You wrote:
>>> 2. The occurrence of igneous plutons and batholiths within Phanerozoic
>>> sedimentary strata of such a size as to require, using standard
>>> thermodynamic calculations, that the bodies would take tens of
>>>millions
>>> of years to cool (depending upon their size, of course). How does
>>> one have rapid sedimentation with a thick gabbroic sill in the middle
>>> of the package of sedimentary rocks?
>>
>> Glenn has shared some of his calculation on this, and others have offered
>> alternative viewpoints. I am no geophysicist, but I know that water
>> conducts heat well, and there are many earth processes that require
>> tremendous amounts of heat. Clearly the oceans have not boiled away in
>> the past. The marine environment has been stable enough to maintain life,
>> despite extensive extinctions. And land areas (if they took tens of
>> millions of years to cool, would they be devoid of life all that time?)
>> have supported its biota as well. I don't think we have all the answers
>> about heat balance.
>
> You can't address this. Fair enough but it HAS to be addressed. Where are
>the young-earth creationist or flood model creationist igneous petrologists?
>This is a real (and fatal, in my opinion) problem with your idea about a
>global
>flood. Bottom line - it ain't science without the numbers.
>
True, I don't have the answers. But does lack of answers mean no science?
To me, it means research opportunities. The position I hold leads me to
suggest that calculations indicating that the oceans would boil away, etc.
are missing some major factors. At this point I don't know what those
factors are, but I am open to finding them. This is no more unscientific
(and possibly less unscientific) than paleontologists looking for missing
links, or astronomers looking for "dark matter". I have a different
paradigm of science, but that doesn't mean it is non-science.
Karen