Peanut gallery for the "Why Do You Think Oil Requires Millions of Years?" thread

[Febble]

As an experiment, I thought we'd try to take up Dave on his suggestion, and confine that thread to Dave, Ninewands and Michael Tuite, plus anyone else co-opted by either of those three participants.

But so the rest of us don't have to sit on our hands, I've started this thread as a peanut gallery.

This is entirely voluntary of course, but I suggest that Ninewands, Michael and Dave don't post in this thread for now, and that the rest of us don't post in the other one.

That will make it easier for Dave not to be distracted by demands for responses from too many posters at once.

If anyone has any objections, post them here, and we might think again!

Cheers

Lizzie.

ETA: and Zadok should also post in the original thread. Apologies to Zadok.

ETA2: link to original thread:

Why Do You Think Oil Requires Millions of Years? (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1324)

[VoxRat]

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/3066/fuelssl8.png

I thought it might be helpful to post a picture of the kinds of molecules we're talking about here. Note the key thing, in terms of energy content, is the hydrogenation of the carbon. According to the biogenic theory of fossil fuel production, this amounts to solar energy captured by photosynthetic beasties of one sort or another.

The geological oil or coal formation, or the turkey guts operation, are really only about sorting the hydrogenated carbon - both chemically and physically - into concentrated fractions useful for burning to release energy.

The size of the fat molecule limits its utility for use as a "mechanical" (i.e. as opposed to biological) fuel. That's why transesterification helps.

[Febble]

Aren't photosynthetic "beasties" plants?

I'm not a photosynthetic beastie, but I'm quite good at converting sugar to fat!

[VoxRat]

Aren't photosynthetic "beasties" plants?A lot of them are. But don't forget algae and cyanobacteria.

I'm not a photosynthetic beastie, but I'm quite good at converting sugar to fat!

Yes, but that's just another case of "sorting" - you're taking the hydrogenation of the sugar (thoughtfully supplied by those photosynthetic beasties) and sorting it into fat (relatively highly hydrogenated; good for storing energy) and CO2 (which you blow off).

Basically it amounts to a redox disproportionation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disproportionation) through metabolism

[VoxRat]

I found these two internet resources I thought might be useful adjuncts to this discussion:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part1/
Using Microfossils in Petroleum Exploration (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/ONeill.html)

[Febble]

Forgot to lay on this:

http://www.chrlen.ch/gl/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

Help yourself (and if ninewands wants to come and sit with us in the gallery, that's fine!)

[Febble]

Aren't photosynthetic "beasties" plants?A lot of them are. But don't forget algae and cyanobacteria.

I'm not a photosynthetic beastie, but I'm quite good at converting sugar to fat!

Yes, but that's just another case of "sorting" - you're taking the hydrogenation of the sugar (thoughtfully supplied by those photosynthetic beasties) and sorting it into fat (relatively highly hydrogenated; good for storing energy) and CO2 (which you blow off).

Basically it amounts to a redox disproportionation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disproportionation) through metabolism

Thanks!

[Martin B]

Thanks to all, but especially to Michael Tuite and Ninewands. However, I think I'll wait for Zadok to weigh in before commenting further. He says that he is going to just focus on my argument, rather than the arguments of others.Good idea. Maybe that way we can keep the discussion from going off the rails in 12 directions at once.

I suggest we lurkers simply keep track of all the unaddressed issues and dodged questions, and present them at the end of this exercise.

I think this is an excellent idea. If people are in agreement, I suggest that only ninewands, Michael Tuite and Dave post in this thread, unless one of them invites an additional participant.

If you like, I'll open a peanut gallery thread for lurkers (in which MT, Dave and Ninewands wouldn't post). Dave? Would that suit you?

ETA: opened the peanut gallery. Also, Zadok should be included in this thread, as VoxRat points out.



More of this please! Just a note (before I F-off out of this thread), I've started a thread in TH (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=31901#post31901) about making a sort of policy out of this kind of idea.

[Febble]

Martin B: Thanks for your post! I've moved it to the peanut gallery (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1336).

[Martin B]

Damn, that was fast! Thanks, Febble!

[Febble]

Damn, that was fast! Thanks, Febble!

Thank you! Yes, if this works, we should maybe do it more often.

[RAFH]

Damn, that was fast! Thanks, Febble!

Thank you! Yes, if this works, we should maybe do it more often.

Yes, if it works, it's a great idea.

However, so far, the stars of the show, Zadok and davey have neglected to appear. davey says he's waiting for Zadok but Zadok has essentially said to davey, show me, convince me.

So, davey, the floor is yours, have at it. Convince Zadok of your claims. We will all, except for Ninewands and Micheal Tuite who will be adding what they can (though nine has stated he will refrain unless its a matter of his expertise in fluid flows) stand to the side and keep out of it.

So yeah, davey, make your case, convince Zadok. The ball is in your court, he's agreed to be a blank slate for you to fill. Presumably he will not attempt to refute your claims, just ask you to substantiate them.

So, have at davey of kids4truth and truthmatters (not at all), have at.

[fredbear]

I thought it might be helpful to post a picture of the kinds of molecules we're talking about here. Note the key thing, in terms of energy content, is the hydrogenation of the carbon. According to the biogenic theory of fossil fuel production, this amounts to solar energy captured by photosynthetic beasties of one sort or another.

The geological oil or coal formation, or the turkey guts operation, are really only about sorting the hydrogenated carbon - both chemically and physically - into concentrated fractions useful for burning to release energy.

The size of the fat molecule limits its utility for use as a "mechanical" (i.e. as opposed to biological) fuel. That's why transesterification helps.
Thanks Rat, for the excellent diagram. I wanted to point out that the turkey guts operation, I believe, is nothing more than a transesterification process that results in methyl esters (also called bio-diesel). I posted the following in the original thread, but I think it bears repeating for those who got sick of the 30-odd pages and gave up:

Conventional diesel fuel (petroleum distillate) is a fractional derivative of crude oil. I burn it in my car. I also burn what is commonly referred to as bio-diesel. Bio-diesel is NOT petroleum distillate. It is actually, depending on the feedstock, a form of fatty acid methyl ester. It has properties that are similar enough to petroleum distillate that make it an acceptable fuel for most diesel engines (but not new VWs and Mercedes with blu-tech emissions control). Bio diesel is suficiently different to cause problems for engine emissions systems that are finely tuned to a specific fuel specification. Fatty acid methyl esters are created from common fats: animal tallow (turkey guts, if you like), canola, soy, and even algae-based oils. The process is called transesterification, and is basically (go easy on me here, I'm not a chemist or chemical engineer) a chemical process that causes the removal of glycerin from the oil - that's the stuff that will gum up an engine if it's not heated up properly before it gets to the injectors.

I was and am excited about the reality of being able to burn free fuel from renewable sources in my car today. But I am not under any illusion that crude oil can be produced in a matter of hours. Crude oil is valuable because it can be used for many different things, of which fuel for diesel engines is only one. Why would an oil company spend millions, even billions, on surveys, test drilling, giant ocean platforms, oil sands projects, etc, if they could just make the stuff in a plant of some kind?

[returning to lurk mode]

[Ray Moscow]

Also, to make a fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) you have to use methanol, plus the vegetable or animal fat, and process both in the presence of a catalyst. You get a large amount of glycerol/glycerine as a byproduct.

The diesel boiling-range stuff from petroleum is quite different.

[VoxRat]

Oops! I just noticed I accidentally gave you decane and labeled it "octane". I wonder if the mods will let me fix that?

[Febble]

Oops! I just noticed I accidentally gave you decane and labeled it "octane". I wonder if the mods will let me fix that?

Sure. What do I need to do?

ETA: if you edit your image and send me the new URL, I will change it. Or if you could load the new image to the same address.

[VoxRat]

[QUOTE=VoxRat;32112]Oops! I just noticed I accidentally gave you decane and labeled it "octane". I wonder if the mods will let me fix that?

[never mind folks; Febble fixed it. Thanks Febble!]

[Ray Moscow]

Oops! I just noticed I accidentally gave you decane and labeled it "octane". I wonder if the mods will let me fix that?

Sure. What do I need to do?

[Dave Hat On] Voxrat's nomenclature error shows that scientists are deceptive, incompetent, and basically have no idea what they are talking about.

However, a Biblically based science would simply call it "gasoline" and see that God created it, which is consistent with what is actually observed in gas stations the world over.
[/Dave Hat Off]

[deadman_932]

A quick primer on petrochem is found at http://www.lloydminsterheavyoil.com/petrochem01.htm .

This section:http://www.lloydminsterheavyoil.com/makeheavy.htm is particularly germane to the question of time.

[RAFH]

So, I see davey hasn't shown up yet. How does he expect to convince Zadok of anything if he doesn't try?

Or perhaps he isn't going to try? Wouldn't surprise me as that's sort of what I would expect of davey hawkins of kids4truth and truthmatters (not at all).

[JCL]

Is it possible to restrict Dave to the one thread?

That will allow him to focus his talents and attention where they can best be used.

Dave, this would not be a ban in any way shape or form, you do see the difference, right?

[deadman_932]

I mentioned in another thread that I finally got a chance to see the movie "There Will Be Blood" last night -- and I was surprised to see a young Professor YEC in a film set in the early 1900's.

It's a better movie, in my mind, than "No Country for Old Men," and, for reasons that will be obvious to those that have seen it, I was ...ahem...darkly amused by the ending.

There's also an oil connection, so I thought I'd pimp it.

Mod note: moved from the "Why Do You Think Oil Requires Millions of Years? (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1324)" thread

[Pappy Jack]

It seems to be that, regardless of the geology and chemistry involved, the underlying weakness in Dave's position is one of simple logic: quite simply, he fails to understand that particular effects can have different causes. That something like coal and oil can be produced relatively rapidly in the laboratory is not itself sufficient evidence for assuming that this may mimic a process in nature.

I tried argument by analogy with Dave before, pointing out that the fact that while burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide, this is not evidence that all atmospheric carbon dioxide comes from burning fossil fuels, but he either failed to register or just ignored this point.

