Where did all the oil come from?

Here's a question that puzzles me when I try and consider the young-earth creationist mindset.

Where did the oil come from?

Was the oil all there from the beginning (6000 years ago), and we've been using it up in an exponentially increasing manner over the last 200 years? Or is it created in an ongoing process that has accumulated those trillions of barrels in less than 100 centuries?

If the answer is the former -- and there is no new oil being 'created' -- then the problems related to peak oil and resource depletion apply (you know, those sticky issues that the 'greenies' and 'environmentalists' are so damned concerned about). If we've only got what we started with, then eventually it will run out, and there had better be some alternative energy source available and integrated into our infrastructure long before then, or the world will turn dark, slow and violent in a very short period of time.

However, if the answer is the second choice (continuously created over time), then where is the research in YEC science to find out how this occurs?

Our current annual consumption in the USA is approximately 7.5 billion barrels (that's over 317 billion gallons of crude oil consumed just in this nation every year). That's a lot of oil, but it's small potatoes when compared to the total proven reserves still in the ground worldwide -- over 1.3 TRILLION barrels. If only the US was using it, that amount of oil would last us (assuming we don't increase our consumption over time) over 175 years. Alas, we aren't the only nation in the world using those reserves, and in fact, while our own consumption has leveled off, other developing nations are rapidly increasing their demand as their economies grow and their citizens demand higher standards of living. As of 2008, the total consumption worldwide for oil was about 85.5 billion barrels. Unfortunately, that means that our current oil reserves will expire in less than 45 years.

Now, if we assume that oil is continually produced (option #2 above), and make an unevidenced assumption that at the beginning of the earth there was no oil, then that means there should be nearly 400 million barrels of oil formed per year for the last 6000 years (note: I'm including the historical consumption of oil in addition to the current proven reserve volume as an approximate total originally available). While that 400 million barrels isn't a complete solution to the energy crisis, it does present a unique and tempting opportunity. After all, if it is a natural process that is continuous and currently ongoing, then it should -- in principle -- be possible to duplicate it. And if one can repeat the process, then it can be scaled up and used to produce our own oil!

The YEC crowd often complains of a lack of funding and research dollars to support their "science". What better way to fund themselves than to find a way to manufacture hundreds of millions of barrels of oil per year? Even if they only got a penny per gallon of oil, that's still $164 million dollars PER YEAR!

But then I look at the creationist research on this, and I find something strange and incomprehensible. They aren't even looking at this avenue of investigation. What?!? How can that be? It's a clear winner for them -- not only do they gain scientific credibility for their research and claims, but if they are correct, it's a HUGE revenue stream that will bolster their mission. How can it not be done?

Unless, perhaps, they secretly realize that all their claims and assertions are actually not true...

Selective Breeding: It's Good to Be a Smart Atheist!

Since it's well known that higher intelligence, higher education levels and higher incomes are all correlated strongly with a higher degree of critical thinking and atheism, is it any wonder that I'm not at all worried about creationists trying to out-breed the intelligent people?

I've been told by several arrogant theists that the atheists won't survive because we don't produce as many offspring (I happen to have three, so I'm certainly doing my part). But just like the Dilbert cartoon above, that whole Darwinian selective pressure makes it inevitable that we'll continue and increase in influence. The only way to stop it is to make ignorance, hatred and superstition "sexy". Somehow, I doubt that's going to get you very far these days...

A. P. Rillful's Proof that Darwin was Wrong!

Yes, it's apparently true! A new peer-reviewed paper out just this week confirms what all the creationists and ID'ers have been saying for years -- Darwin was wrong!

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/03/new_work_on_lateral_transfer_s.php

In the April 1st edition of Journal of Evolutionary Diversions, Professor Augustus P. Rillful et al. document a paradigm-shattering, evidence based theory that revolutionizes all of biology (and every other aspect of scientific knowledge). Rapid faunal succession is the new way of thinking -- throw away all that "random variation and selection" crap! It's all part of the Empedoclean Evolutionary theory.

Darn! Guess I'll have to re-write all my blog entries, discussion group postings and random pontifications to encompass this new field of study.

Or maybe I should just take the day off and digest the implications of these new discoveries. After all, I wouldn't want to waste the first day of a new world order, would I?

Reference

Rillful, A. P., Metonym, P., Hebe, P., Samsa, G., et al., 2009. "A new theory of evolution based upon the ubiquity of lateral genetic transfer". J. Evol. Div. 23 (2):69-136.

How far should we go to protect "life"?

My personal view of life is that it started several billion years ago, and has been continuing uninterupted ever since. I have never understood the idea that "life begins at conception". Aren't the sperm and egg alive before they merge? And don't they derive from already 'alive' humans? And if you traced back your ancestry, didn't every single person in your lineage start that way -- from already living people? Go back far enough, and you are connected in a very real and ancestral way to those first living things on earth, millions and millions of generations ago.

