Abiogenic hydrocarbon proponents struggle to explain the C12/C13 ratio that is predicted by biogenic sources and fail to propose mechanisms for migration from the mantle to the reservoirs they're found in.
It also isn't a case of geologists claiming that *all* hydrocarbons are biological, there is no controversy over abiogenic methane.
>>11109313>Seems to me like planetary scientists have been sticking more to observational science and doing less big-picture theorizing, probably because they’re keenly aware of how little we actually know about this stuff so far (i.e., the relationship between stellar/planetary development and the origins of organic chemistry).>Geologists are the ones who’ve taken a hard-line position on the nature of petroleum deposits, well in advance of having the information necessary to actually figure out what’s going on. Geology seems prone to dogmatic over-investment in paradigms; the whole field has to be scrapped and reworked at least once a generation.I get the impression based off of your unsubstantiated exaggerations that you have a bone to pick with the field, but that is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that there just hasn't been enough compelling evidence to 'scrap the field' for your pet theory. No matter how much of a hardline stance that you yourself are taking on it now. Nobody is stopping you from studying it and other people have investigated it before.
>The most prominent propenent of abiogenic oil in the anglosphere was Thomas Gold, who was primarily an astrophysicistSlavs liked it before it was cool. Gold also proposed abiogenic oil in places that liquid oil physically could not exist, him being an astrophysicist is probably why his version of the theory never amounted to much. Extracting drilling fluid that you poured down a hole isn't proof btw.
