Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 196 of 427 (791243)
09-13-2016 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
09-13-2016 11:16 AM


Re: dating ain't an exact science
Faith writes:
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence.
Yes, we know that is your fantasy but the reality is that if something exists then that is reality and if that item requires ancient dates then ancient dates are fact.
Sad how those who live by dogma do not seem capable of understanding anything related to reality.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 11:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 11:33 AM jar has replied

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


Message 197 of 427 (791244)
09-13-2016 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by jar
09-13-2016 11:28 AM


Re: dating ain't an exact science
All dogma is is a condensed statement of truth that has stood the test of time, in the case of Christian dogma about 6000 years' worth.
Sometimes it's a condensed statement of something taken to be truth that isn't, of course. There's a lot of that kind of dogma in these forums on the "science" side.
And of course if you use the word "reality" to refer to unreality you can fool a lot of people, but eventually all will be revealed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by jar, posted 09-13-2016 11:28 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 09-13-2016 11:40 AM Faith has replied

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


(2)
Message 198 of 427 (791245)
09-13-2016 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
09-13-2016 11:33 AM


Re: dating ain't an exact science
Faith writes:
All dogma is is a condensed statement of truth that has stood the test of time, in the case of Christian dogma about 6000 years' worth.
Sometimes it's a condensed statement of something taken to be truth that isn't, of course. There's a lot of that kind of dogma in these forums on the "science" side.
And of course if you use the word "reality" to refer to unreality you can fool a lot of people, but eventually all will be revealed.
Sorry Faith but in addition to simply being yet more utterly false assertions it is also totally irrelevant to this topic, thread, forum.
It also ignores the fact that even if YOU think something impossible, if it exists it exists. And in the instance of this topic, this thread, this forum Old Earth has been shown to be fact while Young Earth is at best a fantasy and delusion.
The Geological columns exist.
The biological samples exist.
No explanation other than a series of inhabited landscapes over a long period of time has been presented.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 11:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 11:52 AM jar has replied

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


Message 199 of 427 (791247)
09-13-2016 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by jar
09-13-2016 11:40 AM


Re: dating ain't an exact science
The Geological columns exist.
The biological samples exist.
Indeed the columns exist, the huge slabs of rock exist, those rocks that as sediments buried whole landscapes and their inhabitants, first drowning them as evidenced by the stacks of marine rocks and then suffocating them in the sediments that eventually became all the rocks; and of course the fossils exist, which are the evidence of what the Flood killed.
No explanation other than a series of inhabited landscapes over a long period of time has been presented.
Um, it all does very nicely to explain the burial of every living thing by a worldwide Flood and that HAS been presented many times. And by now the absurdity ought to be only too apparent, of a "series" of landscapes succeeding one another in a series of time periods that all end up represented as huge flat rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 09-13-2016 11:40 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 09-13-2016 12:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 207 by Taq, posted 09-13-2016 3:03 PM Faith has not replied

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


(4)
Message 200 of 427 (791249)
09-13-2016 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
09-13-2016 11:52 AM


Re: dating ain't an exact science
Faith writes:
Indeed the columns exist, the huge slabs of rock exist, those rocks that as sediments buried whole landscapes and their inhabitants, first drowning them as evidenced by the stacks of marine rocks and then suffocating them in the sediments that eventually became all the rocks; and of course the fossils exist, which are the evidence of what the Flood killed.
You keep making such silly claims but never supply any support for your fantasy.
Why is a paleosol horizon with tree roots still in place evidence of your imaginary flood?
Why is an undisturbed dinosaur nest evidence of your imaginary flood?
Why are fossilized tracks evidence of your imaginary flood?
Why are millions of alternating light and dark layers of fine and coarse sediment evidence of your imaginary flood?
Why are newer and older life forms never being mixed together in a single layers evidence of your imaginary flood?
Why are imprints of a leaf evidence of your imaginary flood?
Why are alternating marine and aeolean and terrestrial layers evidence of your imaginary flood?
The Biblical Floods and Young Earth are simply worthless artifacts long proved false and just fantasy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 11:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 2:45 PM jar has replied

