Marcum, JamesCulham, EdwardBaylor University.2013-05-242013-05-2420132013-05-24http://hdl.handle.net/2104/8658The dominant theories of oil generation are fossil fuel and abiotic oil (the latter also known as the abiogenic or R-U theory). For decades, United States scientists have held that oil is created by decaying life forms from millions of years ago. Abiotic theory (that oil is created without biotic particles) has historically been dismissed in the United States; however, it has gained new prominence among some scientists as the result of an experiment in 2002 that theoretically proved its validity. Despite this and other evidence seeming to disprove the fossil fuel theory, fossil fuel theory not only clings to life, but thrives. Why? Because science is not the ever changing, eager to self-correct, and unbiased force that its supporters like to claim. Thomas Kuhn, in his book Structure of Scientific Revolutions, explained that contrary to popular belief, science is a social construct fits facts to theories, rather than fitting a theory to the facts. The majority of scientists accept the theory, then vigorously resists change even when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that current thought is flawed (recall Copernicus).In this paper, we will examine both fossil fuel and abiotic theories, the evidence of any anomalies, and how this new discovery could potentially have very strong consequences.en-USBaylor University projects are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. Contact libraryquestions@baylor.edu for inquiries about permission.ThesisWorldwide access