# Oil from dinosaurs **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [April 19, 2013, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-from-dinosaurs/656113 "2013-04-19T08:16:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-from-dinosaurs/656113/21 "2013-04-24T17:16:15Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > The column is from ’86, when the abiotic hypothesis was hot news. It’s gone a bit musty since then. It has for the most part. Nonetheless, since folks have also sent letters in asking for an update, I believe Cecil will do a small update in about 3 weeks. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2013, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-from-dinosaurs/656113/23 "2013-04-25T01:58:46Z")
> [@Teuton](#): > > I guess what I’m trying to say is that if respected scientists came up and supported the idea of abiotic oil, they would go about testing for it in a similar way to what the creationists are funding. Creationists do not do experiments of any kind; they merely assert that their religious beliefs are the truth. They have no “methods” or equations or procedures. That’s pretty much the point of what everybody else is saying. Therefore, it is not surprising that I can find no evidence that Creationists are funding any tests or experiments on abiotic oil. If you have some, please present it. ---
**Author:** ![Teuton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/teuton/32/3864_2.png) [@Teuton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Teuton)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-from-dinosaurs/656113/24 "2013-04-25T18:27:14Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Therefore, it is not surprising that I can find no evidence that Creationists are funding any tests or experiments on abiotic oil. If you have some, please present it. I was responding to **The Techno Luddite** from earlier in the thread, where he says: > [@](#): > > The main driving force these days behind the “Abiotic oil” idea is from creationists, for obvious motivations. And regardless of any truth or fiction behind the idea, when you get a major group who works from a conclusion first . . . then looking for evidence to support the conclusion they’ve already made? Shaky ground for rational research. My contention was that the presence, or otherwise, of Creationist backing is irrelevant to the findings of the program, assuming it’s carried out in a scientifically rigorous manner. Even if it’s not funded by Creationists (I’ve no idea either way, but I have no reason to doubt what you’re saying), that’s no reason to dismiss the idea out of hand. There may well be other reasons to dismiss it, but if that’s the case then the science will out, sooner or later. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-from-dinosaurs/656113/25 "2013-04-25T19:53:51Z")
> [@Teuton](#): > > My contention was that the presence, or otherwise, of Creationist backing is irrelevant to the findings of the program, assuming it’s carried out in a scientifically rigorous manner. That’s valid, though it’s not what you said. We respond to what you say, not what you meant. > [@](#): > > Even if it’s not funded by Creationists (I’ve no idea either way, but I have no reason to doubt what you’re saying), that’s no reason to dismiss the idea out of hand. There may well be other reasons to dismiss it, but if that’s the case then the science will out, sooner or later. You’re right that this would be “poisoning the well.” However, when there is an obvious ulterior motive, it’s natural to be more skeptical. Admittedly we should always be equally skeptical, but I find that when I look into work funded by creationist groups, I find a) there’s very little actual science b) the claims, while superficially in agreement with the ulterior motive, are usually based on contradictory theories or explanations c) the science does out, usually sooner, but the criticism is ignored, and even unsupportable claims are repeated in public talks (e.g. they say “There’s a study that proves X,” but when asked, they never cite an actual study, and yet they repeat the claim in subsequent talks). That’s just a generalization, of course, and if any particular study was being addressed, we should address it as we would any study: skeptically. Of course, it goes without saying that studies that seem consistent with the general concensus are less likely to get the same scrutiny as those which contradict it. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-from-dinosaurs/656113/26 "2013-04-25T20:01:57Z")
Regarding the Higgs boson and LHC, they were HOPING to be surprised: to find something that didn’t fit the predictions. Unfortunately, they got the boring result: it was precisely as predicted, so we don’t get to learn as much as we would have, if there had been a surprise. This is another thing that happens frequently in real science: doing a test where we have made a specific prediction, but not to prove the theory so much as to test it, and if the results don’t agree with the prediction, scientists pay close attention to the results! This is how scientists differ from those with an agenda, who toss the study and try again when they don’t get the results they want. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-from-dinosaurs/656113/27 "2013-05-17T11:17:37Z")
Congrats, **HenryG** , of a sort: Cecil did do an unpdate, at the back half of today’s column. See: [If I fired a pistol and then stuck it in my waistband like on TV, wouldn’t I get burned? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3106/if-i-fired-a-pistol-and-then-stuck-it-in-my-waistband-like-on-tv-wouldn-t-i-get-burned) The sad news is that (as **Una** mentioned above) there were a few emails with similar question at about the same time, and your post wasn’t the one selected to launch Cecil’s answer. Sigh. Anyhow, Cecil did tackle it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-from-dinosaurs/656113.md?page=1)