Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

ABE: The original title seemed to imply something I didn't intend, so I've changed it.====================================I was surprised to find out that kbertsche accepts that YECs can find oil with just the basic idea of relative dating and knowledge of the morphology of the rocks. This was said in an off-topic exchange on the thread about YEC views of scientific dating, where he said: I've argued for this idea many times against the position of most here that finding oil requires the use of Old Earth dating, so of course I'm happy to have some agreement for a change.But he went on about his friend Glenn Morton, who gave up his YEC beliefs for the Old Earth point of view based on what he considered to be geological facts he was becoming aware of. I would have liked to continue the discussion some but since it's off topic in that thread it has to be continued somewhere else. There are many threads where this subject has come up, so this could be put into one of them as Mods decide, but I couldn't decide myself so started a new topic.Maybe the issues Morton raises at his own website could be the basis for a new thread, starting with his article Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism.I strongly believe that Morton has misinterpreted the data he found so compelling, but I doubt anyobe here will agree with me as usual. Just for one issue, he is convinced by seismic imaging that he sees canyons deep in the rocks that would require a long time to carve out: But this sounds like someone who never did have the YEC point of view on the Grand Canyon, rather someone who accepts the Old Earth idea that it must have taken a lot of time to carve it. I don't know what various YECs have concluded about how much time it took, but I've argued here many times that it was probably formed by the receding Flood waters rushing into cracks in the uppermost strata, chunks of the strata providing abrasion along with the rushing water. How long that would take to erode away 277 miles of canyon to a depth of one mile and a width at some points of eighteen miles I'm not sure, but it wouldn't take millions of years.And I also object to the idea that a canyon seen on seismic imaging deep underground was ever at the surface. I'd expect it to have been carved by rushing water running underground between the strata also at the end of the Flood when the strata were still soft.Of course Morton raises many other issues at his website besides this.I am still, however, very happy that someone agrees with me about old earth dating not being necessary to finding oil. Yahoo to that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Make title more concise: "OEC vs YEC Issues (yes I changed the title)" => "OEC vs YEC Issues"Edited by Admin, : Changed title from "OEC vs YEC Issues" to "Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined".

Are you looking at this as a dating issue or a geology issue?

A geology issue.

Thread copied here from the Reasons to convert from YEC to OEC considered thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

You are sure based on what rationale other than the Old Testament which provides zero details other than describing the rising of water as 'gentle'?Seriously, you are questioning the impressions of a YEC believer who knew and stll knows more about geology than you ever comprehend. It is pretty clear that the evidence Morton found was not something he easily accepted, but was, in fact, something that continues to torture him.Unless you can show that the answer is measured in months rather than years, based on some reasoned explanation, I don't see why your personal position should carry any weight.Or phrased another way, the less you know the easier it becomes to dismiss the science. The science is not just a mere story about what details are found. It is more than even a story about multiple sources of evidence that point in the same direction. It is also about the science leading to predictions that also come true.I agree to some extent that what geologist know can be condensed into a set of rule that would allow even a YEC person to find oil. But it is also true that a YEC could never have formulated the rules that are used based on Flood geology. Creation Science is an attempt to explain what real science has identified. But it appears to be useless at predicting new lines of inquiry.

Finding it isn't the hard part... it is definitely down there. And as long as your looking in a relatively close area, you'll see it.The hard part is explaining how it got there. You don't get a bunch of dead organism to convert into hydrocarbons in a short amount of time.

I would also point out that that canyon looks a lot like a river drainage system.But there is a bigger and more obvious problem with Faiths view.If the canyon was carved by the receding flood waters, how did it get buried ?

If Morton believed the OE explanation that the GC was carved by the Colorado River then of course he's tortured by it. That idea ought to be ridiculous to anyone in my opinion.But a great cataract of water rushing in from all sides should do the job in short order and there's nothing wrong with that idea except people's refusal to believe there was a worldwide Flood.Somewhere on Morton's website he argues that there couldn't have been a global Flood. I'm sure we'll get to that in due time.

Finding it has indeed been contested by Old Earthers here, from petrophysics to Pressie and probably edge as well among others. So if you concede it's findable by YEC methods welcome to the club and I'll expect you to bring your arguments to bear against the OE guys. Most things OEers think take a long time turn out not to. With enough pressure it may not take much time at all to form hydrocarbons. And how would you know anyway?

I have no problem with the idea of a river drainage system being formed underground.I also have no problem with the idea of a canyon being carved out by rushing water underground either. Why should either of these things be a problem? Since it is underground it's also easy enough to figure out how it got filled up with sediments too, since that seems to be part of the scenario. It's deep in the ground. The sediments were not consolidated. In fact the Flood was just starting to drain away so they were all quite wet. Tectonic movement faulting and breaking them up and causing spaces to form would admit water into broken areas. also loose sediments.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Forget the canyon itself, the existence of the plateau is sufficient evidence to make the idea of a Young Earth the truly silly fantasy that it is in reality.The rims of the Grand Canyon are over a mile above sea level yet there is irrefutable evidence that some of the layers were once below sea level. There is simply no possible way any flood could form such layers and then also place additional terrestrial layers on top or move the layers from below sea level to over a mile above sea level.

I assume you are talking about the Grand Canyon rather than the seismically visualized underground canyon?The Colorado Plateau was probably raised by the tectonic force that tilted the Supergroup beneath the canyon, which can be seen on cross section to have raised the whole stack of strata. I think most of the volcanism occurred at the same time (a dike penetrates up through the Grand Staircase from the very bottom to the very top of the Claron formation, for one bit of evidence), and the same upheaval no doubt also put strain on the uppermost strata over the Grand Canyon. The cross section shows the area uptilted. The uppermost strata reached to something like six miles above the basement rocks at the height of the Flood, and the uplift could have caused the cracking and the breaking up of the strata that I believe carved the Grand Canyon. Since the strata were some three miles above the current rim of the GC they also climbed to the top of the Grand Staircase and that too was carved by the upheaval. And by the way, Geologists believe the strata were that high over the canyon at one point.But the Grand Canyon is not the topic of this thread. The topic is varied but it's mostly about Glenn Morton's reasons for changing from a YEC to OEC due to such things as the seismic images of underground canyons and so on.

I know that you have no problem with these things. That does not mean that they are remotely sensible. How would a river drainage system form underground ? If the sediments were loose, how would a canyon form ? It makes no sense.

The sediments wouldn't have been "loose" since they were under enormous pressure from the weight of the strata above, but they would have been quite wet and loose enough to break up if tectonic movement occurred, especially if it opened up a fault that would have been further widened by water rushing into it, similar to how I think the Grand Canyon was formed. It all rushed through the GC and out the other end, but an underground canyon might have been filled up by sediments collapsing above it.

But the very existence of the plateau is more than sufficient reason to throw the idea of Young Earth on the dump where it belongs.Remember so far no one has presented evidence that any of the Biblical flood stories are true or factual but the evidence of the existence of the plateau is irrefutable.