Your niggling about figures of carbon for the biosphere is a red herring. The topic is evidence for a global flood and to state my original point for at least the third time, any figures you look up for the amount of carbon contained in rocks are very, very big. Therefore for it all to have got there in the space of 6,000 years is preposterous -- the earth would have been overpopulated.
"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
biosphere consists of living plants and animals. The Encyclopedia of Earth link does not give a specific figure for this, but
this site does: 560 billion tons. So you're looking at a little less than 10 times the amount of this in fossil fuel deposits, part of which is coal.
My source for this information is here:
How Good are those Young Earth Arguments?The confusion here is probably that someone named Sonleitner watched a creationist video and wrote what appears to be a software programme titled "An Evolutionist goes to the creationist movies". In this he cites a creationist writer called Morton -- possibly Glenn while he was still a YEC -- who cites information from someone called Hunt. I've dug a little deeper and I think this is
John M. Hunt, a late geochemist with a specialism in petroleum. His qualifications and experience suggest that his figures would not be completely erroneous but I don't know what his methods or parameters were and unfortunately I don't have access to his research. From now on I will make sure I don't give second-party links.
Again though, this is making complex what is a very simple issue: how did all that biomass get into all that rock in 6,000 years? A large part of my country is built on limestone -- you do know where limestone comes from? But I did say that if this somehow makes sense to you, we can move on. I cited a number of other reasons why the flood cannot have occurred, none of which have been discussed.
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. "
This seems to be off topic but it's simple to address. The table cites 766 billion tons of carbon in the atmosphere. It says that's 3 billion less than models predict, so there must be a carbon sink to account for the 3 billion. (Note that this is about 1/255th of the carbon in the atmosphere.) It then goes on to give a number of reasonable hypotheses. To be honest I don't know what your point was here, but again it has nothing to do with impossible amounts of biomass accumulating over 6,000 years.
The rest of your post simply shows that you refuse to look at my links or educate yourself about the topics under discussion. Your tactic seems to be simple dismissal of decades of scientific research with no attempt to understand it. When you decide to change this pattern and respond in a more direct and educated way to my initial posts, I'll be happy to carry on the conversation.
