4 ms·

I have heard this theory several years ago but at the time I thought it was considered a sort of fringe theory, has that changed? Is this pretty well accepted n

I have heard this theory several years ago but at the time I thought it was considered a sort of fringe theory, has that changed? Is this pretty well accepted now?

emmelaich 7y ago
Pretty sure this is the main theory and has been for a very long time. There is an alternative (non-biological) theory for hydrocarbon production but not sure whether many take it seriously.
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  One of my classmates in high school Geography put forward the alternative theory that God put the coal there for us to use but the Devil added fake evidence so that the coal would appear to come from ancient plants and thus confuse us about how old the world is. Our teacher asked for a show of hands and 5 out of our 25-30 student class agreed with this theory.
  - labster 7y ago
    And this is why young earthers get coal in their stockings on Christmas morning. If people have this much distrust in creation, maybe they should consider Gnosticism.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    Why is there so much stock in specifically a very literal reading of the most modern translations of Genesis? Even as a religious person, I don't see where they're coming from. Arguments to be made about Genesis originally referring to "creation" (ex nihilo) vs "organization" are already pretty weak, what reason do we then have to assume that despite all the evidence of an ancient Earth that it was literal Earth-days, and that the idea it was literal Earth-days is somehow so important to God's plan that the Devil would fake evidence of fossils to try and get people to think it was NOT Earth-days?
    - Ensorceled 7y ago
      Also, why does an infinitely powerful, just and benevolent God allow his chief rival to fuck with us so much?
      - antod 7y ago
        > Also, why does an infinitely powerful, just and benevolent God allow his chief rival to fuck with us so much? Because it suits him? Partner sounds like a better description than rival. Unless of course, you aren't talking about Trump and Putin?
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      As a religious person what is the justification for a non literal interpretation of the Bible? Was there a commandment that says God wanted you to interpret that way? Why does God want his messages to be non literal instead of literal? Perhaps each person is given a choice. You have three. Interpret the Bible literally, interpret the Bible symbolically or not even play the game and realize that no interpretation of the Bible is correct because the book is just as fictive as the Koran or any other holy book from an ancient religion. How would a human reconcile with their beliefs and how they were raised with reality as it exists around them. Science says that no one can turn water into wine, the Bible says that it can. Logically speaking the Bible is wrong. But when I've spent years reading the Bible and my entire identity is built around religion my only option is to say that the Bible is not to be interpreted literally. I must create a lie that validates reality and validates my identity. Also how would I know that I'm lying to myself? If I or anyone I knew was doing this form of psychological self manipulation, how would I know? You can't until you read this.
      - tempguy9999 7y ago
        Nothing is really provable. The bible is full of oddness and inconsistency, but if you must tie your identity to your reading of a book, do it. It doesn't matter, except that you behave rationally (evaluate the problems world and the people around as they really are, as best you can), and decently (try to fix said problems). If you want to use the bible as an excuse to stone gays to death cos god says so then I'll oppose you because in my eyes that's utterly irrational and hateful. If you say it's between then and god, and take happiness in their happiness to be who they are while we share a planet, even if you don't understand it or agree with it, there's no point of friction between us. I use sexuality merely as an example, there are many others. Do as you will, just be decent, kind, rational.
  - peteradio 7y ago
    5 out of 25 are pilots now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJtCDSnIzGQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJtCDSnIzGQ
- seiferteric 7y ago
  Hmm, I must have misunderstood last time, pretty cool nonetheless!
- oska 7y ago
  I believe the theory you're referring to is what Wikipedia calls the theory of Abiogenic petroleum origin [1]. But that theory is for hydrocarbon liquids and gasses, not for coal. The two theories can be complementary, i.e. coal and peat from buried plant matter and (some or all) oil from planetary upwelling (and perhaps from 'deep microbes'). I'm not taking a position here myself although I do find the theory interesting, particularly the theory of a deep microbial biota. I think you're right that it is generally discounted in the mainstream scientific community. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
  - emmelaich 7y ago
    Thanks, that's it.
cbkeller 7y ago
Geologist here -- the delayed-evolution-of-lignase hypothesis has been criticized in the literature recently [1], but I'd say the jury's still out. [1] https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517943113 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517943113

I have heard this theory several years ago but at the time I thought it was considered a sort of fringe theory, has that changed? Is this pretty well accepted now?

emmelaich 7y ago

Pretty sure this is the main theory and has been for a very long time. There is an alternative (non-biological) theory for hydrocarbon production but not sure whether many take it seriously.

