Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

It shouldn't be a "marine environment" if it merely carries terrestrial items for a brief period and then deposits them.The plateau DID need to be washed clean and flat after the Flood because it had strata layered above it to a great depth, and all that had to be washed away. It wasn't all washed away in the Grand Staircase for instance, but the Kaibab Plateau WAS washed flat.You all seem to be making up difficulties that don't exist.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OE wouldn't have any better method for that would it? They have to identify the rock first don't they? Or do you mean radiometric dating? Don't know what you mean "tie Carboniferous formations together." Isn't most identification possible through fossils and the order of the layers/ 'But there is an observable pattern that a YEC can't deny even if there is no way to explain it by the Flood: simply studying the rocks, knowing that the fossils occur in a certain order, which a Floodist could ascertain as well as anyone else, -- aren't these the ways the rocks are identified? A YEC would be looking at the physical arrangement under relative dating. An OEG would be adding in ancient ages -- to what purpose I don't know, but that's the only difference I'm aware of. Yes I agree, the absolute ages would be treated as irrelevant by YECs, but otherwise a YEC who had studied the rocks should know as much as an OEC or OEG, because it's basically a physical problem. How old the Carboniferous is doesn't add anything useful to knowing where it is. So far that is the ONLY difference I can see in how a YEC would approach the problem compared to an OEG, and although I've asked many times so far nobody has made a good case for the necessity of the absolute ages. Floodists can see the order of the rocks and the fossils as well as anybody else and those ought to be sufficient to guide a person to the right location. Again, it would take someone who had studied the rocks to know where to look for those kinds of rocks where oil would be found. Why would a Floodist be at any more of a disadvantage than the OE guy -- UNLESS the old ages really do contribute important information, and again, nobody has yet shown this to be the case. But what do those predictions and processes have to do with absolute ages? And if they don't then why couldn't a YEC learn them as well as an OEC/G? The point is that all you need to know is the disposition of the rocks; you don't really need a theory about how they got that way that I can see, you just need to know that they occur in a certain relation to each other with certain fossil contents. Isn't that so? All it would take to know those things would be to study the rocks, HBD, what on earth does any theory of their formation do to improve your chances over just knowing the lie of the rocks? And a FLoodist can study that as well as anyone else. How does OE earth THEORY help in that enterprise? Theory shouldn't help at all; it's all about being a rockologist. I'm sure that's how OEers find oil and there's no reason why a YEC with the same knowledge couldn't too? I don't think we NEED to know WHY. And you haven't said why we would need to know why. The model doesn't point to the rocks, it's the knowledge of the rocks that points to the rocks, and that knowledge is available by studying the rocks, the theories have nothing to do with it. You haven't said how the OE model would be more predictive.

You are totally wrong about what I'm doing on that other thread, ridiculously totally absolutely wrong. And you're wrong about the rest of your post too. But since you never understand anything I say there's no point in trying to explain it.

If I ever reached the point where I gave up on YEC explanations I certainly wouldn't go with OE explanations. More likely I'd just spend more time in the Bible and maybe live even more like a hermit than I already do. God understands things we don't and spending time in His company is far preferable to spending it in futile debate. So far there is no question of dishonesty about YEC. The biggest problem I have is dealing with a lot of annoying people who don't get it.

The point of the thread is to try to show that the explanation doesn't work. I've attacked the theory many times in the past. WHAT? Insisting there was no explanation? WHAT? The whole point is that there IS a standard Geo explanation for the relation between the supposed ancient time periods/environments/landscapes and the rock that is now all that is left of them, and I think that explanation collapses under investigation, although as I also said many times, it's an unwieldy argument to muster. Stile began the discussion; what do you mean he's "forced?" It's his own project, not mine. And I've found over and over at EvC that when I think others aren't getting something, they aren't, but they think they are. "Grasped immediately" is self-delusion. MOre hot air. I've only had the opportunity to mention one or two issues before I'm buried in irrelevant arguments. Would you please quote me on that? I've been intending to get to his list of topics, but now it sounds like that would just be an unfair attack on the man according to you. The choice I was given was Dating or Geology. Dating is a science forum too I believe, and I don't feel I know enough to debate the dating issues. They are fundamentally a geological issue anyway. I really have no idea what you are talking about. This thread got obnoxious, you being one of the causes, so I haven't had a chance to figure out what to do with it at all. However, the direction I want to go with it is to use his arguments against YEC and the Flood to see if they can be answered from a YEC point of view.If you don't mind of course.

Yes I believe the OE interpretation of the fossil order is an illusion. I also think there must be a reasonable interpretation of it from the Flood point of view that will eventually emerge. Meanwhile, it IS a fact that the fossils occur in a predictable order, whatever the correct interpretation of that may be, and since that is true they can be used to locate rocks.

