A buddy of mine and I have been having this arguement. I ask him, show me any study that proves oil comes from fossils. He can't. He can only point to his kids science books that say it. I asked him. Here's the thing, if oil is from dead animals, why would it only show up in specific areas in abundance? Everything dies, all plants an animals all over the place. Wouldn't oil literally be everywhere under ground? He can't answer. It's basic common sense and yet they just believe the kids science book with no actual studies to back it up. Isn't it amazing that the population continues to grow in the billions and yet oil doesn't run out with way more cars and engines used today than ever before?
Now, why call it "fossil fuels"? Well, it sounds old and archaic doesn't it. The powers want to replace fossil fuels because it's "outdated tech and non renewable". So getting a bunch of kids early to believe it's "fossil fuels" males them automatically it's old and therefore should switch to renewables, which sounds so new and innovative, doesn't it compared to "fossil fuels". So their play on words here has an impact on changing kids perception early on that oil is "old" and that it should be replaced with renewables.
But, why isn't anyone challenging it, with so much ready to access information at our fingertips? I knew oil wasn't fossils, birds were probably dinosaur survivors (now a certainty), that ancient Norse and what would become the English had settled the New World long before Columbus (though some newer findings on that are still pretty cool, like there being a real Camelot, narrowed down to a couple locations, and the real King Arthur likely being buried under one of a handful of existing churches in the US), that ice age world maps existed, etc.. That was way back in the 90s, when it took reading actual books, and spending time at libraries.
A buddy of mine and I have been having this arguement. I ask him, show me any study that proves oil comes from fossils. He can't. He can only point to his kids science books that say it. I asked him. Here's the thing, if oil is from dead animals, why would it only show up in specific areas in abundance? Everything dies, all plants an animals all over the place. Wouldn't oil literally be everywhere under ground? He can't answer. It's basic common sense and yet they just believe the kids science book with no actual studies to back it up. Isn't it amazing that the population continues to grow in the billions and yet oil doesn't run out with way more cars and engines used today than ever before?
Now, why call it "fossil fuels"? Well, it sounds old and archaic doesn't it. The powers want to replace fossil fuels because it's "outdated tech and non renewable". So getting a bunch of kids early to believe it's "fossil fuels" males them automatically it's old and therefore should switch to renewables, which sounds so new and innovative, doesn't it compared to "fossil fuels". So their play on words here has an impact on changing kids perception early on that oil is "old" and that it should be replaced with renewables.
If you've been told something is true since you were old enough to read, and no one ever challenged it, seriously, you'd simply believe it is true.
Welcome to the Matrix.
But, why isn't anyone challenging it, with so much ready to access information at our fingertips? I knew oil wasn't fossils, birds were probably dinosaur survivors (now a certainty), that ancient Norse and what would become the English had settled the New World long before Columbus (though some newer findings on that are still pretty cool, like there being a real Camelot, narrowed down to a couple locations, and the real King Arthur likely being buried under one of a handful of existing churches in the US), that ice age world maps existed, etc.. That was way back in the 90s, when it took reading actual books, and spending time at libraries.
Today, it's practically inexcusable, IMO.
Kek, have you not witnessed the Matrix, fren?