There is no problem with hydrocarbons forming in the absence of life. There is a great lack of evidence for oil forming naturally in the absence of life. There is a very great body of evidence for linking oil to organic origins.
My apologies for implying you were a believer. Someone on this board who bashes AGW periodically boosts abiotic oil. I've noted links between AGW bashers and creationists as well. There is a rather common thread of being clueless about science. Not everyone suffers from all the symptoms.
Just like creationists can ignore a mountain of evidence, while clinging to questionable threads of support, abiotic oil proponents ignore mountains of evidence, while clinging to periodic snippets of support, and AGW bashers ignore mountains of evidence, while searching for some great solar hope (or whatever).
The problem with all these deniers, is that IF their version WHERE magically true, they are left with an even more difficult problem: How do you explain all the over evidence away? It must still be accounted for.
Let's suppose we someday find one oil deposit, which we can conclusively prove has no organic origin. Good, we now have abiotic oil. But, err, why is all the other oil magically linked to sedimentary source rock, and why is it full of biomarkers? Not just a little problem, but a very major problem. The abiotic oil contingent has never offered up a reason for why abiotic oil has a tendency to go looking for source rock to hang out in. Is it trying to deceive us?
At least the creationists can claim that the Devil makes all the details look like evolution just to temp the wicked into doubting the Bible. The abiotic oil and AGW deniers I assume won't go that route, so what can they offer? Oh, I know, it is the wicked scientists on a gravy train of research funding who have duped themselves. LOL! |
