> is no way there were that many critters to make that much oil
ERRRR. Remember, we're talking about time frames of *hundreds* of millions of years.
> the researcher makes a good point that those critters had to be a lot deeper than where the actual oil is found in order to even be converted to petroleum
That's nice. And those critters *were* deeper than the oil currently is.
> Mt St Helen's for instance; Coal is already forming under the debri fields and at surprisingly shallow depths.
Compare that arguement to the one you just made above: "need to be deep =/ can be real shallow." One of them is wrong, as coal can be converted to oil relatively easily, geologically speaking.
> Nasa was shocked when they only discovered at the max an average of 1/4" of lunar dust.
No, they weren't.
> The known natural rate of pressure depletion (loss) in unreleased gas fields flys in the face of the old earth theory.
Except, of course, for the little problem that oil/natural gas production is an ongoing process.