Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 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

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 272 of 427 (791379)
09-14-2016 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
09-14-2016 8:06 PM


Re: Maybe asking five whole questions was too much
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 8:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 8:58 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 274 of 427 (791382)
09-14-2016 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
09-14-2016 8:06 PM


Re: Maybe asking five whole questions was too much
Faith writes:
This thread is for arguments between OEC and YEC, not just any arguments you can dream up against YEC.
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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 8:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 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

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 276 of 427 (791384)
09-14-2016 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Faith
09-14-2016 8:58 PM


Re: Maybe asking five whole questions was too much
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 8:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 9:12 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 277 of 427 (791385)
09-14-2016 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Faith
09-14-2016 9:02 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 9:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 9:16 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 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 1445 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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 280 of 427 (791389)
09-14-2016 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Faith
09-14-2016 9:12 PM


Re: Maybe asking five whole questions was too much
Meanwhile I've made some really good arguments here that are simple but crucial support for the Flood, that nobody seems able to grasp.
That would indicate to me that maybe they aren't all that good.
Or are you trying to convince yourself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 9:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 281 of 427 (791390)
09-14-2016 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
09-14-2016 9:16 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.
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.
... 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.
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?
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?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 9:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 9:38 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 283 of 427 (791392)
09-14-2016 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Faith
09-14-2016 9:26 PM


Re: The order in the fossil record
In reproductive isolation thirty years for five pairs (Pod Mrcaru lizards), a few hundred for a herd of cattle, etc. 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.
So, ammonites were reproductively isolated?
How do you know this?
Seems kind of odd for marine species ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 9:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 9:41 PM edge has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


(1)
Message 284 of 427 (791393)
09-14-2016 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Faith
09-14-2016 9:12 PM


Re: Maybe asking five whole questions was too much
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 9:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024