A similar argument would be to take one of the ways that Germany attempted to deal with its chronic oil shortage during World War Two: by synthesizing oil from coal. Using the same logic as he uses in his turkey guts argument, Dave could similarly argue that the fact that this was done not only successfully in the laboratory but as a widescale industrial process is persuasive support for the view that naturally-occurring petroleum could have formed from coal deposits. I don't know if he is capable of seeing the flaw in this reasoning or not, but the fact that there is an ongoing debate suggests that he isn't.

I am fully prepared to see my argument picked apart, but as the evidence from geology and chemistry already posted concerning the timescales involved in the production of petroleum and its subsequent seeping into reservoirs seems conclusive evidence that the process takes much (much) longer than the time available under Dave's Creationist 'model', my points are relatively inconsequential by comparison. It seems to me that Dave's best bet would be to invoke divine intervention; why he seems so reluctant to do so and so desperate to find some scientific underpinning for his idiosyncratic belief system, I have no idea. Is it because he doubts his own steadfastness without confirming proof?

[RAFH]

Well, is davey going to proceed with "educating Zadok" or not? It's been 8 hours, during which davey has been posting to this forum so it's not like he's dead or in the hospital or otherwise prevented from participation.

What gives davey? Is yo or is yo not a gonna edumacate Zadok in creationistical theorisms?

[RAFH]

davey, davey, davey, it's been 11 hours already and your seat is getting cold. Is U or is U ain't a gonna edumacated little Zadok the Empty Slate with youses Yeckeryistical theorimagens? He's offered to listen and see what you have to say, the ball is in your court.

Get to it davey, or look like even more of a twit for not taking your opportunity. You, dave hawkins of kids4truth and truthmatters (so little as to be next to nothing) keep yammering on about nobody listening to you, never getting a fair chance to express yourself, tell your side of the story, teach your point of view. This is your chance, a perfectly normal person has offered you his brain to fill up as best you can and you sit here doing nothing for almost a whole day, meanwhile posting inane comments on other threads and starting new even more ridiculous threads than ever before. What's the matter, cat got your tongue? Got nothing to say? Stage fright? What?

[deadman_932]

He's too busy opening distracting threads rather than dealing with the turkey and water he's choking on.

The turkey is particularly appropriate.

[deadman_932]

I did answer it a long time ago. It's right there. Are you that blind? -- it's been up for a long time now. The real problem is that you haven't been able to deal with it, Professor YEC.

By the way, You really should see "There Will Be Blood" Professor. You're in it.

[deadman_932]

It's precisely answered. Those structures require time. Now go deal with it. YOu asked for an example of geologically useful knowledge that incorporates deep time and "difference" . You were given that.

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins
Deadman, I'm still waiting to see if you can support this statement ...
Quote:
How the karst and dolomitic formations of the Ozark Plateau formed, and how old such structures are, contributes heavily to our understanding of porosity, permeability, friability, fracture...that in turn affect groundwater sources used to fuel local industry.

I don't see how knowing how old they are makes any difference. Please explain this.

http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1134&page=32

It's not my fault you're running.

By the way...how ya like me now, puddin'? You really should see that movie. Ever go bowling, Professor YEC?

[Constant Mews]

He's too busy opening distracting threads rather than dealing with the turkey and water he's choking on.

The turkey is particularly appropriate.Hey Deadman. If you're so worried about me working multiple threads, then why haven't you answered what should be a very simple question about karsts and millions of years over on that other thread? The fact is, you don't have any answers and so you try all these failed tactics to try to distract people from the truth. And another fact is that I have answered a great many questions (I will never be able to answer all of them). So why don't you quit playing mod and start contributing positively to the threads? Wait a minute ... didn't you tell me about 6 months ago that you weren't going to visit my threads anymore because I was such a moron or some such thing? Funny, here you are 6 months later chasing me around again.
Dave, most species find it necessary to police the ethics of their members. We are doing that for you. When you continue to make dishonest statements; when you continue to evade your responsibilities; when you continue to act like a spoiled child caught urinating on the family cat; then you need to be policed.

You are simply not demonstrating enough adult responsibility to be allowed to post by yourself. Sorry about that.

[Constant Mews]

And Dave, it has been made quite clear that Zadok is waiting on YOU to post in the right thread. Zadok is waiting for YOU to make an argument.

Go to it, laddie.

[Constant Mews]

I did answer it a long time ago. It's right there. Are you that blind? -- it's been up for a long time now. The real problem is that you haven't been able to deal with it, Professor YEC.

By the way, You really should see "There Will Be Blood" Professor. You're in it.No. You dodged.

Liar. (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1134&page=32)

[Constant Mews]

By the way, Dave, did you bother to read the OP of this thread?

This is entirely voluntary of course, but I suggest that Ninewands, Michael and Dave don't post in this thread for now, and that the rest of us don't post in the other one.

That will make it easier for Dave not to be distracted by demands for responses from too many posters at once.I know you can't read, so I've highlighted your name there.

[Dave Hawkins]

Febble has asked me to respond to Michael. Let me remind her that I am waiting on Zadok to respond to my OP. I plan on giving him a day or two to respond before I move ahead. Locking my other threads in an attempt to get me to answer questions you think I am avoiding (which I am not) will not accomplish your goal and is viewed by me as an anti-creationist tactic to obfuscate and harrass. There are many other forums--Rants n Raves, IIDB, Dawkins, EvC, TWeb at which I can post. Stop the gutter tactics if you want me to continue to post here.

[Febble]

Dave, I've moved your posts in this thread to the thread (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1363)in The Compost Heap. You can continue to discuss it there, if you want, it's not locked.

But this thread is not for you to post in. It's the peanut gallery thread for posters who have kindly agreed to stay out of this one:

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1324

Thanks.

[Dave Hawkins]

CM ... By the way, Dave, did you bother to read the OP of this thread?

Quote:
This is entirely voluntary of course, but I suggest that Ninewands, Michael and Dave don't post in this thread for now, and that the rest of us don't post in the other one.Yes, I did. The idea of me not posting here was a suggestion. But now I see it's more than that and I see that Febble has resorted to gutter tactics of closing my threads to try to force me to answer questions supposedly outstanding. The only thing she will accomplish with these gutter tactics is driving me back to one of the growing number of forums where I am truly welcome to start threads without such silly restrictions. If you think I am starting (or will start) more than my fair share of threads, think again. Go count how many I've started vs. how many Jet Black, or RBH or JonF or others have started.

[deadman_932]

CM ... By the way, Dave, did you bother to read the OP of this thread?

Quote:
This is entirely voluntary of course, but I suggest that Ninewands, Michael and Dave don't post in this thread for now, and that the rest of us don't post in the other one.Yes, I did. The idea of me not posting here was a suggestion. But now I see it's more than that and I see that Febble has resorted to gutter tactics of closing my threads to try to force me to answer questions supposedly outstanding. The only thing she will accomplish with these gutter tactics is driving me back to one of the growing number of forums where I am truly welcome to start threads without such silly restrictions. If you think I am starting (or will start) more than my fair share of threads, think again. Go count how many I've started vs. how many Jet Black, or RBH or JonF or others have started.
When will you be leaving?

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m133/deadman932/AFDave.jpg

[Febble]

Febble has asked me to respond to Michael. Let me remind her that I am waiting on Zadok to respond to my OP. I plan on giving him a day or two to respond before I move ahead. Locking my other threads in an attempt to get me to answer questions you think I am avoiding (which I am not) will not accomplish your goal and is viewed by me as an anti-creationist tactic to obfuscate and harrass. There are many other forums--Rants n Raves, IIDB, Dawkins, EvC, TWeb at which I can post. Stop the gutter tactics if you want me to continue to post here.

Dave, there are many threads on this forum in which questions have been addressed to you and to which you have not responded. Your latest thread was greeted with widespread, and, IMO, legitimate protest, so I locked it (note: singular pronoun). It is NOT locked permanently, and will be reopened when you have addressed some of the outstanding issues. Feel free to wait for Zadok to post on this thread if you must (although Michael Tuite's posts deserves at least some kind of acknowledgment IMO), but in the mean time there are plenty of threads/posts for you to turn your attention to, eg:

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=23419#post23419
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=31237#post31237
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=29279#post29279
http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=20148&postcount=17

If you want to post on this forum, you need to show some respect to the many posters who have spent a lot of time, care, and energy on their response to you, by addressing them with due diligence.

[Febble]

CM ... By the way, Dave, did you bother to read the OP of this thread?

Quote:
This is entirely voluntary of course, but I suggest that Ninewands, Michael and Dave don't post in this thread for now, and that the rest of us don't post in the other one.Yes, I did. The idea of me not posting here was a suggestion. But now I see it's more than that and I see that Febble has resorted to gutter tactics of closing my threads to try to force me to answer questions supposedly outstanding. The only thing she will accomplish with these gutter tactics is driving me back to one of the growing number of forums where I am truly welcome to start threads without such silly restrictions. If you think I am starting (or will start) more than my fair share of threads, think again. Go count how many I've started vs. how many Jet Black, or RBH or JonF or others have started.

Dave, if you have a complaint about the moderation of this forum, please raise it in the Town Hall, either in a public thread or as an In Confidence thread, not here.

[Dave Hawkins]

It is true that there are a few posters who spend a lot of time, care and energy on their responses and I am happy to respond to these folks and have done so quite extensively. Some of these include Jet Black, Febble, Michael Tuite, Martin B, CK1, DLX2 and MikePSS. I may have missed a few, but probably not many. The 4 topics you mention above have all been addressed by me as much as they are going to be and you already knew this. Now if you want me to keep posting at this forum, unlock the Ape thread. Otherwise, I will go to one of the other forums where I am welcome. I should like to know who the people are who protested this thread, but I doubt you will tell me. I think I can guess.

[Febble]

I should like to know who the people are who protested this thread, but I doubt you will tell me. I think I can guess.

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1363

[Dave Hawkins]

I should like to know who the people are who protested this thread, but I doubt you will tell me. I think I can guess.

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1363That link does not let me view the page.

