Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

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.

But isn't the most obvious difference between OEC and YEC the O and the Y? Doesn't jar's data point support the O part of this difference? Seems wonderfully germane to the thread to me.

For all I know Morton or Bertsche or any other OEC could answer jar.

But there is no need to dream up any arguments since Old Earth models do explain what is seen, including NGC 6264.If Young Earth is to be considered as anything more than a fantasy then it must be capable of a better explanation of what exists than the current Old Earth model.NGC 6264 is a great example since it is a simply trigonometry issue using only known and verifiable techniques.If there is no valid Young Earth model that can explain NGC 6264 then Young Earth must be tossed on the trash heap of history as nothing but a fantasy.From Message 224

quote:

---

The Galaxy NGC 6264 is another really great example that supports an Old Earth and even Older Universe.

​

The important thing about NGC 6264 is that the light from the galaxy as well as radio waves from the galaxy have reached the Earth and so it is also one of the astronomical objects whose distance has been directly measured.

​

Using the US based radio telescope systems and radio wave range interferometers located all over the US territories from Puerto Rico to Hawaii a direct parallax measurement has been made and repeatedly verified. The galaxy NGC 6264 is over 400 million light years from the Earth by taking readings six months apart giving us a minimum directly measured age of not less than 450 million years.

​

The importance of this is that it is not a matter of interpretation but rather simple trigonometry. This ain't rocket science or imaginary or illusion or fantasy, it's jess math.

---

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.

jar wasn't asking any question that needs Morton or Bertsche or any other OEC to answer. Just that the O part of OE is supported by this one fact. Have you a counter argument to this demonstrable fact?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 strataEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, ammonites were reproductively isolated?How do you know this?Seems kind of odd for marine species ...

Faith, there is no evidence that supports a world wide flood, especially in the last 6000 years. You've made no good arguments in support of the flood ever on this forum.

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. 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. 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. I don't recsll mentioning mammals. The only tracks I'm aware of are dinosaur tracks.