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


(1)
Message 201 of 427 (791255)
09-13-2016 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
09-13-2016 9:10 AM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
quote:
That's a good point, of course, but that problem may be answered indirectly, for instance by the fossil ammonites and trilobites examples. If allotting millions of years to minimal genetic changes that we know are accomplished in real time now in very short order -- hundreds of years absolute max -- this suggests a flaw not in my argument but in the dating methods. We just need to collect more examples that show this flaw.
That the level of phenotypic changes we can see in the preserved shells might happen quickly is not much of an argument. That is not the relevant time. (The genetic changes required are, of course, beyond our knowledge).
The most important time is the time for which a species may be successful before declining into extinction, because that is what we are looking at. At one time one species is common, at a later time it is gone and another has taken its place. The time required for the phenotypic changes is not even the minimum time needed for that.
So, obviously your argument IS flawed. And it is flawed in a way that shows a failure to understand what the evidence actually shows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 9:10 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 202 of 427 (791256)
09-13-2016 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
09-13-2016 11:16 AM


Re: dating ain't an exact science
Faith writes:
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence.
Yet another keeper. This one is going into my signature.

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 195 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 11:16 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 203 of 427 (791264)
09-13-2016 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by jar
09-13-2016 12:01 PM


Re: dating ain't an exact science
Indeed the columns exist, the huge slabs of rock exist, those rocks that as sediments buried whole landscapes and their inhabitants, first drowning them as evidenced by the stacks of marine rocks and then suffocating them in the sediments that eventually became all the rocks; and of course the fossils exist, which are the evidence of what the Flood killed.
You keep making such silly claims but never supply any support for your fantasy.
That paragraph alone contains a ton of support/evidence, but it's apparent you don't know what the term means.
Sediments that formed layers covering continents would certainly have "buried whole landscapes." That they did cover whole continents is evidenced in the rock layers themselves, which have have been tracked across the continents. And if they buried whole landscapes they certainly buried their inhabitants. The evidence is in the rock layers themselves.
Why is a paleosol horizon with tree roots still in place evidence of your imaginary flood?
Do you really mean to ask such a silly question? Why SHOULDN'T turf and other green things have been buried in the Flood? Roots still in place speaks of the uprooting of plants galore as the forty days of rain saturated the ground to that much depth and turned it into sloppy mud. Are you suffering a total failure of ability to think?
Why is an undisturbed dinosaur nest evidence of your imaginary flood?
Buried and fossilized? You must be joking.
Why are fossilized tracks evidence of your imaginary flood?
This has been argued to death on this very thread. They are evidence that it's the "environments" supposedly found in the rocks that are imaginary.
Why are millions of alternating light and dark layers of fine and coarse sediment evidence of your imaginary flood?
Why not? All it could possibly contradict is your own silly and dogmatic idea of what the Flood would have done, and you have quite a long list of such silly ideas. Of course all your questions are ridiculous since whether something is "evidence" of the Flood or not says nothing about whether it was caused by the Flood.
Why are newer and older life forms never being mixed together in a single layers evidence of your imaginary flood?
This has also been discussed to death. Of course there are no "newer" and "older" life forms, that's a figment of the OE imagination. Again I will mention my argument on this very thread, that there are life forms found in different layers that are obviously related to each other but not identical to each other, the different layers implying millions of years of time between their appearance, and yet they show about the degree of difference found between cousins of any living creature today. Yet change is a constant thing in biology. The variability built into the genome makes change inevitable. Of course I suppose the ones in the upper layers could have reached the state of fixed loci, or in other words the end of their evolutionary potentials, but after millions of years surely mutations would have killed them off. Or if you believe mutations are the cause of the variations, why in millions of years did they come up with no more change than is seen between the different populations of ammonites and trilobites? The actual facts in the geo column are in reality just plain impossible.
Why are imprints of a leaf evidence of your imaginary flood?
Another utterly ridiculous question. Why not? is the intelligent answer. Why shouldn't a leaf have been buried in a layer of sediment and its imprint preserved?
Why are alternating marine and aeolean and terrestrial layers evidence of your imaginary flood?
There is really no such thing. There are strata that contain elements of many different environments from the world before the Flood picked it all up and buried it.
The Biblical Floods and Young Earth are simply worthless artifacts long proved false and just fantasy.
There was one worldwide Flood and it was God's judgment of the outrageous sins of humanity of that time, and He's going to do it again in a different way when Jesus comes back. Meanwhlie I believe the evidence is quite clear that the Young Earth is the reality and I've done a fair bit to show it above.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 09-13-2016 12:01 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 09-13-2016 4:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 204 of 427 (791265)
09-13-2016 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
09-13-2016 9:51 AM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
Dating can't disprove anything if there is incontrovertible evidence that what it purports to date couldn't possibly have existed.
But there is no such evidence and you have provided none. On the other hand, we have presented numerous lines of evidence for old ages in the geological record. What is the disinterested observer supposed to think? "I'm going to go with Faith because she has no evidence"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 9:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 2:55 PM edge has replied