[Ray Moscow]

It is true that there are a few posters who spend a lot of time, care and energy on their responses and I am happy to respond to these folks and have done so quite extensively. Some of these include Jet Black, Febble, Michael Tuite, Martin B, CK1, DLX2 and MikePSS. I may have missed a few, but probably not many. The 4 topics you mention above have all been addressed by me as much as they are going to be and you already knew this. Now if you want me to keep posting at this forum, unlock the Ape thread. Otherwise, I will go to one of the other forums where I am welcome. I should like to know who the people are who protested this thread, but I doubt you will tell me. I think I can guess. (Emphasis added)

For Gawd's sake, please lock the Ape thread and keep it locked! :p

[Febble]

I should like to know who the people are who protested this thread, but I doubt you will tell me. I think I can guess.

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1363That link does not let me view the page.


Well, that's weird. It's just a link to the thread in the The Compost Heap, where I collected all the posts from the Apes/Fire thread that were about outstanding questions. Can you see The Compost Heap from the main forum index page? And if so, can you see a thread entitled:

"Address the outstanding issues first, Dave" (split from "Are There Any Ape Clans Using Fire Yet?")

If so, try clicking on it, and tell me whether you can view it.

Can you also tell me what error messges you are getting?

ETA: if you are getting a message that you are not logged in, just log in. And try clearing your cookies. That used to happen to me until I cleared my cookies on all the computers I use to log in with.

[Pappy Jack]

.....The 4 topics you mention above have all been addressed by me as much as they are going to be and you already knew this. Now if you want me to keep posting at this forum, unlock the Ape thread. Otherwise, I will go to one of the other forums where I am welcome.
This sounds suspiciously like someone looking to find an excuse they can use publicly to explain why they have bailed from a series of threads where many issues remain outstanding concerning arguments they have made therein. I will be happy to be proved wrong.
I should like to know who the people are who protested this thread, but I doubt you will tell me. I think I can guess.
Well, you were wrong to doubt, weren't you? Why did you think Febble would not provide this information? How and why might it be confidential? Why do you think any of us who 'protested' the diversionary tactic of 'the Ape thread' wouldn't want to be named? Is it all to do with the EAC? Is it all part of the build-up to bailing from TR: "All the nasty atheists ganged up in a secret conspiracy to stop me fearlessly proclaiming the truth, so there was no point in staying just to be censored"? FYI, and if you didn't follow Febble's link, I was one of those who protested.

[Pappy Jack]

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1363That link does not let me view the page.


Well, that's weird. It's just a link to the thread in the The Compost Heap, where I collected all the posts from the Apes/Fire thread that were about outstanding questions. Can you see The Compost Heap from the main forum index page? And if so, can you see a thread entitled:

"Address the outstanding issues first, Dave" (split from "Are There Any Ape Clans Using Fire Yet?")

If so, try clicking on it, and tell me whether you can view it.

Can you also tell me what error messges you are getting?

The link works for me.

[Febble]

That link does not let me view the page.


Well, that's weird. It's just a link to the thread in the The Compost Heap, where I collected all the posts from the Apes/Fire thread that were about outstanding questions. Can you see The Compost Heap from the main forum index page? And if so, can you see a thread entitled:

"Address the outstanding issues first, Dave" (split from "Are There Any Ape Clans Using Fire Yet?")

If so, try clicking on it, and tell me whether you can view it.

Can you also tell me what error messges you are getting?

The link works for me.

I'll report it as a bug.

[deadman_932]

It worked fine for me too, both in IE and firefox

[VoxRat]

...I see that Febble has resorted to gutter tactics of closing my threads to try to force me to answer questions supposedly outstanding. This mudslinging griping about what the moderation is highly offensive. Ironically creationists predictably resort to accusations of "mudslinging" whenever real-worlders point out their logical deficiencies. The only thing she will accomplish with these gutter tactics is driving me back to one of the growing number of forums where I am truly welcome to start threads without such silly restrictions. And what are these other forums? Would any of them qualify as "real-world"? If so, I'd like to take a look. And when you say "growing numbers"... would that be something like the "growing numbers" of real-world scientists that are coming over to creationism? If you think I am starting (or will start) more than my fair share of threads, think again. Go count how many I've started vs. how many Jet Black, or RBH or JonF or others have started.Dave meet Reading Comprehension. Reading Comprehension; Dave.

It's not about number of threads, Dave. It's about flitting from one to another while massively avoiding a huge backlog of serious questions accumulating in them, leaving a trail of unsupported assertions and a growing crowd of angry fellow posters who fell for the illusion that if they put some serious effort into engaging your "arguments", some sort of closure might be reached.

[Lucretius III]

Well, that's weird. It's just a link to the thread in the The Compost Heap, where I collected all the posts from the Apes/Fire thread that were about outstanding questions. Can you see The Compost Heap from the main forum index page? And if so, can you see a thread entitled:

"Address the outstanding issues first, Dave" (split from "Are There Any Ape Clans Using Fire Yet?")

If so, try clicking on it, and tell me whether you can view it.

Can you also tell me what error messges you are getting?

The link works for me.

I'll report it as a bug.

When I tried it ,it said I was not logged on even though I was but I entered my name and password again and I could access it.

[Febble]

The link works for me.

I'll report it as a bug.

When I tried it ,it said I was not logged on even though I was but I entered my name and password again and I could access it.

Yes, that used to happen to me occasionally, but doesn't any more. I wonder if it's a cookie problem? Dave - if you are reading this, try clearing your cookies.

[deadman_932]

When I tried it ,it said I was not logged on even though I was but I entered my name and password again and I could access it.Ah, that happened to me, too...I just take that as almost normal with vBulletin.

[VoxRat]

From the "Exclusive Engagement" thread:Oh boy: please can no-one except Dave, Michael Tuite, Zadok, and ninewands if he wants to, post in this thread?

(And mods obviously). It looks like this idea might be difficult to implement, but let's see if we can make it work!

Other posts split to here:

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=1336Uh oh...
I hope I didn't accidentally post to that thread. If I did - it was indeed accidental, because I'd really like to see that idea work. I don't suppose there's any software fix to limit a thread to designated posters, is there?

[deadman_932]

I liked this post:
Locking my other threads in an attempt to get me to answer questions you think I am avoiding (which I am not) will not accomplish your goal and is viewed by me as an anti-creationist tactic to obfuscate and harrass. There are many other forums--Rants n Raves, IIDB, Dawkins, EvC, TWeb at which I can post. http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=32724#post32724

It had just the perfect tone of "I'll hold my breath until I turn blue!"

[Febble]

From the "Exclusive Engagement" thread:Oh boy: please can no-one except Dave, Michael Tuite, Zadok, and ninewands if he wants to, post in this thread?

(And mods obviously). It looks like this idea might be difficult to implement, but let's see if we can make it work!

Other posts split to here:

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=1336Uh oh...
I hope I didn't accidentally post to that thread. If I did - it was indeed accidental, because I'd really like to see that idea work. I don't suppose there's any software fix to limit a thread to designated posters, is there?

I think there might be if it's in a sub-forum. I certainly think it's an idea worth pursuing in principle, even if this particular one goes phut.

[Pappy Jack]

I liked this post:
Locking my other threads in an attempt to get me to answer questions you think I am avoiding (which I am not) will not accomplish your goal and is viewed by me as an anti-creationist tactic to obfuscate and harrass. There are many other forums--Rants n Raves, IIDB, Dawkins, EvC, TWeb at which I can post. http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=32724#post32724

It had just the perfect tone of "I'll hold my breath until I turn blue!"
Or "I'll thcream and thcream till I'm thick - I can, you know!" :D

[deadman_932]

I don't see a hack for keying on user IP's. Is that used for mod forums and such? I've never looked at any of this.

Pappy: gets pretty silly at times, don't it. I'd like to see where he can post with impunity nowadays. RnR...maybe. EvC...dunno about that. TWeb, he gets to play with Mr. Morton again.

Dawkins', AtBC and IIDB are out , completely. He can't just toss up multiple threads there.

[VoxRat]

...The 4 topics you mention above have all been addressed by me as much as they are going to be and you already knew this. Well then. That's pretty much an admission that Dave has no response to these points that are the complete undoing of Flintstonery. I guess we can all pack it in now.
Now if you want me to keep posting at this forum, unlock the Ape thread. Otherwise, I will go to one of the other forums where I am welcome. Would that be a threat? Or a promise?

[Black5]

If Zadok doesn't show pretty soon, I'll address the posts by Michael and Ninewands

Two questions:

1) "pretty soon", does that mean hours, days, weeks or months?

2) For reference, regarding question 1, is a week the traditional "24 hours per day, 7 days" week or a week as defined by the burrows thread which means never?

[VoxRat]

If Zadok doesn't show pretty soon, I'll address the posts by Michael and Ninewands

Two questions:

1) "pretty soon", does that mean hours, days, weeks or months?

2) For reference, regarding question 1, is a week the traditional "24 hours per day, 7 days" week or a week as defined by the burrows thread which means never?
I believe this (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=32716#post32716) may help answer your questions, Black5.

[Dlx2]

Looks like this experiment has failed.

I do not want to see any further threads where Dave can control who will and will not post in his threads. I find such censorship nauseating.

I think it might be worth establishing a subforum for discussion of Creationism, so that we can separate that crap from the general Evolution/Origins discussion in the main forum.

[Febble]

Looks like this experiment has failed.

I do not want to see any further threads where Dave can control who will and will not post in his threads. I find such censorship nauseating.

I think it might be worth establishing a subforum for discussion of Creationism, so that we can separate that crap from the general Evolution/Origins discussion in the main forum.

Dave is not controlling who will and will not post in his threads. If anyone is, it's me.

And I merely asked people to do this, and several people seemed to think it was a good idea. There is no compulsion.

And I set up this peanut gallery so that anyone who wanted to comment could do so.

Therefore it is not censorship. And if you really want to post in that thread you are free to do so, although it would be courteous if you could explain to the rest of us why you think it is a good idea.

It may well be.

[Dlx2]

I don't really have anything to say to Dave, which is why I haven't posted anything. I do, however, feel that Mr. Hawkins is rapidly running out of goodwill here, and has been more and more insulting in recent weeks. You're not going to convince him to give a straight answer, and this new method of turning one thread into two parallel threads isn't going to change that. I don't think that moving posts around is going to make this situation any better, and it smacks of unnecessary moderation.

