Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


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 375 of 427 (791650)
09-19-2016 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by jar
09-19-2016 3:51 PM


As usual, no explanation offered
Faith, what dating does help locate the rocks and to efficiently locate the rocks it helps to know where to look;
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.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by jar, posted 09-19-2016 3:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by jar, posted 09-19-2016 4:49 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 378 of 427 (791653)
09-19-2016 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by jar
09-19-2016 4:49 PM


Re: As usual, no explanation offered
I also said it's not needed to locate the rocks, why should it be? 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by jar, posted 09-19-2016 4:49 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by jar, posted 09-19-2016 5:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 383 of 427 (791660)
09-19-2016 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by edge
09-19-2016 5:03 PM


Faith writes:
The information about the order of the strata and the fossils doesn't require OE theory, nor does knowledge of the morphology of the rocks, meaning how the rocks are situated underground.
If we include flood geology as 'YE', the stratigraphic order does not exist.
The early geologists understood this when William Smith started to correlate rock ourcroppings across Great Britain along with their fossil content. They realized, even as churchmen, that this meant the death of Flood 'geology'.
Gullible souls, weren't they?
The order of the fossils can be learned by anyone. It is apparently consistent wherever you look. This is clear to anybody, whether OE or YE. You do not need the OE/evolutionist INTERPRETATION of the fossil order to recognize the fossil order.
However, I think this topic has moved on since kbertsche's Message 376 which suggests that the OE versus YE argument isn't really relevant, since Geology isn't essential to finding oil at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 5:03 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 6:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 385 of 427 (791662)
09-19-2016 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by edge
09-19-2016 5:27 PM


So, the take away is that, yeah, you could drill random wells all over the world and find oil, or you could drill where God tells you. But you won't be in business very long.
This is a ridiculous straw man which has been repeated over and over on this thread. Nobody is arguing for drilling randomly. Obviously as much knowledge of the lay of the rocks as possible is needed and even then there are no guarantees. (I have a little bit of knowledge of the difficulties because I'm part owner of the mineral rights to a piece of land that is surrounded by oil and natural gas fields and yet the oil companies won't take a chance on it. I guess the rock readings aren't good enough or they are finding enough next door or whatever).
Nobody is saying anything about using random methods to find oil. All I've been saying is that so far nobody has given any reason to suppose that Old Earth dating methods contribute anything at all to the project.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 5:27 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 386 of 427 (791663)
09-19-2016 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by edge
09-19-2016 5:31 PM


Re: First to find new field?
The old maps of fossil localities reflected this. They were just blobs drawn around ammonite localities, for instance. Now, we know that they are controlled by the lithologies an ages of the rocks. And once we know that, of course, it becomes a lot easier.
Well, here's another assertion that the absolute dates matter, that it's "a lot easier" if you know the ages. But again, it remains a complete mystery why that should be so. The location of the ammonites should tell you what you want to know. The main thing seems to be to know how the rocks are arranged and at what depth so that you have a shot at a good guess whether they may form traps for oil that you can tap. What on earth does the age of the rocks have to do with that, beyond knowing their relative ages in relation to each other?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 5:31 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 6:49 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 389 of 427 (791667)
09-19-2016 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by edge
09-19-2016 6:49 PM


Re: First to find new field?
But in flood geology, the could be anywhere in the geological column.
Why are you saying such things? We know where they are the same as you do, we know they aren't "anywhere in the geological column" same as you do. Why are you pretending otherwise?
The main thing seems to be to know how the rocks are arranged and at what depth so that you have a shot at a good guess whether they may form traps for oil that you can tap. What on earth does the age of the rocks have to do with that, beyond knowing their relative ages in relation to each other?
But that IS old earth geology. YE geology, especially in your scenario, is based solely on the fludde. But as we know that does not explain the fossil order. You have admitted this yourself.
You are suffering from a serious logic malfunction at the very least, or you are just playing word games.
EXPLAINING the fossil order is what is not necessary; KNOWING the fossil order is something else and YECs who've studied geology know it as well as you do.
Your idea of YE geology is completely your own invention, just a straw man. We expect to understand WHY the order exists eventually; meanwhile it's either a lie on your part or just imposing your own weird invention on us, to say that we deny THAT it exists and make use of it just as you do.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 6:49 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 7:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 391 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2016 7:06 PM Faith has replied
 Message 408 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 9:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 392 of 427 (791673)
09-19-2016 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by Coyote
09-19-2016 7:06 PM


Re: First to find new field?
Having an explanation is of no value whatever if it's the wrong explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2016 7:06 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 7:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 394 by jar, posted 09-19-2016 7:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 401 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2016 8:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 409 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 9:25 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 395 of 427 (791679)
09-19-2016 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by edge
09-19-2016 7:22 PM


Re: First to find new field?
Besides, this explanation works.
So you and others keep saying, but so far not a shred of evidence that it works to find oil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 7:22 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 7:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 410 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 9:32 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 414 by Taq, posted 09-20-2016 12:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 398 of 427 (791684)
09-19-2016 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by edge
09-19-2016 7:43 PM


