Quote:
Originally Posted by Vman455
2005? Stop living in the past, man!
Here's a 2011 article from the same source:
"Almost all geochemists believe petroleum results from a few million years of decay of once-living organisms.
'We can tell that by looking at biomarkers in the oils,' Kenneth Peters, an organic geochemist at Stanford University, told Life's Little Mysteries. 'Molecules in oil have the same backbone structures that we find in living organisms .'"
But, on a more serious note: we know how oil forms, we know under what conditions organic material will turn into petroleum vs natural gas and how long this takes, we know why and how it will form in reservoirs vs shale, we know how and why it appears where it does, and we know where to look for it. And, for geologists, all of this is so basic you cover it in a typical undergrad earth sciences course. So, it's not really fair to say that nobody knows 100% the process and act like it's this great mystery, because we do know 99% the process. |
You don't even know 5% of the process, but will put your faith in others and make claims of 99% that those who know the most wouldn't even claim. Now that's what I call faith in something.
So there was this conference with the top minds, nothing was resolved, but look at the final conclusions. Because the abiogenic origin model doesn't lead to being able to find oil in a specific place, the business of finding oil has little use for it. As it was said, "organic paradigm was a scientifically vulnerable industrial template acting like a tax on out-of-the-box thinking." Just because there is money in it doesn't make the theory any better scientifically then the other. The only thing that really explains it is both methods are in play, or neither and both are wrong.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...and_production