I have noticed that you consistently complain about science being "old."
A silly accusation. I don't either.
This is "old news."
This information is "50 years old."
You have a case of a specific occasion when obsolete ideas are known to be obsolete, and you spin this as "consistently complain". What's consistent in our discussions is your inaccurate portrayals.
We've known that the earth goes around the sun for several hundred years. I guess by your standard that's "old news" too, and therefore invalid.
As if...
My record speaks for itself. You have junk - total junk for an argument, so you resort to bogus
spin.
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.
I've linked twice now to sites that explain how most oil forms slowly under the earth. Those processes by their very nature
must take a long time.
Telling evostories isn't the same thing as demonstrating truth therein. I can tell evostories - anyone can. Yet nobody can demonstrate them true.
Would you like me to link you to some more evostories?
Oil travels through rocks with water, and the rates at which this happens are slow; in the case of pressurised shale, very slow. That isn't to say that some oil can't form quickly under other conditions. Please, just educate yourself about this.
About what? We all know the story. We're asking why we should believe it's true. Educate yourself on the difference sometime.
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.
Sure. Look
here, at the table next to "carbon in the oceans." That is a
lot of carboniferous sedimentary rock. You are claiming that all the organisms that formed all of those rocks existed on the earth in the space of a few thousand years. If that somehow makes sense to you then we can leave it at that and move on to discussing something else.
Present another link under false pretenses, and you'll be PMing Russ whining about where it went.
Unless Michael Pidwirny is this Hunt fellow's pen name, in which case you need to explain that for those of us who don't know him personally.
I didn't say "show me a random evohype link". I asked how Hunt arrived at his estimate. If you prefer to dodge, just dodge. Better yet, don't respond. Either way, don't be rude and try to waste everyone's time.
I take it you've never seen fossils of giant dragonflies & such?
Logic doesn't follow that because dragonflies (and numerous other organisms) were larger in the past (bold emphasis mine),
Every indication, without exception, is that things grew larger, more rapidly, lived longer
Like I said, the fossil record does not support this. In the case of dragonflies, we also have fossils of dragonflies that are about the size of those today, or smaller. I think you are referring to one particular giant species that lived in the Carboniferous.
There are also fossils showing dwarfism having occurred. An example of this is when a population lives on an island and has to adapt to limited resources there. That is what scientists believe happened with
homo floresiensis, though that is a topic for another thread.
I am waiting for you to back up your statements here with evidence.
Show you evidence, when you already know? I've better things to do. So does anybody. Those who taunt others with their own disingenuousness can do their own research. You really should consider just what such an attitude indicates sometime.
In case your mirror's broken, here's what it looks like:
Ha ha! Ha ha! You can't make me thi-ink
You can't make me open my eyes
Ha ha! Ha ha! You're just wasting ti-ime
I still pretend to believe the lies
Show's just boring when it's not funny.