Dave is not going to suddenly change his ways and start addressing questions honestly. We all know this, and we all know that what Dave wants is a venue to have 'debate' with credentialed individuals so as to afford him credibility-by-proxy. Giving him this sort of situation is not going to force him to respond honestly; it's giving him what he wants. In case you haven't noticed, he's only become worse since you provided him with this new set of rules.

[Febble]

I don't really have anything to say to Dave, which is why I haven't posted anything. I do, however, feel that Mr. Hawkins is rapidly running out of goodwill here, and has been more and more insulting in recent weeks. You're not going to convince him to give a straight answer, and this new method of turning one thread into two parallel threads isn't going to change that. I don't think that moving posts around is going to make this situation any better, and it smacks of unnecessary moderation.

Dave is not going to suddenly change his ways and start addressing questions honestly. We all know this, and we all know that what Dave wants is a venue to have 'debate' with credentialed individuals so as to afford him credibility-by-proxy. Giving him this sort of situation is not going to force him to respond honestly; it's giving him what he wants. In case you haven't noticed, he's only become worse since you provided him with this new set of rules.

Well, it was an experiment, and you may be right that it hasn't worked. A number of people had suggested it as an approach, though, so it seemed worth trying.

And I don't accept that Dave has "become worse since you provided him with this new set of rules". He doesn't have a new set of rules. We have one set of rules that applies to all of us. All that has happened is that we have made a single thread available to him and three other posters, and asked other posters to comment on this one.

And I locked a new thread in which a large number of posters had expressed the concern that it was a distraction from several outstanding threads.

But what you say reminds me that we'd talked about devising sets of forum-specific guidelines, and it's time we had a set for this one. One guideline, I suggest, should be that people should not start threads, particularly ones in which they are likely to hold a minority opinion, unless they are prepared to spend the time and effort in addressing attempted rebuttals. It's hard to do that when you are one against many, which is why I think it is best, if you are in that position, to be fairly abstemious about how many threads you start.

Perhaps we need a local "Town Hall" for E&O in which we can talk these things through. Or perhaps you would simply like to open a thread in the regular TH. Martin B already started on on this particular issue:

Exclusive engagement threads (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1337)

Perhaps you would like to add your comments.

Cheers

Lizzie

[SteveF]

I think it might be worth establishing a subforum for discussion of Creationism, so that we can separate that crap from the general Evolution/Origins discussion in the main forum.

I entirely agree. I am discouraged from posting when I see all the Dave related clutter. This is fast becoming the Dave Hawkins discussion forum, not evolution/origins. Given that Dave has fuck all of interest to say on any scientific subject, it's all a mite off-putting.

[Dave Hawkins]

Have it your way. I have plenty of other places I can post. RnR, TWeb, IIDB, EvC RD.net etc etc.

[VoxRat]

Well, it was an experiment, and you may be right that it hasn't worked. A number of people had suggested it as an approach, though, so it seemed worth trying. I'm going to disagree with Dlx2 here. An experiment is a supposed to test a hypothesis, answer a question. In this case, the question - at least the way I saw it - was "will limiting the number of posters take away from Dave the excuse and distraction of claiming that the questions come faster than he can answer them, and enable us to actually follow a discussion to some kind of conclusion". A failed experiment is one that doesn't answer the question one way or the other, or yields results that are consistent with both the hypothesis in question and the corresponding null hypothesis. This experiment seems to be tending toward the conclusion that this "exclusive engagement" approach - like all other approaches tried to date, so far as I'm aware - does not help hold Dave to any kind of intellectual responsibility. But what you say reminds me that we'd talked about devising sets of forum-specific guidelines, and it's time we had a set for this one. One guideline, I suggest, should be that people should not start threads, particularly ones in which they are likely to hold a minority opinion, unless they are prepared to spend the time and effort in addressing attempted rebuttals. It's hard to do that when you are one against many, which is why I think it is best, if you are in that position, to be fairly abstemious about how many threads you start.I'd like register my support for this idea.

[VoxRat]

Have it your way. I have plenty of other places I can post. RnR, TWeb, IIDB, EvC RD.net etc etc.We have official "welcome" posts; is there an appropriate place to put "farewell" posts?

If not, let me take this opportunity to remind Dave not to let the virtual door hit him in the ass on his way out.

[socle]

Have it your way. I have plenty of other places I can post. RnR, TWeb, IIDB, EvC RD.net etc etc.
Crap---TR is screwed if Dave cuts us off. Someone please cave in to his demands!

:rolleyes:

[RAFH]

I don't really have anything to say to Dave, which is why I haven't posted anything. I do, however, feel that Mr. Hawkins is rapidly running out of goodwill here, and has been more and more insulting in recent weeks. You're not going to convince him to give a straight answer, and this new method of turning one thread into two parallel threads isn't going to change that. I don't think that moving posts around is going to make this situation any better, and it smacks of unnecessary moderation.

Dave is not going to suddenly change his ways and start addressing questions honestly. We all know this, and we all know that what Dave wants is a venue to have 'debate' with credentialed individuals so as to afford him credibility-by-proxy. Giving him this sort of situation is not going to force him to respond honestly; it's giving him what he wants. In case you haven't noticed, he's only become worse since you provided him with this new set of rules.

What you post is quite correct Dlx2, but it's exactly what I want to show in the record. That even when davey was given a much rope as he wanted, he just used it to hang himself while simultaneously acting out his admission of guilt in ASL during his death spasms.

[deadman_932]

I have plenty of other places I can post. RnR, TWeb, IIDB, EvC RD.net etc etc.Don't let the door hit you in the frontal lobe.

[RAFH]

Well, it was an experiment, and you may be right that it hasn't worked. A number of people had suggested it as an approach, though, so it seemed worth trying. I'm going to disagree with Dlx2 here. An experiment is a supposed to test a hypothesis, answer a question. In this case, the question - at least the way I saw it - was "will limiting the number of posters take away from Dave the excuse and distraction of claiming that the questions come faster than he can answer them, and enable us to actually follow a discussion to some kind of conclusion". A failed experiment is one that doesn't answer the question one way or the other, or yields results that are consistent with both the hypothesis in question and the corresponding null hypothesis. This experiment seems to be tending toward the conclusion that this "exclusive engagement" approach - like all other approaches tried to date, so far as I'm aware - does not help hold Dave to any kind of intellectual responsibility. But what you say reminds me that we'd talked about devising sets of forum-specific guidelines, and it's time we had a set for this one. One guideline, I suggest, should be that people should not start threads, particularly ones in which they are likely to hold a minority opinion, unless they are prepared to spend the time and effort in addressing attempted rebuttals. It's hard to do that when you are one against many, which is why I think it is best, if you are in that position, to be fairly abstemious about how many threads you start.I'd like register my support for this idea.

Exactly. Exactyeckery even.

[ck1]

I think it might be worth establishing a subforum for discussion of Creationism, so that we can separate that crap from the general Evolution/Origins discussion in the main forum.

I entirely agree. I am discouraged from posting when I see all the Dave related clutter. This is fast becoming the Dave Hawkins discussion forum, not evolution/origins. Given that Dave has fuck all of interest to say on any scientific subject, it's all a mite off-putting.

I disagree with some of this.

No one is under any obligation to post in or even read "Dave" threads. Also, anyone can start threads on topics that interest them, but there has not been much of that on E/O lately - and that is not Dave's fault.

Seems to me that if a forum has "Evolution" in the title rather than "Biology", then that is an invitation to discuss evolution from all points of view, and that invitation should include people who do not accept the scientific theory.

Frankly, I find most of Dave's threads to be interesting and/or entertaining.

[RAFH]

Have it your way. I have plenty of other places I can post. RnR, TWeb, IIDB, EvC RD.net etc etc.

RnR, hah! That's a laugh.

TWeb, I doubt if you'll be going there. Too many unanswered questions.
IIDB, you've pretty well used up your welcome there.
EvC, Don't know the place.
RD.net, again, even you've admitted you're not welcome there.
Etc.etc, not sure where that is, but my guess is your schtick is known there as well, and you will have already made yourself a nuisance there as well.

Face it davey, you have pretty much pissed in every well in the neighborhood. All you have left is your silly blog that so few people visit it you have to pimp it in your posts. Maybe you can convert it into a forum and then debate a series of strawmen evilutionists you create, ala some of your recent posts. That might even be worth seeing. For the entertainment value of seeing how much of a loser you are.

[Pappy Jack]

I think it might be worth establishing a subforum for discussion of Creationism, so that we can separate that crap from the general Evolution/Origins discussion in the main forum.

I entirely agree. I am discouraged from posting when I see all the Dave related clutter. This is fast becoming the Dave Hawkins discussion forum, not evolution/origins. Given that Dave has fuck all of interest to say on any scientific subject, it's all a mite off-putting.

I disagree with some of this.

No one is under any obligation to post in or even read "Dave" threads. Also, anyone can start threads on topics that interest them, but there has not been much of that on E/O lately - and that is not Dave's fault.

Seems to me that if a forum has "Evolution" in the title rather than "Biology", then that is an invitation to discuss evolution from all points of view, and that invitation should include people who do not accept the scientific theory.

Frankly, I find most of Dave's threads to be interesting and/or entertaining.
I agree with CK's disagreement - ;) - but I would have to add at least 'often irritating' and 'frequently hilarious' to the reactions associated with Dave-related threads.

[RAFH]

I think it might be worth establishing a subforum for discussion of Creationism, so that we can separate that crap from the general Evolution/Origins discussion in the main forum.

I entirely agree. I am discouraged from posting when I see all the Dave related clutter. This is fast becoming the Dave Hawkins discussion forum, not evolution/origins. Given that Dave has fuck all of interest to say on any scientific subject, it's all a mite off-putting.

I disagree with some of this.

No one is under any obligation to post in or even read "Dave" threads. Also, anyone can start threads on topics that interest them, but there has not been much of that on E/O lately - and that is not Dave's fault.

Seems to me that if a forum has "Evolution" in the title rather than "Biology", then that is an invitation to discuss evolution from all points of view, and that invitation should include people who do not accept the scientific theory.

Frankly, I find most of Dave's threads to be interesting and/or entertaining.

Most of the time, so do I, but you have to admit davey does get a bit tiresome. For one thing, does davey himself every add much to the discussion except to provoke the presentation of responses? Maybe that's his job, it's part of the job description I have for him. The other two parts are acting the fool and exposing the behavior and facetious obtusity of Yeckeryism.

