And how do you know it forms slowly? Or should I ask how you know the "geological processes" are slow?
Here is the
link I posted earlier which explains some of the processes. Drilling for oil is what caused Glenn Morton and his compatriots to confront their young-earth beliefs, which were irreconcilable with the evidence they worked with every day.
Here is another article which outlines oil-forming processes. The question isn't whether oil can form quickly, but whether
all oil
did form quickly, and the obvious answer is no.
That stuff is what, circa 1950? Earlier? Everyone's heard this before. Not a lick of evidence, just evostories.
As I said earlier, my actual point was the sheer logistical impossibility of all the world's biomass and carboniferous rock -- check the numbers out again in my OP -- forming in the space of a few thousand years. The earth would have had to be overrun.
[quote]Anyhow, are you just saying there's too much carbon for a few thousand years to account for, or are you saying there's so much it requires millions, billions, or zillions of years to account for it?
You seem to think that carbon isn't a "concern" unless it's in the atmosphere. Well, how does it get there? You need to learn about the
carbon cycle. Organic matter in soil is oxidised by the atmosphere, so yes the numbers of living and dead creatures on earth do make a difference (considering all those that ever lived existed all at once according to YECs, and in such numbers to produce the entire world's store of biomass and carboniferous rock -- by the way, that's just what exists now -- it excludes what has been eroded and subducted under the earth's crust over millions of years). Respiration from those same organisms in the biosphere also contributes to the carbon in the atmosphere. Check the numbers, they're pretty big.
You didn't answer my question.
It may have escaped your attention, but creation scientists and creationists in general do not believe and of that "present is the key to the past" stuff. We don't assume the world has never changed. Every indication, without exception, is that things grew larger, more rapidly, lived longer, etc. before the flood.
Once again I cannot help wondering if you read your own links.
Carbon moves back and forth among these various pools. Nearly all of the carbon on earth is locked up in the lithosphere as sedimentary rock deposits and fossil fuels. And about 99.999% of this carbon is fixed in place and essentially off the table as far as the carbon cycle is concerned. Only the amount stored as fossil fuels enters the carbon cycle, and only then through human activities.
You might like to paint a doomsday picture of a pre-flood world with carbon available for life to flourish, but if you want to make it stick, you should probably find out some of the things that were probably different.
If you'd like, I can try to find you some links discussing some of the models.
Now uniformatarianist models may have a good deal of difficulty accounting for carbon. Just where was all that carbon that's now part of the lithosphere hang out way back when? Adding it to present-day conditions, just as you intended to do with your criticism of written history, it doesn't matter if you push it back 500 million years, you may still get your doomsday. One wonders how well evomythology can make accommodations. All the carbon that is now in coal, oil, limestone, and chalk had to be available for intake by living things. Hmmm...
