Thats like saying, "because life exists on earth, it exists on other planets in the solar system". I'm sorry I don't really see any logic in that statement. Every planet in the solar system is different, so if abiotic hydrocarbons exist on other planets, it certainly does not exist here.

Every planet in the solar system is different, so if abiotic hydrocarbons exist on other planets, it certainly does not exist here.

I don't think that works either, as existence of abiotic carbon compounds elsewhere does not prove they don't exist on earth. Perhaps you meant that the existence of abiotic hydrocarbons elsewhere does not necessarily prove the existence of similar abiotic molecules here.

While I'm highly skeptical of abiotic oil claims, I think it is important to recognize the fact that certain short-chain abiotic carbon compounds certainly exist, e.g. methane. Think of it this way, plants and animals did not create our universal stores of carbon -- plants and animals are made of carbon compounds. Life as we know it exists because of the pre-existing carbon compounds which in primordial times, somehow worked themselves into self-replicating chemicals and eventually into life as we know it. It is plain however, no matter how complex life is today, that some basic ingredients were required to create life and must therefor predate life.

I think where the abiotic oil people get off track is mistaking the ground corn for the whole enchilada. There may well be vast stores of methane in the universe, or even in the core of the earth, but the process by which that simple molecule is converted into the much more complex molecules that make up oil, is not likely to be solely a physical process ongoing within the earth. Life is probably the necessary catalyst for the massive conversion of simple, even abiotic, carbon compounds into the long-chain hydrocarbons we find so useful.

I suppose what I'm saying, is that I'd like to see a distinction made between simple abiotic carbon compounds, which surely exist, and abiotic oil, which probably doesn't. In my own attempts at trying to learn more about this issue, this distinction is often poorly made which allows abiotic proponents to point at moons of methane in the solar system and say "see, I'm not a nutcase, it is scientific fact that hydrocarbons are everywhere -- we can have all the oil we want!"

Any theory that will never be explicitly proven or disproven is a waste of time. Oil depletion will be proven or disproven-the origin of oil on Earth can be debated until Doomsday without a resolution so it is pointless.

I think it's resolved.

Nobody is arguing that not one molecule of abiotic oil exists. Instead, the question is, as geologist John Clarke puts it, whether it exists in "economically interesting accumulations."

Dr. Clarke explains here how we know that "99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms."

I would agree there is no way it exists in "economically interesting accumulations".

"Any theory that will never be explicitly proven or disproven is a waste of time."

Are you sure that's what you meant to say?