Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

Actually, no. I'm trying to find an example of your straight, flat strata representing your unlivable environments. That seems to be more than you are wiling to attempt.This has nothing to do with age of the rocks. I'm asking how those clams got into that unlivable environment. These are not 'mudflats', they are mudstones with the same kinds of features as modern marine environments. Again, nothing to do with time periods. How did they get into this unlivable environment? Well, then they must have lived in that unlivable environment. How is that? That doesn't answer my question.

So, a 'tight contact' is a contact that looks tight.I'm glad we cleared that up. Yes, that's the point. The environment of deposition was changing, but it was taking some time. Actually, what it's showing is interbeds of mudstone with limestone.

So, the fossils were transported from some older time or environment, but the tracks were made during during low tide periods.So, why were inoceramid clams all transported to Cretaceous sediments and nowhere else? How were they transported?And where did they go in the meantime?

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"?

Well, there had to be at least one, right? So tell us about it. 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? How is that? Are you assuming some kind of rate for evolution? 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? I would say that it's imperative to know. 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. 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? They were preserved in the fossil record? Please document this. 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. So, how would a livable environment look different? 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.

So, trilobites roamed out hundreds of miles from their habitat, into the deadly environment, left some tracks and then went back home? 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: 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.

I must have missed them.Why can't tracks just be normal tracks? Why should evolution occur at your preferred pace?

And where is this represented in the geological record?I presume you have evidence that humans were present on that landscape? That's a nice story.

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?

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?

So, does that mean the supernatural assumptions are okay?Or do you just reject all assumptions? Do you not make them in your own life? Don't you mean your interpretation of theological history? Don't you mean it's an accommodation that you don't understand because of your interpretation of the Bible? Well, yes, he could be wrong if your interpretation were correct (as you assume). But his interpretation might be better than your interpretation.

Ah ...So now, traditional is "correct". What a wonderful world we live in!

If it is so likely, then maybe you could tell us where the mammal habitat location in the Cambrian was.No argument, just a request for information.

That would indicate to me that maybe they aren't all that good.Or are you trying to convince yourself?

Okay, then, show us where the mammal habitat was during deposition of the rocks that we call Cambrian. Actually, it was sediment, and as we have shown creatures did live on it. Or creatures that live there.So, you admit that there were creatures living elsewhere when 'Cambrian' sediments were being deposited. Then where were the mammals? Why is that? I thought you said they were running out on to the mudflats during low tide. So, where are the giraffe tracks?Edited by edge, : No reason given.