[Black5]

Have it your way. I have plenty of other places I can post. RnR, TWeb, IIDB, EvC RD.net etc etc.

Dave you fled all of those forums because you couldn't stand the continual embarrassment of being called on your dishonest tactics. If you go to another forum I'm sure the circus will follow. I sure will. When that happens don't let your ego fool you. We aren't following because we like discussing things with you. Some of us find it interesting and informative. Some find it funny (hint they are not laughing with you). Some just feel the need to speak up to tard and dishonesty wherever it is found.

Run away from the arguments. It's your method of operation. You do it in varying degrees by ignoring facts, questions, posts, people and ultimately forums. You could show an iota of honesty by answering the many questions you've ignored.

Be honest. Personally, I don't think you can. Prove me wrong Dave.

[Febble]

Have it your way. I have plenty of other places I can post. RnR, TWeb, IIDB, EvC RD.net etc etc.

Well, it's always sad when a poster leaves. I'm still hoping Gary Hurd will come back.

But we can't please everyone, we can just hope to try to accommodate as wide a range of views and druthers as possible. That's why I keep suggesting that if you want to discuss forum policy you do it in the Town Hall (either in public or private). I think we've made a lot of progress in trying to figure out what will give us the kind of forum most of us seem to want, in a remarkably short space of time. But there's still a ways to go.

And, inevitably some people will be happier elsewhere.

[SteveF]

No one is under any obligation to post in or even read "Dave" threads. Also, anyone can start threads on topics that interest them, but there has not been much of that on E/O lately - and that is not Dave's fault.

This is true, but there are essentially only Dave threads at the mo. This has discouraged me from starting my own, on purely evolutionary matters. When I first got started at RnR, I began a number of such threads and that was fun. Maybe I should have another go, but the huge wedge of Dave stuff is rather overwhelming. It doesn't have the feel of an evolution board at the moment.

Seems to me that if a forum has "Evolution" in the title rather than "Biology", then that is an invitation to discuss evolution from all points of view, and that invitation should include people who do not accept the scientific theory.

True and I don't particularly mind the odd creationist incursion. Over the years, I've learned a lot about evolution from debating with creationists. However, it seems to me to be getting to ridiculous levels at the moment with Dave. Pretty much every thread concerns him in some way shape or form. This doesn't strike me as a productive or healthy state for a messageboard to be so dominated by one person and his ideas.

I think a seperate creationism fora would be a good idea.

[ck1]

Well, it was an experiment, and you may be right that it hasn't worked. A number of people had suggested it as an approach, though, so it seemed worth trying.

And I don't accept that Dave has "become worse since you provided him with this new set of rules". He doesn't have a new set of rules. We have one set of rules that applies to all of us. All that has happened is that we have made a single thread available to him and three other posters, and asked other posters to comment on this one.

And I locked a new thread in which a large number of posters had expressed the concern that it was a distraction from several outstanding threads.

But what you say reminds me that we'd talked about devising sets of forum-specific guidelines, and it's time we had a set for this one. One guideline, I suggest, should be that people should not start threads, particularly ones in which they are likely to hold a minority opinion, unless they are prepared to spend the time and effort in addressing attempted rebuttals. It's hard to do that when you are one against many, which is why I think it is best, if you are in that position, to be fairly abstemious about how many threads you start.

Perhaps we need a local "Town Hall" for E&O in which we can talk these things through. Or perhaps you would simply like to open a thread in the regular TH. Martin B already started on on this particular issue:

Exclusive engagement threads (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1337)

Perhaps you would like to add your comments.

Cheers

Lizzie

I had always thought that the OP is under no obligation to guide a discussion or continue it or even show up again. The OP can just throw out an idea worth discussing. It is ideal when the OP participates in the discussion, and I agree that an OP who expresses a minority opinion should be prepared to defend that position, but in practice that does not always happen.

This was brought home to me on another forum when an OP asked me, by name, to provide support for a comment I had made in another thread. I did, with lots of supporting evidence --- the OP never showed up again.

As for Dave not responding in the Zadok thread, well, after a number of complaints in the comments thread, he said that he would comment, but I believe that was this morning, and Dave has other obligations on Sunday. Why the impatience?

[ck1]

No one is under any obligation to post in or even read "Dave" threads. Also, anyone can start threads on topics that interest them, but there has not been much of that on E/O lately - and that is not Dave's fault.

This is true, but there are essentially only Dave threads at the mo. This has discouraged me from starting my own, on purely evolutionary matters. When I first got started at RnR, I began a number of such threads and that was fun. Maybe I should have another go, but the huge wedge of Dave stuff is rather overwhelming. It doesn't have the feel of an evolution board at the moment.

So please start a new thread. It seems to me that for an "evolution" forum, the major topics under discussion are nonbiological - RM dating and varves. I have been trying to think of something worth adding as a new topic, but in the meantime, the only new topic remotely connected to living things, Dave's ape/fire thread was locked.


Seems to me that if a forum has "Evolution" in the title rather than "Biology", then that is an invitation to discuss evolution from all points of view, and that invitation should include people who do not accept the scientific theory.

True and I don't particularly mind the odd creationist incursion. Over the years, I've learned a lot about evolution from debating with creationists. However, it seems to me to be getting to ridiculous levels at the moment with Dave. Pretty much every thread concerns him in some way shape or form. This doesn't strike me as a productive or healthy state for a messageboard to be so dominated by one person and his ideas.

I think a seperate creationism fora would be a good idea.

I do not like this idea. It is done at RD where it seems to work because creationists looking for a debate are drawn to the Dawkins name. Otherwise it sets up a second class ghetto for a subject that, at least in the US, really needs more, not less, attention by science professionals.

[SteveF]

So please start a new thread. It seems to me that for an "evolution" forum, the major topics under discussion are nonbiological - RM dating and varves. I have been trying to think of something worth adding as a new topic, but in the meantime, the only new topic remotely connected to living things, Dave's ape/fire thread was locked.

Well, it's late now, but I've been reading a bit about protein evolution recently so I might do that tomorrow at some point.

I do not like this idea. It is done at RD where it seems to work because creationists looking for a debate are drawn to the Dawkins name. Otherwise it sets up a second class ghetto for a subject that, at least in the US, really needs more, not less, attention by science professionals.

I think it would still get plenty of attention. People are always interested in a creationist debate. Plus, I think you overstate the importance of fora such as this. At the end of the day, the current set up is a small number of interested posters, one unimportant creationist and (presumably) a few lurkers. The battle for reason needs to be fought at all levels, but there are more significant ones than this.

As I say, this is currently the Dave Hawkins discussion forum. I don't think this is healthy.

[Febble]

I had always thought that the OP is under no obligation to guide a discussion or continue it or even show up again. The OP can just throw out an idea worth discussing. It is ideal when the OP participates in the discussion, and I agree that an OP who expresses a minority opinion should be prepared to defend that position, but in practice that does not always happen. This was brought home to me on another forum when an OP asked me, by name, to provide support for a comment I had made in another thread. I did, with lots of supporting evidence --- the OP never showed up again.
Yes, it used to happen on IIDB that we got what we called "drive-by creationists" - creationists who would post an OP, to which a great many posters would respond, pointing out the straw men, the logical fallacies, the factual errors, and so on - and the OP would never post again. So while I can't see it being good to have a RULE about hanging around to address the OP, it seems to me that it would be worthwhile flagging it up as the kind of courtesy that seems reasonable to expect.

But Dave of course does hang around to take part in his threads, and he also doesn't do what most of the drive-bys do, which is to post OPs that are largely (often entirely) C&Ps from elsewhere. And the result has been some extremely educational (for me, and for others, I think) threads.

But I think it would be easier for Dave (and people in Dave's position) if we could occasionally have threads in which the ratio of Dave : others was a bit less than 1:gazillion.

As for Dave not responding in the Zadok thread, well, after a number of complaints in the comments thread, he said that he would comment, but I believe that was this morning, and Dave has other obligations on Sunday. Why the impatience?

I'm delighted that Dave has promised a response.

[ck1]

I entirely agree. I am discouraged from posting when I see all the Dave related clutter. This is fast becoming the Dave Hawkins discussion forum, not evolution/origins. Given that Dave has fuck all of interest to say on any scientific subject, it's all a mite off-putting.

I disagree with some of this.

No one is under any obligation to post in or even read "Dave" threads. Also, anyone can start threads on topics that interest them, but there has not been much of that on E/O lately - and that is not Dave's fault.

Seems to me that if a forum has "Evolution" in the title rather than "Biology", then that is an invitation to discuss evolution from all points of view, and that invitation should include people who do not accept the scientific theory.

Frankly, I find most of Dave's threads to be interesting and/or entertaining.

Most of the time, so do I, but you have to admit davey does get a bit tiresome. For one thing, does davey himself every add much to the discussion except to provoke the presentation of responses? Maybe that's his job, it's part of the job description I have for him. The other two parts are acting the fool and exposing the behavior and facetious obtusity of Yeckeryism.

Seems to me that if all the people who claim to be tired of Dave would stop posting on his threads, we would not be having this discussion.

[Febble]

OK, I'll unlock the Apes/Fire thread, now that Dave has promised a response to ninewands and Michael Tuite.

[ck1]

I think it would still get plenty of attention. People are always interested in a creationist debate. Plus, I think you overstate the importance of fora such as this. At the end of the day, the current set up is a small number of interested posters, one unimportant creationist and (presumably) a few lurkers. The battle for reason needs to be fought at all levels, but there are more significant ones than this.

As I say, this is currently the Dave Hawkins discussion forum. I don't think this is healthy.

I did not mean to suggest that the battle for the future of science and science education is being fought on E/O on TR. But this is a good place to sharpen our knives, don't you think? And talk about creo political maneuverings and the media response as well as the response of mainstream science. While also having the opportunity to discuss and learn from each other about real science. What could be a better, more interesting combination?

