|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
but all I intended was to use Morton's arguments as a basis for the thread okay...
I hesitate now even to bring up one of the arguments though. I understand your hesitation. So what was the point of this thread? and what is its point now? For the most part, Morton's statements about his conclusions are often summaries and conclusions and are not intended to convey exactly what persuaded him, but instead to describe what he became persuaded about. Apparently Morton did a lot of writing for one or more Christian publications and spent time questioning some of the leading creation science proponents. Perhaps it is there that you will find the facts you should be contesting. Yet you claim here that you are better than both Morton and those creation scientists of his day whom opposed him; that your explanations, presumably as posted here, would be better than those of say Kurt Wise who at least had studied the field. I personally find that idea hubris laden and laughable. At least it is entertaining. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: I mean quite simply that to be fair you have to take the page for what it is. It wasn't written as a detailed description of the evidence or the reasoning that caused Glen Morton to reject YEC - and to criticise it for lacking that simply misses the point of the page.
quote: We might equally criticise the YEC position as being based in interpretative baggage - and with more fairness. And again, the old Earth position won out despite the fact that young Earth views dominated. Glen Morton was trained in geology by the ICR, and strongly biased in favour of a YEC view. There is clearly reason to think that there is more than the mere accumulation of baggage here - and hoping that a radical rethink might save YEC seems to be no more than wishful thinking.
quote: It looks to me more as if you are wildly making up excuses to reject the Old Earth position - and there is very little sign that you have thought them through.
quote: And you are obviously incorrect.
quote: And you never provided any reason to think that there was any long-term trend to lower diversity. Spending years trying to claim that you had a good argument when there was a major hole in it - instead of filling that hole - is certainly not a productive effort. But that is what you did.
quote: But you need more than opinions - you need the evidence and reasoning to back them up. And you don't have that.
quote: On the evidence so far it does not seem likely that you have any point. Indeed it seems rather that you have great difficulty bringing yourself to actually think about the old Earth view, which is a major handicap in your efforts. To quickly comment on your new arguments. The first seems to come down to your assumed "flatness" again, which has already been dealt with sufficiently. The second is just odd. Of course old Earth ideas cope quite well with the fact that there is an order in the fossil record. Different creatures lived at different times and their remains are found in the sediments that were deposited at the time they lived. With regard to the ammonites we must remember that they were a quite large group with a range of forms - the differences in the ammonites are not restricted to suture lines. The significance of the point is that the some species only really differ in the suture lines and that they are ordered in the fossil record. Arguing that you expect more from millions of years of evolution is not much of an argument to start with - but when you don't even know how much variation there is, it is even worse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All you are saying is that a creationist dare not say anything against the OE theory. No right to think about it without a degree, though even those with the relevant degrees are not qualified to judge by many comments at EvC.
Why would I be here except to try to find arguments against OE? Why would there be a site for this kind of debate if we're not allowed to object to the status quo? I think about these things. Thinking sometimes leads me to ideas that call OE theory into question. Why isn't it possible for someone determined to do this to actually have a useful thought about it without being accused of hubris? Kurt Wise conceded that the evidence is against YEC and refused to get involved in the debate. But he also said something like the way to deal with the issues is to come up with something new, to think outside the box. I think I'm doing that. Why should I have to be somebody special to do this, or driven by some kind of unusual pride? I will say that once I have arrived at an opinion I don't easily give it up, and that has always been true of me. If I review opinions I had forty years ago before I became a Christian, I often find I still agree with them. Why does that require "hubris?" I get quite shaken at the accusations I encounter here, but once I'm committed to a point of view I don't easily give it up and that will remain through all the accusations you can throw at me. I don't feel any need to find new topics to debate, in fact Morton himself has quite a few that are posted on the Old Earth site that I may yet get to. But you are welcome to point me to any you particularly recommend.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: All you are saying is that a creationist dare not say anything against the OE theory. No right to think about it without a degree, though even those with the relevant degrees are not qualified to judge by many comments at EvC. No Faith, no one but you says such things. What is really said is that when you make assertions it is reasonable to point out the flaws and fallacies in those assertions.
