Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 347 of 427 (791561)
09-16-2016 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
09-16-2016 7:35 PM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
Faith writes:
No, I don't think of all the different ones in a formation or a "time period" being grouped together, just the "birds of a feather," meaning the same creatures should be found together, and the reason I'm postulating is that they flock together in life and so would end up buried together.
Unfortunately reality once again says that is just a really really really silly idea.
How does your grouping together idea explain dissimilar critters vertically separated.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 7:35 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 357 of 427 (791592)
09-17-2016 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
09-17-2016 11:22 AM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
Faith writes:
Traditional explanations are science. I don't have to agree with it for it to be science. Science has given certain data that name. I can use the name for that data too. There are lots of words in the English language that have changed meaning over time because of new perspectives on the phenomena they originally described.
But you actually need to do science to call it science and there is no such thing as Creation Science or Biblical Flood Science or Biblical Science.
Unless you can provide an explanation that is at least as convincing as the conventional theory and as supported by ALL of the data you cannot call it science.
Faith writes:
Hey I understand you are Offended to the max at us uppity YECs, and adamantly and unrelentingly think you're Right but that doesn't give you the right to prevent other points of view from even existing.
That's simply more falsehoods Faith. No one could possible be offended by YECS, amused perhaps but not offended. You certainly have the right to hold a different point of view just as everyone else has the right to point out how wrong, worthless and silly that point of view is.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 09-17-2016 11:22 AM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 363 of 427 (791633)
09-19-2016 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by Faith
09-18-2016 5:33 PM


Faith writes:
I don't know if HBD read the early part of the thread, but he doesn't seem to have taken into account that a number of posters agreed that it is possible to find oil without using the dating methods or assumptions of OE Geology, simply knowing the relative dates of the rocks in relation to one another, and the morphology of the rocks at a given location.
That's not quite what folk said.
For example the original Saudi oil fields were found using Young Earth methods; they were drilling for water and struck oil. The great Pennsylvania oil fields were also found using Young Earth methods, folk noticed the oil seeping up from underground.
So sure, even a blind pig might find an acorn.
But what is the Young Earth method of predicting where oil will be found or where the conditions are right for oil accumulation?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Faith, posted 09-18-2016 5:33 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 374 of 427 (791649)
09-19-2016 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Faith
09-19-2016 2:45 PM


Faith provides the answer, again.
Faith writes:
Well, I see no reason whatever to suppose that the dating of the rocks does anything more than locate them physically, and although it is asserted that the dates are used in the location of oil, so far nothing has been said to show that there is any more to it than physical location. I don't doubt that the dating is used, what I doubt is that it accomplishes anything more than location of the rocks which don't need dating to locate them.
Once again Faith supports the conventional theory over her own fantasy.
Yes Faith, what dating does help locate the rocks and to efficiently locate the rocks it helps to know where to look; or you can use the Young Earth methods of looking for oil seeps or keep drilling for water until you hit oil.
Young Earth is simply an absurd, worthless, refuted, abandoned and rejected concept.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 2:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 4:07 PM jar has replied
 Message 399 by Admin, posted 09-19-2016 7:58 PM jar has not replied

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


Message 377 of 427 (791652)
09-19-2016 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Faith
09-19-2016 4:07 PM


Re: As usual, no explanation offered
Faith writes:
That's a pretty garbled statement but I have to suppose you're trying to say that dating does help to locate the rocks, and yet, interestingly, as usual, you say nothing about how it helps, as nobody else has either. If it is really helpful, really necessary, somebody ought to be able to say how it's helpful. So far nada.
I was simply repeating what you had said Faith and even quoted what you said.
Did you not say "Well, I see no reason whatever to suppose that the dating of the rocks does anything more than locate them physically, and although it is asserted that the dates are used in the location of oil, so far nothing has been said to show that there is any more to it than physical location. "?
Edited by jar, : fix initial quotebox

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 4:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 4:59 PM jar has replied

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


Message 384 of 427 (791661)
09-19-2016 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Faith
09-19-2016 4:59 PM


Re: As usual, no explanation offered
Faith writes:
If you can reach the rock to date it you can reach it by relative dating and you can assess the morphological situation as well without knowing anything about the absolute date of the rocks.
So you accept relative dating, is that correct?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 4:59 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 394 of 427 (791677)
09-19-2016 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Faith
09-19-2016 7:19 PM


Re: First to find new field?
Faith writes:
Having an explanation is of no value whatever if it's the wrong explanation.
Exactly; that is why Young Earth is worthless and useless and has been thrown away by all scientists for hundreds of years. It's a wrong explanation, false, irrelevant.
So as asked back in Message 384:
"So you accept relative dating, is that correct?"

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:19 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 425 of 427 (791845)
09-23-2016 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by Faith
09-23-2016 12:12 AM


Re: Facts vs Beliefs again
Faith writes:
Oddly perhaps, I wasn't referring to anything on this thread, I was summing up arguments I've made at EvC over the years on other threads, and I believe I've proved what I said.
No one doubts that you believe you have succeeded, but the reality is that all, not some, but all of the evidence shows that you have failed utterly and completely.
The fossil order would exist regardless of any argument you could make.
Faith writes:
All the dating claims will collapse when other arguments succeed.
Again, that is simply factually wrong as well as illogical. The dating evidence still exists, regardless of any argument you could make. Decay rates remain constant throughout the universe. The speed of light remains constant throughout the universe. Chemical reactions today are the same as they were several billion years ago and we can directly view those reactions from billions of years ago in real time today. It's called stars and galaxies and regardless of any argument you can make, they still exist.
Faith writes:
And one idea that OE always gets wrong is uniformitarian assumptions such as that the growth rate of coral reefs now is the same as before the Flood.
But again Faith, reality says you are wrong. There was no Biblical flood and the processes we see today are the same as they were in the past. Again, there is direct evidence that this is a fact, DNA samples from long before the supposed date of the Biblical floods as well as fossils and imprints and both absolute and relative age data.
And it is not just a few samples. We now have over 30 years worth of accumulated data on ancient DNA samples. The data is there and available to you if you are willing to study it. To give you an idea of the scope of the data consider that it ranges from a 700,000 year old horse to pigs and Neanderthals and chickens and humans and plants and maize and just about anything imaginable.
All that data really exists and will continue to exist regardless of any argument you could make and the DNA sequences can be physically compared to modern samples to show similarities.
The evidence may not impress you and that's fine. No one really much cares to impress you; yet the evidence and facts are out there and they still need to be explained. And that is what you need to do before you can convince anyone that the current theory is wrong.
Denial of the evidence will not work.
Fantasy will not work.
And this was what Glenn Morton experienced. Young Earth simply didn't work to explain reality.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Faith, posted 09-23-2016 12:12 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