But there are many for whom "life begins at conception". What they seem to mean is that "humanity" begins at conception, or that the fertilized egg is "fully human" and deserving of all rights and protections as any other person. I wonder -- what could that mean for women and medicine, if taken to it's fullest extent. The following is an hypothetical based on where current technology is, and what the consequences and effects might be if "all abortions" were halted (I'm not just talking about medically induced ones).

Is this the type of situation that you imagined? Do you think such a situation is possible? What other options would you propose to either support or prevent this type of scenario from happening?

------------------------------------------

While the combination of one sperm and one egg give a unique combination of genes that have the potential to be a full and viable human, that moment is not all that is required. It's estimated that up to 70% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant and are flushed out with the next menstrual cycle (1) -- and the potential mother never realizes it. Additionally, of those that do implant, there is a sizable minority which also spontaneously abort over the course of the pregnancy (additional 10-15%) (2) This means that possibly 80% or more of all fertilized eggs (the majority of which actually successfully implant in the womb) are naturally aborted.

Saying "life begins at conception" implicitly ignores the medical reality that only 20% of those "conceptions" actually have a chance at surviving to birth, irregardless of the number of medically induced abortions. And there is no indication anywhere that all of those 80% naturally aborted were not viable -- on the contrary, it is actually far more likely that a large percentage of them are. They just "miss" the uterine lining and pass out with the next menstrual cycle. Even those that are spontaneously aborted after being implanted and medically confirmed (up to and including the 3rd trimester) are not necessarily "non-viable". Many other conditions and situations can naturally induce a spontaneous abortion -- injury, chemical imbalance, hormonal switching, etc.

So my question to all those who say that conception is the start of human life, and that any abortion after that point (including the "morning after pill") is "immoral", what should we do about all those non-medically induced abortions?

Now that we've got the medical technology to detect fertilization of an egg within 24-72 hours after conception (even before implantation), why should we not try and do everything possible to save them? It may be that some women's bodies are not yet ready to carry a child, but that doesn't mean there isn't a way to monitor the women and collect any and all fertilized eggs and fetuses that are developing. It might be an inconvenience to the women (always wearing monitoring equipment -- or having to go in for testing after each sexual encounter), and the protective regimen to save all those fertilized eggs may be considered by some to be extreme (mandatory bed rest, specially designed monitoring and collection equipment worn at all times to alert doctors and prevent the death of a spontaneously aborted egg or fetus, etc).

I can certainly understand the distaste and concern over medically induced abortions -- but those only account for a small percentage of the potential "lost children" that could be saved.

Consider: There were 4.3 million live births in the USA in 2006 (3) If we add in the full number of medically induced abortions (assuming that 100% of those would have been viable and brought to full term) - approximately 1.2 million in 2006 (4) that brings the number of babies to 5.5 million. But wait -- that's only 20% of the total potential births -- because that doesn't count in the 80% that are spontaneously aborted. Even if we assume that half of the spontaneously aborted would be non-viable (genetic malformation, etc), that still leaves a full 40% of the total conceptions that are allowed to die. That's an additional 11 million potential babies that are naturally lost, and through modern medical technology could potentially be saved.

Of course, implementing this to the full extent of medical technology would mean that every female who begins menstruating would require monitoring (either actively via portable hormone monitoring equipment or through regular weekly visits to a doctor) and surveillance. If a fertilization event is detected, the female would need to either have a full-time monitor carried with her (possibly along with a device that could "catch" any spontaneously aborted egg/fetus and protect it -- I'll let your imagination go to work on that idea), or agree to be examined daily by a doctor after positive confirmation of implantation. Once beyond the second trimester, the risk of spontaneous abortion drops, but not completely. Monitoring and surveillance would still be needed, but only once or twice a week. If at any time, signs of a potential spontaneous abortion are detected, the female should be immediately put into a medically supervised environment and maintained on strict bed-rest to ensure the safety and survivability of the fetus. Only after reaching 24 weeks of gestation would the female be released from the facility - but only with continuous monitoring to ensure the safety of the fetus.

This plan would ensure not only the prevention of all medically induced abortions, but would potentially save millions more who would otherwise die due to spontaneous abortion. If every fertilized egg is "fully human" and deserving of all the rights of humanity, and if we have the medical technology to detect fertilization, monitor implantation and gestation, and either prevent spontaneous abortion or safely collect and re-implant those that do -- shouldn't we make the attempt?

---------------------------------------------

References:

1 - http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/266317-overview
2 - http://tinyurl.com/c35s93
3 - http://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa08/hstat/mh/pages/233lb.html
4 - http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html

Science News: Cheap sequencing!

Wow! I remember the days only a little more than a decade ago when the Human Genome Project was started and expected to take several billion dollars and 20-30 years before the first complete sequence was finished.

