I don’t know what you are getting at.
Sure you do. Tar is a petrochemical substance. If the dino theory is true, there shouldn't be any tar seeps at the furthest depths of the oceans.
If the dino theory is true, we ought to find oil deposits at the tops of the tallest mountains - right alongside fossil sea shells.
“Sure you do. Tar is a petrochemical substance. If the dino theory is true, there shouldn’t be any tar seeps at the furthest depths of the oceans.
If the dino theory is true, we ought to find oil deposits at the tops of the tallest mountains - right alongside fossil sea shells.”
Not just dinosaurs, but also other forms of organic material, carried along the rivers and deposited.
The material eventually is covered over by layers of geologic material.
In Wyoming, above 5,000 ft. elevation there are oilfields, not far from 10,000 ft. mountains which have seashell fossils.
The strata have uplifted, shifted etc.
That is what they teach the geologists and reservoir engineers, and they have been finding the deposits, and producing them for over 100 years, all over the globe.
They look for certain types of geologic formations, below the surface. They use sophisticated methods of figuring out about the formations, to predict where to drill exploratory wells.
Some find what they are looking for, some fail.
If not what they have taught, used, all this time with success, what explanation do you have, in place of proven science and empirical results?
And for your alternative explanation, what tests have been made for the hypothesis, with what results?
I’m not claiming there could be no other sources for hydrocarbons. I’m asking for scientific proof with results.
Plate Techtonics.