Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Allysum Global
Post Volume: Total: 919,191 Year: 6,448/9,624 Month: 26/270 Week: 22/37 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4597
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 9.5


(1)
Message 31 of 427 (790991)
09-09-2016 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Coyote
09-09-2016 12:23 AM


Re: Epic fail!
Don't get your hopes up: young earth (YE) is a failed belief, and has been for a couple of hundred years.
It has always been a failed belief, they just didn't figure that out until a couple hundred years ago and why.
A YEC might be able to find oil, but not by using YEC.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 09-09-2016 12:23 AM Coyote has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2353 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 32 of 427 (790993)
09-09-2016 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by petrophysics1
09-08-2016 6:20 PM


kbertsche doesn't know shit about sedimentation or stratigraphy.
Ask him ,if he thinks he knows about it more than I do.
I don't know that kbertsche said this. I doubt it as he doesn't strike me as a person who makes statements out of his area of expertise.
I am certainly no expert on geology. I've had only one college-level geology course. I have a high level of expertise in only one geology-related area, radiometric dating.
I am merely reporting what I've been told by former YECs who worked successfully in oil exploration while operating under a YEC paradigm. I quizzed Glenn Morton, Steve Robertson, and another of their former colleagues about this a few years ago. They all assured me that it is true. They identify (from seismic surveys) the layers and features that are likely to contain oil. They may refer to these layers by their geologic names, but they do not need to know the real ages of the layers.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by petrophysics1, posted 09-08-2016 6:20 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2016 1:54 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1665 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 427 (790994)
09-09-2016 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
09-08-2016 8:21 PM


Morton was unable to find among his fellow YEC believers anyone who was able to say their experience in the field looking at the evidence that they saw with their own two eyes was explained using Flood geology.
This sort of claim needs to be supported since I have no idea WHAT "evidence" you are talking about. I have no problem explaining the Grand Canyon by the Flood and don't see why anyone else would.
But where did you get "months" from what I said? I don't think it would have taken that long given the great quantity of water at great velocity, carrying a great quantity of broken pieces of strata.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2016 8:21 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2016 3:08 AM Faith has replied
 Message 83 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2016 8:04 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


(2)
Message 34 of 427 (790995)
09-09-2016 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
09-09-2016 2:51 AM


quote:
I don't think it would have taken that long given the great quantity of water at great velocity, carrying a great quantity of broken pieces of strata.
And how would that produce the Grand Canyon as it exists today ? I cannot imagine it producing the meanders, for a start. In fact it seems odd that that would even produce a deep channel, rather than simply scouring the landscape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 2:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 3:18 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1665 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 35 of 427 (790996)
09-09-2016 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
09-09-2016 3:08 AM


The scenario I've described would have scoured out the basic dimensions of the canyon, why would you assume I meant it formed it exactly as it exists today anyway? Of course we have to give the river SOME credit, certainly for the meanders and probably for part of the channel it runs in. But that doesn't involve millions of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2016 3:08 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2016 3:46 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


(1)
Message 36 of 427 (790997)
09-09-2016 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
09-09-2016 3:18 AM


The Colorado river runs along the length of the canyon, so if we give it credit for those parts, that is the main body of the canyon.
And those meanders have to be in place before the canyon really starts to form.
And the rock must be hard enough to prevent the normal outcome of the river "short circuiting" the meanders (which become "ox-bow lakes").
Obviously the rock must be hard for must of the cutting of the canyon which therefore must take a long time.
ABE
If that is not clear enough, the problem is simple. Since the meanders are in the canyon, not just the river, the force that produced the canyon must cut down, following the meanders. An erosive force that will quickly cut through rock is not enough - since that would tend to cut straight across the terrain.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 3:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 8:20 AM PaulK has replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 196 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 37 of 427 (790998)
09-09-2016 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
09-08-2016 6:09 PM


