|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
I have read the entire thread and will be moderating. There's a lot I could comment on, but I'll keep this very short:
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined:
|
I need to clarify an earlier moderator request. This is from Faith's Message 241 in reply to NoNukes:
Faith in Message 241 writes: You've apparently missed Admin's many admonishments not to expect people to remember some argument you gave: YOU are required to repeat it. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined:
|
Faith writes: Your understanding is based on myth.
All those bona fide geological sources are myth? Including yourself? Nice of you to admit it. Since without you there can be no debate, you *do* have it within your power to prevent fruitful discussion. I'm sure everyone would be gratified to be part of a productive exchange of ideas, I'm investing my time as moderator to help make that possible, so let's do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined:
|
Faith writes: Well I can't keep recent arguments in mind or keep in mind who said them,... You're responsible for managing your own discussion - others can't be expected to do that for you. Either maintain an acceptable level of rational discussion or stop participating.
And I really don't think your explanation here covers what you've said in the past. You who "can't keep recent arguments in mind" are claiming to remember what I've said in the past? Interesting. Here's what I said over at the The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock thread in Message 770:
Admin in the Geological Timescale thread writes: Information presented while the recipient is of a skeptical mind is often simply lost. When enough of or the right kind of information has been communicated and accepted then previously presented but rejected information must be repeated. That is the nature of discussions on controversial topics. You were a participant in that thread and presumably read this, no?
Faith writes: I'm deluged with a lot of arguments, and a lot of them ridiculous ones too that I can't even read. As per my earlier request, one can't just say an argument is ridiculous (there's been far too much of that), one must show it. Please, no replies to this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined:
|
I see this thread as full of incomplete and partial arguments, so I am going to begin demanding arguments backed by evidence and accompanied by comprehensible explanations that stand by themselves and only assume familiarity with information common to the creation/evolution debate and awareness of information already in the thread. Please provide links to earlier messages that contain information necessary to your argument. This is especially important as the thread grows longer.
I took a light-handed moderation approach in the The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock thread and felt ignored, so I'll be taking a more assertive approach in this thread. I have these comments and requests:
Please, no replies to this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
14174dm writes: The pore spaces are tiny, the route is convoluted, and therefore friction is enormously high compared to surface flow. I'm following through on my earlier expressed desires for a discussion based upon evidence. Faith asserts that channels exist in buried strata through which the flow of water can grow into entire river systems that cut canyons and river valleys and so forth, while you assert that only tiny pore spaces are available. Which way does the evidence point, and what is that evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
edge writes: Here is an article to reinforce your point: Creation Science Articles, We've Done Rivers, Let's Do Canyons, Glenn
Morton It provides this seismic image of a dendritic drainage pattern formed and buried in the early Paleozoic in China, now situated 5000 meters below the modern surface. I believe that Glennn had referenced this article at some point in the past.
The argument is pretty compelling for anyone who has worked in the field. Mainly, it states that to carve such a valley in limestone would take an inordinate amount of time for the YEC viewpoint. I'm following through on my earlier expressed desire for a discussion based upon evidence. What is the evidence that it would take "an inordinate amount of time for the YEC viewpoint" to "carve such a valley in limestone"?
The other main point is that these patterns are recognized ONLY in subaerial environments. How do you respond to the argument that these patterns are also recognized in buried strata but merely asserted to have formed in subaerial environments?
My last point is that if a supposed underground river valley widens upward (which seismic data shows), it would ultimately be impossible to support a roof. I'd like to clarify this point. As a river descends into a river valley such as this:
The distance between the hills or mountains on each side of the river are much too far apart for a roof of rock spanning them to support itself, even if there were no burden of strata above it, which there is. For this reason no significant open cavity could ever form underground. Looking this up, the largest cave in the world, Hang Sơn Đong, is only 150 meters wide. The deepest cave in the world, Krubera Cave, extends only about 3/4 of a mile below sea level. But descriptions of karsts seem to echo precisely what Faith is arguing happened during the Flood. From Wikipedia on karsts:
quote: Besides the resemblance to subaerial river systems and the impossibility of a large roof of rock, what evidence suggests that Glenn Morton's underground canyon formed just like karsts form?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Thanks for the response, I need to followup on one thing:
edge writes: How do you respond to the argument that these patterns are also recognized in buried strata but merely asserted to have formed in subaerial environments?
They are not found anywhere. If someone has an example, we could look at it. In the meantime, we actually do see these patterns existing on the modern surface. I was thinking of Glenn Morton's example:
This is the familiar river pattern we see everywhere above ground, except that in this case it's in buried strata. What is the evidence that it actually formed in a subaerial environment and was only subsequently buried, as opposed to forming after being deeply buried.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Oh, sure, I know what 'dendritic' means, but I think I see a circularity in your argument:
I know you said that "The other points apply as well," but this argument about underground river systems has come up before in multiple threads, and in this latest incarnation I'd like to make sure that geology's position is made absolutely clear. To that end I'd like to see the "other points" woven together with the point about dendritic patterns. I'll attempt this one myself, but I don't want to make too much a habit of making arguments as moderator. River systems only form subaerially over long time periods because:
Please correct/expand as necessary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
edge writes: We do not see such patterns that formed underground. We see them underground, but not necessarily formed underground. Right - and how do we know they didn't necessarily form underground? You answer the question yourself:
If you find one that is formed underground we should look at the data. Right. So here are the two images offered so far:
What is the data that tells us these formed subaerially and not underground?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
edge writes: One thing that might have an influence is the material involved. It's possible, likely even to find underground structures that might look like a river valley system if talking about a limestone structure but far less likely if looking at a layer of sandstone I would think.