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


Message 205 of 427 (791266)
09-13-2016 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by edge
09-13-2016 2:48 PM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
Gee I really like my evidence of the ammonites and the tracks in the rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by edge, posted 09-13-2016 2:48 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2016 3:02 PM Faith has replied
 Message 211 by edge, posted 09-13-2016 3:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 206 of 427 (791267)
09-13-2016 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Faith
09-13-2016 2:55 PM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
Gee I really like my evidence of the ammonites and the tracks in the rocks.
It is pretty clear that for you, evidence means facts about which you weave a story that you find satisfying. Again, if all you have is tracks, and there are multiple stories that can be woven, then what you have is not evidence until you can distinguish between the stories. Tracks are easily explained by animals living in an area at any time.
On the other hand, jar cites evidence some of which you've acknowledged that you cannot currently explain using a global Flood. Under any impartial weighing of the evidence, you lose.

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
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 2:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 3:12 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 207 of 427 (791268)
09-13-2016 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
09-13-2016 11:52 AM


Re: dating ain't an exact science
Faith writes:
Indeed the columns exist, the huge slabs of rock exist, those rocks that as sediments buried whole landscapes and their inhabitants, first drowning them as evidenced by the stacks of marine rocks and then suffocating them in the sediments that eventually became all the rocks; and of course the fossils exist, which are the evidence of what the Flood killed.
What features would a geologic feature need in order to falsify your claim of a recent global flood? What would be inconsistent with a recent global flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 11:52 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 208 of 427 (791269)
09-13-2016 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by NoNukes
09-13-2016 3:02 PM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
It is pretty clear that for you, evidence means facts about which you weave a story that you find satisfying. Again, if all you have is tracks, and there are multiple stories that can be woven, then what you have is not evidence until you can distinguish between the stories.
Sounds sort of interesting and meaningful in the abstract, but in reality I can't find any sense in it.
Tracks are easily explained by animals living in an area at any time.
Except in the case of tracks found on the surface of rocks in the strata, and I think there are quite a few of them, it is quite obvious that the animals couldn't possibly actually live there because for miles and miles in all directions it would have been nothing but wet sediment, sediment covering other layers of sediment, all covering whatever livable landscape might have originally been there. This is all evidenced by the strata themselves, those stacks of thick barren featureless flat lithified sedimentary slabs extending for miles and miles and miles that buried just about all the livable environments on the planet (abe: the rest were of course simply drowned).
On the other hand, jar cites evidence some of which you've acknowledged that you cannot currently explain using a global Flood. Under any impartial weighing of the evidence, you lose.
My explanatory ability has been improving, though, and one thing I'm getting good at is showing how the standard explanations are totally bogus.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2016 3:02 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by edge, posted 09-13-2016 3:20 PM Faith has replied
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2016 3:26 PM Faith has replied
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 09-13-2016 4:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(4)
Message 209 of 427 (791270)
09-13-2016 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
09-13-2016 7:22 AM


