Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 211 of 427 (791272)
09-13-2016 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Faith
09-13-2016 2:55 PM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
Gee I really like my evidence of the ammonites and the tracks in the rocks.
I must have missed them.
Why can't tracks just be normal tracks? Why should evolution occur at your preferred pace?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 2:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 427 (791273)
09-13-2016 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
09-13-2016 3:12 PM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
Except in the case of tracks found on the surface of rocks in the strata
Very easily explained. All that is required is that after lithification, a previous surface is reexposed via erosion.

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
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 3:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 4:20 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 213 of 427 (791275)
09-13-2016 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by edge
09-13-2016 3:15 PM


There is no older time or environment in the Flood scenario.
Well, there had to be at least one, right? So tell us about it.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by edge, posted 09-13-2016 3:15 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Taq, posted 09-13-2016 4:23 PM Faith has replied
 Message 219 by edge, posted 09-13-2016 5:29 PM Faith has replied
 Message 220 by Coyote, posted 09-13-2016 5:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 215 of 427 (791277)
09-13-2016 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by NoNukes
09-13-2016 3:26 PM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
Except in the case of tracks found on the surface of rocks in the strata
Very easily explained. All that is required is that after lithification, a previous surface is reexposed via erosion.
And reexposing more sediment/rock would accomplish what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2016 3:26 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2016 6:08 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 216 of 427 (791278)
09-13-2016 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
09-13-2016 2:45 PM


Re: dating ain't an exact science
Faith writes:
That paragraph alone contains a ton of support/evidence, but it's apparent you don't know what the term means.
Sediments that formed layers covering continents would certainly have "buried whole landscapes." That they did cover whole continents is evidenced in the rock layers themselves, which have have been tracked across the continents. And if they buried whole landscapes they certainly buried their inhabitants. The evidence is in the rock layers themselves.
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.
Faith writes:
Do you really mean to ask such a silly question? Why SHOULDN'T turf and other green things have been buried in the Flood? Roots still in place speaks of the uprooting of plants galore as the forty days of rain saturated the ground to that much depth and turned it into sloppy mud. Are you suffering a total failure of ability to think?
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.
Faith writes:
jar writes:
Why is an undisturbed dinosaur nest evidence of your imaginary flood?
Buried and fossilized? You must be joking.
No Faith, I am not the one joking. Learn to read. Why is an undisturbed dinosaur nest evidence of your imaginary flood?
Faith writes:
jar writes:
Why are fossilized tracks evidence of your imaginary flood?
This has been argued to death on this very thread. They are evidence that it's the "environments" supposedly found in the rocks that are imaginary.
You keep making such utterly silly assertions. How are tracks that were preserved as a fossil evidence that the environment was imaginary?
Faith writes:
jar writes:
Why are millions of alternating light and dark layers of fine and coarse sediment evidence of your imaginary flood?
Why not? All it could possibly contradict is your own silly and dogmatic idea of what the Flood would have done, and you have quite a long list of such silly ideas. Of course all your questions are ridiculous since whether something is "evidence" of the Flood or not says nothing about whether it was caused by the Flood.
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.
Faith writes:
jar writes:
Why are newer and older life forms never being mixed together in a single layers evidence of your imaginary flood?
This has also been discussed to death. Of course there are no "newer" and "older" life forms, that's a figment of the OE imagination. Again I will mention my argument on this very thread, that there are life forms found in different layers that are obviously related to each other but not identical to each other, the different layers implying millions of years of time between their appearance, and yet they show about the degree of difference found between cousins of any living creature today. Yet change is a constant thing in biology. The variability built into the genome makes change inevitable. Of course I suppose the ones in the upper layers could have reached the state of fixed loci, or in other words the end of their evolutionary potentials, but after millions of years surely mutations would have killed them off. Or if you believe mutations are the cause of the variations, why in millions of years did they come up with no more change than is seen between the different populations of ammonites and trilobites? The actual facts in the geo column are in reality just plain impossible.
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.
Faith writes:
jar writes:
Why are imprints of a leaf evidence of your imaginary flood?
Another utterly ridiculous question. Why not? is the intelligent answer. Why shouldn't a leaf have been buried in a layer of sediment and its imprint preserved?
Agreed, a leaf could well fall and get buried but that was not the question. Why is it evidence for your imaginary flood?
Faith writes:
jar writes:
Why are alternating marine and aeolean and terrestrial layers evidence of your imaginary flood?
There is really no such thing. There are strata that contain elements of many different environments from the world before the Flood picked it all up and buried it.
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.
Faith writes:
jar writes:
The Biblical Floods and Young Earth are simply worthless artifacts long proved false and just fantasy.
There was one worldwide Flood and it was God's judgment of the outrageous sins of humanity of that time, and He's going to do it again in a different way when Jesus comes back. Meanwhlie I believe the evidence is quite clear that the Young Earth is the reality and I've done a fair bit to show it above.
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