You are right, though, that there is too much Dave right now, so new non-Dave, science-focussed threads would be a good idea. I'll give it some more thought myself (after my current houseguests leave tomorrow :))

[Dave Hawkins]

OK, I'll unlock the Apes/Fire thread, now that Dave has promised a response to ninewands and Michael Tuite.OK. You got it. Tomorrow morning. In addition to this, I do have a really cool new topic for tomorrow that I think everyone will enjoy. Should I take it to IIDB? Or do you guys want it here?

[Pappy Jack]

OK, I'll unlock the Apes/Fire thread, now that Dave has promised a response to ninewands and Michael Tuite.OK. You got it. Tomorrow morning. In addition to this, I do have a really cool new topic for tomorrow that I think everyone will enjoy. Should I take it to IIDB? Or do you guys want it here?
Again, the more important questions concern how thinly you are spreading yourself and how able you are to deal with substantive issues still awaiting you on current threads. In this case more is most definitely less and I, for one, think you should follow Febble's advice to limit the number of threads in which you are active.

[deadman_932]

Tomorrow morning. In addition to this, I do have a really cool new topic for tomorrow that I think everyone will enjoy. Should I take it to IIDB? Or do you guys want it here? Yes, Please take it to IIDB. A nice pool can be started here on how long you manage to last.

Given that I'll be posting...and given your hysterical reaction to my posts HERE at TR...well, you won't last long.

[Dave Hawkins]

Yeah whatever.

[Febble]

OK, I'll unlock the Apes/Fire thread, now that Dave has promised a response to ninewands and Michael Tuite.OK. You got it. Tomorrow morning. In addition to this, I do have a really cool new topic for tomorrow that I think everyone will enjoy. Should I take it to IIDB? Or do you guys want it here?

Well, it really depends on your own time commitments, Dave. If you are prepared to stick around and make substantive responses to any substantive response you get, then of course, interesting OPs are usually welcome. But I have to say, I'm a bit dismayed that you think that none of these calls for a response from you:

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=23419#post23419
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=31237#post31237
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=29279#post29279
http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=20148&postcount=17

I would suggest you hold off from posting any more OPs until you have at least attempted a proportionate response to a couple of these posts. Or offered a concession of course. http://www.eshock.es/forum/style_emoticons/default/diablotin.gif

People tend to get a bit upset when they compose a diligent response to a post, only to have them largely or totally ignored.

As long as you are prepared to respond to diligence with due diligence, Dave, your OPs will be welcomed, I'm sure. Otherwise, not so much.

[deadman_932]

Ah, the battle-cry of the incompetent: "Yeah, whatever!"

The last time I heard that was from the teenage girl down the street when her mom said she needed to be more responsible for her behavior. P.S. She didn't get her way, either.

I'll add this post and others on the same page and following pages to the list of things you still need to address, Professor YEC: http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=32364#post32364

[ck1]

OK, I'll unlock the Apes/Fire thread, now that Dave has promised a response to ninewands and Michael Tuite.OK. You got it. Tomorrow morning. In addition to this, I do have a really cool new topic for tomorrow that I think everyone will enjoy. Should I take it to IIDB? Or do you guys want it here?

If it is an interesting new finding that you just want to point out for general discussion, go ahead.

If you plan to question some bit of established science, you ought to make sure you have the time for followup posts to defend your position.

[VoxRat]

Well, it's late now, but I've been reading a bit about protein evolution recently so I might do that tomorrow at some point.
...That would be great.

I spend a lot of my time, both professionally and otherwise, thinking about that topic.

[VoxRat]

...But I have to say, I'm a bit dismayed that you think that none of these calls for a response from you:

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=23419#post23419
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=31237#post31237
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=29279#post29279
http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=20148&postcount=17

I would suggest you hold off from posting any more OPs until you have at least attempted a proportionate response to a couple of these posts. Or offered a concession of course. http://www.eshock.es/forum/style_emoticons/default/diablotin.gif

People tend to get a bit upset when they compose a diligent response to a post, only to have them largely or totally ignored.
... Upset? Nah. Not really. A bit frustrated, perhaps. But I've come to realize that Dave's walking away from a post is as close as he can ever come to explicitly conceding. So I take his non-response to my little exposition on Pennsylvania coal as an admission that he has nothing to say about it. That alone would be enough to consign his Flintstonery to the world of Hanna-Barbera - if a thousand other equally unequivocal "evidences" had not already done so.

No, Dave never explicitly concedes anything. But remember his frequent claims about how creationist "Dr." Jerry Bergman was light-years ahead of modern virology? Notice how he quietly stopped mentioning "Dr." Jerry after my little exploration of his "groundbreaking" magnum opus (http://www.rantsnraves.org/wiki/index.php/VoxRat_on_Bergman)? That's what a concession from Dave looks like, folks.

[ninewands]

Lizzie,
Is there any chance this thread could be "bumped" occasionally, or maybe even temporarily stickied. I would hate to see it scroll off the first page and get lost before it even gets rolling well.

[ninewands]

I don't consider it a failure yet, although I rather expected Dave to lead off with an explanation for why he thinks the Turkey Guts process is analogous to the process by which natural petroleum is formed, although, I can't say that I blame Dave for waiting for Zadok to at least respond to the OP and acknowledge that he is aware of the thread before proceeding.

I notice Zadok hasn't made a post since this one (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=31507#post31507) at 5:51 PM on Friday. Who knows, he may not have access to the 'net on weekends.

[His Noodly Appendage]

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to VoxRat again.

Holy fuck, vox, that 'exploration' was awesome. Much, much kudos.

[Autodidact]

Febble has asked me to respond to Michael. Let me remind her that I am waiting on Zadok to respond to my OP. I plan on giving him a day or two to respond before I move ahead. Locking my other threads in an attempt to get me to answer questions you think I am avoiding (which I am not) will not accomplish your goal and is viewed by me as an anti-creationist tactic to obfuscate and harrass. There are many other forums--Rants n Raves, IIDB, Dawkins, EvC, TWeb at which I can post. Stop the gutter tactics if you want me to continue to post here.

I don't give a damn one way or the other whether you ever post here. Post here if you like, and don't if you don't, and stop making infantile threats, it's obnoxious.

[Autodidact]

Febble has asked me to respond to Michael. Let me remind her that I am waiting on Zadok to respond to my OP. I plan on giving him a day or two to respond before I move ahead. Locking my other threads in an attempt to get me to answer questions you think I am avoiding (which I am not) will not accomplish your goal and is viewed by me as an anti-creationist tactic to obfuscate and harrass. There are many other forums--Rants n Raves, IIDB, Dawkins, EvC, TWeb at which I can post. Stop the gutter tactics if you want me to continue to post here.
I don't give a damn one way or the other whether you ever post here. Post here if you like, and don't if you don't, and stop making infantile threats, it's obnoxious.

[Autodidact]

OK, I'll unlock the Apes/Fire thread, now that Dave has promised a response to ninewands and Michael Tuite.OK. You got it. Tomorrow morning. In addition to this, I do have a really cool new topic for tomorrow that I think everyone will enjoy. Should I take it to IIDB? Or do you guys want it here?

Anywhere but here, until after you resolve all your outstanding business here is my vote, since you asked.

[Febble]

Wee bump, and to say that autodidact's post has been moved to the peanut gallery (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1336).

[pSimon]

OK, I'll unlock the Apes/Fire thread, now that Dave has promised a response to ninewands and Michael Tuite.OK. You got it. Tomorrow morning. In addition to this, I do have a really cool new topic for tomorrow that I think everyone will enjoy. Should I take it to IIDB? Or do you guys want it here?

What's the point?

You ran from burrows, you ran from varves.

I just found out about your "summary" on your no-dissenting-comments blog; A real classy bit of work, that.

Politeness forbids me suggesting just where you should insert post your next OP.

[Dave Hawkins]

Febble-- Would it be possible to move all the other extraneous posts to the Peanut Gallery so this thread is nice and clean?

[SAWells]

I notice that Dave's just posted a claim that both natural processes, and the turkey-grease plant, produce "a crude oil."

I'm not clear whether he's bluffing, or whether he just doesn't know what "crude oil" actually means, but either way, this is the point where his claims fall over. Again. Biodiesel != crude oil.

[Febble]

Febble-- Would it be possible to move all the other extraneous posts to the Peanut Gallery so this thread is nice and clean?

Done (including the move of this^ post). I've dumped them here, rather than TCR, for now.
Sorry about the mess in here, guys.

[Dave Hawkins]

Febble-- Would it be possible to move all the other extraneous posts to the Peanut Gallery so this thread is nice and clean?

Done (including the move of this^ post). I've dumped them here, rather than TCR, for now.
Sorry about the mess in here, guys.Thanks, but there are quite a few more on the first page ... very extraneous posts from RAFH and some others.

[deadman_932]

Suffer.
Remember, it's good for you.

[Febble]

Febble-- Would it be possible to move all the other extraneous posts to the Peanut Gallery so this thread is nice and clean?

Done (including the move of this^ post). I've dumped them here, rather than TCR, for now.
Sorry about the mess in here, guys.Thanks, but there are quite a few more on the first page ... very extraneous posts from RAFH and some others.

The point was to limit posts from that point onwards. I'll leave the early ones intact.

[Mike PSS]

And Dave proves yet again he hasn't read or understood a single response to his assertions about animal/vegetable oil versus crude oil.

Here's Dave trying to find "common ground"...
7) Both the artificial process and the natural process produce a crude oil, which, with further refinement can be burned as a motor fuel -- See ARTICLE (Search page for "D396")Wrong Dave, the artificial process produces ONLY a type of diesel fuel. Crude oil has many other constituents. To be comparable you would have to take all the OTHER products from the artificial process (the water, the solids, etc..) and compare those products, along with the diesel fuel, to the cornucopia of constituents in crude oil.

We're not discussing refining techniques here, only the raw materials.

8) Both the artificial process and the natural process use moderately high heat and pressure to produce this crude oil, one in just 20 minutes, the other in an UNKNOWN period of time -- (See above link, search "600 pounds")
Well Dave, if #7 is wrong then #8 is wrong. You conflate the two fuels again.

For the rest of the "common ground", the high heat and pressure in the natural process is a function of what? Time.
Even if the pressure appeared suddenly, how long before the heat arrives?
If your talking about crude oil should you consider migration through the rock?

[Febble]

Well, one problem for Dave is conflation of common and technical meanings, eg of "crude" and "refine".