I don't know much about Glenn Morton. His name comes up a lot as a source of evidence against YEC, and someone who converted from YEC himself, and that's really all I've known about him. I started the thread to address the evidence he is known for, and now have read some more about him personally, but still not a lot.

I'm surprised if YECs had nothing to say in response. I don't find his reasoning all that airtight myself, what little I've read of it. I think he's no doubt very sincere and it's sad people have attacked him.I would be interested to know if he's still involved in these issues?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Argument from authority doesn't belong in a debate with creationists who know we're unqualified by the usual standards. Credentials aren't the point here, our efforts to think through the issues as far as we grasp them is all we can offer. If the debate is to be grounded on credentials, as I've many times said, Percy needs to put a notice up at the top of the page warning us to stay away. Meanwhile, in my opinion you should get a reprimand of some sort. But that's okay, my opinion on these things doesn't count.

I can't tell how serious you are being. Can you reference his climate change denial?

I'd appreciate it if you would put some specificity to this claim. I can look up Morton's own articles on various topics to find what geological facts he thinks need to be addressed by YECs, but I'd like to know what you have in mind in this statement.However, if I'm disqualified from having an opinion because I have no credentials in the relevant fields, it would be nice to know that in advance so I can avoid the constant bullying on that ground.

I suppose I should have been aware that any focus on an actual person could be a problem but all I intended was to use Morton's arguments as a basis for the thread, not anything about him personally. But the OP isn't "inquisitive" about Morton for that very reason, that he isn't the topic, just his "geological facts" that are taken to prove YEC views wrong. Perhaps it would be good to know more about him though.I hesitate now even to bring up one of the arguments though.

