# Infinite?

>No, you’re just arguing about semantics.

Not at all. Semantics would be an argument about the definitions of words. We haven't even dipped a toe into that water. It's generally a disingenuous tactic anyway.

>Your original point was that they’re a “product of the ocean”, and also “ongoing”.

My original post was about that, and so far you agree. Biological matter still decays in the ocean as you say right in your next line.

But my first point is that _Fossil fuels don't come from fossils_. **And** you agree with that.

So then how am I completely wrong?

>They’re a product of decaying matter and millions of years.

It sounds like you think decay has stopped. Is that right?

>You also said that peak oil is lying to us.

Rather I said that peak oil is a lie. Could we use it all? Maybe, but peak oil in the 1970s was the false claim that we would run out by the end of the eighties. Since then the dates have changed but not the veracity of the claims.

>Do you believe that crude oil is an infinite resource?

**Of course not**. Infinite is an imaginary number. It's unquantifiable. That would be silly. Even water isn't infinite and we have a lot of it.

However, it's not a zero sum game either.

Fossil fuels like many things are renewable resources. The same process of decomposition continues. After "millions of years" and the enormous contribution made to the process all those years. Do you really think we've come close to burning it up in a measly 500 years?