There is no older time or environment in the Flood scenario.
Well, there had to be at least one, right? So tell us about it.
Or dinosaurs to Mesozoic sediments and so on. I really wish I knew.
So, it doesn't bother you that your scenario is completely inept at explaining something as important as the fossil record?
You can just blissfully ignore this failure?
But meanwhile I can content myself with showing how the distribution of ammonites and trilobites in a stratigraphic column doesn't support evolution, ...
How is that? Are you assuming some kind of rate for evolution?
... and how tracks and burrows and raindrop impressions on the surface of flat barren featureless extensive strata only serve to show that the OE environment interpretation is nonsense.
Please explain your logic here. Why do creatures burrow into an unlivable environment? How do raindrop impressions survive tidal surges? How do trackways not show animals living at all times during the flood (the entire geological record)?
What is the evidence for your tides?
It would certainly be nice to know why fossils are sorted as they are but there's enough evidence against OE in general to shelve that question for a while.
I would say that it's imperative to know.
How were they transported?
By water most likely.
Really? I suppose you have some evidence for this, right?
So, then, explain how huge clams were transported by water in a calm, low-flow regime environment for hundreds of miles (remember, these are huge sedimentary sheets). There should be some kind of evidence that they were transported.
Please provide such evidence.
Sigh. There was no "meantime." They got carried to wherever the water dumped them along with its current sediment load, and were buried in the sediment.
So, where did they come from?
A source of clam shells, or some kind of trail, would be nice evidence for transport.
Where is it?
I had been reading about a couple of slabs of dried mud that came recently from the Bay of Fundy with bird tracks and raindrops nicely preserved in them.
They were preserved in the fossil record? Please document this.
Since the rocks generally extend quite a distance horizontally in their barren featureless rockishness, this is evidence that there were no livable landscapes represented by any of the strata, there was nothing but rock that was of course originally wet sediment.
It is also evidence that there was no transport of the fossils.
And the tracks out in the unlivable landscape, hundreds of miles from anything 'livable'? Wow ...
they must have been olympic creatures to get that far from home.
The separated environments are assumed to have been livable environments, ..
So, how would a livable environment look different?
... but the tracks and burrows and raindrops are all made in flat featureless sediment/rock, not in any livable environment.
How about dinosaur nests with eggs intact? What about termite mounds? How did all of those come about?
So you've got dinosaurs and trilobites and giraffes running out onto tidal flats from the base of the flood sequence to the very end. So, when was the earth completely flooded?
Don't you see all of this as kind of silly? Perhaps wishful?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 7:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 4:14 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 210 of 427 (791271)
09-13-2016 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
09-13-2016 3:12 PM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
Except in the case of tracks found on the surface of rocks in the strata, and I think there are quite a few of them, it is quite obvious that the animals couldn't possibly actually live there because for miles and miles in all directions it would have been nothing but wet sediment, sediment covering other layers of sediment, all covering whatever livable landscape might have originally been there.
So, trilobites roamed out hundreds of miles from their habitat, into the deadly environment, left some tracks and then went back home?
This is all evidenced by the strata themselves, those stacks of thick barren featureless flat lithified sedimentary slabs extending for miles and miles and miles that buried just about all the livable environments on the planet.
Well, evidently not since dinosaurs were roaming around this unlivable area toward the end of the flood.
So, where did the tides stop and the flood become complete?
ABE:
My explanatory ability has been improving, though, and one thing I'm getting good at is showing how the standard explanations are totally bogus.
Well, you are definitely proving that something is bogus.
Your arguments consist of flat-out denial and wishful story-telling.
You have not provided an nanogram of evidence.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 3:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 9:50 PM edge 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