Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

Fortunately the issue of NGC 6264 is not technical at all and so not at all difficult to understand.NGC 6264 exists whether you care about it or not. It is what is called a fact.Both light and radio signals from NGC 6264 have reached the Earth. Those too are facts.The distance to NGC 6264 has been directly measured using simple geometry. Again, simply a fact.The distance from Earth to NGC 6264 is at least 450 million light years. Again, simply a fact.Since light has reached the Earth it must have left NGC 6264 and been in transit for at least 450 million years. Again, simply a statement of fact.There are galaxies that are even further from the Earth and whose light has also reached the Earth. Again, more basic facts.Therefore the Universe must be at older than 450 million years. And again a simple conclusion based only on facts.Since the Biblical Creation myths has the Earth created during the same week as the rest of the Universe the Earth must be at least over 450 million years old. Again, simply a statement of fact describing what was written in the Bible stories.It really is simple Faith and no interpretations, just facts but of course you do need to read the questions before you can answer them.Once this is explained we can move on to the other small issues that Young Earth must explain to be considered anything but a fantasy. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Because they are different from their cousins, they flock together in a separate location, and are found in a different layer of rock. Why any more odd than for birds?

This seems to be a pretty typical creationists approach--rather than studying the science they are attacking, they simply attack out of religious belief. The evidence that contradicts their beliefs doesn't matter, nor does the scientific method or logic. To put it bluntly, "The bible says it, I believe it and that settles it." That's the exact opposite of science, known as apologetics. We do grasp what you're claiming, and why, but your claims are contradicted by the evidence. To make those claims you have to ignore huge amounts of contradictory evidence, misrepresent much of the rest, and misunderstand everything else. Your errors have been pointed out to you on many occasions, but you persist in supporting belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.That's apologetics, not science. Perhaps you'd be a lot happier if you just admitted that.A personal note: You seem to be a really nice person, and this website would be the poorer without your contributions, but there comes a point where real-world evidence has to be acknowledged and not just hand-waved away. Reality may suck, but its not going to go away because one wishes it to do so, or tries to ignore it.

I'm sure they didn't "wander," they would have been tossed there by a wave of the Flood, made tracks as long as they could before being buried by the next wave. Somehow they survived that long, but they certainly weren't living there, just lost and wandering across this flat sedimentary wasteland before being buried in one of the waves full of sediment. At some level well above the Holocene.

You keep saying that but it makes no sense.As I pointed out in Message 181 and other posts:

quote:

---

Faith keeps claiming that the geological column is evidence of uninhabitable landscapes.

​

That is absolute utter nonsense. There are almost no uninhabitable landscapes on the surface of the earth, near the surface of the earth in the lakes and rivers of the earth, in the seas of the earth, in the skies of the earth and the few local uninhabitable landscapes that do exist are transient, very localized and very soon colonized.

​

Faith either need to stop asserting such nonsense or provide examples that can be examined because so far all the examples she has mentioned are not uninhabitable and in fact are inhabited.

​

Those exception are active lava flows, areas of noxious gasses like CO2 bubble zones, areas immediately buried by a catastrophe like volcanic ash or mud slides and all of those are rapidly colonized as soon as conditions change but most extreme environments are inhabitable including volcanic mineral springs, deserts, mud flats, brine lakes, glaciers, snow covered areas, tundra, volcano cones, even bare rock surfaces.

---

Maybe since you cannot explain NGC 6264 as first mentioned in Message 224 you can explain what wastelands on Earth are uninhabitable?

Well, coyote, thanks for the personal note, but I don't see that I've failed to produce evidence or have denied evidence either.However, as usually happens at this point in a thread where everybody seems to me to be committed to utter irrational trashing of everything I say for no good reason whatever, I have a great desire to leave EvC and never come back. Too bad that desire never lasts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, you should care since this one point goes to the base of your entire YEC model.This one demonstrable fact that jar presented shows us that the universe is many thousands of times older than your YEC model can support. If you cannot counter this one fact then it doesn't matter what kind or how many beautiful arguments you think you have come up with for your YEC flud since the entire YEC model crumbles into oblivion in its wake.Your whole case, flud and all, rests on YEC. If the Y part of YEC is shown to be false you have nothing left to argue. It all fails. And it takes your literal bible with it.As for the NGC 6264 argument being too technical for you, I don't believe you. You can get right down into the complex technical details on other arguments and the NGC 6264 argument is far from being beyond your understanding.I think you ignore the NGC 6264 fact because you know you have no reasonable counter argument, that you know this one simple item completely destroys your YEC model and that you are feeling the futility of continuing to argue something that is so easily demonstrated to be false.Care to challenge this?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Unfortunately, that's the result of blind adherence to dogma--it blinds one to anything else. Or, as Heinlein said, "Belief gets in the way of learning."I hope that those of us on the science side can change our minds when the occasion requires. I am currently reassessing a major point I made in my Ph.D. dissertation some decades past in light of new evidence (most of which I produced). It is an obscure archaeological issue 1200-4500 years ago but I'd rather be right, even decades later, than cling to an error that I made. For science there's no credit for being wrong! I would hope you don't leave--although we disagree, I consider you an integral part of this site. For every fine cat there is a fine rat (feel free to turn that around whichever way fits best).

