Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago

Glenn Morton hypothesis:
The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years agoHi, I just found this forum today. Looks like a lot of interesting discussions are going on!For the last six months or so I've been discussing creation/evolution at a theology forum. I went from hard-core YEC to OEC to confused OEC/theistic evolutionist. I almost lost my faith, but decided I'd hang on even if modern science couldn't be reconciled with Scripture...Now I'm working through the issues separating OEC from TE, which I realize could take the rest of my life - and then some But in a number of discussions at the other forum, a vocal member GRMorton (Glenn Morton) has continually brought up his argument that his vast geological studies prove conclusively (in his mind at least) that the Flood could NOT have occurred any more recently than FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO.THE REASON: He says the Flood would not have been sustainable and that the waters would have been dumped into a nearby sea within a few weeks...With this in mind, he has expanded his study to anthropology to prove that modern man lived as far back as five million years ago. He justifies this belief using evidences of tools and religion, which he believes date back that far.[HALT: My mistake. After Glenn's posts below, I am adding this note to say I realize I was unintentionally misrepresenting Glenn's view in the paragraph above. HE EMPHATICALLY DOES NOT BELIEVE * MODERN * MAN LIVED FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO, AS HE EXPLAINS BELOW. I made this mistake inadvertently because I assumed Noah would necessarily have had to be a "modern man." Glenn believes Noah was NOT a modern man. That is where I was mistaken.]I don't know geology (or anthropology for that matter), but for a number of reasons, I don't buy his arguments. Few people do. Yet he has spent the last 10+ years developing his ideas (online @ http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm), and he kind of argues his points incessantly The Flood isn't often discussed at this other forum, so I thought there might be some geologist types here who could shed some light on this subject.Are there any (non-YEC) geological studies online (or offline) that anyone is aware of that would dispute his claim that the Flood COULD NOT have occurred more recently than five million years ago?-Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

Since many Christians believe the biblical language describing the Flood could be interpreted as REGIONAL, rather than worldwide, can we assume we're only debating a regional Flood?If THAT is even remotely possible in recent history, then the Flood shouldn't be a stumbling block to our study of origins - at least that's what I would assume, and I'd imagine that's what all the other Creationists are assuming as well...

The forum where Glenn often discusses this topic is TheologyWeb. He is GRMorton there. I'm mpb1.

Here's the most recent link to a discussion (on another topic) that Glenn brought this issue into a couple days ago: TheologyWeb Campus Also, here's a link to the science section: TheologyWeb Campus
where Glenn has a few thousand posts...-

