Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

You've apparently missed Admin's many admonishments not to expect people to remember some argument you gave: YOU are required to repeat it. And most of yours are wacko enough that I sometimes don't even try to understand them. I've got enough other people to read here.

What alternative explanation?

And geology recognizes humans in Pangaea?Geology recognizes a (single?) pleasant climate?Geology recognizes the sinful nature of human beings?So, where did you study geology?You do realize that the Pangea that geology recognizes is one of those buried landscapes, including abundant plant and animal life, don't you?

So you've got a "best' explanation which is only "best" because it is the only one you have left - you haven't a real idea of how it could even possibly work. Message 146And an argument which is quite obviously the product of a serious failure to understand the issues as I have already explained. Message 151Not much of a case.

It should I'm sure. But since there are strata on Pangaea clearly the Flood wiped them all out. Also, I've made the point before that the upturned strata of England, so nicely arranged as a unit, are proof that the continents didn't split in the middle of the building of the Geo Column as conventional dating says, which would have disturbed the column in the middle, which obviously didn't happen, but afterward, and that the tectonic disturbance that would have occurred at the time of the split is the reason for the uptilted strata. Just another small point against the Geo Timescale. Of course not. You march to a uniformitarian drummer which throws off all your interpretations of the past. Of course not. That might raise questions all by itself as to the reliability of geological judgments. At EvC and Wikipedia and various online geology sources as well as a few books on the subject over the last fifteen or so years. Had the very best of teachers, including yourself. In that case we have at least partial corroboration of what I'm saying, yes?

No, you're flat out wrong.The dating of various things can be established and cross-checked by various methods. The results are facts.What you are espousing is the interpretation--you are looking at facts and ignoring, misrepresenting, or misinterpreting them to fit your a priori religious belief no matter what the facts say.We should have an "Apologetics" Forum for you, as what you are preaching certainly isn't science--its the exact opposite--and doesn't really belong in the Science Forum.

Faith, there is a lot of interpretation and assumption underlying your comments.I disagree that "There would have been no need whatever for Noah to build an ark to carry all animals if the Flood were not global".
1) If the flood covered a large enough region, it would still take significant time for animals to repopulate the area, so there would still be a need to have animals handy for food.
2) many of the animals in the account were "clean" animals for sacrifice. There would also have been a need to have animals handy for sacrifice if the flood were not global.I agree that Noah would have had time to have "escaped to any area that would have been spared the Flood". But escape was not God's only goal. Noah's task was also to be a testimony to those around him and was to provide a "type" of Christ (1 Pet 3).FYI, Glenn Morton did lots of thinking about the Flood, and concluded that Noah's flood must correlate to the infilling of the Mediterranean, about 5 million years ago. This would make Noah and Adam Neanderthals. Very few people agree with Glenn on this.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Weird then that England etc was separated from continental Europe by a melting glacier some 450,000 years ago. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

KB, that's all very interesting, but as with all OEC interpretations it's a lot of adjustment to worldly assumptions. Even if I can sympathize with the Christian OECs to some extent in their reasons for making such an adjustment, I'm not going to consider rewriting Christian theological history because of it, involving all that reinterpretation of what the Hebrew terms mean.The Bible may be hard to interpret in some places but it is NOT imprecise and its interpreters going back to earliest times are NOT id*iots. The whole world has always been understood to have been entirely covered by the Flood. Reducing it to a "region" is just a sort of mealymouthed accommodation to things we are unable to understand.What kind of "testimony" is it anyway to cause people to think the Flood was worldwide when it wasn't? Noah is a testimony to US, too, not just to the ancient world. A half-baked Flood is no testimony to modern man of Noah as a type of Christ if the entire earth was not drowned, especially considering that it's intended as a harbinger/type of the coming final Judgment. Is Jesus coming to judge and reign over only a "region" of Creation?In the "region" that survived the Flood were there still human beings alive? What kind of testimony could that possibly be? Were there animals still alive after scripture tells us that everything that has breath perished?I'm sure Morton is completely sincere and has excellent reasons for what he thinks, but he must certainly be wrong. I'd much rather take Kurt Wise's position that all the evidence is against YEC but I'm still going to be a YEC. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This chain of posts has become idiotic. If by saying so, I've earned a suspension then I'll gladly take it now. But your refusal to follow a chain of two/three posts two times in a row is beyond reasonable.

I need to clarify an earlier moderator request. This is from Faith's Message 241 in reply to NoNukes: The request was to repeat arguments from earlier stages of the discussion or from earlier threads, and not say things like, "I explained that once before," or "I already proved that," or "This was already shown wrong," or "We've been over this already," or to offer something abbreviated or incomplete. The rationale I've always offered is that explanations or arguments or evidence are often presented before some necessary common ground has been established or before some necessary information has been presented. If the issue is revisited in the future then it is not reasonable to expect old details to be remembered.This is not to say that entire long messages must be cut-n-pasted into new messages. Do what makes sense, like a summarized argument with a link. The desire is to eliminate arguments that are all too brief to serve their purpose.But it is reasonable to expect people to keep the details of recent discussion in mind. There should be no need to clutter threads with repeats from the past few days.

Ah...So you can't document humans living on Pangaea.It's not even an interpretation, it's a wish, right? Yes, they are nicely layered and arranged because there was little tectonic disturbance there. It's kind of like living in Iowa during the early Paleozoic and saying, "Appalachian Mountains? What Appalachian Mountans?" If it were true, yes. So, you cannot document that part of your statement, either. Ah, I see. So this had nothing to do with the question. Why did you bring it up then?You are not getting the point. I asked you to document the things you were saying but you can't seem to give us any more than "Pangaea existed".I hardly call that pertinent evidence supporting your story. That's what I thought. You have no training and certainly no experience in the field. Your understanding is based on myth. Not since it records a landscape in the middle of your biblical flood, along with the fact that there were previous supercontinents as well.Are you just cherry-picking continents now?

Of course I just roll my eyes at the date, but I have no reason to dispute the glacier interpretation in itself. But what on earth do you think it proves anyway? Pangaea supposedly broke up in the middle of the formation of the geological column, but there is no sign of what must have been a big disturbance to the strata at the midpoint of the column, when North America separated from Europe and Africa; it's all quite nicely arranged like slices of toast to be offered to guests; from which I conclude that the tectonic upheaval occurred after all the strata were laid down, meaning after the Flood. SOON after.

Here is exactly what you said when you posted your nonsense: Your answer, which requires acceptance of your YEC beliefs is not satisfactory to any Christian who does not accept them, be that person Morton, myself, GDR, etc. Your statement is nonsense. Your insistence that such folks are not Christian is non Biblical.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix second quote. It was too brief for me to make sense of the response, so I filled it out.

All those bona fide geological sources are myth? Including yourself? Nice of you to admit it.