Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 121 of 427 (791137)
09-11-2016 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by NoNukes
09-11-2016 5:00 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2016 5:00 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2016 8:04 PM Faith has replied
 Message 124 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2016 12:56 AM Faith has replied
 Message 126 by dwise1, posted 09-12-2016 3:08 AM Faith has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 122 of 427 (791138)
09-11-2016 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
09-11-2016 6:52 PM


Faith writes:
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.
It would be good for you to read a bit more about him. He is a good example of a YEC who was not content to just sweep problems under the rug, but to try to address them.
As his story shows, he started doing this while he was still a YEC. He saw problems and presented them to YEC audiences in a search for answers. But rather than getting answers, he was told to keep quiet; he was raising uncomfortable questions that the YEC leaders could not answer. They were content sweeping these problems under the rug, but not Glenn.

"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 121 by Faith, posted 09-11-2016 6:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 09-11-2016 8:12 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 123 of 427 (791139)
09-11-2016 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by kbertsche
09-11-2016 8:04 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2016 8:04 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 12:57 AM Faith has replied
 Message 127 by JonF, posted 09-12-2016 8:06 AM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 427 (791140)
09-12-2016 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
09-11-2016 6:52 PM


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 can appreciate that. Nothing at all wrong there. Perhaps if your OP had been inquisitive about Morton rather than accusatory, I wouldn't have gotten off on such an aggressive footing. In hindsight, I wish I had stopped with asking you the basis of your opinion.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 09-11-2016 6:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 8:46 AM NoNukes has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 125 of 427 (791141)
09-12-2016 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
09-11-2016 8:12 PM


It is important to note that the post you are dealing with isn't intended to make an airtight scientific case, so finding that it doesn't isn't very significant.
However, you must concede that Glen Morton is better qualified to judge the evidence than you are, that he was a committed YEC and it was the evidence that convinced him to abandon YEC. If the old earth position was really as weak as you claim it is rather hard to see how that could happen - especially when we note the shortage of working geologists converting to a young-Earth position through the evidence (I am not aware of any working geologists converting to YEC, and YEC converts in adjacent fields seem to go through a religious conversion first)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 09-11-2016 8:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 8:16 AM PaulK has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 126 of 427 (791142)
09-12-2016 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
09-11-2016 6:52 PM


I first heard of Glenn R. Morton from Robert Schadewald's report on the 1986 International Conference on Creationism (ICC). That was also when I first learned how "creation science" can destroy the faith of its followers. How "creation science" destroys creationists' faith was nicely summarized by the ICR's John Morris in his response to Morton's question, "How old is the earth?":
quote:
"If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning."
That link is to my collection of quotes, including this exerpt from Schadewald's article:
quote:
{Glenn R. Morton, practicing petroleum geologist and staunch creationist, asked John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)}, "How old is the earth?" "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." Morton then said that he had hired several graduates of Christian Heritage College {which formerly housed the ICR}, and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith. They were utterly unprepared to face the geological facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis.
(Corroborated by Glenn Morton in Why I left Young-earth Creationism)
Morton's degree was in physics. He was not schooled in standard geology, but rather in YEC Flood Geology; everything he knew about geology he had learned from the ICR. He also wrote several creationist geology articles for the Creation Research Society Quarterly and ghost-wrote the creationist section of one of Josh McDowell's books.
Interesting thing about the ICR's graduate studies. They were much more interested in weeding out what they didn't believe in rather than to promote research, which is what graduate programs normally want to promote. I have a copy of the report of the visitation committee when California was considering whether to accredidate the ICR graduate program. The committee witnessed one of the classes in session. The class used a standard textbook used by most graduate courses. The instructor was having all the students go through the textbook page by page and telling them exactly what to strike out because "we don't believe that."
That is what the ICR had taught Morton and the ICR graduate students he had hired. Here are geological facts that do not exist and cannot exist if Scripture is to have any meaning. And then each and every one of them, each and every day, had to stare in the face those very geological facts that the ICR had taught them did not exist and could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning.
Faith, Glenn R. Morton did what you would never do: he looked at the evidence.
Faith, I would like to personally thank you for your tireless efforts to promote the growth and spread of atheism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 09-11-2016 6:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 8:35 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 127 of 427 (791143)
09-12-2016 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
09-11-2016 8:12 PM