Ensorceled 7y ago
One of my classmates in high school Geography put forward the alternative theory that God put the coal there for us to use but the Devil added fake evidence so that the coal would appear to come from ancient plants and thus confuse us about how old the world is. Our teacher asked for a show of hands and 5 out of our 25-30 student class agreed with this theory.
- labster 7y ago
  And this is why young earthers get coal in their stockings on Christmas morning. If people have this much distrust in creation, maybe they should consider Gnosticism.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  Why is there so much stock in specifically a very literal reading of the most modern translations of Genesis? Even as a religious person, I don't see where they're coming from. Arguments to be made about Genesis originally referring to "creation" (ex nihilo) vs "organization" are already pretty weak, what reason do we then have to assume that despite all the evidence of an ancient Earth that it was literal Earth-days, and that the idea it was literal Earth-days is somehow so important to God's plan that the Devil would fake evidence of fossils to try and get people to think it was NOT Earth-days?
  - Ensorceled 7y ago
    Also, why does an infinitely powerful, just and benevolent God allow his chief rival to fuck with us so much?
    - antod 7y ago
      > Also, why does an infinitely powerful, just and benevolent God allow his chief rival to fuck with us so much? Because it suits him? Partner sounds like a better description than rival. Unless of course, you aren't talking about Trump and Putin?
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    As a religious person what is the justification for a non literal interpretation of the Bible? Was there a commandment that says God wanted you to interpret that way? Why does God want his messages to be non literal instead of literal? Perhaps each person is given a choice. You have three. Interpret the Bible literally, interpret the Bible symbolically or not even play the game and realize that no interpretation of the Bible is correct because the book is just as fictive as the Koran or any other holy book from an ancient religion. How would a human reconcile with their beliefs and how they were raised with reality as it exists around them. Science says that no one can turn water into wine, the Bible says that it can. Logically speaking the Bible is wrong. But when I've spent years reading the Bible and my entire identity is built around religion my only option is to say that the Bible is not to be interpreted literally. I must create a lie that validates reality and validates my identity. Also how would I know that I'm lying to myself? If I or anyone I knew was doing this form of psychological self manipulation, how would I know? You can't until you read this.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      Nothing is really provable. The bible is full of oddness and inconsistency, but if you must tie your identity to your reading of a book, do it. It doesn't matter, except that you behave rationally (evaluate the problems world and the people around as they really are, as best you can), and decently (try to fix said problems). If you want to use the bible as an excuse to stone gays to death cos god says so then I'll oppose you because in my eyes that's utterly irrational and hateful. If you say it's between then and god, and take happiness in their happiness to be who they are while we share a planet, even if you don't understand it or agree with it, there's no point of friction between us. I use sexuality merely as an example, there are many others. Do as you will, just be decent, kind, rational.
- peteradio 7y ago
  5 out of 25 are pilots now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJtCDSnIzGQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJtCDSnIzGQ
seiferteric 7y ago
Hmm, I must have misunderstood last time, pretty cool nonetheless!
oska 7y ago
I believe the theory you're referring to is what Wikipedia calls the theory of Abiogenic petroleum origin [1]. But that theory is for hydrocarbon liquids and gasses, not for coal. The two theories can be complementary, i.e. coal and peat from buried plant matter and (some or all) oil from planetary upwelling (and perhaps from 'deep microbes'). I'm not taking a position here myself although I do find the theory interesting, particularly the theory of a deep microbial biota. I think you're right that it is generally discounted in the mainstream scientific community. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
- emmelaich 7y ago
  Thanks, that's it.

cbkeller 7y ago

Geologist here -- the delayed-evolution-of-lignase hypothesis has been criticized in the literature recently [1], but I'd say the jury's still out. [1] https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517943113 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517943113