Posted on 08/15/2003 9:37:43 AM PDT by DoctorMichael
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:40:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It is hard to imagine how our grandparents and great-grandparents lived at the end of the 19th century. The United States was still largely a rural society, and the amenities we take for granted today were unknown then.
Most people lived on farms. Few Americans had running water, bathtubs, hot water, or flush toilets. Central heating, electricity and telephones were rare. There were no antibiotics. Infant mortality was high, and life expectancy was 30 years lower than it is today. For most people, educational opportunities were very limited. In 1890, only 5 percent of the eligible population attended high school.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
So what? You have a gift for the irrelevant and the non-sequitur.
Correct!
Thats why I want to wretch when either some self-important Indian 'spokesman/woman' or environmentral wacko uses/attaches the term "American Indian" synonymously with "higher environmental conciousness" implying that the 'noble savage' was somehow better.
I am. You're blithering about methane.
Methane is a common non biological substance on earth, correct?
I guess that depends on what you mean by "common." In the atmosphere, it's about 1.5 parts per million by weight. In the crust, it's much less than that. Is that "common"?
Thus, methane, in a deep hot area of our earth, could be converted to petroleum.
What's "deep"? Typically, volatile compounds decrease in abundance as you go deeper into the Earth. Gold's "core methane" (i.e., methane percolating up from the Earth's core) is simply his postulate -- it's never been observed or even proven to be feasible. He's also quite vague on the organic synthesis that transforms this putative methane into more complex organic moelcules. Maybe you could enlighten us on all that.
Try to say it isn't possible.
I said it was a crank idea. By that, I mean that we have abundant empirical and theoretical evidence that this is not the way petroleum is made. I'll leave decisions on the impossibility of natural phenomena to others. If you choose to believe in it, be my guest. Lots of people believe the most incredible things.
What are we waiting for? Halliburton should be on their way now. Oh, wait, the lightweight fractions would be gone, we aren't talking light, sweet crude. Probably just bitumen. Well, we can blacktop the road to Cydonia, anyway.
Not that the Indians didn't have their good points, but they were most definitely not the "noble savages" the PC crowd and the Indian activists make them out to be. For my part, I'm fed up with that type, just as I'm fed up with gay activism!
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I am. You're blithering about methane.
Not at all, your blithering that I'm "blithering", a dumb ass way of avoiding my question.
Methane is a common non biological substance on earth, correct?
I guess that depends on what you mean by "common." In the atmosphere, it's about 1.5 parts per million by weight. In the crust, it's much less than that. Is that "common"?
Beats me. Gold says it is common. Refute his published facts.
Thus, methane, in a deep hot area of our earth, could be converted to petroleum.
What's "deep"? Typically, volatile compounds decrease in abundance as you go deeper into the Earth. Gold's "core methane" (i.e., methane percolating up from the Earth's core) is simply his postulate -- it's never been observed or even proven to be feasible. He's also quite vague on the organic synthesis that transforms this putative methane into more complex organic moelcules. Maybe you could enlighten us on all that.
Gold has a published theory, - a "postulate". -- You can't even figure out "whats deep". You're a joke.
Try to say it isn't possible.
I said it was a crank idea. By that, I mean that we have abundant empirical and theoretical evidence that this is not the way petroleum is made.
Gold differs, -- with an interesting theory that many have accepted, and are using to drill deep, putting their money on the line.
Why call him a 'crank'? What's your 'bone of contention'?
I'll leave decisions on the impossibility of natural phenomena to others. If you choose to believe in it, be my guest. Lots of people believe the most incredible things.
As do you, as your posts here at FR evidence.
There is increasing evidence that the planet manufactures petroleum on a continuous basis. Apparently, bacteria combine it out of residual methane deep in the Earth's mantle. Dry holes in granite in Sweden have ended up producing light crude.
You finally inadvertantly stumble onto a truth. Congratulations!
....... Not that the Indians didn't have their good points ........
I will freely admit that I would love to have been one of the mountain men like Jim Bridger in the 1820-50's (even before the first settlers started migrating out there). There IS something alluring about America during that time period for me.
;-)
A.) It evolved
B.) It sunk
C.) God put it there
D.) Nobody really knows the answer.
Hell, some of my great-granparents, lived in a cave in Sperlinga, Sicily. That's right, I can prove I'm descended from cavemen, nothing to do with the theory of evolution one way or the other.
A caveman is a man who lives in a cave, nothing more nothing less. No stuff and nonsense about being sub-human or less evolved. Just poverty. But they came to America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.