Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

It is important to note that the post you are dealing with isn't intended to make an airtight scientific case, so finding that it doesn't isn't very significant.However, you must concede that Glen Morton is better qualified to judge the evidence than you are, that he was a committed YEC and it was the evidence that convinced him to abandon YEC. If the old earth position was really as weak as you claim it is rather hard to see how that could happen - especially when we note the shortage of working geologists converting to a young-Earth position through the evidence (I am not aware of any working geologists converting to YEC, and YEC converts in adjacent fields seem to go through a religious conversion first)

I will simply point out that you are the one who chose to start this topic and to target that particular page. The fact that it is not something it was never intended to be is not really a valid criticism. Feel free to take on the evidence he presents if you can - although you haven't exactly been successful in that point. But don't complain that the page is what Glen Morton wanted it to be instead of what you want it to be (an all to common refrain from you)And I will note that the fact that we have committed YECs who change their minds as a result of working with actual geology - but no old-Earthers of any stripe who make the reverse journey for that reason - is worth noting. That should be very surprising if old Earth views cannot explain the evidence but young-Earth views can. But not at all surprising if it is the young Earth ideas that don't work.ABE: and thanks for the compliment. If you feel you have to lie to the moderator to attack my post I must be doing something very right.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You mean his testimony? I really don't understand what you are getting at.

---

I mean quite simply that to be fair you have to take the page for what it is. It wasn't written as a detailed description of the evidence or the reasoning that caused Glen Morton to reject YEC - and to criticise it for lacking that simply misses the point of the page.

quote:

---

This may just be "hubris" of course, as anything a YEC dares to say against OE views is often called, or mere chutzpah, but I think the evidence is consistently misconstrued in OE terms due to habits of thought more than anything else. There is a compelling plausibility that has built up by consensus over time, and a lot of it does at first glance seem to be incompatible with the Flood scenario -- but maybe it's just that a different approach is needed, thinking outside the box as it were. Since there is a LOT of accumulated interpretive baggage on the OE side, this is no open-and-shut case by any means.

---

We might equally criticise the YEC position as being based in interpretative baggage - and with more fairness. And again, the old Earth position won out despite the fact that young Earth views dominated. Glen Morton was trained in geology by the ICR, and strongly biased in favour of a YEC view. There is clearly reason to think that there is more than the mere accumulation of baggage here - and hoping that a radical rethink might save YEC seems to be no more than wishful thinking.

quote:

---

I just keep getting a sense of these problems with OE theory that nobody seems to be taking into account, and by the time I get my thoughts even minimally together about it the discussion has gone bonkers in another direction,

---

It looks to me more as if you are wildly making up excuses to reject the Old Earth position - and there is very little sign that you have thought them through.

quote:

---

I dare to think what I pointed out years ago about the Grand Canyon cross section PROVES that there were no millions of years involved in the building of the strata or the carving of the canyon. I think it's all there in a series of observations I point out on the cross section.

---

And you are obviously incorrect.

quote:

---

I think what I also pointed out years ago about the way microevolution leads to reduced genetic diversity is also a killer for evolution. This too is my own variation on a standard YEC argument, which is about reduced "information" rather than reduced genetic variability.

---

And you never provided any reason to think that there was any long-term trend to lower diversity. Spending years trying to claim that you had a good argument when there was a major hole in it - instead of filling that hole - is certainly not a productive effort. But that is what you did.

quote:

---

These are simple points; I stick to simple points because I DON'T have expertise, but I also think the simple points are sufficient.

---

But you need more than opinions - you need the evidence and reasoning to back them up. And you don't have that.

quote:

---

certainly do think what I'm trying to get at on the other thread about the strata (Timescale fiction, rocks only reality) is another simple point that would be a killer for the Geological Timescale if I could get it put together properly. Maybe eventually I will.

---

On the evidence so far it does not seem likely that you have any point. Indeed it seems rather that you have great difficulty bringing yourself to actually think about the old Earth view, which is a major handicap in your efforts.To quickly comment on your new arguments.The first seems to come down to your assumed "flatness" again, which has already been dealt with sufficiently.The second is just odd. Of course old Earth ideas cope quite well with the fact that there is an order in the fossil record. Different creatures lived at different times and their remains are found in the sediments that were deposited at the time they lived.With regard to the ammonites we must remember that they were a quite large group with a range of forms - the differences in the ammonites are not restricted to suture lines. The significance of the point is that the some species only really differ in the suture lines and that they are ordered in the fossil record. Arguing that you expect more from millions of years of evolution is not much of an argument to start with - but when you don't even know how much variation there is, it is even worse.