This is Glenn responding to some of the issues raised...---------------------------------------------------------------mpb1 - on Theology Web:Glenn,As far as my statement that, "To my knowledge, very few evolutionists even believe that modern man lived five million years ago," this is not based on a study of anthropology, but a general study of modern evolutionist teaching and time lines. If the statement is incorrect, feel free to correct me.---------------------------------------------------------------GRMorton - on Theology Web:When did I ever say that it was MODERN MAN????? Where does it say in the Bible that ONLY anatomically modern man can have the image of God??? Only man looks on the outside, but God sees the inner man and it is that which is inside that determines whether or not a person is human.To tie humanity to the viseage of mankind is to make the same mistake Europeans made when they encountered Africans, Chinese and Native Americans. Many Europeans decided that these newly contacted people were not descended from Adam because they didn't look like us.So, when it comes to Neanderthals, H. erectus etc, they don't look like us either, but, their activities reveal human-like natures. Indeed, many of their inventions we still use--coal mining, anoxic chemistry, the 7-note diatonic scale, flutes and whistles, shamanism, the flued hearth, spears, bedding, tents, jewelry, boomerangs, etc. None of these things were invented by anatomically modern peoples within the past 50,000 years. (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/chron.htm for references for these inventions).So, your mistake is to believe that I have been talking about anatomically modern people. If you would but actually read what I write rather than what you think I write, it would make discussions so much easier. In short, I dont' think Adam was an anatomically modern human.---------------------------------------------------------------mpb1 - on Theology Web:I desperately want to be objective. I do not want to bias myself against any information, if it is factual. I know you would probably die for your beliefs, so of course I don't want to arbitrarily discount them.---------------------------------------------------------------GRMorton - on Theology Web:If you wanted to be objective, you would read what disagrees with your position rather than reading what agrees with your position. That is the only path to objectivity (or as close to objectivity as a human being can get--for you are correct that absolutely no one is truly objective, including me and including you).---------------------------------------------------------------mpb1 - on Theology Web:But what I have repeated throughout our numerous conversations is this:I DO NOT WANT TO ALLOW THE FLOOD TO FORCE ME INTO BELIEVING THAT HUMANS ** MUST ** HAVE COME INTO BEING FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO.---------------------------------------------------------------GRMorton - on Theology Web:And that is what is commonly called 'a bias'. When you rule out certain paths because you dont' like them, you are biased (now I have introduced the bias term without you using it.)---------------------------------------------------------------mpb1 - on Theology Web:Once a person - such as yourself - does this, the discussion is over. Objective research is over. The scientific community could unanimously agree that modern humans were not present on earth until 100,000 years ago, AND YOU WOULD REFUSE TO BELIEVE IT BASED ON ONE FACT ALONE: YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE FLOOD COULD HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THAT TIME... and I assume you would then have to become an atheist in order to accept the science that disagrees with your bedrock belief about the advent of human life.---------------------------------------------------------------GRMorton - on Theology Web:As I said, I don't believe that Adam is anatomically modern, a fact you could have easily ascertained if you hadn't had a bias against actually reading anything I have written, either in the journals or on the internet. Adam was an archaic hominid--since the advent of H. floresiensis, with his very tiny brain but decent technology, it is conceivable that Adam was an australopithecine (whose brains were generally bigger than that of H. floresiensis).But of course, we wouldn't want you to actually understand what I am saying because that might challenge your opinion, and you might actually have to deal with anthropological literature (whcih would be a horrible thing for you because you want it ruled out of the discussion by fiat).---------------------------------------------------------------mpb1 - on Theology Web:I am more willing to say that the Flood story got into sacred Scripture when it perhaps shouldn't have - than I am to say I REFUSE TO ACCEPT ALL OBJECTIVE RESEARCH INTO ORIGINS BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS THE FLOOD STORY.---------------------------------------------------------------GRMorton - on Theology Web:So, you would be willing to re-write the Bible, give God a wee bit of help in telling the story. Is God such a bumbling dummy in your view? If so, you are closer to atheism than you realize.---------------------------------------------------------------mpb1 - on Theology Web:Earlier, I e-mailed to let you know I started a thread on your hypothesis at another forum:http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.c...&f=7&t=204&m=1I posted it there because they have a sub-forum dedicated to geology and the Flood.)I know you've shared your ideas on TWeb repeatedly, and maybe you have a forum here where you deal with this issue in depth - I don't know. But please consider me ON THE SIDELINES of this issue. This is not a battle I want to fight.---------------------------------------------------------------GRMorton - on Theology Web:If you don't want to fight, why are you fighting? Are you afraid of what you might find in anthropology (once you lose the misapprehension that I believe that anatomically modern men lived 5 million years ago--which they didn't)?---------------------------------------------------------------mpb1 - on Theology Web:The "Flood problem" is not going to stop me from objectively trying to find answers related to the origin of man.---------------------------------------------------------------GRMorton - on Theology Web:Once you rule certain areas of knowledge off limits, you can't be objective so cease this senseless prattle about how you wish to be objective. If you wanted to be objective you would include all areas of knowledge. If you wish to be biased, then focus only on that which makes you feel happy and satisfied.---------------------------------------------------------------GRMorton - on Theology Web:If you want to let geology stop you from objectively researching man's origins - without already being convinced it had be at least five million years ago - go right ahead. But I really think you should stop expecting everyone else to do the same.---------------------------------------------------------------GRMorton - on Theology Web:The whole problem here is that you don't understand that I have never ever claimed that anatomically modern humans lived 5 million years ago. This shows that you haven't done any research into what I am actually saying and that you are using either other people's misconceptions or have your own original misconception. To illustrate this'Human' does not equal anatomically modern homo sapiens'Human' does equal a set of behaviors--religion, art, invention of complex tools, music, ritual burial etc.--------------------------------------------------------------Above post from the bottom of page 2 of this thread:
TheologyWeb Campus I don't want to discuss the issue on that (topically unrelated) thread any more if I can help it. But I'm hoping more light can be shed on it here. Thanks for the info posted so far.-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

