Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,430 Year: 6,687/9,624 Month: 27/238 Week: 27/22 Day: 9/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 259 of 427 (791349)
09-14-2016 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by PaulK
09-14-2016 11:54 AM


Re: Continuing with OEC Arguments: Fossil sorting
So you've got a "best' explanation which is only "best" because it is the only one you have left.
Which argument are you talking about, the tracks on the rocks or the ammonites in separate strata?
Whichever, I consider both of them to be Class A arguments, not second best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2016 11:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2016 3:21 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 263 of 427 (791356)
09-14-2016 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by PaulK
09-14-2016 3:21 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC Arguments: Fossil sorting
The ammonite argument is an excellent argument. Any obviously closely related species found in separate strata --ammonites, triobites or whatever -- implies millions of years between them, which is absolutely screamingly ridiculous. How many generations do you think intervened? It's a fine argument, contested only by willful obfuscation.
Likewise the argument about the tracks and other impressions made in the rocks is a fine argument, based on the observation that all the rocks in the strata are huge flat featureless expanses of lithified sediment on which nothing could live. Whatever signs of life are found there had to be in transit, thrown there by the flood perhaps, or chased there. If they are burrowers rather than runners then they would burrow. The sediments had to be in a somewhat dry condition to preserve the impressions -- I think Morton made that point about the Bay of Fundy mud impressions of bird tracks and raindrops -- and no, whoever asked, that is not part of the geologic column, it's a recent occurrence, but it suggests the degree of dampness the surface must have had to hold the impressions in the geologic column. Which suggests to me deposition by a tide that drew off a lot of the wetness
as it receded, and gave time for animals to make their impressions.
But the main point about this is that it is a huge flat barren slab of sediment/rock, NOT an environment, not a landscape, not a habitat. The evidence is before your eyes because it describes ALL the strata of any stratigraphic column. The marine layers cover distances up to whole continents and beyond, as confirmed by the geologist here, and there are lots of those stacked one on top of another, but even some terrestrial layers in between that would have been totally buried by the next marine layer. No terrestrial habitat would have survived their deposition. By the time you get to the predominantly terrestrial layers there are now lots and lots of marine layers covering up any possible habitat. The terrestrial layers build on top of that stack of barren rocks. There is no place any livable environment could have insinuated itself anywhere in such a stack. The stratigraphic columns are nothing but a big cemetery encasing billions of dead things.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2016 3:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2016 3:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 269 of 427 (791370)
09-14-2016 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by kbertsche
09-14-2016 6:02 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC arguments: Flood was not Global
The only view of the Flood I called traditional is that it was global. Morton seems to be objecting to its global extent alone; otherwise why bother with the explanation that it was the result of the flooding of the Mediterranean? I'll continue to defend my view because it makes sense to me, no matter who originated it -- and I haven't read Price -- but I'm not defending any particular scenario as the traditional view. I understand why you scientists are so captivated by contemporary geology, but nevertheless I regard that as capitulating to the world and losing the essential things about the Biblical revelation that I mentioned in my former post (Message 249).
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by kbertsche, posted 09-14-2016 6:02 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by jar, posted 09-14-2016 7:59 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 271 of 427 (791373)
09-14-2016 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by jar
09-14-2016 7:59 PM


Re: Maybe asking five whole questions was too much
This thread is for arguments between OEC and YEC, not just any arguments you can dream up against YEC. I'm using Glenn Morton's list for reference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by jar, posted 09-14-2016 7:59 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by AZPaul3, posted 09-14-2016 8:53 PM Faith has replied
 Message 274 by jar, posted 09-14-2016 9:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 297 by kbertsche, posted 09-14-2016 11:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 273 of 427 (791381)
09-14-2016 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by AZPaul3
09-14-2016 8:53 PM


Re: Maybe asking five whole questions was too much
For all I know Morton or Bertsche or any other OEC could answer jar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by AZPaul3, posted 09-14-2016 8:53 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by AZPaul3, posted 09-14-2016 9:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 275 of 427 (791383)
09-14-2016 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by PaulK
09-14-2016 3:21 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC Arguments: Fossil sorting
All I said was that location seems the likely explanation but that I wasn't going to argue it.
Your comments about the ammonites are what is ignorant and irrational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2016 3:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by edge, posted 09-14-2016 9:08 PM Faith has replied
 Message 303 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2016 12:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 278 of 427 (791387)
09-14-2016 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by AZPaul3
09-14-2016 9:05 PM