Faith writes: I think about these things. Thinking sometimes leads me to ideas that call OE theory into question. Why isn't it possible for someone determined to do this to actually have a useful thought about it without being accused of hubris? Of course that is possible; very, very, very, very unlikely that such a useful thought might come up but if it did it would be welcomed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All I want to say to your post right now is that your claim that the flatness of the rocks has been sufficiently dealt with is false. The flatness is obvious to anyone with functioning eyes. The sharp contact lines between many have been demonstrated many times. We're talking about enormous flat barren featureless slabs of rock that cover enormous geographic areas, yes even the terrestrial rocks though it's not as extensive in their case. If you straw-man the idea with a ridiculously perfect flatness or featurelessness, of course, that's the only way you can argue that it doesn't exist.
To deny the flatness takes a weird kind of distorted vision. The Kaibab Plateau, which is nothing but the surface of the Kaibab limestone formation, would be flat as a pancake for thousands of square miles if there hadn't been uplift in that area that raised it over the GC area, and even with that uplift it's basically a slightly wavy pancake. That's the case with ALL the strata. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Within northwestern Arizona, southeastern Nevada, and southwestern Utah this contact is an erosional unconformity that in part consists of paleovalleys, as much as several hundred feet deep, and paleokarst that were eroded into the underlying Kaibab Limestone before the deposition of the Moenkopi Formation.
Wikipedia on the Kaibab Limestone. Valleys "several hundred feet deep" are not a flat surface.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith, you say:
quote: Why is this "the most likely explanation" ? What mechanism do you propose ? How does it explain the geographical distribution of the fossils ? These are the questions you need to answer to have a real argument. Without those answers all you have is an unfounded opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes and there are lots of places where the flat strata have been distorted in various ways after deposition. That doesn't change the fact that they are fundamentally and originally flat slabs of rock.
And besides, the contact with the Moenkopi is very limited compared to the enormous stretches of flat Kaibab surface in the area.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The absurdity of the sorted by original location is shown by the fact that the order is stacked vertically so unless some method of vertical magic flood sorting mechanism exists all the samples found in a given geological column must have originally been in the same place. If that is the case then it is necessary to explain why those samples were not sorted by density.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Obviously sediment is not very likely to build valleys by deposition. Erosion of the surface after it has been deposited - sometimes after it has lithified - is going to be the usual reason why the surfaces are not flat. So, not much of an objection there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's obvious that it's the only explanation possible. There is no clear mechanism for any of the sorting by the Flood, but if it can't be attributed to water principles then it has to be location. I don't have to answer anything.
Meanwhile, there is equally good reason to regard the OE explanation as untenable. That was my point of course which you are ignoring. And when the utter nonsense is recognized of millions of years to produce a variation that normally takes at most a few centuries, if that, there's no need even to ask you for a "mechanism," since the idea is simply nonsensical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Vertical sorting is even more nonsensical on the OE model. On the Flood model we have rising water depositing sediments in layers. On the OE model you've got imaginary landscapes getting buried and being lithified over huge spans of time as if that could possibly produce a huge flat featureless rock, with another landscape turning to rock on top of it. This is SO nonsensical I don't know how it survived as the dominant theory for five minutes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Vertical sorting is even more nonsensical on the OE model. On the Flood model we have rising water depositing sediments in layers. On the OE model you've got imaginary landscapes getting buried and being lithified over huge spans of time as if that could possibly produce a huge flat featureless rock, with another landscape turning to rock on top of it. This is SO nonsensical I don't know how it survived as the dominant theory for five minutes. Of course, reality once again shows that you are wrong and also simply misrepresenting reality. There are no imaginary landscapes in the conventional theory, only in your fantasy. The layers are not flat in reality, only in your fantasy. The rocks are not featureless in reality, only in your fantasy. You really need to stop just making shit up and claiming anyone else actually believes your nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: In other words you haven't really thought it through and you have no idea if it is even a possible explanation. That's fine, but don't expect us to take it seriously - it doesn't merit it.
quote: While the change might take only a few hundred years we know perfectly well that species can persist for quite a long time without noticeable changes - let alone particular noticeable changes. So any assertion that change must be faster is mistaken. And of course it is simply irrational to say that the perceived flaws in rival explanations allows you to overlook obvious holes in yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yeah y'all can rationalize the most egregious absurdities. I don't think you have any feeling at all for how long a million years is.
Oh and I haven't overlooked the flaws in the Flood model. Go read what I've said. They are amply acknowledged. Your turn. Give up the rationalizing and recognize what an absurdity you are supporting. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024