Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 136 of 427 (791153)
09-12-2016 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Faith
09-12-2016 8:46 AM


but all I intended was to use Morton's arguments as a basis for the thread
okay...
I hesitate now even to bring up one of the arguments though.
I understand your hesitation. So what was the point of this thread? and what is its point now?
For the most part, Morton's statements about his conclusions are often summaries and conclusions and are not intended to convey exactly what persuaded him, but instead to describe what he became persuaded about. Apparently Morton did a lot of writing for one or more Christian publications and spent time questioning some of the leading creation science proponents. Perhaps it is there that you will find the facts you should be contesting.
Yet you claim here that you are better than both Morton and those creation scientists of his day whom opposed him; that your explanations, presumably as posted here, would be better than those of say Kurt Wise who at least had studied the field. I personally find that idea hubris laden and laughable. At least it is entertaining.

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 132 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 8:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 10:59 AM NoNukes has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 137 of 427 (791154)
09-12-2016 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
09-12-2016 10:11 AM


Re: You're welcome I'm sure; and here's some more fodder
quote:
You mean his testimony? I really don't understand what you are getting at.
I mean quite simply that to be fair you have to take the page for what it is. It wasn't written as a detailed description of the evidence or the reasoning that caused Glen Morton to reject YEC - and to criticise it for lacking that simply misses the point of the page.
quote:
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.
We might equally criticise the YEC position as being based in interpretative baggage - and with more fairness. And again, the old Earth position won out despite the fact that young Earth views dominated. Glen Morton was trained in geology by the ICR, and strongly biased in favour of a YEC view. There is clearly reason to think that there is more than the mere accumulation of baggage here - and hoping that a radical rethink might save YEC seems to be no more than wishful thinking.
quote:
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,
It looks to me more as if you are wildly making up excuses to reject the Old Earth position - and there is very little sign that you have thought them through.
quote:
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.
And you are obviously incorrect.
quote:
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.
And you never provided any reason to think that there was any long-term trend to lower diversity. Spending years trying to claim that you had a good argument when there was a major hole in it - instead of filling that hole - is certainly not a productive effort. But that is what you did.
quote:
These are simple points; I stick to simple points because I DON'T have expertise, but I also think the simple points are sufficient.
But you need more than opinions - you need the evidence and reasoning to back them up. And you don't have that.
quote:
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.
On the evidence so far it does not seem likely that you have any point. Indeed it seems rather that you have great difficulty bringing yourself to actually think about the old Earth view, which is a major handicap in your efforts.
To quickly comment on your new arguments.
The first seems to come down to your assumed "flatness" again, which has already been dealt with sufficiently.
The second is just odd. Of course old Earth ideas cope quite well with the fact that there is an order in the fossil record. Different creatures lived at different times and their remains are found in the sediments that were deposited at the time they lived.
With regard to the ammonites we must remember that they were a quite large group with a range of forms - the differences in the ammonites are not restricted to suture lines. The significance of the point is that the some species only really differ in the suture lines and that they are ordered in the fossil record. Arguing that you expect more from millions of years of evolution is not much of an argument to start with - but when you don't even know how much variation there is, it is even worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 10:11 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 11:19 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 138 of 427 (791155)
09-12-2016 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by NoNukes
09-12-2016 10:41 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2016 10:41 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by jar, posted 09-12-2016 11:05 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2016 4:16 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 169 by edge, posted 09-12-2016 4:32 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 139 of 427 (791156)
09-12-2016 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Faith
09-12-2016 10:59 AM


what folk actually say.
Faith writes:
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.
No Faith, no one but you says such things.
What is really said is that when you make assertions it is reasonable to point out the flaws and fallacies in those assertions.
Faith writes:
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?
Of course that is possible; very, very, very, very unlikely that such a useful thought might come up but if it did it would be welcomed.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 10:59 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 140 of 427 (791157)
09-12-2016 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by PaulK
09-12-2016 10:49 AM


Oh yes they are FLAT FLAT FLAT.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 10:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 11:36 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 141 of 427 (791159)
09-12-2016 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
09-12-2016 11:19 AM


Re: Oh yes they are FLAT FLAT FLAT.
Within northwestern Arizona, southeastern Nevada, and southwestern Utah this contact is an erosional unconformity that in part consists of paleovalleys, as much as several hundred feet deep, and paleokarst that were eroded into the underlying Kaibab Limestone before the deposition of the Moenkopi Formation.
Wikipedia on the Kaibab Limestone. Valleys "several hundred feet deep" are not a flat surface.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 11:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 11:50 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 142 of 427 (791160)
09-12-2016 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
09-12-2016 10:11 AM


The order in the fossil record
Faith, you say:
quote:
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.
Why is this "the most likely explanation" ? What mechanism do you propose ? How does it explain the geographical distribution of the fossils ?
These are the questions you need to answer to have a real argument. Without those answers all you have is an unfounded opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 10:11 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 09-12-2016 11:50 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 12:14 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 143 of 427 (791161)
09-12-2016 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by PaulK
09-12-2016 11:36 AM


