Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,516 Year: 6,773/9,624 Month: 113/238 Week: 30/83 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1 of 427 (790954)
09-08-2016 3:28 PM


ABE: The original title seemed to imply something I didn't intend, so I've changed it.
====================================
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. This was said in an off-topic exchange on the thread about YEC views of scientific dating, where he said:
... Though it is somewhat surprising to me, apparently oil exploration can be done without use of absolute (scientific, radiometric) dates. I agree that a YEC can find oil.
I've argued for this idea many times against the position of most here that finding oil requires the use of Old Earth dating, so of course I'm happy to have some agreement for a change.
But he went on about his friend Glenn Morton, who gave up his YEC beliefs for the Old Earth point of view based on what he considered to be geological facts he was becoming aware of.
But as Glenn found, to remain a YEC while doing oil exploration requires one to deny the huge amount of evidence for earth history that one starts to uncover while doing his job.
I would have liked to continue the discussion some but since it's off topic in that thread it has to be continued somewhere else. There are many threads where this subject has come up, so this could be put into one of them as Mods decide, but I couldn't decide myself so started a new topic.
Maybe the issues Morton raises at his own website could be the basis for a new thread, starting with his article Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism.
I strongly believe that Morton has misinterpreted the data he found so compelling, but I doubt anyobe here will agree with me as usual. Just for one issue, he is convinced by seismic imaging that he sees canyons deep in the rocks that would require a long time to carve out:
One also finds erosional canyons buried in the earth. These canyons would require time to excavate, just like the time it takes to erode the Grand Canyon.
But this sounds like someone who never did have the YEC point of view on the Grand Canyon, rather someone who accepts the Old Earth idea that it must have taken a lot of time to carve it. I don't know what various YECs have concluded about how much time it took, but I've argued here many times that it was probably formed by the receding Flood waters rushing into cracks in the uppermost strata, chunks of the strata providing abrasion along with the rushing water. How long that would take to erode away 277 miles of canyon to a depth of one mile and a width at some points of eighteen miles I'm not sure, but it wouldn't take millions of years.
And I also object to the idea that a canyon seen on seismic imaging deep underground was ever at the surface. I'd expect it to have been carved by rushing water running underground between the strata also at the end of the Flood when the strata were still soft.
Of course Morton raises many other issues at his website besides this.
I am still, however, very happy that someone agrees with me about old earth dating not being necessary to finding oil. Yahoo to that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Make title more concise: "OEC vs YEC Issues (yes I changed the title)" => "OEC vs YEC Issues"
Edited by Admin, : Changed title from "OEC vs YEC Issues" to "Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined".

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminAsgara, posted 09-08-2016 3:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 5 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2016 4:36 PM Faith has replied
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-08-2016 4:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 19 by petrophysics1, posted 09-08-2016 6:20 PM Faith has replied
 Message 26 by nwr, posted 09-08-2016 8:35 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 38 by Pressie, posted 09-09-2016 7:25 AM Faith has replied
 Message 92 by dwise1, posted 09-10-2016 1:56 AM Faith has replied
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2016 2:59 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 119 by jar, posted 09-11-2016 4:33 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 266 by jar, posted 09-14-2016 4:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 3 of 427 (790956)
09-08-2016 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminAsgara
09-08-2016 3:35 PM


A geology issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminAsgara, posted 09-08-2016 3:35 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 427 (790963)
09-08-2016 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by NoNukes
09-08-2016 4:36 PM


If Morton believed the OE explanation that the GC was carved by the Colorado River then of course he's tortured by it. That idea ought to be ridiculous to anyone in my opinion.
But a great cataract of water rushing in from all sides should do the job in short order and there's nothing wrong with that idea except people's refusal to believe there was a worldwide Flood.
Somewhere on Morton's website he argues that there couldn't have been a global Flood. I'm sure we'll get to that in due time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2016 4:36 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2016 8:21 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 9 of 427 (790964)
09-08-2016 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by New Cat's Eye
09-08-2016 4:44 PM


Finding it has indeed been contested by Old Earthers here, from petrophysics to Pressie and probably edge as well among others. So if you concede it's findable by YEC methods welcome to the club and I'll expect you to bring your arguments to bear against the OE guys.
The hard part is explaining how it got there. You don't get a bunch of dead organism to convert into hydrocarbons in a short amount of time.
Most things OEers think take a long time turn out not to. With enough pressure it may not take much time at all to form hydrocarbons. And how would you know anyway?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-08-2016 4:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by petrophysics1, posted 09-08-2016 6:00 PM Faith has replied
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-09-2016 10:36 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 73 by dwise1, posted 09-09-2016 3:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 10 of 427 (790965)
09-08-2016 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
09-08-2016 4:45 PM


