Replies

Why don't you name another part of the "big picture", Reep; tell me which piece of the picture you'd like to see me demolish next.

Try .5 gig-year-old large, non-magma filled craters.

Do you understand that page? I mean, you linked it. Why is the atmosphere "just an assumption?"

A better question. Why is it younger than the crust? Because if it had been there all along, at the modern (or some primordial higher temperature), the crust could not have cooled rapidly enough to solidify even with 4.5 billion years to do in. Too low of a thermal gradient. You said it yourself, "hot enough to melt lead."

You don't have enough time since a few millenia BC. That's what I can't make you see. Your sources kill you, but you only lift the paragraph or two you want.

Your sources kill you, but you only lift the paragraph or two you want

Why do I get the feeling I'm trying to conduct a debate with a weasel?

First you break into a conversation between myself and another person claiming I'm all wet about the albedo and infrared flux evidence; then when you get shot down in flames on that one, you claim that the albedo and ir evidence has to be tossed because of the thick crust (i.e. you parrot Jim Acker's argument); next when you see that one also get shot down in flames, you come back with more vague big-picture stuff.

The big picture is made up of those kinds of details, Reep.