When technical words have common meanings, it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking you've understood something when you haven't.

[SAWells]

The trouble is, once Dave decides what he thinks crude oil means, all attempts to educate him will be perceived as irrelevant detail and ignored. So he'll never learn, and will insist to his dying day that biodiesel is crude oil, just like petroleum. Sigh.

[Black5]

I predict Dave will spend more time and effort complaining about extraneous posts in the other thread then satisfactorily answering questions.

[Ray Moscow]

Since Dave is pulling stuff from the Peanut Gallery to use in the restricted thread:

Over in the Peanut Gallery, there are those who apparently don't read carefully. For example, Mike PSS says ... Wrong Dave, the artificial process produces ONLY a type of diesel fuel. Crude oil has many other constituents.But the article says The oil can be sold to utilities as is, further distilled into vehicle-grade diesel and gasoline ... not to mention fertilizer and God knows what else, just like natural crude. Also, Mike doesn't realize what I'm referring to by "crude" in the case of the artificial oil. What I'm referring to is the "concentrated organic soup" which, according to the article In 20 minutes, the process replicates what the deep earth does to dead plants and animals over centuries, chopping long, complex molecular chains of hydrogen and carbon into short-chain molecules.If these Peanut Gallery skeptics need further quashing, they should read these words ... "I'm impressed," says Gabriel Miller, a New York University chemistry professor and a consultant to KeySpan Corporation, a gas and electric utility that serves New York. "The fuel that comes out is better than crude, and you don't need a refinery to use it. I think they can bring it deep into commercialization." Miller has recommended that KeySpan burn the oil in its generators.

I thought I'd move a copy over here in turn.

Somehow the point, contained even in his own posts, that this synthetic oil is not the same as crude oil is not getting through to Dave.

[Obd]

So Dave, the oil created in artificial processes is quite different from crude oil found in deposits?

[Ray Moscow]

There's a great educational TV program that might help Dave here.

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/2643/sesamestreetgroupvu0.jpg


"One of these things is not like the others ..."

[VoxRat]

Well, one problem for Dave is conflation of common and technical meanings, eg of "crude" and "refine".

When technical words have common meanings, it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking you've understood something when you haven't.It's very important to nail down what the point is in this claim about the similarity between natural petroleum and the turkey guts operation. It seems to me this keeps getting lost in the shuffle.

The point is not whether the turkey guts operation produces diesel, or gasoline, or whether what it produces is useful or not. The point is - whatever it produces - what does that tell us about how it was produced in nature? Especially - how long did it take in nature?

Not how long it might have taken in nature if somehow the processes (temperature, pressure, steam, physical fractionation, etc.) of the turkey guts operation were replicated in the rocks, but how long did it take?

And - most importantly from this biochemists perspective - how does the enrichment of hydrogenated carbon in the two processes compare? In natural petroleum formation, you have a complex process of disproportionation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disproportionation) that occurs in which carbon at the oxidation level of carbohydrate is partitioned into the valuable, highly hydrogenated (i.e. reduced) petroleum and highly oxidized CO2. In the turkey guts operation, this disproportionation occurs almost entirely metabolically, in the living turkey (and in the food the turkey ate), in the biosynthesis of fat. This is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the process of natural petroleum formation.

That's why I think the whole idea that the turkey guts operation tells us anything about geology is completely bogus.

Of course, this is just the peanut gallery; I don't expect any response to it. But I'm kind of hoping these issues get picked up in the Main Event thread (hint, hint).

[SAWells]

Us: "The stuff from KeySpan is not the same as crude oil out of the ground. "

Dave: "Here's evidence that the stuff from KeySpan is not the same as crude oil out of the ground! Here's a statement from their chemist, saying that the fuel is better than crude and can be used without refining! And when I say crude oil, I don't mean crude oil out of the ground! Therefore I win!"

Us: "You keep using that word. We do not think that it means what you think that it means."


ETA: is there a "facepalm" smiley? No other is appropriate.

[David M]

Unfortunately Dave keeps repeating the same mistake - he is rlying on the Aig article for accuracy instead of referring to the PRIMARY SOURCE - in this case the company that runs the TCP plant in Carthage (http://www.res-energy.com/ (Renewable Environmental Solutions, LLC)).

"The TCP successfully converts fats, bones, cartilage, feathers and other wastes into renewable diesel, high-quality fertilizers, and valuable specialty products. Unlike pyrolysis and gasification, TCP works with a wet feedstock. Since most waste streams are wet, there’s no need to dry the material. The result is a more efficient product separation with reduced chemical constituents. The end products are generated quickly and safely."

"TCP End Products
Bio-derived Renewable Diesel - High value oil, which can be sold to refineries, fuel blenders or industrial power users.
Fatty Acid Oils - Carboxylic acids including palmitic, stearic and oleic, used in manufacturing of detergents and soaps, cleaners, stabilizers, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and rubber products among others.
Minerals - For use as a high-value fertilizer to rebalance macronutrients and replace depleted micronutrients in the soil."

Thats the closest that they get to calling their product "oil". You can't distill petroleum derived Diesel into Gasoline because its made from molecules of different sizes. Its Bio-Diesel and nothing else.

They even have a picture of their Renewable Diesel Storage tanks
http://www.res-energy.com/facility_images/index.asp

Dave - This is exactly what happens when you do not check the primary source and just rely on second-hand reports and summaries. You get the facts WRONG because AiG has got it WRONG.

[Coleslaw]

Us: "The stuff from KeySpan is not the same as crude oil out of the ground. "

Dave: "Here's evidence that the stuff from KeySpan is not the same as crude oil out of the ground! Here's a statement from their chemist, saying that the fuel is better than crude and can be used without refining! And when I say crude oil, I don't mean crude oil out of the ground! Therefore I win!"

Us: "You keep using that word. We do not think that it means what you think that it means."


ETA: is there a "facepalm" smiley? No other is appropriate.

You mean this?

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1760/dope9ih.gif

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1760/dope9ih.gif

[RAFH]

Unfortunately Dave keeps repeating the same mistake - he is rlying on the Aig article for accuracy instead of referring to the PRIMARY SOURCE - in this case the company that runs the TCP plant in Carthage (http://www.res-energy.com/ (Renewable Environmental Solutions, LLC)).

"The TCP successfully converts fats, bones, cartilage, feathers and other wastes into renewable diesel, high-quality fertilizers, and valuable specialty products. Unlike pyrolysis and gasification, TCP works with a wet feedstock. Since most waste streams are wet, there’s no need to dry the material. The result is a more efficient product separation with reduced chemical constituents. The end products are generated quickly and safely."

"TCP End Products
Bio-derived Renewable Diesel - High value oil, which can be sold to refineries, fuel blenders or industrial power users.
Fatty Acid Oils - Carboxylic acids including palmitic, stearic and oleic, used in manufacturing of detergents and soaps, cleaners, stabilizers, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and rubber products among others.
Minerals - For use as a high-value fertilizer to rebalance macronutrients and replace depleted micronutrients in the soil."

Thats the closest that they get to calling their product "oil". No mention of it being further "distilled", you can't distill Diesel into Gasoline because its made from molecules of different sizes. Its Bio-Diesel and nothing else.

They even have a picture of their Renewable Diesel Storage tanks
http://www.res-energy.com/facility_images/index.asp

Dave - This is exactly what happens when you do not check the primary source and just rely on second-hand reports and summaries. You get the facts WRONG because AiG has got it WRONG.

A further point is that information on the company's website is sales pitch, with a bit of the usual sales pitch 'enhancement'. I'd rather see a paper that was the work of a chemist, preferably that of an independent testing lab. I would be surprised if this is not available somehow, even if a FOI request is necessary because of the Federal funding involved.

I would also note, they only reason they are making any money is because they are receiving $42 a barrel in Federal Subsidies. At the time of the Discovery article, that was more than half the cost of the raw material.

Anyway, it would be very valuable to obtain an analysis of an independent laboratory rather than relying upon what amounts to sales pitches.

[David M]

It's very important to nail down what the point is in this claim about the similarity between natural petroleum and the turkey guts operation. It seems to me this keeps getting lost in the shuffle.


Perhaps the point is to establish whether petroleum based diesel is the same as the bio-diesel produced by the plant. Thats even befor proceeding to the point that crude oil contains so much more than the diesel fraction.

Petroleum derived diesel is composed of about 75% saturated hydrocarbons (primarily paraffins including n, iso, and cycloparaffins), and 25% aromatic hydrocarbons (including naphthalenes and alkylbenzenes).

Chemically, biodiesel consists of alkyl (usually methyl) esters instead of the alkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons of petroleum derived diesel. However, biodiesel has combustion properties very similar to regular diesel, including combustion energy and cetane ratings.

The fact that both can be used for power because they combust in a comparable manner does not surpass the fact that they are chemically very different. The fact that we can produce a liquid consisting of alkyl esters quickly truly has no relevance on how a mix of alkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons is produced, naturally or artificially.

[damitall]

Doesn't seem to be simply intense heat and pressure either - mention is made of rapid (?explosive) decompression too.

Perhaps similar to the "steam explosion" that has been used on cellulosic plant material to make more sugars available to fermentation for "bio-ethanol"? - in this case busting up animal cells and cell membranes, releasing smaller molecular components?

[Autodidact]

What I am seeking to do at the moment is simply to find common ground. What things do we agree on?

So moving on under the general heading of "Finding Common Ground" ... let's see if we have any more points of agreement ...

Adding to points 1-5 above, we can now observe that ...
6) Both the artificial process and the natural process start with biomass as the raw ingredient YES
7) Both the artificial process and the natural process produce a crude oil, which, with further refinement can be burned as a motor fuel -- See ARTICLE (http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=) (Search page for "D396") NO. We do NOT agree on this. "Crude oil" is a technical term that does not include this substance.

[Mike PSS]

The trouble is, once Dave decides what he thinks crude oil means, all attempts to educate him will be perceived as irrelevant detail and ignored. So he'll never learn, and will insist to his dying day that biodiesel is crude oil, just like petroleum. Sigh.