You mean his testimony? Seems to me like a natural place to start to get a sense of his arguments against YEC, and at the time I wasn't aware of links to other arguments he's made. I really don't understand what you are getting at. What? What? This may just be "hubris" of course, as anything a YEC dares to say against OE views is often called, or mere chutzpah, but I think the evidence is consistently misconstrued in OE terms due to habits of thought more than anything else. There is a compelling plausibility that has built up by consensus over time, and a lot of it does at first glance seem to be incompatible with the Flood scenario -- but maybe it's just that a different approach is needed, thinking outside the box as it were. Since there is a LOT of accumulated interpretive baggage on the OE side, this is no open-and-shut case by any means.I don't claim any expertise of my own, that's for sure, and I don't even claim to have it clearly figured out, my IQ being respectable enough but not of the necessary caliber to get all the relevant ducks in a row without losing the context and having to keep starting over. I just keep getting a sense of these problems with OE theory that nobody seems to be taking into account, and by the time I get my thoughts even minimally together about it the discussion has gone bonkers in another direction, full of denunciations and accusations and so on. Oh yes all my fault, not yours, and that's probably largely true, but that doesn't prove there isn't something to the argument.A Brief History of My Hubris or Chutzpah I dare to think what I pointed out years ago about the Grand Canyon cross section PROVES that there were no millions of years involved in the building of the strata or the carving of the canyon. I think it's all there in a series of observations I point out on the cross section. It's my own variation on standard YEC arguments, just taken in somewhat different directions.I think what I also pointed out years ago about the way microevolution leads to reduced genetic diversity is also a killer for evolution. This too is my own variation on a standard YEC argument, which is about reduced "information" rather than reduced genetic variability.These are simple points; I stick to simple points because I DON'T have expertise, but I also think the simple points are sufficient.I certainly do think what I'm trying to get at on the other thread about the strata (Timescale fiction, rocks only reality) is another simple point that would be a killer for the Geological Timescale if I could get it put together properly. Maybe eventually I will.And now on this thread I think there are probably a few issues that Morton brings up that also lend themselves to new arguments. The issues aren't new but his arguments have inspired some new thinking on them.Here are a couple that keep occurring to me that are probably not developed enough to argue effectively:The tracks and ripples and raindrops on the surface of the strata. (Correct please, if misstated)These impressions in the strata are used against the idea of the Flood as it has been formulated by some creationists, because there wouldn't have been enough time for them to occur. But I've been considering that there was probably more time between depositions than that usual formulation takes into account. Such as the gaps between tides, leaving deposited sediments in a state of almost-drying mud that will hold impressions until the next tide comes in and fills in the impressions.Another point is that it could be a fruitful argument to change the focus from how these things couldn't have occurred in the Flood to how they make no sense on standard OE theory either: That is, these are impressions made in those huge expanses of sediment that became the rocks in the strata. Why would that be if they supposedly occurred during a normal lifetime in a normal environment/landscape? In that case wouldn't it be more likely to get lumps of rock here and there along with some real evidence of the supposed landscape such as large pieces of fossilized plant life. That is, the flatness is the biggest clue that these are not normal landscapes with animal life going on as usual. The tracks and the burrows and the other impressions had to occur in a mud that would preserve them, wet but not sloppy wet, and then filled in by another sediment, which would only really happen if the impressions were semi-hardened, which could probably happen between tides because there would be sufficient time for that, along with the fact that the tide going out would draw off a lot of the wetness from the deposit. Ammonites and the Fossil Order Another issue Morton brings up is one of the many problems OEs find for the Flood in the fossil order. There are various ammonite species (or subspecies since this is just microevolution), that are found fossilized together with their own species at different levels of the stratigraphic column, or in other words in different time periods. The differences between these species come down to a single variation in the "suture" that forms during the growing process, a recognizable physical phenomenon that is different for each species. The question put to Floodists is how could the Flood sort creatures according to such a feature, a phenomenon unrelated to the creature's size or other differences in characteristics that could affect its sorting by water. It's a reasonable question and appears to be quite telling against Flood theory. There are many fossil sequences in the stratigraphic column that are hard to explain by principles of water transportation.The most likely explanation seems to be that they were sorted according to their original location rather than their species characteristics, size, shape or anything like that.But as with the topic above, I think the question needs to be raised how reasonably standard OE Geological theory accounts for this kind of sorting. Trilobites are another similar case. Consider that different levels of the strata in which different species of these fossils are found are considered to be millions of years apart. Yet the only difference between these ammonite species is this suture line, a pretty minimal difference one would think for millions of years of evolution. The trilobites also are sorted according to their own species characteristics, and the same question about how a Flood could bring that about applies there too. But again one has to question how the standard geological timescale explanation makes sense of this, the standard evolutionary explanation that is. Consider that within a few hundred years we can have an enormous variety of different kinds of dogs, with far greater morphological differences than the trilobites or the ammonites, or the great variety of cattle breeds; or the Pod Mrcaru lizards that developed dramatic changes within thirty years. The examples are probably multiplicitous but these come to mind. The idea, then, that it would take millions of years to come up with an ammonite with a different suture line, or a trilobite with its different physical features, should strain credulity. These sorts of differences are typical built-in variations that occur in all living things, that develop over very short periods of time, even in a human lifetime. Strand a few dozen human beings on an island for a few hundred years and you'll have a new "race" of human beings with striking characteristics that set them apart from all other tribes.Yes the fact that they are sorted as they are is a problem for the Flood, but it may also be a problem in a different way for OE theory. Explaining it at all is problematic.So there are a few arguments I have against OE interpretations. I expect you to try to rip them to shreds, but all that does is motivate me to try to refine the argument if I can. If I can't I can wait until I can. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All you are saying is that a creationist dare not say anything against the OE theory. No right to think about it without a degree, though even those with the relevant degrees are not qualified to judge by many comments at EvC.Why would I be here except to try to find arguments against OE? Why would there be a site for this kind of debate if we're not allowed to object to the status quo?I think about these things. Thinking sometimes leads me to ideas that call OE theory into question. Why isn't it possible for someone determined to do this to actually have a useful thought about it without being accused of hubris?Kurt Wise conceded that the evidence is against YEC and refused to get involved in the debate. But he also said something like the way to deal with the issues is to come up with something new, to think outside the box. I think I'm doing that. Why should I have to be somebody special to do this, or driven by some kind of unusual pride? I will say that once I have arrived at an opinion I don't easily give it up, and that has always been true of me. If I review opinions I had forty years ago before I became a Christian, I often find I still agree with them. Why does that require "hubris?"I get quite shaken at the accusations I encounter here, but once I'm committed to a point of view I don't easily give it up and that will remain through all the accusations you can throw at me.I don't feel any need to find new topics to debate, in fact Morton himself has quite a few that are posted on the Old Earth site that I may yet get to. But you are welcome to point me to any you particularly recommend.

All I want to say to your post right now is that your claim that the flatness of the rocks has been sufficiently dealt with is false. The flatness is obvious to anyone with functioning eyes. The sharp contact lines between many have been demonstrated many times. We're talking about enormous flat barren featureless slabs of rock that cover enormous geographic areas, yes even the terrestrial rocks though it's not as extensive in their case. If you straw-man the idea with a ridiculously perfect flatness or featurelessness, of course, that's the only way you can argue that it doesn't exist.To deny the flatness takes a weird kind of distorted vision. The Kaibab Plateau, which is nothing but the surface of the Kaibab limestone formation, would be flat as a pancake for thousands of square miles if there hadn't been uplift in that area that raised it over the GC area, and even with that uplift it's basically a slightly wavy pancake. That's the case with ALL the strata. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.