Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

So even though you started a topic "Reasons to convert from YEC to OEC considered" you have decided to not accept Old Earth explanations regardless of their accuracy, evidential support, explanatory powers, correspondence to reality, logic or reasonableness.

in Message 114 Faith says:

quote:

---

Yes I believe the OE interpretation of the fossil order is an illusion. I also think there must be a reasonable interpretation of it from the Flood point of view that will eventually emerge. Meanwhile, it IS a fact that the fossils occur in a predictable order, whatever the correct interpretation of that may be, and since that is true they can be used to locate rocks.

---

That one statement pretty much summarizes the difference between Science and Dogma.Modern geology (as well as astronomy, physics, chemistry and all other branches) began with the assumption of a Young Earth. However as more and more evidence accumulated that the Earth was not Young that position was abandoned.Modern geology (as well as astronomy, physics, chemistry and all other branches) began with the assumption of a Biblical Flood. However as more and more evidence accumulated that there never was a Biblical Flood that position was abandoned.There are things in Science that so far cannot be explained, one example mentioned in this thread are the flint nodules found in chalk deposits. In those instances Science tries to find explanations that can explain what is seen but adds a disclaimer stating that what is suggested is still just an idea and not yet firmly enough supported by evidence to call it a theory.Dogma on the other hand does not simply state that the answer is unknown but may someday be known it continues to try to use explanations that have already been totally refuted. It is that continued assertion that things conclusively shown to be wrong explain stuff that is so different than the culture found in science. It is that need to make reality fit the dogma instead of throwing the dogma away when shown to be wrong that is the big difference.Edited by jar, : appalin grammore that ----> than

The topic has been changed and is now "OEC vs YEC issues (yes I changed the title)".This is somewhat different but easier to summarize.The issue with the Young Earth Creationism position is that absolutely nothing observed in reality can be explained unless there is the conclusion that the Creator is a liar, cheat and conman or total practical joker like Coyote. Absolutely all the evidence from every branch of science, every line of inquiry, every technology used for measurements show an old Earth in a far older Universe. Unless the Creator deliberately falsified all the evidence the Earth is old.The issue with both the YEC and OEC position is that there is no evidence pointing to the existence of a Creator. While either can be supported as a theological position, neither can be considered as Science.

The issue is that ALL of geology shows that Young Earth is wrong. There is absolutely no possible explanation for ANY geological findings based on the Earth being young.There is no way that Young Earth can explain geological ordering, biological ordering, the existence of the Green River Varves, the distance to stars and galaxies seen, the cratering on the moon, uranium halos, the Okla Reactor ... anything.Young Earth is simply a totally worthless concept with absolutely no value as an explanation for anything seen in reality.

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. 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.

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.

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.

You have never seen or spent time at a mud flat have you? They teem with life.

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.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

The evidence that what is found in every geological column simply depicts what was once the surface is overwhelming and irrefutable.First is the geological evidence, direct evidence of terrestrial or marine environments. Second is the evidence of erosion of different parts of layers showing where areas were exposed to erosion and where areas were protected from erosion by being buried. Third are the river channels and valleys that are filled in by an overlying layer. Fourth are the unconformities showing areas that were exposed for long period of weathering and erosion before being recovered by newer materials. Fifth are the angular unconformities which show that the layer was both exposed and tectonically tilted and weathered/eroded before a newer layer of material was deposited on top.Then there is all the biological evidence. The simplest, most utterly obvious thing is that the samples are found within rocks. There is no way that even Faith magic flood can put a sample inside a rock; so every sample is proof that it happened before the material became rock. Second, the biological samples are all critters that either live in the air, the water or on or near the surface of the earth. Third, there are samples of things that are very fragile and transient, burrows and tracks and nests are great examples. The nests with egg shells still within the nest show that it was buried while undisturbed and not washed away by any imaginary flood. The tracks show they were buried without being washed way by any imaginary flood that would wipe them out just as the incoming and outgoing tide washes away any tracks and sand castles and "j ❤ s". The tracks were obviously laid down at the surface and then covered over intact. Then there are the burrows, again not destroyed by some imaginary flood. And there are the imprints of leaves and tree trunks and all the fossil spores that do not just tell us that there was a surface environment but also what was growing and what the average temperature was and often even what the season was when the sample was buried. Don't forget the paleosols where there are trees with the roots still intact.Each sample was covered while it was at the soil surface either in a terrestrial or marine environment.Next is the issue of location.The evidence shows that the geological processes are common and repeating, the same set of processes from bottom to top. The rocks are familiar types, the same types seen today and the processes are familiar processes, the same processes seen today.If we look at any geological column what is found is a series of layers that are recognizable as the result of processes that we see going on today. We can then measure those processes as they happen today to get a reference point showing the time necessary to form a given sample.But the enclosed biological samples are quite different. There we see samples that are far different than what is seen today and in addition an ordered progression from those critters found in the lowest levels to those critter that exist today. No where is that biological superposition not seen.No where are samples of modern life forms and the life forms from the lowest levels found together except where there is obvious evidence of the layer being disturbed.The evidence is conclusive. In the past the surface of the earth was habitable and in fact inhabited by biological critters adapted to that environment but different critters than exist today. Just as today, almost every air, surface, near surface and water environment was inhabited. Over time those surfaces were covered over but life continued uninterrupted over all periods. Both the depths of the geological columns and the changes in biological samples over time testify that the earth is very, very, very old. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin till --------> still