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 2:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 218 of 427 (791282)
09-13-2016 5:11 PM


The Little Reactors that could (and did)
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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 219 of 427 (791284)
09-13-2016 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
09-13-2016 4:14 PM


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.
And where is this represented in the geological record?
I presume you have evidence that humans were present on that landscape?
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?
That's a nice story.

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 228 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 10:45 AM edge has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 220 of 427 (791285)
09-13-2016 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
09-13-2016 4:14 PM


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.
The last time there was a single continent was about 175 million years ago.
Modern humans came along about 174.8 million years later.
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?
No. And you shouldn't really be reciting your catechism on the science threads, should you?
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.
As long as you keep espousing mythology that has long since been disproved you should expect to encounter disagreements.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

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 229 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 10:47 AM Coyote has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 427 (791286)
09-13-2016 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
09-13-2016 4:20 PM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
And reexposing more sediment/rock would accomplish what?
A layer of rock with footprints in it. Exactly what you claim only happens from a flood.

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
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 4:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 7:32 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 222 of 427 (791291)
09-13-2016 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by NoNukes
09-13-2016 6:08 PM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
I claim that footprints preserved in rock happen only in a flood? Where, pray tell, have I claimed that?
And again, how would exposing more sediment/rock prove it wasn't a flood that preserved any footprints found?
Sorry, this isn't making any sense.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2016 6:08 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2016 12:16 AM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 427 (791292)
09-14-2016 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Faith
09-13-2016 7:32 PM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
I claim that footprints preserved in rock happen only in a flood?
You challenged my statement that footprints in rock was evidence that had only on interpretation. Do you want to back off of that position?

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
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 7:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 10:49 AM NoNukes has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 224 of 427 (791299)
09-14-2016 8:03 AM


NGC 6264 is visible from Earth
The Galaxy NGC 6264 is another really great example that supports an Old Earth and even Older Universe.
The important thing about NGC 6264 is that the light from the galaxy as well as radio waves from the galaxy have reached the Earth and so it is also one of the astronomical objects whose distance has been directly measured.
Using the US based radio telescope systems and radio wave range interferometers located all over the US territories from Puerto Rico to Hawaii a direct parallax measurement has been made and repeatedly verified. The galaxy NGC 6264 is over 400 million light years from the Earth by taking readings six months apart giving us a minimum directly measured age of not less than 450 million years.
The importance of this is that it is not a matter of interpretation but rather simple trigonometry. This ain't rocket science or imaginary or illusion or fantasy, it's jess math.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 225 of 427 (791302)
09-14-2016 9:57 AM


The tale of the other sea mount chain.
The Hawaii/Emperor Sea Mount Chain has already been discussed as an example of evidence that the Earth is old but there is yet another similar chain, perhaps even older, that is seldom mentioned and that is the New England Seamount Chain that stretches from the White Mountain in Maine/New Hampshire all the way to the Azores. There are more than 20 extinct volcanoes and the New England chain is just part of the Great Meteor Hot Spot chain which includes over 80 volcanoes. The oldest of these are near Hudson Bay and date back to over 200 million years ago. The White Mountains are an example of magma intrusions and was formed about 120 million years ago.
What is important and significant is that the White Mountain magma intrusions must be younger than the rocks around them which makes the White Mountains themselves older than 120 million years.
The entire chain stretches for a distance of over 3000 miles.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin is ----> in

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024