Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.ABEIf 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.

Sure, here is an example.USING MICROFOSSILS IN PETROLEUM EXPLORATIONThis 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:

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.

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.

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 28Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.