If science is wrong about oil? What else is it wrong about?

Question

It has long been, held that petroleum comes from decaying organic matter, yet is even incorrectly called 'fossil fuels'.
In the Soviet Union, scientists have created oil from non biological matter at tempurature's around 1500 degrees at the pressure of 50,000 atmospheres (the same pressure as the earth's upper mantle). They say that organic matter that appears in oil we collect, is really just contamination.
Why is this science, never presented to students in the west?
Does it not really show that science in the west is really controlled by something other than the altruistic component that we were lead to believe when we were children?

http://www.kolbecenter.org/Bennett_welloiled.html

this question is posted here because the oposers of religion are constantly calling on the name of science to discredit religion.

I am saying that science is not the congenial big brother that is looking out for your best interests in the way that it looks out for the special interests.

Otherwise, these Russian studies would be well published here in the west.

http://www.gasresources.net/

The lessons of the past teach us that, in their search for truth, scientists have made a virtue of error. Whenever they publish what they claim is an important new idea or experimental result, they know their colleagues will take it to pieces looking for logical or experimental errors. This ruthlessness towards mistakes has been one of the engines of scientific enterprise.

Not that the engine always runs smoothly. Far from it. There is often plenty of room for disagreement over what is a scientific fact. And there are ample opportunities for bullies and ignoramuses to win arguments through rhetoric rather than reason. The entire history of science is full of tales of rows, wild-goose chases and ill-fated predictions by people who can't conceive of knowledge beyond what they already know.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16021625.500.html

Answer 1

That's why I think it's wrong for atheists to take every scientific postulations so literally. Often what's supposedly "science" is used as a propaganda tool for inculcating gullible minds (and to steer the masses politically) as well.

Edit: No science is not always exact. There are many things that are impossible for us to measure and "test" and that is why many scientific theories remain theories. Even many "facts" of yesterday end up being disproved later on with advances in technology.

Answer 2

Almost everything. The definition of mass. Mass does not change -- in reality the mass of an electron changes during a reaction or interaction with a photon. The laws of diffusion utterly wrong. The origin of the fine structure constant they have no idea -- it is found in the definition of mass. Quantum Mechanics based on a particle in a box; There is no aether -- there is a mass related aether; um -- relativity, there is a relativity but what science claims was only a tiny part of reality; that we can find the truth only through evidence based science, actually the truth requires a perception of God as the sole source of reality through the Logos, or Perfect Thought; evolution as the sole source of the appearance of what it means to be human -- wrong, as there is no evolutionary evidence for Mind. Denial of the spiritual because it cannot be scientifically, or empirically defined -- LOL that is the definition of the spiritual, but scientists like to dismiss it even though history has provided evidence for many many spiritually gifted individuals and groups -- certainly people a lot more gifted than the hard-core scientist: Hermes, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Morihei Ueshiba, Mayan shamans, shamans from all cultures, ... It's time to wake up. You are right, science has become a form of indoctrination of children, but really, it is an amazing pile of gibberish trying to pass as the truth. Scientist should cool down a bit an knock of the rhetoric about the truth, science does not own the truth.
The Dunce

Answer 3

Petroleum DOES come from decaying organic matter! That doesn't mean that the process can't be simulated, and just because the process can be simulated does NOT mean that the natural process does not exist.

Science isn't controlled by non-altruistic influences - it is controlled by the fact that it is a self-correcting way of doing things. Remember when that Korean scientist claimed he had created new stem cell lines but was later proven to be a fraud? People condemned science for this, but the truth is that the fact that science is ALWAYS questioning its results PROVES that the scientific method is alive and well and will eventually catch a "stinker". There are corporations that might try to influence science reports that they might have funded, but over time because of the nature of the scientific method the nonsense WILL be thrown out. Science isn't "wrong about oil", and in case you haven't heard the Soviet Union is dead and gone, and had a highly questionable reputation in regards to some of the sciences - especially genetics - because the results didn't fit the Communist Party's idea of what the "truth" was and as a result their genetics research was years behind the rest of the world. Don't blame science - blame human beings that try to misuse science (and the truth) to further their own agendas. Some people still believe that AIDS isn't caused by the HIV virus - we now call these people "crazy".

Add: I am wondering why you are listing an example from an atheist government as proof of your clearly religious idea - this makes no sense.

Answer 4

Some of the "facts" presented are not 100% in contest. There has been no consipricy to hind facts. We've known for many years how to reproduce oil, we call them synthetics. They are not exactly the same as the oil pulled from the ground but they are pretty close. Your refernces are questionable and have an agenda to promote. Precious gems can also be reproduced by science and many other things found in nature. The west has great sceintific knowledge and it keeps getting better all the time.
Science can be wrong but that's the great thing about it, it gets corrected when there is enough evidence and all the facts can be realigned to fit all the facts. Religion on the other hand will defend its position even after it has been beaten down with a stick and had an anvil drop on its head.

Answer 5

I'm not going to read that whole damn article, but even if it's true that fossil fuels are not a by product of organic material, how the hell does that have anything in the world to do with evolution!

