On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:45 AM, karan bansal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Gareth,
I am not re igniting biotic or abiotic theory of petroleum. I mean to say only how oil has both deep and biotic origin without any involvement of fossils and sounds us how biology has played a vital role in planet formation.please observe again the logic.

1. Russian work is very strong and beautiful that oil has deep origin but they manipulated it with abiotic origin by ignoring the strong chemical evidence that oil has biotic origin.

2. European work is strong and beautiful that oil has biotic origin but they manipulated it with fossil fuel. there are no any strong evidence that crude oil has been formed from fossils or any organic matter from surface.

by taking the strong work of both it conclude us that oil has deep origin without any involvement of fossils as well as biotic origin also. there is hard need to observe it that why oil has biotic origin while it has deep origin also. it sounds us that biology has played a vital role to form planets.

regs
Karan

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Gareth Lawson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Karan,
The information you have brought up is interesting and exciting in that it means we now have a better understanding of the planet.
What I fail to see in the sensationalist links you have provided however, is how this then links back to Gaia theory, as from the information

in the links makes it appear as though it is a cycle analogous to the carbon cycle.
Not having read the report detailing the study, I am loathe to comment further on the topic, but until such time as the report becomes

more widely available I will bow to those who have more experience in the fields concerned present in this mailing list.

To the rest of the mailing list, could we please not re-ignite the abiotic/biotic oil debate as it has been covered already.

Thank-you and regards,
Gareth Lawson

> Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 11:39:32 +0530
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: EARTH ITSELF IS A GIANT LIVING ORGANISM
> To: [log in to unmask]

>
> Dear Dr. Eddie Dempsey,
> your guess is fine.
> we have strong chemical evidence that oil is biotic in origin but
> we have no strong evidence that it has been formed from fossils or any
> organic matter from surface of earth or we can say we have no evidence
> that it is a fossil fuel. even Russians work is more beautiful that
> oil has deep origin and has been generated beneath the crust of earth
> without any involvement of fossils but unfortunately they have
> diverted it toward abiotic origin.
> there is no solid reason that crude oil is biotic in origin due to
> organic matter from surface of earth or any involvement of fossils
> In my opinion Russians are more correct that oil has deep origin
> but for abiotic origin they are not correct.
> for biotic origin of oil European are more correct but it is fossil
> fuel they are not correct .
> so oil has deep origin but biotic also and is a evidence that earth
> itself is a Giant living thing.
>
> On 5/19/12, DEMPSEY E.D. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Well put Sam. I was tempted to put in a reply myself. I was also going to
> > point out karans previous "discussions" on abiotic oil may now be defunct if
> > the earth is a "giant living organism"...
> > Hope all is well.
> >
> > Dr. Eddie Dempsey
> > Structural Geologist
> > Durham University.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18 May 2012, at 20:43, "Samuel Ritchie" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Karan,
> >>
> >> While the research that has been done here is credible and raises
> >> questions and piques the curiosity in regards to Earth System Sciences and
> >> may have implications for the Gaia Hypothesis, surely you cannot jump to
> >> your exaltant conclusion that heads your email that 'THE EARTH ITSELF IS A
> >> GIANT LIVING ORGANISM'; nowhere in the articles does it claim this, nor,
> >> more importantly, do the scientists who conducted the research.
> >> Furthermore, these articles are typically sensationalist and are
> >> constructed in such a way to grab your attention. There are certainly
> >> strengths to the Gaia Hypothesis, but you (and the media) shouldn't dilute
> >> and weaken them by making absolute and outrageous claims derived from the
> >> evidence that hard working scientists are gathering in the field of earth
> >> systems science/geology.
> >>
> >> The fact that you to leap to your conclusion from these articles suggests
> >> to me that, before being a part of a discussion list for Scientists and
> >> posting on lists such as these, you review your scientific methodology.
> >> Then, we may be able to have a real, impartial discussion about hypotheses
> >> and questions you may have, taking into consideration everything that we
> >> have at our disposal. You (and others) seem to have made up your mind on
> >> an evolving field of research in earth science, and because of this, it is
> >> impossible to have a discussion with you regarding the hypothesis, and as
> >> this is a discussion list, please also ask yourself why you have so
> >> concretely decided that this is an unquestionable truth and why it is
> >> difficult to be a part of a discussion when having dogmatic and obstinate
> >> beliefs/views.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Sam Ritchie
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 6:35 PM, karan bansal <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >> Please observe the following link.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=256253
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/05/16/84-Earth-may-really-be-a-sort-of-giant-living-organism.html
> >>
> >>
> >