. . . from you, as to why this information is incorrect.
I have noticed that you consistently complain about science being "old."
A silly accusation. I don't either.
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 point is that it's been discovered that both oil and coal can form quickly. The old reasoning that this takes a long time, so the geologic processes must also take time/be old doesn't fly. To workaround this by employing circular reasoning is bogus.
This oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form because these processes took a long time because this oil took a long time to form... Dizzy yet.
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."
So "try millions of years" would be your answer?
My next question would be how Hunt arrived at the stated estimate, and how it compares to other estimates.
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.
We'll see. You copy Linear's tactic of requesting evidence of things that are commonly known. I'm not inclined to devote a lot of time to this just now. I take it you've never seen fossils of giant dragonflies & such?
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.
Do you mean all the rerun stuff we've already been over in other threads? Do you mean we need to get around to the entire argument-from spam?
Here's how arguments-from-spam work, folks. When you don't have a strong case, you throw together as many bogus things as you can come up with. The idea is to wear down the other side, making them invest 10 times as much time debunking each lie as it took to come up with it. Evolutionism itself is one giant argument from spam, probably the biggest ever assembled. The assumption they'd like you to make is that if any one part of it hasn't been debunked, the whole thing is true.
In reality, no chain can be stronger than its weakest link. If life doesn't come from non-life, it must've got here somehow... If critters don't change from one kind to another, the critters we see must've got here somehow... If even one single organ or system of organs couldn't evolve, that organ or system must've got here somehow... That's the last thing they want you remembering. They want you to be impressed (if you're predisposed to accept evolutionism) or intimidated(if you're predisposed to ask questions) by on "all the evidence". It's not a matter of "all the evidence". Evolutionism's trying to explain everything that exists, remember? It's their God-denying interpretation of all the evidence that's the issue.
As for this thread? Review the old threads, and see how much of this specimen hasn't already been discussed. The forum has a search feature, which will make the job easier. Those of us with functional memories can tick off half the list right off the bat. I could perhaps search myself, if anyone's interested. Post or PM me if you'd like some links but haven't time. Also scroll up & check out the links Russ has already provided, if you haven't done so already.
Here's a link for those who may come along later. Half of this discussion's taking place in another thread, and it may get to the point where it doesn't make so much sense for those reading only in part.
http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=52016&gonew=1#UNREAD
