I am. You're blithering about methane.
Not at all, your blithering that I'm "blithering", a dumb ass way of avoiding my question.
Methane is a common non biological substance on earth, correct?
I guess that depends on what you mean by "common." In the atmosphere, it's about 1.5 parts per million by weight. In the crust, it's much less than that. Is that "common"?
Beats me. Gold says it is common. Refute his published facts.
Thus, methane, in a deep hot area of our earth, could be converted to petroleum.
What's "deep"? Typically, volatile compounds decrease in abundance as you go deeper into the Earth. Gold's "core methane" (i.e., methane percolating up from the Earth's core) is simply his postulate -- it's never been observed or even proven to be feasible. He's also quite vague on the organic synthesis that transforms this putative methane into more complex organic moelcules. Maybe you could enlighten us on all that.
Gold has a published theory, - a "postulate". -- You can't even figure out "whats deep". You're a joke.
Try to say it isn't possible.
I said it was a crank idea. By that, I mean that we have abundant empirical and theoretical evidence that this is not the way petroleum is made.
Gold differs, -- with an interesting theory that many have accepted, and are using to drill deep, putting their money on the line.
Why call him a 'crank'? What's your 'bone of contention'?
I'll leave decisions on the impossibility of natural phenomena to others. If you choose to believe in it, be my guest. Lots of people believe the most incredible things.
As do you, as your posts here at FR evidence.
You finally inadvertantly stumble onto a truth. Congratulations!
Who is drilling deep on Gold's theory? Sure, companies drill deep based on seismic data, but I can assure you that there are no companies just drilling deep on the theory that Gold may be right and there is oil all over the place down there.