Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

For sure. If you say it poetically enough you can get away with all kinds of irrelevant nonsense. You'll even collect a bunch of Cheers from the gallery of Those Who Don't Get It.What is inhabitable NOW has absolutely nothing to do with the period during which a stratigraphic column was deposited, which is nothing but a stack of slabs of barren rocks that cover great distances and buried every living thing in their path.This is not just an assertion by a Floodist, it is EVIDENCED by the tracks and other impressions preserved in the surface of the rocks in the strata, surfaces that are as barren as can be and on which the tracks often show a running gait too. These are NOT livable landscapes, these surfaces are ALL great expanses of wet sediments and nothing more. Why should such impressions be preserved on the surfaces of rocks -- many many rocks? Because there were no livable landscapes, ONLY barren expanses of sediments that eventually became the rocks. If there were livable environments nearby it would be unusual to find the tracks of creatures who normally inhabit such environments on the surface of bare sediments. While this may be true NOW, it is patently untrue for the phenomena of the past which we are discussing. The enormous slabs of rock that make up a stratigraphic column were originally bare flat sediments that covered enormous distances and buried everything as they were deposited. This barrenness is all there was during the deposition of the sediments that became the layers of rocks. OE Geology looks inside the rocks and makes the absurd judgment that they represent former livable landscapes. They are looking into what is in fact a burial ground for a particular segment of the living landscapes that existed before the Flood, a cemetery you could say, but not for a particular time period, simply for a selection of living things that populated the earth before the Flood. It is really quite odd to interpret this cemetery as evidence of a particular environment that is preserved in a particular rock that is different from the environments preserved in the rocks above it and below it.I wonder if there is anybody out there in Lurker Land who gets it. Oh devoutly do I yearn for that to be the case. As a matter of fact they do and I'm not sure how it all got onto this thread. I guess the tracks in the rocks are basically the same subject.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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. However, the fact that the tracks and other impressions in the rocks had to have occurred in an unlivable environment where there were no livable options, demonstrates the dead landscape, as does the plethora of fossils itself. But it also raises problems with the OE dating dogmas, since a "time period" in which nothing could live rather drastically collapses the time frames involved. It kills the idea of evolution completely for instance, and if evolution isn't the explanation for the fossil succession, the whole scheme of OE timing collapses like a house of cards.

There is no "direct" evidence of any such thing in any given "time period." There is only rock, and whatever in the rock can be interpreted to suggest some "environment" that never did exist except as an interpretation in somebody's mind.Since the rocks are thick flat slabs that in the case of marine rocks extend huge distances, even from continent to continent, it is clear that whatever had lived in the marine landscape died as it filled with the sediments that became the rock that extends such distances. The terrestrial landscapes don't extend quite as far but nevertheless they too cover a lot of territory, territory they also buried in sediments although that territory would already be a stack of sediments anyway covering pretty much the whole earth. And if all this is being laid down in episodic tidal encroachments, some poor creatures would have left their tracks and burrows in the sediment because there was nothing BUT sediment everywhere.The evidence of former environments that is found in the rocks is evidence of the pre-Flood world and certainly not of separate environments representing separate time periods because those are nothing but former sedimentary deposits that are now rocks.I'll have to come back to the rest of your post.

Dating can't disprove anything if there is incontrovertible evidence that what it purports to date couldn't possibly have existed.

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.Besides, that's such a motley list of contradictory dates you'd think that alone would call the whole dating enterprise into question.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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? Buried and fossilized? You must be joking. 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 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. 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. 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? 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. 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.

Gee I really like my evidence of the ammonites and the tracks in the rocks.

Sounds sort of interesting and meaningful in the abstract, but in reality I can't find any sense in it. 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). 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.

Well the world was once a single continent well covered with plants because of its very pleasant climate, also an abundance of animal life, along with a lot of sinful human beings. For about a hundred years, Noah was building a big boat as per instructions from God, and preaching to the crowds who gathered to laugh at him, about how they could be saved from a great Flood of water that was coming to destroy the Earth because of their sins. And they didn't believe him so only Noah and his family were saved on the ark along with a few of every kind of animal.It started raining when Noah was 600 years old, and it rained for forty days and forty nights all over the entire earth, causing local floods and mudslides and increasing the level of the oceans until everything was drowned. Eventually the water all drained away and the only living human beings left were Noah and his family, along with the animals on the ark and some that survived on their own in the oceans and wherever. Everything on land would certainly have been covered in mud, but it turns out that it was covered in huge layers of different kinds of mud that had buried everything that had lived on the land. Shall I go on?I'm SO tired from battling all you lovely atheists, evolutionists and geologists I have to stop here and come back to answer the rest later.

And reexposing more sediment/rock would accomplish what?

I claim that footprints preserved in rock happen only in a flood? Where, pray tell, have I claimed that?And again, how would exposing more sediment/rock prove it wasn't a flood that preserved any footprints found?Sorry, this isn't making any sense.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

According to OE interpretation, not according to fact. You guys all have a bad habit of treating theory or interpretation as fact. It isn't.

Geology recognizes the "Supercontinent" Pangaea. Sure, The Biblical account itself.