Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9190 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: critterridder
Post Volume: Total: 919,041 Year: 6,298/9,624 Month: 146/240 Week: 89/72 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
Taq
Member
Posts: 10255
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 207 of 427 (791268)
09-13-2016 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
09-13-2016 11:52 AM


Re: dating ain't an exact science
Faith writes:
Indeed the columns exist, the huge slabs of rock exist, those rocks that as sediments buried whole landscapes and their inhabitants, first drowning them as evidenced by the stacks of marine rocks and then suffocating them in the sediments that eventually became all the rocks; and of course the fossils exist, which are the evidence of what the Flood killed.
What features would a geologic feature need in order to falsify your claim of a recent global flood? What would be inconsistent with a recent global flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 11:52 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10255
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.7


(2)
Message 214 of 427 (791276)
09-13-2016 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
09-13-2016 3:12 PM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
Faith writes:
Sounds sort of interesting and meaningful in the abstract, but in reality I can't find any sense in it.
Put simply, you start with your religious beliefs and then invent stories about the natural world to fit those beliefs.
Except in the case of tracks found on the surface of rocks in the strata, and I think there are quite a few of them, it is quite obvious that the animals couldn't possibly actually live there because for miles and miles in all directions it would have been nothing but wet sediment, sediment covering other layers of sediment, all covering whatever livable landscape might have originally been there. This is all evidenced by the strata themselves, those stacks of thick barren featureless flat lithified sedimentary slabs extending for miles and miles and miles that buried just about all the livable environments on the planet (abe: the rest were of course simply drowned).
Here are a couple of lonely crinoids on the sea floor.
These are actually animals, related to sea stars and sea urchins. Inside of these animals are little plates:
If a flood came along and buried these crinoids, how many crinoid plates should we see in that sediment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 3:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10255
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.7


(1)
Message 217 of 427 (791279)
09-13-2016 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
09-13-2016 4:14 PM


Faith writes:
Well the world was once a single continent well covered with plants because of its very pleasant climate, also an abundance of animal life, along with a lot of sinful human beings. For about a hundred years, Noah was building a big boat as per instructions from God, and preaching to the crowds who gathered to laugh at him, about how they could be saved from a great Flood of water that was coming to destroy the Earth because of their sins. And they didn't believe him so only Noah and his family were saved on the ark along with a few of every kind of animal.
It started raining when Noah was 600 years old, and it rained for forty days and forty nights all over the entire earth, causing local floods and mudslides and increasing the level of the oceans until everything was drowned. Eventually the water all drained away and the only living human beings left were Noah and his family, along with the animals on the ark and some that survived on their own in the oceans and wherever. Everything on land would certainly have been covered in mud, but it turns out that it was covered in huge layers of different kinds of mud that had buried everything that had lived on the land. Shall I go on?
I'm SO tired from battling all you lovely atheists, evolutionists and geologists I have to stop here and come back to answer the rest later.
The problem is that this is not what we see in the geologic column. Instead, we see hundreds of feet made up of animal and plant remains that could not have all been alive at the same time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 4:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 10:40 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10255
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 267 of 427 (791364)
09-14-2016 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Faith
09-14-2016 2:39 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC arguments: Flood was not Global
Faith writes:
KB, that's all very interesting, but as with all OEC interpretations it's a lot of adjustment to worldly assumptions.
What "wordly" assumptions?
The Bible may be hard to interpret in some places but it is NOT imprecise and its interpreters going back to earliest times are NOT id*iots.
Just because it is precise does not mean it is correct.
What kind of "testimony" is it anyway to cause people to think the Flood was worldwide when it wasn't?
Then the Bible is wrong, and couldn't be the word of God. There was no recent worldwide flood.
Most Christians see no reason to use an interpretation of the Bible that makes it wrong. Why do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 2:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10255
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.7


(6)
Message 316 of 427 (791446)
09-15-2016 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Faith
09-15-2016 1:27 AM


Re: Maybe asking five whole questions was too much
Faith writes:
But I would say, concerning the canopy theory, which I haven't studied and don't argue one way or the other, that I don't trust any opinion that depends on calculations about basic physics in the distant past, which couldn't possibly be checked
How can you say that when all of your arguments rest on those same basic physical interactions? Basic physics state that when an animal walks on mud it will leave tracks. Are you saying that you have to throw out animals making tracks in the past?
Basic physics states that terrestrial animals can't breathe underwater, and your entire argument rests on this concept.
Basic physics says that eroded rock in water will settle out and form sediments. Do you also have to throw this out?
It seems to me that you only reject basic physics when it leads to conclusions you don't like. It is a complete double standard.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Faith, posted 09-15-2016 1:27 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by edge, posted 09-15-2016 11:54 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10255
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 343 of 427 (791552)
09-16-2016 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Faith
09-16-2016 2:47 PM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
Faith writes:
The Carboniferous would be related to the Carboniferous by its physical characteristics and fossil contents.
What physical characteristics identify a strata as being from the Carboniferous?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 2:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10255
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.7


(1)
Message 414 of 427 (791725)
09-20-2016 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by Faith
09-19-2016 7:28 PM


Re: First to find new field?
Faith writes:
So you and others keep saying, but so far not a shred of evidence that it works to find oil.
quote:
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
--Glenn Morton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10255
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.7


(1)
Message 415 of 427 (791726)
09-20-2016 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Faith
09-19-2016 9:57 PM


Re: Facts vs Beliefs again
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.
Let's start with the fact that a flood couldn't have produced the observed fossil record. For example, we have deposits thousands of feet thick in some places made up almost entirely of dead animals and plants. A flood doesn't do that. A flood deposits eroded material, not life.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 9:57 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