You keep saying that but never provide any support for such a silly position. You keep says such things but never supply any support for such a silly suggestion.Sorry Faith but reality again shows you are just making crap (like that term better ? ) up.An impression of a leaf is direct evidence that a tree was growing in an inhabited landscape at that time.Tracks are direct evidence that something moved across an landscape (and so by definition that landscape is inhabited) at that time.Paleosol with tree roots intact is direct evidence of a tree growing in an inhabited landscape at that time.Sorry Faith but all the evidence shows an Old Earth and Young Earth is simply sill fantasy to be tossed on the trash heap of history.

Yes, we know that is your fantasy but the reality is that if something exists then that is reality and if that item requires ancient dates then ancient dates are fact.Sad how those who live by dogma do not seem capable of understanding anything related to reality.

Sorry Faith but in addition to simply being yet more utterly false assertions it is also totally irrelevant to this topic, thread, forum.It also ignores the fact that even if YOU think something impossible, if it exists it exists. And in the instance of this topic, this thread, this forum Old Earth has been shown to be fact while Young Earth is at best a fantasy and delusion.The Geological columns exist.The biological samples exist.No explanation other than a series of inhabited landscapes over a long period of time has been presented.

You keep making such silly claims but never supply any support for your fantasy.Why is a paleosol horizon with tree roots still in place evidence of your imaginary flood?Why is an undisturbed dinosaur nest evidence of your imaginary flood?Why are fossilized tracks evidence of your imaginary flood?Why are millions of alternating light and dark layers of fine and coarse sediment evidence of your imaginary flood?Why are newer and older life forms never being mixed together in a single layers evidence of your imaginary flood?Why are imprints of a leaf evidence of your imaginary flood?Why are alternating marine and aeolean and terrestrial layers evidence of your imaginary flood?The Biblical Floods and Young Earth are simply worthless artifacts long proved false and just fantasy.

We know that you make that claim but still you offer no reasoning or support for that assertion. We can see similar things happening today yet the inhabitants of the area don't all get buried. But again Faith, we see that happening today but without that result and what we do see in those paleosols is not the tree uprooted and torn from the soil but the tree still sitting with its root system in fossil soil. No Faith, I am not the one joking. Learn to read. Why is an undisturbed dinosaur nest evidence of your imaginary flood? You keep making such utterly silly assertions. How are tracks that were preserved as a fossil evidence that the environment was imaginary? Again Faith, you are supposedly trying to support the fantasy of a Young Earth. The stacks of varves exist. They are real. The standard theory of an OLD Earth can easily explain a stack of over four million alternating light colored and darker colored, finer and coarser silts. But there is no such explanation possible if the the earth was young. So you keep claiming and yet the facts found in every geological column really exist unlike your imaginary flood or young earth.The fact is that unlike the geological samples that show the same materials, the same processes from lowest level to most recent level, the biological samples show definite order and sorting, an order and sorting that is impossible to explain by any flood or in a young earth. Agreed, a leaf could well fall and get buried but that was not the question. Why is it evidence for your imaginary flood? But in reality Faith, there is such a thing, the alternating layers of marine, aeolean and terrestrial materials and absolutely conclusive evidence they were not picked up somewhere else and deposited by your imaginary flood.We see what flood deposition looks like Faith and it ain't what is seen in the geological column. Yes, we know that you believe that and actually no one has a problem with you believing that if that is what you want to believe but you have failed utterly in providing any convincing arguments or any actual facts or evidence to support such an idea and so that is why all scientists and most Christians as well as other religions have long rejected both Young Earth and the Biblical Floods.Edited by jar, : two many any