Re: Oh yes they are FLAT FLAT FLAT.
Yes and there are lots of places where the flat strata have been distorted in various ways after deposition. That doesn't change the fact that they are fundamentally and originally flat slabs of rock.
And besides, the contact with the Moenkopi is very limited compared to the enormous stretches of flat Kaibab surface in the area.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 11:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 11:58 AM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 144 of 427 (791162)
09-12-2016 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by PaulK
09-12-2016 11:40 AM


Re: The order in the fossil record
The absurdity of the sorted by original location is shown by the fact that the order is stacked vertically so unless some method of vertical magic flood sorting mechanism exists all the samples found in a given geological column must have originally been in the same place. If that is the case then it is necessary to explain why those samples were not sorted by density.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 11:40 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 12:19 PM jar has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 145 of 427 (791163)
09-12-2016 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
09-12-2016 11:50 AM


Re: Oh yes they are FLAT FLAT FLAT.
Obviously sediment is not very likely to build valleys by deposition. Erosion of the surface after it has been deposited - sometimes after it has lithified - is going to be the usual reason why the surfaces are not flat. So, not much of an objection there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 11:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 12:43 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 146 of 427 (791164)
09-12-2016 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by PaulK
09-12-2016 11:40 AM


Re: The order in the fossil record
It's obvious that it's the only explanation possible. There is no clear mechanism for any of the sorting by the Flood, but if it can't be attributed to water principles then it has to be location. I don't have to answer anything.
Meanwhile, there is equally good reason to regard the OE explanation as untenable. That was my point of course which you are ignoring. And when the utter nonsense is recognized of millions of years to produce a variation that normally takes at most a few centuries, if that, there's no need even to ask you for a "mechanism," since the idea is simply nonsensical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 11:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 12:32 PM Faith has replied
 Message 156 by edge, posted 09-12-2016 1:05 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 147 of 427 (791165)
09-12-2016 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by jar
09-12-2016 11:50 AM


Re: The order in the fossil record
Vertical sorting is even more nonsensical on the OE model. On the Flood model we have rising water depositing sediments in layers. On the OE model you've got imaginary landscapes getting buried and being lithified over huge spans of time as if that could possibly produce a huge flat featureless rock, with another landscape turning to rock on top of it. This is SO nonsensical I don't know how it survived as the dominant theory for five minutes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 09-12-2016 11:50 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 09-12-2016 12:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 148 of 427 (791166)
09-12-2016 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
09-12-2016 12:19 PM


Re: The order in the fossil record
Faith writes:
Vertical sorting is even more nonsensical on the OE model. On the Flood model we have rising water depositing sediments in layers. On the OE model you've got imaginary landscapes getting buried and being lithified over huge spans of time as if that could possibly produce a huge flat featureless rock, with another landscape turning to rock on top of it. This is SO nonsensical I don't know how it survived as the dominant theory for five minutes.
Of course, reality once again shows that you are wrong and also simply misrepresenting reality.
There are no imaginary landscapes in the conventional theory, only in your fantasy. The layers are not flat in reality, only in your fantasy. The rocks are not featureless in reality, only in your fantasy.
You really need to stop just making shit up and claiming anyone else actually believes your nonsense.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 12:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 149 of 427 (791169)
09-12-2016 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
09-12-2016 12:14 PM


Re: The order in the fossil record
quote:
It's obvious that it's the only explanation possible. There is no clear mechanism for any of the sorting by the Flood, but if it can't be attributed to water principles then it has to be location. I don't have to answer anything.
In other words you haven't really thought it through and you have no idea if it is even a possible explanation.
That's fine, but don't expect us to take it seriously - it doesn't merit it.
quote:
Meanwhile, there is equally good reason to regard the OE explanation as untenable. That was my point of course which you are ignoring. And when the utter nonsense is recognized of millions of years to produce a variation that normally takes at most a few centuries, if that, there's no need even to ask you for a "mechanism," since the idea is simply nonsensical.
While the change might take only a few hundred years we know perfectly well that species can persist for quite a long time without noticeable changes - let alone particular noticeable changes. So any assertion that change must be faster is mistaken. And of course it is simply irrational to say that the perceived flaws in rival explanations allows you to overlook obvious holes in yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 12:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 12:34 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 150 of 427 (791170)
09-12-2016 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by PaulK
09-12-2016 12:32 PM


Re: The order in the fossil record
Yeah y'all can rationalize the most egregious absurdities. I don't think you have any feeling at all for how long a million years is.
Oh and I haven't overlooked the flaws in the Flood model. Go read what I've said. They are amply acknowledged.
Your turn. Give up the rationalizing and recognize what an absurdity you are supporting.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 12:32 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2016 12:43 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 164 by edge, posted 09-12-2016 1:23 PM 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