Unfortunately Dave keeps repeating the same mistake - he is rlying on the Aig article for accuracy instead of referring to the PRIMARY SOURCE - in this case the company that runs the TCP plant in Carthage (http://www.res-energy.com/ (Renewable Environmental Solutions, LLC)).

"The TCP successfully converts fats, bones, cartilage, feathers and other wastes into renewable diesel, high-quality fertilizers, and valuable specialty products. Unlike pyrolysis and gasification, TCP works with a wet feedstock. Since most waste streams are wet, there’s no need to dry the material. The result is a more efficient product separation with reduced chemical constituents. The end products are generated quickly and safely."

"TCP End Products
Bio-derived Renewable Diesel - High value oil, which can be sold to refineries, fuel blenders or industrial power users.
Fatty Acid Oils - Carboxylic acids including palmitic, stearic and oleic, used in manufacturing of detergents and soaps, cleaners, stabilizers, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and rubber products among others.
Minerals - For use as a high-value fertilizer to rebalance macronutrients and replace depleted micronutrients in the soil."

Thats the closest that they get to calling their product "oil". You can't distill petroleum derived Diesel into Gasoline because its made from molecules of different sizes. Its Bio-Diesel and nothing else.

They even have a picture of their Renewable Diesel Storage tanks
http://www.res-energy.com/facility_images/index.asp

Dave - This is exactly what happens when you do not check the primary source and just rely on second-hand reports and summaries. You get the facts WRONG because AiG has got it WRONG.

It's very important to nail down what the point is in this claim about the similarity between natural petroleum and the turkey guts operation. It seems to me this keeps getting lost in the shuffle.


Perhaps the point is to establish whether petroleum based diesel is the same as the bio-diesel produced by the plant. Thats even befor proceeding to the point that crude oil contains so much more than the diesel fraction.

Petroleum derived diesel is composed of about 75% saturated hydrocarbons (primarily paraffins including n, iso, and cycloparaffins), and 25% aromatic hydrocarbons (including naphthalenes and alkylbenzenes).

Chemically, biodiesel consists of alkyl (usually methyl) esters instead of the alkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons of petroleum derived diesel. However, biodiesel has combustion properties very similar to regular diesel, including combustion energy and cetane ratings.

The fact that both can be used for power because they combust in a comparable manner does not surpass the fact that they are chemically very different. The fact that we can produce a liquid consisting of alkyl esters quickly truly has no relevance on how a mix of alkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons is produced, naturally or artificially.

Holy Shit Dave. A LOT of technical analysis here. So when you respond with this...
Over in the Peanut Gallery, there are those who apparently don't read carefully. For example, Mike PSS says ... Wrong Dave, the artificial process produces ONLY a type of diesel fuel. Crude oil has many other constituents.But the article says The oil can be sold to utilities as is, further distilled into vehicle-grade diesel and gasoline ... not to mention fertilizer and God knows what else, just like natural crude. Also, Mike doesn't realize what I'm referring to by "crude" in the case of the artificial oil. What I'm referring to is the "concentrated organic soup" which, according to the article In 20 minutes, the process replicates what the deep earth does to dead plants and animals over centuries, chopping long, complex molecular chains of hydrogen and carbon into short-chain molecules.If these Peanut Gallery skeptics need further quashing, they should read these words ... "I'm impressed," says Gabriel Miller, a New York University chemistry professor and a consultant to KeySpan Corporation, a gas and electric utility that serves New York. "The fuel that comes out is better than crude, and you don't need a refinery to use it. I think they can bring it deep into commercialization." Miller has recommended that KeySpan burn the oil in its generators.

It really shows a lack of reading and comprehension of what posters are really saying.

Crude Oil does not equal turkey guts, but at least you defined what your trying to say here. So your equating crude oil to the organic soup.

So the breakdown of the end products in the David M quote above should be your comparison point.

Your Gabriel Miller quote is an appeal to authority, and he's not an authority in this case. Plus, this is the start of a quote-mine on your part. What Gabriel Miller is saying is NOT what you think you are reading. The fact that GM uses the word "crude" in no way shape or form supports your contention that the gunk out of the process is crude.

Please identify which parts of a barrel of crude, from ninewands image of a barrel of crude, is comparable to the turkey guts product.

So here's another image, with temperatures, showing the fractionation of crude oil. Note that "gasoline" and "diesel" are only two items on this list.
http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/6/fractioning_column1.jpg

Oh and Dave,
Turkey Guts is to organic soup after thermal depolymerization AS
Kerogen is to Crude Oil after millions of years cooking in the rocks

[Mike PSS]

Ninewands stated this...
A rule of thumb in chemical process design is that the rate of reaction doubles for every 10C that you elevate the temperature.
Here's some general evidence to support this statement. k in the graph is the reaction rate constant. Note how it doubles every 10C.
http://www.chem.ufl.edu/~itl/2045/matter/FG14_011.GIF
The Temperature Dependence of Reaction Rates (http://www.chem.ufl.edu/~itl/2045/lectures/lec_m.html)

[Barbarian]

Have it your way. I have plenty of other places I can post. RnR, TWeb, IIDB, EvC RD.net etc etc.I used to post in EvCForum, and can't imagine you surviving there for long.

Exhibit A, excerpts from EvCForum rules (http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/PresentHTML.cgi?action=html&file=ForumRules.html&title=Forum+Guidelines): ....
2. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

3. When introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

....

8. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

...

IIRC, in practice one can also report you for simply avoiding a crucial question, and the admins would restrict your posting privileges until you answer it.

EvCForum is not for you.

[Zadok001]

I'd just like to note that I think criticisms of Dave for a lack of timeliness are inappropriate. It was me, not him, who was MIA this past weekend - If anyone should be accused of tardiness, it is me.

I apologize for the delay, and have now commented in the appropriate thread.

[RAFH]

Yes, but he did have two others to respond to and the point of the thread was for him to educate you.

[deadman_932]

It's pretty clear to me that the main focus is going to be on how to equivocate the term "oil" and surrounding processes of distilling/conversion. And to avoid like hell any meaningful discussion of demonstrated evidence for the YEC view. There will be a link to Wally Brown's shit eventually though, probably on Professor YEC's blog.

ETA:I'll be curious to see how Noah and his little crew manages to float around and yet live, on superheated mud. The famed YEC-periment "Flood in a glass " of 2 parts sand and one part water now needs a little world-wide heat. Maybe from trillions of H-bombs of heat that Noah manages to live through.

Just ignore the parboiling , Professor YEC. -- "It's a mystery"

[NinJay]

It's pretty clear to me that the main focus is going to be on how to equivocate the term "oil" and surrounding processes of distilling/conversion. And to avoid like hell any meaningful discussion of demonstrated evidence for the YEC view. There will be a link to Wally Brown's shit eventually though, probably on Professor YEC's blog.


And lots of equivocation as to why Wally won't come and defend his Hydropants "theory" himself.

regards,

NinJay

[RAFH]

It's pretty clear to me that the main focus is going to be on how to equivocate the term "oil" and surrounding processes of distilling/conversion. And to avoid like hell any meaningful discussion of demonstrated evidence for the YEC view. There will be a link to Wally Brown's shit eventually though, probably on Professor YEC's blog.

ETA:I'll be curious to see how Noah and his little crew manages to float around and yet live, on superheated mud. The famed YEC-periment "Flood in a glass " of 2 parts sand and one part water now needs a little world-wide heat. Maybe from trillions of H-bombs of heat that Noah manages to live through.

Just ignore the parboiling , Professor YEC. -- "It's a mystery"

Nah, Noah was just a really cool dude.

[Occam's Aftershave]

It's pretty clear to me that the main focus is going to be on how to equivocate the term "oil" and surrounding processes of distilling/conversion. And to avoid like hell any meaningful discussion of demonstrated evidence for the YEC view. There will be a link to Wally Brown's shit eventually though, probably on Professor YEC's blog.

ETA:I'll be curious to see how Noah and his little crew manages to float around and yet live, on superheated mud. The famed YEC-periment "Flood in a glass " of 2 parts sand and one part water now needs a little world-wide heat. Maybe from trillions of H-bombs of heat that Noah manages to live through.

Just ignore the parboiling , Professor YEC. -- "It's a mystery"
Five will get you ten Davie-doo will work "scientist were wrong about varves being annual, why can't they be wrong about oil formation too" into the conversation. :rolleyes:

[deadman_932]

No mention at all of Kerogen, either. Or the mass calculations for organics required to convert to oil/coal reserves. I believe it was at that point that the other YEC Brown -- R.H. Brown -- came in. With the need for a global superforest covering the whole surface area, even oceans -- and which leaves no demonstrated chemical signatures anywhere.

Since Professor YEC won't do it, another amusing exercise would be to collate all this ad hoc shit into a pre-flood/ flood/ post-flood "narrative."

[ninewands]

Yes, but he did have two others to respond to and the point of the thread was for him to educate you.
Hold on a sec. I really don't expect Dave to respond to my posts in the other thread until he has had a chance to make his case to Zadok. To be totally honest, either Michael or I could crush Dave in a heartbeat if that was what I perceived the purpose of the thread to be.

The purpose of the "experiment" is to put Dave in a position where he has to make a positive case for his argument. As of 9:00 AM this morning, when I started writing my last post in the thread, Zadok had not (with good reason) even acknowledged the thread existed, much less stated his agreement or doubts about Dave's OP (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=31567#post31567). In fact, Dave stated he WOULD reply to my post, and to Michael's, if Zadok didn't post something this morning and he DID so. So let's not assume ill intent or manners on Dave's part.

I still think this is an interesting experiment, which is why I said what I said about reverting to observer status after I saw Zadok's post.

ETA: It feels really weird to be defending my ol' buddy, my ol' pal, Dave (afdave) Hawkins of kid4truth, truthmatters, Tri-City Ministries and Tri-City Home Educators.

[Plognark]

That was reeeeealy pathetic. :yuck:

[ericmurphy]

I was just looking at the OP from Dave's original thread, and I noted that there are a few points he wants agreement on, to wit:

1) that [crude] oil is formed from zooplankton and algae
2) that this matter is greatly compressed
3) that this causes hight heat and pressure
4) that this high heat and pressure causes chemical changes (diagenesis)
5) more heat causes it to change into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons (catagenesis)

Obviously no one thinks "oil," in