Re: First to find new field?
kbertsche said otherwise. You didn't answer him either. Just passing the question off to the oil companies is avoiding the question. Why can't you answer it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 7:43 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 10:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 402 of 427 (791695)
09-19-2016 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by NoNukes
09-19-2016 8:29 PM


first statement relative age all that's needed
NN to kbertsche writes:
Where did you say anything about the use of relative ages here? Faith's claim is that you can use relative ages in place of absolute ages and get the same results that other geologist use.
He said it HERE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by NoNukes, posted 09-19-2016 8:29 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 403 of 427 (791696)
09-19-2016 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by Coyote
09-19-2016 8:39 PM


Facts vs Beliefs again
Creation "science" relies on scripture and dogma, rather than data, evidence, and logic, and abhors the scientific method--thus it is the exact opposite of real science.
Those who rely on creation "science" often see real science as having the wrong explanation, but that is because they rely on belief instead of evidence. That has been explained to us here on several occasions.
Perhaps the solution is for each side to be more explicit what underlies their claims. Science can say "our evidence and theories show this...," while creationists can say, "scripture leads me to believe this... ."
Coyote, I know you believe this, in fact you believe it so relentlessly one can't insert a contrary thought between your statements of it. But you are not right. Yes the FOUNDATION of YEC attempts to explain the physical world IS the scripture, but you miss the main arguments YECs make, that make NO use whatever of scripture but argue completely from the physical facts as they present themselves. I argue for the Flood because scripture tells me there was a Flood and when it was and all that, but HOW I argue for the Flood is based completely on the physical facts I find presented by geology and presented at EvC. I make my case entirely from those facts, I do not use scripture as part of my argument AT ALL.
ABE: Of course if I didn't find physical evidence that validates the Flood I couldn't and wouldn't argue it. What you don't get is that I am sincerely convinced of the Flood BY THE PHYSICAL FACTS. (Not that every hypothesis I come up with about how it all played out is set in concrete, but the overall arguments I'm making are solidly based on my reading of the physical facts and not on scripture.) /abe
MOST of my arguments haven't even touched on scripture at all, and yet you continue to claim that all I ever do is argue from scripture.
No, I am not arguing that the OE explanation is wrong based on my belief in scripture. Not on this thread anyway. I really am not.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2016 8:39 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2016 10:06 PM Faith has replied
 Message 415 by Taq, posted 09-20-2016 12:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 416 by edge, posted 09-22-2016 12:33 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 405 of 427 (791698)
09-19-2016 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Coyote
09-19-2016 10:06 PM


Re: Facts vs Beliefs again
No it IS the case. While you were writing your post I added this to mine so I'll copy it here:
ABE: Of course if I didn't find physical evidence that validates the Flood I couldn't and wouldn't argue it. What you don't get is that I am sincerely convinced of the Flood BY THE PHYSICAL FACTS. (Not that every hypothesis I come up with about how it all played out is set in concrete, but the overall arguments I'm making are solidly based on my reading of the physical facts and not on scripture.) /ab
You made a lot of accusations in that post. Please support even one of them from anything I've argued.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2016 10:06 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2016 10:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 417 of 427 (791834)
09-22-2016 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by edge
09-22-2016 12:33 PM


Re: Facts vs Beliefs again
As I believe I've said many times, I focus on some issues and not others. Nobody tries to argue every point in this debate. I don't argue dating and I don't argue the fossil record. I expect to make my case with the issues I argue well. From the physical facts alone. And I believe I've done that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by edge, posted 09-22-2016 12:33 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by NoNukes, posted 09-22-2016 11:17 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 419 of 427 (791837)
09-22-2016 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by NoNukes
09-22-2016 11:17 PM


Re: Facts vs Beliefs again
Oh you are wrong. If it is true that there is a natural end to evolution as I've argued many times, your dating methods are therefore wrong and your fossil order an illusion. If it is true that the strata were laid down rapidly which many of my arguments and standard creationist arguments have shown, again goodbye to the supposed fossil order and to the supposed ancient dates. I believe these things have been proved. You don't of course but if they are proved then they do falsify the fossil order and the OE dates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by NoNukes, posted 09-22-2016 11:17 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2016 11:53 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 421 by NoNukes, posted 09-22-2016 11:56 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 422 by kbertsche, posted 09-23-2016 12:04 AM Faith has replied
 Message 424 by PaulK, posted 09-23-2016 1:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 423 of 427 (791841)
09-23-2016 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by kbertsche
09-23-2016 12:04 AM


Re: Facts vs Beliefs again
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. This thread is another angle on it but not the best angle for my purposes. I've proved what I wanted to prove elsewhere, though I also believe I've made some decent points against Glenn Morton's arguments here too.
All the dating claims will collapse when other arguments succeed. There's lots of evidence against YEC that is going to collapse eventually.
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. Sorry, I'm not impressed with your OE position and I'm not interested in Wonderley's book.
And you really do need to investigate the claims for the modern Bibles. If you spend enough time on it you might find that Dan Wallace and James White and all the others you've been accepting are wrong.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by kbertsche, posted 09-23-2016 12:04 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by jar, posted 09-23-2016 7:57 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 426 by Admin, posted 09-23-2016 8:51 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 427 by kbertsche, posted 09-23-2016 8:33 PM 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