Re: Maybe asking five whole questions was too much
I don't address questions that look too technical for me, which I've said a hundred million times already. And I haven't even read jar's question. I simply do not care. There are going to be lots of questions I can't answer and couldn't care less about. This thread was inspired by Glenn Morton's arguments and I'm sticking to it.
Meanwhile I've made some really good arguments here that are simple but crucial support for the Flood, that nobody seems able to grasp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by AZPaul3, posted 09-14-2016 9:05 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by edge, posted 09-14-2016 9:17 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 284 by kjsimons, posted 09-14-2016 9:36 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 286 by jar, posted 09-14-2016 9:40 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 288 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2016 9:42 PM Faith has replied
 Message 292 by AZPaul3, posted 09-14-2016 10:14 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 279 of 427 (791388)
09-14-2016 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by edge
09-14-2016 9:08 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC Arguments: Fossil sorting
All I said was that location seems the likely explanation but that I wasn't going to argue it.
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.
There was no Cambrian, there is only a rock low in the strata that you call the Cambrian. It is only a rock, a very extensive rock that nothing could live on even when it was an extensive expanse of sediment. There was never anything there but the sediment and whatever got trapped and died in it. It is one of a stack of sediments that buried whatever landscapes existed before the Flood. Mammals got buried in layers much higher up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by edge, posted 09-14-2016 9:08 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by edge, posted 09-14-2016 9:21 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 282 of 427 (791391)
09-14-2016 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by edge
09-12-2016 1:15 PM


Re: The order in the fossil record
So, tell us how fast that is. How long does it take to make a phenotypic change in a species and how is that preserved in the fossil record?
In reproductive isolation thirty years for five pairs (Pod Mrcaru lizards), a few hundred for a herd of cattle, etc. (abe: Assuming of course that the species has sufficient genetic diversity left for variation, which in our time is not a given.} Where the fossil record preserves in one rock layer a number of individuals of one type or variation that are somewhat but not greatly different from other members of the same species in another rock layer, you've got mere cousins millions of years apart. Hey I just discovered this by pondering Morton's argument about ammonites. I think it's something that needs to be noticed that calls the whole OE system into serious doubt.
in one strata
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by edge, posted 09-12-2016 1:15 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by edge, posted 09-14-2016 9:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 285 of 427 (791394)
09-14-2016 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by edge
09-14-2016 9:21 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC Arguments: Fossil sorting
There was no Cambrian, there is only a rock low in the strata that you call the Cambrian.
Okay, then, show us where the mammal habitat was during deposition of the rocks that we call Cambrian.
There probably wouldn't have been much of a surviving habitat at that point, if any, just a lot of dead mammals either floating in the water or on the higher surfaces of the land, to be buried in their turn.
It is only a rock, a very extensive rock that nothing could live on ...
Actually, it was sediment, and as we have shown creatures did live on it.
You have shown no such thing. Any remaining life there was about to be buried there along with all the other creatures that are buried there.
... even when it was an extensive expanse of sediment. There was never anything there but the sediment and whatever got trapped and died in it. [/qs]
Or creatures that live there. [/qs]
It's a HUGE flat expanse of nothingness, just recently deposited wet sediment that is now just a huge expanse of rock. NOTHING lived there. All existing habitats in that region would already have been destroyed and broken up into pieces that would eventually be buried in their own sediment. Anything that survived did so only very temporarily.
So, you admit that there were creatures living elsewhere when 'Cambrian' sediments were being deposited. Then where were the mammals?
There are some dinosaur tracks on the surface of some of the rocks. For some reason they survived long enough to leave those impressions but for sure not long after that. The mammals were probably already dead as mentioned above.
It is one of a stack of sediments that buried whatever landscapes existed before the Flood. Mammals got buried in layers much higher up.
Why is that? I thought you said they were running out on to the mudflats during low tide. So, where are the giraffe tracks?
I don't recsll mentioning mammals. The only tracks I'm aware of are dinosaur tracks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by edge, posted 09-14-2016 9:21 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by edge, posted 09-15-2016 12:10 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 287 of 427 (791396)
09-14-2016 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by edge
09-14-2016 9:29 PM