I wasn't lying when I said I hadn't read jar's posts on the subject and I have no reason to do so now either. I need a break. However, the age of the UNIVERSE is something other than the age of the Earth, and astronomical time is weird. I'm content to give reasons why evolution is genetically impossible, and the strata can't represent ancient separate landscapes in separated time periods, and I think I've done so. If what I've said is true and I certainly believe it is, then I don't care about other stuff I can't prove; it will eventually fall into place.

Oh, well, now that is disappointing. I slapped you on the ass and I expected to get punched in the nose. If you feel like punching something when you get back just let me know.Bye, Love.

According to the Bible the lights in the sky, the Earth and the Universe were all created in the same week.Now reality has shown us that is false; the Universe is much older than the Earth, but the light and radio waves have reached Earth and so the Universe must be at least as old as the time it took for the light and radio waves to get to earth. Fortunately we have been able to pretty accurately measure the distance to NGC 6264.That gives us a minimum age for the universe.Fortunately there are also many things right here on Earth that can also give us minimum ages and the Okla Reatiors as pointed out in Message 218 are a great example:

quote:

---

Another great evidence in support of an Old Earth (as if even more were needed) are the natural nuclear reactors at Okla in Gabon. They are also a great example of how predictive Science works.

​

Back in 1956 a Japanese American Chemist and Nuclear Scientist made a prediction that under certain conditions a natural nuclear reactor could form and that it would have certain characteristics.

​

In 1972 a routine sampling of ores from a mine in Gabon showed a discrepancy in the expected percentage of 235U, a large enough discrepancy to require understanding and explanation since tracking and accounting for radioactive materials used in the nuclear industry was both required and emmently necessary.

​

Investigation showed that at the site in Gabon there had been 16 separate examples of natural nuclear reactors. The mechanism was ground water penetration of sandstone acting as a moderator to allow chain reactions to take place. The chain reaction in turn boiled off the water which stopped the reaction until water again seeped into the deposit starting the cycle anew. Each cycle lasted only a few hours but the process continued for over several hundred thousands of years until the percentage of fissionable material reached a point chain reactions could no longer happen.

​

The age of the deposit is around 1.7 billion years old.

​

So what is the evidence to support the conclusion of natural nuclear reactors?

​

First was the missing 235U and when investigated further pockets with even lower concentrations of 235U were found.

​

Those figures match what is seen in modern nuclear reactors.

​

Additional studies showed the presence and percentages of waste nuclear products again at the same ratios and isotope signatures as found in modern reactors; by products predicted and actually found included radon, ruthenium and neodymium and in isotope combinations different that what occurs naturally but the same as what is found in nuclear reactor wastes.

​

The evidence that it was a moderated controlled reaction is two fold. First the presence of uranium ores at the site that do not show signs of having gone into a controlled chain reaction and second the fact that there were no signs of detonation or explosion.

​

Since the process is fairly well understood the times involved to produce the evidence seen could be calculated with a fairly high precision factor.

---

I think this is a good approach, and I would like to encourage others to focus on filling in the details of Glenn's arguments rather than adding new arguments to the mix. Glenn was a committed YEC when he started seeing details in his seismic surveys that could not be explained from a YEC perspective. The things that Glenn observed convinced him YEC was wrong, and they might be persuasive to other YECs as well.For example, Glenn saw evidence of underground canyons buried under thick layers of sedimentary rock. How can this be explained in a YEC paradigm? Is it believable that the Flood laid down a thick layer of sediment, hardened it, carved deep canyons into it, and then covered it with another thick layer of sediment, all in less than a year? I don't think this is very believable.

So, the evidence is missing ...Imagine that! So, these creatures hated it so much there that they burrowed into the sediment and waited to die. And lions roamed out looking for gazelles to eat and left footprints before returning to the savannah. And dinosaurs reproduced leaving behind nests of unhatched eggs.Do you like stories? Which produces a problem. How did trilobite wander so many miles out onto this sediment and then return to their 'livable' habitat so as to come back in the Devonian time? Right.And we see all kinds of tracks where nothing lives even today. Not a very efficient flood, was it? Trilobites lived for at least half of the Phanerozoic record and dinosaurs don't even show up until near the end.Sure. That makes sense. Whatever that means. Well, they must'a been there, right?So, where are the tracks?

I believe Faith's story is that those canyon were carved by underground rivers.Never mind that it's geomechanically impossible and that we have no known underground rivers that create dendritic drainage patterns.That's just how it is.Take it or leave it.

Before we go any farther, that would be 'Oklo'.