Evolution is the process by which simple organisms become increasingly complex through natural selection as a result of accumulated genetic mutations and environmental adaptations. I don't see how in the world that relates to the source of oil deposits in the Earth's crust.

Furthermore, how the hell can you link evolution to SETI or the search for water on Mars.

This article is nothing more than religious propaganda which a couple of legitimate scientific questions and distorts them to so that the reader becomes lost as to the actual point and/or wowed by the conclusions put forward.

I read through about half of the article and there was not one single scientific explanation - backed up with studies - to say why "fossil fuels" is an invalid term or to otherwise explain the source of the "refilling" of oil deposits. And I can't even understand how they link oil deposits to evolution.

I guess this is the next tactic of religion - blind them with pseudo-science.

Answer 6

Science learns too. When verifiable evidence contradicts an established theory, the theory gets revised. The important thing is communication and verification. Individuals and groups of scientists may have a bias toward their pet theories, but facts eventually win.

One thing science has learned is that there are some unethical scientists who are more interested in fame than truth. Piltdown Man, cold fusion, the Korean cloning scandal and other hoaxes have shown the importance of testing objectivity and verifying results.

You refered to the Soviet Union, NOT Russia. This suggests you are looking at political propaganda from the Cold War. I recall attending a world's fair many years ago and visiting the Soviet pavilion. My interest in the exhibits got me a free book from a docent on the planetary theories of Immanuel Velikovsky, who turned out to be a crackpot. Have any of these non-biological petroleum experiments been replicated in the post-Soviet era? If they worked, the oil industry would be all over them. Instead, they are spending millions on poo-poohing "global warming" and pretending to be working on fuel economy for the sake of continuing to make obscene profits.

Yes, there are forces trying to bend science toward their interests, but science resists because it is only interested in the facts. Politics and commerce try to control EVERYTHING to maintain the status quo. Science advises change when the status quo appears unsustainable. In the end, money usually wins. Before buying into the abio-petroleum theory, you might ask who is trying to sell what to whom?

Answer 7

One of the things about science is that over time it is self-correcting. When new or contradictory evidence is collected, it will mount until somehow it is addressed in a new theory that makes more sense in light of the new evidence than the old theory. Truly open-minded scientists will consider the evidence and assess its validity using reason and their own experimentation. Most of the time, that's how it works.

Even if some kind of corporate or government interference tries to keep this new evidence out, eventually it will surface somewhere else and be addressed. It's true that sometimes science is interfered with, and no American administration has been worse about this than the Bush administration. But still, history shows that over time, science will allow us to understand reality more and more accurately, and with that knowledge we are able to find solutions to more and more problems that face us.

In contrast, when some religions are confronted with contradictory evidence, they ignore it. And if the evidence can't be ignored, they either suppress it or mount a smear campaign full of faulty arguments to try to stop people from listening to it and considering it on its own terms.

Answer 8

I don't think that you have done "all your homework" on this matter. The Germans used the Fischer-Tropsch method in WW II to extend their fuel supplies as did the South Africans before 1990. Moreover, there are "tar sands' in Canada and shale-oil in the US. There is no conspiracy to hide the fact that petroleum can be made from non-fossil fuels. Even with $ 100 a barrel oil, these methods are more expensive pretty "dirty" to operate. As for the Soviet Union, they couldn't run a nuclear energy plant without screwing up, why should be believe their claims here?

Answer 9

Thank you, Michelle, for this: I know of evidence that temperatures in the 6th Century AD in Britain were an average of 6 deg. Celsius higher than they are now, but scientists tell us to worry about a 4 dg. Celsius rise. I also know that the main developer of MRI scanners was overlooked for the Nobel Prize for its invention, yet junior team members were awarded. Could that be because he is a Creationist?
Russell T Humphreys made predictions about the magnetic fields of Uranus & Neptune that his colleagues scorned; Humphreys' predictions, based on an age measured in thousands of years rather than billions, were on the nose, while his colleagues, based on long-age beliefs, were way off. The scientists then had to go back to the drawing-board to try & make the observed data match their pre-conceived notions of the solar system's age.
Dinosaur blood, still containing haemoglobin & DNA, was found in fossil rocks (in the desert, not Arctic tundra). Observed 'shelf-life' expectancy of these things are about 10,000 years, not 65,000,000 years; yet the scientists rake over this.
'Missing links' between man & 'ape-like ancestors' are routinely trumpeted in the popular press, but findings later demolishing these much-touted 'ancestors' are never reported. Neanderthal Man is still taught a an ancestor, yet the evidence of the skeletons suggests they suffered from disease; also, their brains were larger than ours, & they performed elaborate burials. Some anthropologists are honest enough to say they are just the same as 'modern man'.

Are there any other people out there with evidence of how scientists hide things in background?

Answer 10

The answer is in the full title of the organisation:

The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation
Defending Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perspective

That says it all. If you want to find out about science, ask a scientist, not a religionist.

Answer 11

I am sorry but your question sounds like nonsense to me. What I will say is that scientists spend a lot of time finding out that the previous ideas and theories are wrong and correcting them that is the point of scientific study