|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,260 Year: 6,517/9,624 Month: 95/270 Week: 8/83 Day: 2/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1672 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6063 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
So if you concede {oil is} findable by YEC methods welcome to the club and I'll expect you to bring your arguments to bear against the OE guys. Uh, just where did anyone "concede it's findable by YEC methods"? Rather, what I've been seeing them say is that a YEC who follows standard geological practice would be able to find oil. Nothing about YEC methods being useful in that endeavor. There are many analogies we can draw from. You could have the most hare-brained wrong ideas about cooking and baking, but so long as you follow the recipe you will get the desired results. But where did those recipes come from? From cooks and bakers who did understand food science and how cooking and baking does actually work. In Isaac Asimov's classic Foundation (1951), after the predicted collapse of the Galactic Empire, the Foundation started to export technology cloaked as religion. The neighboring worlds would send their acolytes to be trained by the Foundation priests and those technician-priests would perform the requisite rituals and say the requisite prayers and then push the green button to start up the fusion reactor, etc. I read that when I was an Air Force computer repair technician and I saw how that applied to several of the technicians I was working with. You do not need to understand how something works in order to operate or maintain it; all you need to is to know and to follow the procedures for those tasks. And who wrote those procedures? People who do actually know how those systems work. So for a YEC to be able to find oil, he needs to use procedures developed and published by old-earth geologists (OEG, AKA "real geologists"). That YEC will not be using YEC methods, but rather OEG methods. That a YEC following OEG methods should be able to find oil does not in any way validate YEC methods. The formation of the geologic structures which trap oil cannot be explained by YEC methods. The distribution of index fossils cannot be explained by YEC methods. The association of oil and gas with such structures and such index fossils cannot be explained by YEC methods. However, they can all be explained by OEG methods. Furthermore, early in the history of oil exploration it took OEG knowledge and understanding to anticipate what kinds of structures and which index fossils to should be associate with oil and gas deposits. The only way that association could have been worked out without OEG would have been purely by trial and error. Though there have been attempts to use YEC methods to explore for oil. One YEC explanation for oil formation is by meteor impact and some YECs have tried exploring about impact sites, but with no success. There's also at least one company, Zion Oil & Gas, Inc, (reported about on NPR, 2013 Nov 27) which has been using the Bible to find oil without any success, though they do raise a lot of money from fundamentalist donations (kind of reminds one of Mel Brooks' The Producers). So when you use OEG methods you can find oil, but not when you use YEC methods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6063 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
DWise1 writes:
Relative dating isn't standard geological practice for finding oil. And knowing the lay of the buried rocks ought to be a no-brainer whatever your theory. Uh, just where did anyone "concede it's findable by YEC methods"? Rather, what I've been seeing them say is that a YEC who follows standard geological practice would be able to find oil. Nothing about YEC methods being useful in that endeavor. Excuse me, but you just completely avoided the issues. And you lifted my statement out of context in typical deliberately lying creationist fashion. Is this your admission that you are deliberately lying? Let us leave that dilemma for a moment. The entire question of what I had said concerned whether YEC methods were usable. Well, are they? Nothing in your "reply" says anything one way or the other. I stated that "a YEC who follows standard geological practice would be able to find oil." And that there is " Nothing about YEC methods being useful in that endeavor." You say, "Relative dating isn't standard geological practice for finding oil." And yet that is exactly what the other members you want to claim as supporting your position are saying. So you claim what they say as supporting your position while at the same time denying that everything and anything they say has nothing to do with finding oil. So then which is it???? Is it A or is it B? You are trying to claim both. So then how does that not constitute lying on your part?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6063 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
Maybe the issues Morton raises at his own website ... No, that is not his own website, but rather another site echoing his old site. His old web site is no longer, having been taken down in ... a fit ... er ... uh ... Here is the explanation offered by an antagonist to creationism, Anon-Ra at this URL Some fragments of Glenn R. Morton's former site remain, eg, http://web.archive.org/...062417/http://home.entouch.net/dmd, at the WayBack Machine web archive site. It seems to have captured most of his old site, though unfortunately none of his report on an "intelligent design" conference he had attended. Fortunately it did capture his "Personal Stories of the Creation/Evolution Struggle" pages. Edited by dwise1, : WayBackMachine link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6063 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
I first heard of Glenn R. Morton from Robert Schadewald's report on the 1986 International Conference on Creationism (ICC). That was also when I first learned how "creation science" can destroy the faith of its followers. How "creation science" destroys creationists' faith was nicely summarized by the ICR's John Morris in his response to Morton's question, "How old is the earth?":
quote:That link is to my collection of quotes, including this exerpt from Schadewald's article: quote: Morton's degree was in physics. He was not schooled in standard geology, but rather in YEC Flood Geology; everything he knew about geology he had learned from the ICR. He also wrote several creationist geology articles for the Creation Research Society Quarterly and ghost-wrote the creationist section of one of Josh McDowell's books. Interesting thing about the ICR's graduate studies. They were much more interested in weeding out what they didn't believe in rather than to promote research, which is what graduate programs normally want to promote. I have a copy of the report of the visitation committee when California was considering whether to accredidate the ICR graduate program. The committee witnessed one of the classes in session. The class used a standard textbook used by most graduate courses. The instructor was having all the students go through the textbook page by page and telling them exactly what to strike out because "we don't believe that." That is what the ICR had taught Morton and the ICR graduate students he had hired. Here are geological facts that do not exist and cannot exist if Scripture is to have any meaning. And then each and every one of them, each and every day, had to stare in the face those very geological facts that the ICR had taught them did not exist and could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning. Faith, Glenn R. Morton did what you would never do: he looked at the evidence. Faith, I would like to personally thank you for your tireless efforts to promote the growth and spread of atheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6063 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
One perennial creationist claim is that the speed of light is slowing down (AKA "c-decay"), which would have the effect of changing the rates of radioactive decay, such that 6000-year-old rock would be false dated to be millions or billions of years.
Of course, that claim is utterly false. Some lines of evidence disproving it are astronomical. I couldn't find Jar's NGC 6264 on Wikipedia, but Glenn R. Morton (would that make this on-topic?) discussed Supernova 1987A in his article, Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look:
quote: On that same page, Glenn R. Morton also discussed:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024