Dear God, Eve what have you done?

[Esquilax]

Because biogenic petroleum origins is at best just the current popular belief, that is not supported well enough by the known facts to completely dismiss all other theories. In short " the abiogenic theory cannot be dismissed yet because the mainstream theory still has to be established conclusively." Meaning the "16th" century is still considered to be on the table because of the lack of proof needed to make biogenic petro origins the definitive source for petroleum.

As such there is no need to refute any of these other claims. Fore that is all they are. Biogenic petro origins may have a freight trains worth of backing behind it, but in the end it's just another unverified theory. This is demonstrated by The fact that I and ms. Foo bunny Lola la la can quote two legitimate sources in the oil industry that can have differences in opinion. These differences further indicate a large window for acceptable error. Mean either or neither could be right, as such what is the point of refuting these claims as both have a large probability of being not 100% correct to begin with? All I need is a 10 to 20 % margin of error in either biogenic theories in order for mine to work. These two legitimate sources and the amount of contrast between them show a 75% margin of error just in the two different maps they used.

So again in their acceptable margin of error my theory can happily live.

No no, I was reminding you that, while the claims Bunny (Kyubey now) made had evidence backing them, yours did not. Your ability to nestle your unsupported nonsense into the gaps in our knowledge does not testify to its accuracy, nor does it put your claim on the same level. At all.

I'm deeply puzzled by your willingness to try and smuggle this in through the back door, rather than just presenting... you know, evidence. It makes me wonder just what it is you're trying to hide.