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.
What would you do if I proposed epicycles? Without evidence - just repeating the same old stuff and claiming it has to be true because I can link to it right there in black and white.
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?
It almost sounds like you understand the purpose of evidence. But clearly you don't understand what evidence is. Evolutionist conclusions aren't evidence.
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.
There is no evidence to discuss. There is oil. It is found in the ground. This doesn't prove it took millions of years to form.
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.
Oh. I need to google because you don't know and don't care how Hunt got his figures.
As far as matching the figures you claim Glenn Morton claims Hunt published, that table isn't in the same ballpark. Once again, you don't read your own sources.
"carbon in the coal alone is 50 times that in the entire present biosphere"
The table gives 578 for just the carbon in the atmosphere (that's the smaller estimate assigned to the year 1700). 10 x 578 = 5780 Ten ain't fifty.
The table lists "Fossil Fuel Deposits" at 4000. Apparently that figure isn't restricted to coal alone, but at this point there's little point continuing to just compare the numbers reported.
The same source also says
"Despite the scientific certainty that the global carbon cycle is governed by the law of conservation, scientists are not able to “balance” the storages and flows. That is, summing the best estimates for the flows of carbon to and from the atmosphere indicates that there is less carbon in the atmosphere than expected. During the 1990’s, the atmosphere was missing about 3 petagrams (3 billion metric tons) of carbon per year. This missing carbon is associated with an unknown carbon sink. "
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.
Requiring evidence isn't arguing from incredulity. I freely admit I have no faith in evolutionism. It is nothing but a set of totally unsubstantiated assertions, at best, and frequently outright falsehood.
John Tyndall, in his
Belfast Address of 1874, came right out and said
The strength of the doctrine of evolution consists, not in an experimental demonstration (for the subject is hardly accessible to this mode of proof), but in its general harmony with scientific thought.
If you want to make progress, present something more than stories. Present evidence, and give reasons why folks should accept your favoured interpretations thereof. The mere existence of evolutionist conclusions doesn't prove anything.
