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.
The only place they are obsolete is in your head. Your only response to my links and comments about the slow formation of oil has been dismissal.
When people have a debate, they add weight to their arguments with evidence. I could sit here and say that the earth is flat. Why should I expect anyone to believe me if I have no evidence for this, yet there is plenty of evidence to the contrary?
You have junk - total junk for an argument
Yet you have not addressed the evidence itself and you have offered zero for your own perspective.
Present another link under false pretenses, and you'll be PMing Russ whining about where it went.
Your original request was this (bold emphasis mine):
My next question would be how Hunt arrived at the stated estimate, and how it compares to other estimates.
I linked you to another estimate, which tallies well with Hunt's. All you have to do is Google for the amounts of biomass contained in coal, oil and limestone. They are big numbers. That was my point, which you are not engaging with.
Show you evidence, when you already know? I've better things to do.
So do I, if all you intend to do is type unsubstantiated assertions and arguments from incredulity. None of this will move the discussion forward.
Ha ha! Ha ha! You can't make me thi-ink
That seems abundantly clear.