I posted this on Theology Web a few minutes ago:Glenn,Other than TheologyWeb, the only place I have discussed your hypothesis online is on the thread (here: http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.c...&f=7&t=204&m=1 ) that I made you aware of the same day I posted it.Any misrepresentation of your beliefs on that thread was unintentional, and I accept blame for not better researching your views before seeking to debunk them.However, if you visit the thread, you'll see that earlier today I posted your rebuttal (from this thread [Theology Web]) regarding your beliefs about anthropology. So the accurate information is now there.Not to mention that if you felt I had misrepresented your views to begin with, you could have posted a rebuttal on that forum within an hour, since I e-mailed you immediately after posting to let you know I had posted (and obviously, to give you an opportunity to post anything you'd like on that forum).So I am not spreading lies about you or your beliefs, and as I mentioned, I apologize for whatever misrepresentation of your beliefs I am guilty of.-

-Glenn,Do you believe the hominids of five million years ago could have built the biblically-described ark?-

Forgive me if I'm generalizing, but from what I've read, it seems that as of this second, the geological/anthropological community would probably agree that:1.) There is no evidence of a worldwide flood ever.2.) There is no evidence that even a regional Flood, as described in the Bible, could have occurred in at least the last five million years.3.) There is no evidence that the biblical Ark could have been built by any society until sometime within the last 10,000 years.It appears that unless there is a forced agenda, the current anthropological evidence is as much against your theory as you believe the geological evidence supports your theory.Once you undermine the clearly-described biblical Ark and say "maybe a boat," which is even a stretch - for FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO - you have also departed from Scripture in an ENORMOUS WAY, in my opinion, as much as I am departing from it by saying, "maybe the story shouldn't even be in the Book."So it seems that absolute intellectual honesty would practically require the complete dismissal of your theory, which is why I would assume it has gained very little traction in the years you have been sharing it.If you can answer this argument without any anger, I'd really appreciate it. Remember, you came into my topically-unrelated thread and pounded your theory over my head - REPEATEDLY. So please don't be offended that I am now asking for pure intellectual honesty in assessing your theory.You have harshly criticized Hugh Ross for his anthropological teachings, and I couldn't care less, though you believe I am biased toward him. So I'm not "for" one and against the other. I want to apply the same standard to all.If Hugh is full of crap in certain areas - most likely even when it comes to the Flood - I can accept that, and I want to make sure that in any written analysis I do, that these problems are pointed out.It seems that ANTHROPOLOGY destroys your theory, and GEOLOGY, perhaps among other things, would destroy his theory (and everyone else's, when it comes to the Flood at least).Using modern scientific testing methods, that pretty much rules out the Flood story altogether, UNLESS you force an agenda, and HOPE for more favorable evidence to support your theory, as you and Hugh are both doing.-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