I would be interested to know if he's still involved in these issues?
No, he's moved on to climate change denial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 09-11-2016 8:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 8:17 AM JonF has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 128 of 427 (791144)
09-12-2016 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by PaulK
09-12-2016 12:57 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 12:57 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 8:38 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 129 of 427 (791145)
09-12-2016 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by JonF
09-12-2016 8:06 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by JonF, posted 09-12-2016 8:06 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by JonF, posted 09-12-2016 10:29 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 158 by kbertsche, posted 09-12-2016 1:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 130 of 427 (791147)
09-12-2016 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by dwise1
09-12-2016 3:08 AM


Here are geological facts that do not exist and cannot exist if Scripture is to have any meaning. And then each and every one of them, each and every day, had to stare in the face those very geological facts that the ICR had taught them did not exist and could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by dwise1, posted 09-12-2016 3:08 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 131 of 427 (791148)
09-12-2016 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
09-12-2016 8:16 AM


I will simply point out that you are the one who chose to start this topic and to target that particular page. The fact that it is not something it was never intended to be is not really a valid criticism. Feel free to take on the evidence he presents if you can - although you haven't exactly been successful in that point. But don't complain that the page is what Glen Morton wanted it to be instead of what you want it to be (an all to common refrain from you)
And I will note that the fact that we have committed YECs who change their minds as a result of working with actual geology - but no old-Earthers of any stripe who make the reverse journey for that reason - is worth noting. That should be very surprising if old Earth views cannot explain the evidence but young-Earth views can. But not at all surprising if it is the young Earth ideas that don't work.
ABE: and thanks for the compliment. If you feel you have to lie to the moderator to attack my post I must be doing something very right.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 8:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 10:11 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 132 of 427 (791149)
09-12-2016 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by NoNukes
09-12-2016 12:56 AM


I can appreciate that. Nothing at all wrong there. Perhaps if your OP had been inquisitive about Morton rather than accusatory, I wouldn't have gotten off on such an aggressive footing. In hindsight, I wish I had stopped with asking you the basis of your opinion.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2016 12:56 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by jar, posted 09-12-2016 8:57 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2016 10:41 AM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 133 of 427 (791150)
09-12-2016 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Faith
09-12-2016 8:46 AM


what geological facts show Young Earth is wrong
Faith writes:
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
The issue is that ALL of geology shows that Young Earth is wrong. There is absolutely no possible explanation for ANY geological findings based on the Earth being young.
There is no way that Young Earth can explain geological ordering, biological ordering, the existence of the Green River Varves, the distance to stars and galaxies seen, the cratering on the moon, uranium halos, the Okla Reactor ... anything.
Young Earth is simply a totally worthless concept with absolutely no value as an explanation for anything seen in reality.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 8:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 134 of 427 (791151)
09-12-2016 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by PaulK
09-12-2016 8:38 AM


You're welcome I'm sure; and here's some more fodder
I will simply point out that you are the one who chose to start this topic and to target that particular page.
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.
The fact that it is not something it was never intended to be is not really a valid criticism.
What?
Feel free to take on the evidence he presents if you can - although you haven't exactly been successful in that point. But don't complain that the page is what Glen Morton wanted it to be instead of what you want it to be (an all to common refrain from you)
What?
And I will note that the fact that we have committed YECs who change their minds as a result of working with actual geology - but no old-Earthers of any stripe who make the reverse journey for that reason - is worth noting. That should be very surprising if old Earth views cannot explain the evidence but young-Earth views can. But not at all surprising if it is the young Earth ideas that don't work.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 8:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 10:49 AM Faith has replied
 Message 142 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 11:40 AM Faith has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 135 of 427 (791152)
09-12-2016 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
09-12-2016 8:17 AM


100% serious. Most of his messages are on the crashed Theology Web, and it's very hard to find them on the Wayback Machine. He had a blog at The Migrant Mind. See also ASA - December 2009: Re: [asa] Climate change journals.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 8:17 AM Faith 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