Re: The order in the fossil record
So, ammonites were reproductively isolated?
How do you know this?
Because they are different from their cousins, they flock together in a separate location, and are found in a different layer of rock.
Seems kind of odd for marine species ...
Why any more odd than for birds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by edge, posted 09-14-2016 9:29 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 289 of 427 (791398)
09-14-2016 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by edge
09-13-2016 3:20 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?
I'm sure they didn't "wander," they would have been tossed there by a wave of the Flood, made tracks as long as they could before being buried by the next wave.
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.
Somehow they survived that long, but they certainly weren't living there, just lost and wandering across this flat sedimentary wasteland before being buried in one of the waves full of sediment.
So, where did the tides stop and the flood become complete?
At some level well above the Holocene.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by edge, posted 09-13-2016 3:20 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by jar, posted 09-14-2016 10:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 291 of 427 (791400)
09-14-2016 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Coyote
09-14-2016 9:42 PM


The usual
Well, coyote, thanks for the personal note, but I don't see that I've failed to produce evidence or have denied evidence either.
However, as usually happens at this point in a thread where everybody seems to me to be committed to utter irrational trashing of everything I say for no good reason whatever, I have a great desire to leave EvC and never come back. Too bad that desire never lasts.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2016 9:42 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2016 10:23 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 304 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2016 1:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 294 of 427 (791404)
09-14-2016 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by AZPaul3
09-14-2016 10:14 PM


Re: Maybe asking five whole questions was too much
I wasn't lying when I said I hadn't read jar's posts on the subject and I have no reason to do so now either. I need a break. However, the age of the UNIVERSE is something other than the age of the Earth, and astronomical time is weird. I'm content to give reasons why evolution is genetically impossible, and the strata can't represent ancient separate landscapes in separated time periods, and I think I've done so. If what I've said is true and I certainly believe it is, then I don't care about other stuff I can't prove; it will eventually fall into place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by AZPaul3, posted 09-14-2016 10:14 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by AZPaul3, posted 09-14-2016 10:33 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 296 by jar, posted 09-14-2016 10:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 306 of 427 (791422)
09-15-2016 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by kbertsche
09-15-2016 12:50 AM


Re: Maybe asking five whole questions was too much
I've been using different pages at the Old Earth Ministries site for Morton's arguments, such as this page .
I'm sure i won't try to take on most of them, but the articles on the ammonites and the tracks in the rocks inspired my arguments here so far.
But I would say, concerning the canopy theory, which I haven't studied and don't argue one way or the other, that I don't trust any opinion that depends on calculations about basic physics in the distant past, which couldn't possibly be checked -- and not so much because the calculations themselves can't be trusted, though they surely can't, but because there are too many unknown variables that have to be overlooked from our vantage point today. How much heat some phenomenon would supposedly have generated, how much pressure, how much time something would take etc etc etc. There's no way we could ever have enough knowledge to calculate such things for the distant past, and I'm amazed that so many act as if it's possible. I can't say his calculations were wrong, but I don't know how anyone could say they were right either.
As for the seismically pictured underground canyons, edge is right, I don't see any reason to suppose they ever were really canyons on the surface of the earth. So thinking in terms of how the Flood could have been the cause of it I suppose enormous quantities of water pouring through spaces in and between the strata as the water receded, which is how I suppose the Grand Canyon was cut too. I certainly don't think the strata were "hard" yet though, even if probably fairly compacted, but even then tectonic movement would break things up, create spaces, perhaps develop big karsts in limestone and so on as water ran through cracks. Water DOES run underground, even now, why not a huge amount of water at the end of the Flood? And if the canyon eventually got filled up with sediment as I recall is part of the explanation of that image, that makes sense too with strata collapsing above it and far less of an exit out the other end of it than would be expected for the Grand Canyon.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by kbertsche, posted 09-15-2016 12:50 AM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Taq, posted 09-15-2016 11:39 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 319 by 14174dm, posted 09-15-2016 12:38 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