Sure, they may look like river valleys, but they are still controlled by fractures and I know of no fracture pattern that is dendritic in morphology. If I find this confusing, others might, too. If they're not dendritic, and if dendritic is what tells us they're river valleys, then why might they look like river valleys? Also, and this is a question for Jar, too, since it comes from his post, why is a limestone structure more likely to "look like a river valley system" than a structure of the much harder sandstone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Faith writes: Definitely a nitpick there, a pedantic semantic hot-air rant there. I asked you not to pick fights with people. See you tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Hi Faith,
From your Message 342:
Faith in Message 342 writes: The Carboniferous would be related to the Carboniferous by its physical characteristics and fossil contents. There is no "time period" you can point to in any case, that's purely hypothetical. If you can point to a thread where you've successfully argued that geological time is hypothetical then I'll allow this, otherwise drop this argument from this thread. You can't keep repeating positions whose defense you abandoned in earlier discussions. Argue a position to completion if you want to you use it again. You continue:
Faith in Message 342 writes: AS I said, the fact is that there IS an order to them, and why is irrelevant. To identify a particular layer only requires knowing its physical characteristics. You and HereBeDragons have exchanged a series of posts about this, and I'd like to make sure his main point is discussed and understood. Using HBD's example, he argues that geology tells us to where to look for Carboniferous layers, the type of layer containing the highest quality coal. Geology does not have us drilling randomly looking for the "physical characteristics" of the Carboniferous. Geology knows where Carboniferous layers are likely to be found, which is below the Permian and above the Devonian. The question never arises, "Well, we've drilled down through the Permian and still haven't found the Carboniferous - should we keep drilling or give up?" Geologists never wonder, "The topmost layer in this region is Devonian - should we drill through the Devonian layers to see if any Carboniferous layers lie beneath?" HBD argues that successes like these of standard geology grant legitimacy and validity to its interpretations. It isn't just that, as you argue here, they've merely noted the correlation between Carboniferous layers and coal. It's that they know where Carboniferous layers will be found. They don't have to drill here and drill there checking "physical characteristics" to see if they've located a Carboniferous layer, as Flood geology would require. Geological principles *tell* them where to find the Carboniferous. At heart HBD is pointing out the contradiction between simultaneously accepting and rejecting geological principles, e.g., accepting them for where to find coal while rejecting them for having validity in any other way. It's certainly your right to take this position, but you must still keep your arguments well founded in fact rather than sarcastically referring to fellow participants as "Fhrer" and "King" while dismissing arguments without touching on a single fact at all. So when you say things like this from Message 351:
Faith in Message 351 writes: The evidence is neutral and I can use it. It doesn't belong to OE geology. You are absolutely correct. But at some point you *must* begin actually talking about the evidence, and at over 350 messages in this thread we are well past that point. For instance, when you say the standard geological interpretation of fossil order is an illusion Message 349, you must explain why using evidence. When you say that YECs can make accurate predictions just like mainstream geologists by taking advantage of what standard geology has learned you can't just leave the central conflict of both accepting and rejecting standard geology unexplained, especially since such conflicts are the centerpiece of Glenn Morton's struggles with Flood geology. I don't expect you to give up all of your personality. Include all the accusations of illusion and guesses and speculations you like, but they must be accompanied by fact-based argument, and with no name calling, threats to leave, declarations of ignoring people and their arguments, etc. There's already a moderator on duty here, and it isn't you. I know you feel you're greatly offended against, but I have chosen to deal with what I see as the biggest problem first. AbE: Please, no replies to this message. Edited by Admin, : AbE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
jar writes: Young Earth is simply an absurd, worthless, refuted, abandoned and rejected concept. Evidence and argument, please, not name-calling and trying to pick fights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined:
|
Faith writes: We expect to understand WHY the order exists eventually;... The goal is a fact-based discussion. In the absence of fact-based Flood explanations for fossil evidence, instead of claims of what Floodists will show in the future it might be better to focus on evidence against the explanations of conventional geology. Proving geology wrong wouldn't prove the Flood right, but it would at least give you a factual basis for rejecting modern geology. In essence you'd be arguing, "I don't know how the geological formations we see today happened, but the explanations of modern geology are wrong because......" The published book containing Copernicus's evidence for a heliocentric solar system did not claim it represented fact, just that its calculations worked, making it possible to accurately calculate the date of Easter. For the succeeding couple decades astronomer/mathematicians used his math while rejecting his theory. Though heliocentrism gradually came to dominate scientific views of the solar system, geocentrists and flat-earthers and so forth continued to exist and still exist today, but their inability to muster scientific evidence for their own views or against scientific views leaves heliocentrism's validity virtually unchallenged. If Floodists today are not in the same ark with respect to modern geology as geocentrists and flat-earthers were for the Copernican Revolution then they must show themselves distinct by presenting evidence and argument for their positions. Notice that I didn't say just "evidence" or just "argument." Its essential that arguments be supported by evidence. For example, if tides during the Flood caused certain geological formations, what is the evidence for those tides and that they operated in that way? If the Flood laid down the geological layers we see today, what is the evidence that floods work in that way? If landscapes experiencing erosion or deposition become uninhabitable, what is the evidence? This last one about landscapes becoming unlivable forms a significant part of the foundation for your claim that only the flood could explain the evidence, and yet you haven't returned to your dialogue with Stile over at the The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock thread. Stile's Message 1144 is still unanswered. I'm disallowing supporting your positions with arguments whose discussion you seem to be avoiding. Though I think it best to resume the discussion with Stile you can actually discuss this topic with anyone, since I've also disallowed the pattern of claiming offense to avoid responding. If a post doesn't make sense to you then help the person work out where the problem lies - do not merely respond, "Please forgive if I have to say that makes absolutely not one iota of sense to me," as you did in Message 372. This seemed to effectively end the discussion. Please, no replies to this message. Edited by Admin, : Minor change. Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024