Technology, knowledge and computing power have completely shattered those limits -- at least one company expects to be able to sequence a complete human genome (all 3 billion bases) for less than the price of a used car and in only a few days.

What do you think this will mean for the future? What effects do you forsee happening in insurance, government, social sciences, etc? Is this a good thing, or not?

Discuss...

Logical Fallacies vs. Life's Work: Which is more important?

Is using out-of-context quotations and selective opinion pieces a reasonable means of determining an person's overall viewpoint and opinion, or is it better to evaluate an author's entire body of work and acheivements? And should a person's accomplishments and successes be undermined or discarded because some of their views and statements are hateful and offensive?

This has been a topic of discussion in several threads on the KC Freethought Forum, and it made me wonder why anyone would try to use such an obviously flawed argument to try and demean and de-legitimatize the prodigious works of a man like Charles Darwin. In the case of Charles Darwin, one of the frequent posters to that site, Will Graham, linked to several sites that take only a few dozen sentences from his massive volume of professional and personal writings, and those are often mischaracterized or misinterpreted as being "racist" or "sexist".

I have no problem recognizing that compared to today's more "enlightened" culture, his overall views would be seen as bigoted and prejudicial -- but in the context of his timeperiod and culture, he was without doubt a very liberal abolitionist. On particular example of this is the attempt by creationists to use the sub-title of his most famous work, On the Origin of Species, to imply that he was racist. And yet, although the term "races" appears on the cover, it is clear from historical conventional usage at the time, as well as the full context of the book itself, that he was referring not to human cultural races, but to subspecies and breeds of species. That is blatant misquoting and purposeful misinformation, and should be condemned by all as unethical behavior.

Darwin is the subject of a very recent book, Darwin's Sacred Cause, which explores the abolitionist spirit and values of the man, and how his ideas and opinions drove him to understand and appreciate the value and interconnectedness of all humanity, and that the cultural definitions of race were a false construct of man, not an actual biological phenomenon.

Contrast that to someone like Martin Luther. While he gets great credit for challenging the archaic, bloated and hypocritical megalithic Catholic church, there is also little debate about his virulent antisemetic views. And in contrast to Darwin, whose views on race became much more enlightened and abolitionist over his lifetime, Luther became more and more antisemetic and hatefilled as he got older. Not only that, but he wrote entire books about the subject of how to demean, destroy and dismantle Jewish property, synogogues, homes and families in order to "purge" them from the face of the earth.

Luther on the Jews

More Luther

Even More from Martin Luther on Jews

In comparing the two, Darwin and Luther, we see that one grows over the course of his life more tolerant, more forgiving and more understanding of the connections between all humans and life, while the other grows harder, more intolerant and far more virulent as he ages. But neither the fact that their views changed, nor the fact that either or both were racist, antisemetic or otherwise bigoted, has anything to do with the overall contribution to human society that they both had and are rightly recognized for.

Luther helped overthrow a tyrannical, overbearing, overindulgent and corrupt church. Darwin gave a comprehensive and overarching explanation for why life is so diverse and yet so similar. So why is it that we often see attempts by those opposed to one or the other use the out-of-context quotes of Darwin, or the irrelevant-to-the-issue antisemetic views of Luther to attempt to poison the well of discussion? Rather than actually addressing the achievements of these great men, people who use such tactics are trying to avoid addressing the actual issue of their accomplishments.

So my question is, given that Darwin Day was just last week, why is it that creationists continually try to use out-of-context quotes from Darwin on race and sex? And why do they not actually address any of the challenges to the use of such logic when I applied those same techniques to Luther's writings? If using such logic works to invalidate all the successes and accolades of Darwin, then it should likewise work to invalidate the achievements of Luther.

And if anything, based on a reasonable comparison of the two men's writings, Luther has far more to answer for, and far more to lose. So if we're going to throw out evolution because Darwin was supposedly a racist, why shouldn't we also throw out the Protestant Reformation because Luther was a self-affirmed antisemite?

Science News: Search for alien life gets boost from Kepler

Back when I worked on magnetotactic bacteria at Iowa State, I remember the frenzy and interest in the "Martian nano-bacteria" in a meteorite found in Antarctica. We still aren't sure about life on Mars, but with the upcoming launch of Kepler, we just might be able to see earth-sized planets orbiting stars far outside our solar system. And with some of the other ground and space based telescopes either already in operation or scheduled for the next few years, we're going to have the potential ability to detect the presence of potential life-marker chemistry (water, oxygen, amines, etc).

This is amazing, mind-blowing stuff. Just a few hundred years ago, we had no clue there was anything beyond our solar system. Even 100 years ago, it was thought that the galaxy was the extent of the universe. Now we're stepping out to the point of looking directly for other planets.

How does the potential of what Kepler might find affect your views of humanity and life on earth? If at some point in the next few years life (or significant indicators of life) are identified outside our solar system, will it affect your personal worldview?