. . . from you, as to why this information is incorrect.
I have noticed that you consistently complain about science being "old." Some of these processes, like the formation of oil, have long been understood, and no new evidence has come to light to cause scientists to revise their models; yet people are still able to use these models to drill successfully for oil. How exactly does that invalidate them?
The question you feel I didn't answer was this:
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?
Look again at the figures:
Without the oil and coal, there is still a large biomass of carbonate rocks in the earth's crust. For example, the Livingstone Limestone in the Canadian Rockies contains at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates.
Glenn Morton cites data published by Hunt indicating that the carbon in the coal alone is 50 times that in the entire present biosphere. And the carbon in all oil deposits is 660 times that in the entire present biosphere. That in oil shales and other sedimentary rocks is 40,000 times that in the present biosphere.
The obvious implication here is that even if the earth's biosphere were completely converted into oil, coal, and limestone each year, the earth would have to be far older than 6000 years. Try millions of years for multicellular life. You could get those large accumulations over that amount of time without there being impossible numbers of organisms in the biosphere. Look again at the
carbon cycle. You are expecting the massive amounts of carbon produced by all of those organisms to be absorbed by the oceans and the soil. The system was in balance until humans recently began releasing more CO2 into the air. It's safe to say that if you're expecting all of the oil, coal, carboniferous rocks and fossils to have been produced in a few thousand years, the earth would have been overpopulated and there would have been a huge amount of carbon released into the atmosphere, even accounting for the amounts that would be "locked up."
Every indication, without exception, is that things grew larger, more rapidly, lived longer, etc. before the flood.
There aren't any indications in the fossil record. Evidence please.
I notice that we have been focusing very narrowly on biomass. If this continues to be the case then people reading this might start to suspect that no one here is able to comment on the other pieces of evidence I cited in my first two posts.