I would also point out that that canyon looks a lot like a river drainage system.
But there is a bigger and more obvious problem with Faiths view.
If the canyon was carved by the receding flood waters, how did it get buried ?
I have no problem with the idea of a river drainage system being formed underground.
I also have no problem with the idea of a canyon being carved out by rushing water underground either. Why should either of these things be a problem? Since it is underground it's also easy enough to figure out how it got filled up with sediments too, since that seems to be part of the scenario. It's deep in the ground. The sediments were not consolidated. In fact the Flood was just starting to drain away so they were all quite wet. Tectonic movement faulting and breaking them up and causing spaces to form would admit water into broken areas. also loose sediments.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2016 4:45 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2016 5:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 427 (790967)
09-08-2016 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
09-08-2016 5:09 PM


Re: Forget the canyon itself
I assume you are talking about the Grand Canyon rather than the seismically visualized underground canyon?
The Colorado Plateau was probably raised by the tectonic force that tilted the Supergroup beneath the canyon, which can be seen on cross section to have raised the whole stack of strata. I think most of the volcanism occurred at the same time (a dike penetrates up through the Grand Staircase from the very bottom to the very top of the Claron formation, for one bit of evidence), and the same upheaval no doubt also put strain on the uppermost strata over the Grand Canyon. The cross section shows the area uptilted. The uppermost strata reached to something like six miles above the basement rocks at the height of the Flood, and the uplift could have caused the cracking and the breaking up of the strata that I believe carved the Grand Canyon. Since the strata were some three miles above the current rim of the GC they also climbed to the top of the Grand Staircase and that too was carved by the upheaval. And by the way, Geologists believe the strata were that high over the canyon at one point.
But the Grand Canyon is not the topic of this thread. The topic is varied but it's mostly about Glenn Morton's reasons for changing from a YEC to OEC due to such things as the seismic images of underground canyons and so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 09-08-2016 5:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 09-08-2016 5:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 14 of 427 (790969)
09-08-2016 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
09-08-2016 5:28 PM


The sediments wouldn't have been "loose" since they were under enormous pressure from the weight of the strata above, but they would have been quite wet and loose enough to break up if tectonic movement occurred, especially if it opened up a fault that would have been further widened by water rushing into it, similar to how I think the Grand Canyon was formed. It all rushed through the GC and out the other end, but an underground canyon might have been filled up by sediments collapsing above it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2016 5:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2016 12:00 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 311 by Pressie, posted 09-15-2016 7:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 18 of 427 (790973)
09-08-2016 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by petrophysics1
09-08-2016 6:00 PM


First I think you need to explain to us how Old Earth dating is necessary to locating oil. You and others have many times asserted that this is the case but never explained it.
As kbertsche said on the other thread YECs say it is possible to locate oil by relative dating of the rocks and a knowledge of their morphology. I don't see that the ancient dates add a thing to this formula. Those dates would locate the same rocks relative dating would locate and you still need to explore the morphology or arrangements of those rocks to know where the oil is.
If you believe this is not the case please explain how adding millions of years to the mix changes things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by petrophysics1, posted 09-08-2016 6:00 PM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-08-2016 6:31 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 22 by petrophysics1, posted 09-08-2016 6:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 37 by Pressie, posted 09-09-2016 6:04 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 427 (790976)
09-08-2016 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by petrophysics1
09-08-2016 6:20 PM


I quoted him in the OP and linked to the original statement. You can check it out.
Since you do have expertise in sedimentation and stratigraphy, I think you should explain to us how you need the millions of years along with that expertise to find oil. I've many times wondered what the great ages could possibly add to what is basically a physical problem, but so far nobody has explained it. I hope you can.

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 28 of 427 (790986)
09-09-2016 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by edge
09-08-2016 7:34 PM


Interesting that the thread has a lot of people agreeing that it's possible for YECs to find oil through relative dating and morphology of the rocks. I didn't expect that much agreement. That would be kbertsche, NoNukes, CatSci, Moose, nwr, even you.
But of course most of you think a knowledge of OE dating methods is necessary for understanding how the rocks got that way, or in your case improves the chances of finding oil.
Nothing yet has been explained about HOW it helps in the finding of oil though.
My viewpoint that it is possible, but the reason for using geology is to improve your chances of finding oil. And that has worked in the modern era, particularly with some of the new techniques and basin analysis.
My only direct use of radiometric dating and oil exploration was as part of the study of the thermal history of a basin. Without a radiometric date, a given intrusive could not be fit into the story.
Another direct use of evolutionary theory and old ages would be in palynology where we depend on evolutionary changes to provide data about target zones in drilling. The YEC geological interpretation would make this impossible.
This doesn't explain enough for me to grasp why any of it is needed.
It would be hard to imagine oil exploration these days without some kind of understanding of sedimentary sequences. As we have seen on the last few threads, such things certainly don't fit into Faith's version of geology.
That's a very odd thing to say. Sedimentary sequences would certainly be part of a YECs knowledge that should be useful for finding oil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by edge, posted 09-08-2016 7:34 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 09-09-2016 12:23 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-09-2016 12:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 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 1705 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 1705 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024