Wikipedia on the Kaibab Limestone. Valleys "several hundred feet deep" are not a flat surface.

Faith, you say:

quote:

---

The most likely explanation seems to be that they were sorted according to their original location rather than their species characteristics, size, shape or anything like that.

---

Why is this "the most likely explanation" ? What mechanism do you propose ? How does it explain the geographical distribution of the fossils ?These are the questions you need to answer to have a real argument. Without those answers all you have is an unfounded opinion.

Obviously sediment is not very likely to build valleys by deposition. Erosion of the surface after it has been deposited - sometimes after it has lithified - is going to be the usual reason why the surfaces are not flat. So, not much of an objection there.

quote:

---

It's obvious that it's the only explanation possible. There is no clear mechanism for any of the sorting by the Flood, but if it can't be attributed to water principles then it has to be location. I don't have to answer anything.

---

In other words you haven't really thought it through and you have no idea if it is even a possible explanation.That's fine, but don't expect us to take it seriously - it doesn't merit it.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, there is equally good reason to regard the OE explanation as untenable. That was my point of course which you are ignoring. And when the utter nonsense is recognized of millions of years to produce a variation that normally takes at most a few centuries, if that, there's no need even to ask you for a "mechanism," since the idea is simply nonsensical.

---

While the change might take only a few hundred years we know perfectly well that species can persist for quite a long time without noticeable changes - let alone particular noticeable changes. So any assertion that change must be faster is mistaken. And of course it is simply irrational to say that the perceived flaws in rival explanations allows you to overlook obvious holes in yours.

But it is not absurd. There is no minimum rate of phenotypic change in evolutionary theory, nor have you considered the other factors. Especially when we consider that there are other evolutionary changes going on in the ammonites. The suture patterns are chose because they are distinctive (and sometimes quite elaborate) and because they are not going to be the basis for any mechanical sorting - not because they are dramatic examples of evolutionary change.And in the other hand, on the face of it, your idea that the order is due to location certainly appears to be absurd. And the fact that you have no idea of how location could produce the sorting we see hardly makes it any less absurd.This is why making up excuses without regard for the truth is a losing strategy. You don't even know if your position really makes sense and trying to bluster your way through doesn't help either.

Your point was to argue that we did not see a normal landscape - just a flat surface, as you have argued before. The paleovalleys are rather obvious evidence to the contrary. (Consider also the sediment deposited in them, after they formed)

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.

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.

quote:

---

Which argument are you talking about, the tracks on the rocks or the ammonites in separate strata?

---

Pay attention to the context. I was talking about your idea that location was the best explanation for the order in the fossil record there.The next part - which you don't quote - was about your ignorant and irrational ammonite argument. With a link to the refutation.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

I have already explained why it is a bad argument and so far you have offered no adequate rebuttal. Bluster and bluff may be your preferred tactics but they do not contribute to productive discussion. Message 201. Message 151As for the rest, I will only briefly reply to point out that tidal mudflats during the Flood year are an ad hoc addition to the story (and not a very plausible one) - and that they are the favoured feeding grounds of shorebirds, sometimes in very large numbers. Flat certainly, but far from barren.

quote:

---

All I said was that location seems the likely explanation but that I wasn't going to argue it.

---

And your reasons for thinking it "likely" exclude any thought of how it might possibly be true. That is a little way short of rational consideration, especially for something that is pretty obviously unlikely.

quote:

---

Your comments about the ammonites are what is ignorant and irrational.

---

Anyone who reads my post can see otherwise. I consider what is necessary to actually see what we need to see in the fossil record. You don't. And in response you have nothing of substance.

quote:

---

Well, coyote, thanks for the personal note, but I don't see that I've failed to produce evidence or have denied evidence either.

---

It is rather unfortunate that you can't see what you are doing.

quote:

---

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.

---

Refuting obviously bad arguments - and "trashing" them by showing real flaws is not irrational. And that IS what is happening. For instance I have pointed out obvious errors in your ammonite argument - Message 201 especially but also Message 151 - which have not been answered in any way. Yet you still insist that the argument - obviously indefensible as it is - is "grade A".If you want irrational trashing you can consider your response in Message 275That's it. Nothing more.