Sure, here is an example.
USING MICROFOSSILS IN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION
This is a paleontologist describing how he uses paleontology and the rock units found to explore for oil in the Gulf of Mexico for an oil company.
Please notice his figure 8, where he describes how significant paleostratigraphical units, together with major stratigraphical units, help him to interpret where holes should be drilled.
Let's copy the last paragraph in the main body of the text here:
Brian J. O'Neill writes:
Commonly in Gulf Coast paleontology, ancient marine environments are related to interpreted water depths (paleobathymetry). This is an oversimplification because benthic foraminifera often respond to water conditions (temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, etc.) rather than to depth. However, there are over 40,000 wells drilled in the Gulf. By combining data from existing wells, it is possible to reconstruct the profile of the continental shelf and slope at various points in geologic time. Such paleogeographic maps, combined with seismic profiles and other geologic data sets, are the tools used in the search for hydrocarbons. It is paleontology that uniquely explains the element of geologic time and depositional environment to petroleum geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 09-08-2016 6:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 8:32 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 196 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 38 of 427 (791000)
09-09-2016 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
09-08-2016 3:28 PM


Faith writes:
I was surprised to find out that kbertsche accepts that YECs can find oil with just the basic idea of relative dating and knowledge of the morphology of the rocks.
Really? How so?
I mean, anyone can walk around the appropriate suburbs of Jo'burg where Wits Rocks outcrop and accidentally bump his/her toe on a Wits rock containing some gold.
The real problem is how to try and predict what's going to be found underground. That's where YEC's don't make the cut. Old earth models work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 09-08-2016 3:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 8:21 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1665 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 427 (791005)
09-09-2016 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
09-09-2016 3:46 AM


Oh NONSENSE!!
The river would be what is left from the water that cut the canyon.
The meanders would have been cut into a flat area left after the canyon itself was scoured out.
The rock should have been compacted to some solidity but not to lithification, and the uppermost strata would have been somewhat less compacted because they wouldn't have had as much pressure on them. So along with the strain of the uplift and cracks formed as a result, they would have broken up as water flowed into the cracks. The lower strata would also have been broken up -- that's a HUGE canyon you know, but many of the walls carved out but left standing where the flow ran past them.
Your ponderings are way off the mark.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2016 3:46 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2016 8:36 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1665 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 427 (791006)
09-09-2016 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Pressie
09-09-2016 7:25 AM


Please read kbertsche's Message 32 for the answer to your question.
Oh, and please note that six people on this thread, seven counting me, consider it possible to find oil without using absolute dates. Which I mentioned in Message 28
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Pressie, posted 09-09-2016 7:25 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1665 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 41 of 427 (791007)
09-09-2016 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Pressie
09-09-2016 6:04 AM


Your example of finding oil through paleontology doesn't necessarily have anything to do with time. Anyone can know the position of various fossils and make use of them for this purpose; there is no need to know their ages, just their position in the rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Pressie, posted 09-09-2016 6:04 AM Pressie has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


(4)
Message 42 of 427 (791009)
09-09-2016 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
09-09-2016 8:20 AM


quote:
Oh NONSENSE!!
As we all see you have failed to understand the argument.
quote:
The river would be what is left from the water that cut the canyon.
The meanders would have been cut into a flat area left after the canyon itself was scoured out.
Obviously you have completely managed to miss the point that the canyon itself meanders. Those meanders can't be cut "after" the canyon - they are the canyon.
So much for your "NONSENSE!!"
The rest of your musings fail to deal with the point, and are thus irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 8:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 8:41 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1665 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 43 of 427 (791011)
09-09-2016 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by PaulK
09-09-2016 8:36 AM


Well, what could possibly be the explanation for the canyon itself meandering but that the water flowing through it did it, a LOT of water, not just a little river? Eh?
ABE: There is only one place the canyon itself appears to meander and it's where the river obviously cut the meander when it was a much bigger river.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2016 8:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2016 8:45 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17893
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


(1)
Message 44 of 427 (791012)
09-09-2016 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
09-09-2016 8:41 AM


Obviously that it was cut by a meandering river. Probably rather slowly.
As I stated you need a force that cuts down, following the meanders. Simply supposing a massive erosive force won't do because that would tend to cut across the meanders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 8:41 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 09-09-2016 8:48 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1665 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 45 of 427 (791013)
09-09-2016 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
09-09-2016 8:45 AM


It needed much more water flowing through it to cut such a deep meander, but there's no reason to assume a huge erosive force such as would have occurred when the canyon was first being cut. Obviously the meander was cut at a later stage, but not after the river was down to its current size.
The stuff you make up is always designed to contradict anything I say but it is completely unnecessary. There are always many ways of interpreting a situation besides yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2016 8:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2016 9:03 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024