SS, I see no mention in your post of why there is no genetic bottleneck of all animals at the time of the Biblical flood. Is this because "scientists are liars," or do you have a credible alternative explanation?

Are you also telling me that you are not a young earth creationist? You and Russ haven't made this very clear. Most people who are willing enough to dismiss heaps of scientific fact and evidence to believe that the story of Noah and the flood are true, are usually also willing enough to dismiss all evidence that the earth is old. I am particularly puzzled as to why Russ keeps making posts that advocate a young earth, if he does not believe this himself. That's the whole basis of the opening post in this thread -- they are trying to address the fact that oil and coal take time to form, and that there is too much carbon from organic material locked within the earth to account for all conceivable living things in the past few thousand years (not to mention the fact that all that carbon would have serious consequences for climate and life on earth -- a reason, perhaps, why so many creationists also seem to be global warming deniers).

So are you telling me that you accept that all that carbon has come from creatures living on the earth for millions of years? How does that fit in with your idea of creation then? Are you telling me that you accept what coal, oil and limestone are -- but you refuse to believe that organisms have changed over time, and perhaps even deny there is a fossil record? This gets curiouser and curiouser.

This also makes it hard for me to follow what you have said, but I will try. I'll repeat, there are a lot of people being paid a lot of money by companies around the world to calculate how much fossil fuel is left to use. You seem to be trying to tell me that people leave a lot of waste behind. What's that got to do with it? Do you think they don't take into consideration the amount of organic waste that organisms currently living on earth produce? What's more, people have only existed in the blink of an eye on a geological timescale, so I am puzzled as to why you seem to be suggesting that any waste we generate now has anything to do with the carbon in the earth.

I also wonder if you know what limestone is? It is a sedimentary rock consisting mainly of calcium that was deposited by the remains of marine animals. There's a heckuva lot of it; and in places it has been carved into spectacular cave systems, which takes rather a long time. A young earth creationist would have trouble explaining how it was produced in a few thousand years and then how all those caves were carved, thinks me.

As for these ideas of rocks moving up, soil moving down, and, er, the earth getting bigger from things dying . . . I don't know how much of this you mean seriously and how much of it is just bizarre humour, but I think I'll leave it at that.

About dating glaciers using cosmic ray measurements -- you are presumably aware that it doesn't snow all the time, everywhere there is a glacier? Sure they develop layers; they also get eroded. For a period of time, they are exposed to the air. You can also study the different layers to see how things have changed with time. You can also look at how long rock was exposed, using this technique; this is one way scientists are trying to measure precisely how long there has been a permanent ice sheet covering Antarctica.

What do you believe I am trying to prove or disprove? I am lost myself because I'm not sure how old you think the earth actually is.

Before you talk about woolly mammoths, you need to do some research. Bodies have been found that have been partially eaten by predators, which would be rather inconsistent with them all being quickly killed by a flood.

Would you like to tell me something about limestone and glaciers? That's fine but check the facts first please because I will do this myself. What point would you like to make?

Would you, er . . . like to tell me where flying dinosaurs/reptiles exist? Is Hovind keeping some in his dinosaur theme park? Does Ken Ham have some on hand in his creation museum?

You still haven't answered the question: If there was a Biblical flood, how do you explain the way fossils are sorted in the geologic record? "All fossils are fake" is as much of a cop-out as "all scientists are liars."

You have also not explained why corprolites continued to be produced during and after the flood. If animal populations were bottlenecked, it would have taken time for populations to re-establish. That's assuming that they were able to swim over to Australia and the Americas, in some cases en masse -- guess those kangaroos and wallabies liked it better Down Under than anywhere else?

A logic that only I comprehend? I'll say no more. I don't think "logic" is at home here much of the time, though I do try to introduce some where I can.