Well..........when I was taking geology classes, the department head was a former geologist with Chevron corporation. Sooo,.......back then (1970's) everything was biotic.. When I look at coal, I see various different stages of carbon subjected to time and pressure but providing different end products from peat to diamond. They are widely accepted as biotic.
That doesn't mean that I reject the abiotic theory. Major oil companies have been experimenting for a long time with growing algae and making diesel from it. It is chemically possible, but so far, not at any scale. AND......that is again biotic. But I think it does mean that knowledgeable people are questioning what we have believed in the past.
I would not dismiss either theory at this point. I would like to hear the abiotic theory discussed by an astrophysicist rather than a petroleum geologist. We know there is a lot of CaCo3 in the world and that it is water soluble. Just look at all the fantastic caves we have on Earth. We also know that carbon plays a vital role in all life on Earth.........but we know too that carbon did not exist in the universe until a significant time after the big bang.......if I remember correctly. I could easily be wrong about that but it seems correct in my memory. (and NO. I wasn't there)
Thinking about thermal vents found at the mid-ocean ridges, and the life and dissolved minerals we find near that heat source, I would say there is a lot we don't know yet.
Another question is.........why does it have to be one or the other?? Why can it not be both ?
I like your answer.
I just wonder where the La Brea Tar Pits came from that are full of fossils from millions of years ago?
Isn't tar a form of oil ?
And why was it on the surface of the earth if it was made by millions of years of decomposing animal life under great pressure?
While coal is decomposed plant life.
So why can't it be both makes sense.
