sources out there. When the two are in conflict it is the obligation of the person using the wiki reference to find a stronger reference.

Quote:Also, I've been calling you by your name purposefully rather than Drippy or Slippy or Drichy-kins. So I'd rather ask for the same professional courtesy bestowed upon you. I know it's tempting, that little bunny fu fu. But it's a temporary means to an end and I'm not changing my name back until it's time, just because you can't help being childish when adults are talking.

thats the fun thing about nick names. We don't get to pick them. Nor do we get to typically decide whether or not someone uses them against us.. That said if you dont want me calling ms foo foo I won't. So you can change it back if you want..

If you don't change it back can I call you l-o-l-a Lola, la la la Lola. (it was a song)

Shit.

Australia is one very old continent.

You are aware GeoExpro is a petrolium geoscience magazine, right? That's what comes up in my searches, anyway. Maybe you need to expand upon what you mean by it being the "goto source for people in that field."

On the other hand, the Society for Sedimentary Geology was my source, not Wiki. It's right there in my post. First sentence.
A Link to SEPMstrata.org

These sources were also named in the article I posted, the information found specifically on This page.

(Husseini, 1991)
(Mahmoud et al., 1992)
(McGillivray and Husseini, 1992).
Vail (1977)
(Beydoun, 1991)
(Konert et al., 2001)
(Hulver, 2000)

The Mesozoic basins formed as the results of the Late Permian and Early Triassic opening of the adjacent Neo-Tethys Ocean and the development of its margins (Tethys passive margins). According to Murris (1980), in an area of over 2,000 km wide and 4,000 km long and over 3,000 m thick carbonates were deposited on the newly creating shelf margins. Later tectonic events lead to the deformation and compartmentalization and eventual formation of traps containing the prolific hydrocarbon reservoirs.


The SEPM STRATA website is located at

http://www.sepmstrata.org

The existing SEPM STRATA web site was originally designed and produced by Professor Christopher Kendall and Nassir Al Naji, then at the University of South Carolina. For several years the site was maintained and content was updated under their guidance. Upon Dr. Kendall's retirement the site was transferred to SEPM and the site was uploaded to server space at SEPM. SEPM is currently working with Dr. Kendall on a redesign and updating of the site.

The continued developement and redesign of the website is sponsored by:
ExxonMobil (Gold Level)
Shell
Saudi Aramco (Gold Level)
Chevron
Robertston-CGG

Intended users of this site
• Undergraduate and graduate students academic institutions and organizations
• Professionals in geological surveys and related institutes
• Professionals in the oil and mining industry
• Young and/or mature scientists with a developing interest in the history of the earth and the methods used to unravel its origins

Purpose of this site
Using a combination of linked text, images, and short movies this site is designed to help the above users gain an instant understanding of the principles of sequence stratigraphy and other aspects of sedimentary geology. Often persons exposed to this topic for the first time, even experienced sedimentary stratigraphers, are confused with the extensive terminology of this burgeoning science and the complex geometric response of the sedimentary record to changing rates of sedimentation and relative sea level (whether this latter is the product of world wide changes in sea level [eustasy], or vertical tectonic movement). This web site is designed to help navigate these common problems while helping improve the users understanding of the sedimentary section of the earths crust and the principles of this important earth science discipline. Materials at SEPM STRATA can be used (unless the material is specificially excluded) under the Creative Commons license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Editorial Board
STRATA under SEPM overview has created a volunteer Board of Edtiors, who under the leadership of Chris Kendall (Chief Editor) will be used to review both the current content of the site, review new submitted content and solicit new content. The Board of Edtiors is made up of members from academia and industry, ranging from students and professors to company specialists and consultants.

Board of Editors (2010-2013)

Chief Editor: Chris Kendall University of South Carolina
Associate Editors
Vitor Abreu ExxonMobil
Tom Aigner Universität Tübingen
Nassir Al Naji Saudi Aramaco
Jennifer Aschoff Student
Octavian Catanneau University of Alberta
Ashlye Dack Student
Bret Dixon Anadarko
Steve Franks Consultant
Jim Harris Fugro-Robertson
Peter Haughton University College Dublin
Antun Husinec St. Lawrence University
Diane Kamola University of Kansas
Dale Leckie Nexen
Christopher Lehmann BP
Lisa Marlow Student
Bill Morgan ConocoPhillips
Brad Prather Shell
Rick Sarg Colorado School of Mines
Keith Shanley Consultant
Alice Stagner ConocoPhillips
Morgan Sullivan Chevron

http://sepm.org/pages.aspx?pageid=261

---

Nah go ahead and call me Lola if you want. Bunny is specifically not something I wish to be called by you, though. Nor is foo foo something I consider.. acceptable. Lolita, la la Lola, whatever you wish in terms of that nickname will be fine. I just reserve the right to make one up for you in kind, and I promise.. you won't like it

Sorry for the name changes, I got an internet stalker and I'm trying to be inconspicuous, as you can see

---

(January 9, 2014 at 10:01 pm)Drich Wrote: I'm sorry if my life's experience do not match up to your own but God was still able to use my humble experience to a profound effect. Imagine what someone like you could possible experience, if you simply a/s/k.

Haven't we been over this a gazillion million times? I did a/s/k. from the purest form a human can possibly have, with the purest of intent.

Here was my answer:

Also, I'm not harshing on you for our life experiences not matching up. I'm asking very simple and valid questions. How do you know you'd stopped breathing when you had your "vision" in order to classify it as a NDE? Did you need recussitated? How long had you not been breathing? How do you know you didn't just have a very deep dream?

(January 9, 2014 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: oh, and also you are aware the geoexpro is the goto source for people in that field right? (Geoexpro being the site I quoted from) Which your conflicting data only further supports my orginal assertion, that you guys don't have any real evidence as to the orgins of the oil, and how it was developed. Only a general idea (that changes from group to group.) based on a larger theory. This is hardly the 'evidence' needed to topple my arguement, because it is not in a position to disprove other conflicting arguements based on the same data let alone difinitivly state that the land the garden of eden was on was under completely under water for most of the earth's past..

Given that your argument was an argument from ignorance to begin with, and you've provided nothing to support it beyond "I don't know how X, therefore I'm right," nobody needs to disprove it at all. Your spurious claims don't become the baseline just because you make them. You have to provide evidence for you assertion, and again, and I find it unbelievable that I have to keep explaining this to you, "there's nothing saying it didn't happen" isn't an argument that it did.

It just means your claim is so ridiculous, people didn't think they really needed to comment on it.

(January 9, 2014 at 11:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 9, 2014 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: oh, and also you are aware the geoexpro is the goto source for people in that field right? (Geoexpro being the site I quoted from) Which your conflicting data only further supports my orginal assertion, that you guys don't have any real evidence as to the orgins of the oil, and how it was developed. Only a general idea (that changes from group to group.) based on a larger theory. This is hardly the 'evidence' needed to topple my arguement, because it is not in a position to disprove other conflicting arguements based on the same data let alone difinitivly state that the land the garden of eden was on was under completely under water for most of the earth's past..

Given that your argument was an argument from ignorance to begin with, and you've provided nothing to support it beyond "I don't know how X, therefore I'm right," nobody needs to disprove it at all. Your spurious claims don't become the baseline just because you make them. You have to provide evidence for you assertion, and again, and I find it unbelievable that I have to keep explaining this to you, "there's nothing saying it didn't happen" isn't an argument that it did.

It just means your claim is so ridiculous, people didn't think they really needed to comment on it.

You miss understand the intention of the paragraph that you quoted.
I quoted dr. Rasoul Sorkhabi http://faculty.utah.edu/u0402303-RASOUL_.../index.hml, who is well published and an authority in this his field more specifically of this particular region.

To which ms. Foo, bunny, Lola, la la quoted another well respected source that contradicted what rasoul Sorkhabi wrote. The point I was making was there was no need for me to refute anything these two creditable sources said, why? For the same reason ms. Foo bunny Lola la la's dismissal of Abiogenic petroleum origin as a backwards 16th century attempt at science, failed...

Because biogenic petroleum origins is at best just the current popular belief, that is not supported well enough by the known facts to completely dismiss all other theories. In short " the abiogenic theory cannot be dismissed yet because the mainstream theory still has to be established conclusively." Meaning the "16th" century is still considered to be on the table because of the lack of proof needed to make biogenic petro origins the definitive source for petroleum.

As such there is no need to refute any of these other claims. Fore that is all they are. Biogenic petro origins may have a freight trains worth of backing behind it, but in the end it's just another unverified theory. This is demonstrated by The fact that I and ms. Foo bunny Lola la la can quote two legitimate sources in the oil industry that can have differences in opinion. These differences further indicate a large window for acceptable error. Mean either or neither could be right, as such what is the point of refuting these claims as both have a large probability of being not 100% correct to begin with? All I need is a 10 to 20 % margin of error in either biogenic theories in order for mine to work. These two legitimate sources and the amount of contrast between them show a 75% margin of error just in the two different maps they used.

So again in their acceptable margin of error my theory can happily live.

---

(January 9, 2014 at 10:34 pm)Kyubey Wrote: Nah go ahead and call me Lola if you want. Bunny is specifically not something I wish to be called by you, though. Nor is foo foo something I consider.. acceptable. Lolita, la la Lola, whatever you wish in terms of that nickname will be fine. I just reserve the right to make one up for you in kind, and I promise.. you won't like it

Sorry for the name changes, I got an internet stalker and I'm trying to be inconspicuous, as you can see

---

Hope you do t mind but I answer your oil question along with esq. I didn't see calling you bunny either.. It seems creepy for a grown woman to want to be called that by internet strangers. (Maybe that is why you have a stalker) creepy begets creepy..

I was calling ms. Foo bunny Lola la la. But what about ms. Foo bun Lola la la for short? It's a compromise. (Your not supposed to fully like your nick name, just be able to live with it.)

Quote:Haven't we been over this a gazillion million times? I did a/s/k. from the purest form a human can possibly have, with the purest of intent.

Intent is only apart of the equation. Humility and a contrite heart, one that has one knock as long as it takes as per the example given in luke 11 is what produces results.

Here was my answer:

Quote:Also, I'm not harshing on you for our life experiences not matching up. I'm asking very simple and valid questions. How do you know you'd stopped breathing when you had your "vision" in order to classify it as a NDE? Did you need recussitated? How long had you not been breathing? How do you know you didn't just have a very deep dream?

If I remember correctly I identify this experience as a dream. One that replays in my mind as real as any other legitimate physical memory. That said, What makes you think the God of creation can not communicate through the mudain?