From Wikipedia:"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1]Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."SOURCE: Scientific method - Wikipedia---------------So what I was referring to is this:If ALL EVIDENCE that is currently available STRONGLY SUGGESTS (to the point of near unanimity) that whatever species of human or hominid was walking the earth five million years ago DID NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF BUILDING THE BIBLICALLY-DESCRIBED ARK, then all you have is wishful thinking, and a continued scouring of the earth for evidence that so far has NOT been found - to suggest that the biblically described Ark could have been built five million years ago. (And if you reduce the Ark to "boat" to ease your burden of proof, your entire theory proves absolutely nothing anyway.)Just like many other theorists, your theory rests ONLY on the HOPE that it will one day be substantiated by future discoveries. It rests on the hope that evidence will one day be found to CONTRADICT the existing body of evidence that says your theory if FALSE.---------------EDIT NOTE ADDED: I posted the message above, refreshed, and saw that Glenn had edited his message to add what I would call a bit of honesty.Glenn,From day one, when we began battling via e-mail, a month or so ago, I told you I wasn't necessarily FOR or AGAINST your theory. I just didn't want to fight that battle because I didn't see it as NECESSARY to a study of ORIGINS.The ORIGIN of man HAPPENED somehow some way, whether or not the biblically-described Flood ever did! That's why I have been unwilling to set the clock back five million years and FORCE any origin theory into beginning prior to that date!*** NOW *** you finally admit that what you have is a TESTABLE THEORY.
It MAY one day be proven true. But for that to happen, THE EXISTING BODY OF EVIDENCE MUST BE PROVEN FALSE.If the currently available evidence says "No hominid made no friggin' Ark no five million years ago!" which it CURRENTLY DOES - to put it in moron's terms, then you shouldn't go around screaming incessantly for people to stop the presses and not only hear you out, but instantly move the clocks back on all their origin theories and research!One need not be an anthropological genius to know that the current status of your view is: HIGHLY UNLIKELY.Thank you for your honesty. That's all I wanted. Now get off my back and stay off. If we can talk without your condescending BS, great. If not, I'll be just fine without your views being shoved down my throat, thank you very much.-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

This isn't directed toward Glenn or anyone else in particular...I just wanted to say that while I've played the devil's advocate in my posts on this thread (for reasons I've already explained), that I personally don't rule out the Flood happening because I believe God could have accomplished His intent with a local Flood, and I also believe God could have performed any kind of miracle necessary to accomplish his purposes.If Christians are willing to accept the other miracles of the Bible - some of which also involved water - it isn't a great stretch to believe He could have caused water to run uphill if He chose to do so.In this thread, my argument was against anyone claiming that origin theories MUST be pushed back in history prior to five million years ago because of the Flood. That's it.-

Glenn,Someone sent me an interesting article from Newsweek (March 19, 2007 issue), which I uploaded to my site here:
OriginScience.com is for sale | HugeDomainsIf it shows one thing, it's that there's a lot of mixed information that's being derived from the available evidence - and the conclusions keep changing!If you look at the PREDICTION COMPARISON CHART compiled by Hugh Ross / Reasons to Believe here:
OriginScience.com is for sale | HugeDomains
it becomes even more clear that ALL FIELDS OF SCIENCE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE PROVING ANYTHING CONCLUSIVELY ABOUT ORIGINS.Someone else implied in a post above that this thread is now mixing issues of faith with science, and I agree that they are two totally separate issues.But if science can only take us so far, then as Christians, we can either reject the literalness of the biblical stories, OR we can assume that if science says that something like the Flood would have been IMPOSSIBLE any other way, then it seems safe to assume THAT IF THE STORIES ARE LITERAL, either science will eventually "prove" the stories to be possible, or we'll have to assume God intervened miraculously.-

Hi jar,What if God flooded that "small world" with a Flood like the one that wiped out New Orleans? Just what if???I doubt there'll be whole lot of evidence around to prove that happened five thousand to five million years from now. Right? So couldn't it have been possible?-

Thanks Admin,I was thinking about starting a new thread on the RTB comparison chart as I did over at TWeb, though it didn't get much input there: TheologyWeb Campus ). I'll probably submit one to your new topic forum.(What I am hoping to do is to compile a simpler chart comparing evolution with the Reasons to Believe OEC Creation Model - to find the real points of conflict and spread the word among Christians that this is where our scientific research efforts could do some good Perhaps some forumers here will have an interest.)Thanks,
Mark-Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

jar,As a non-scientist who has no choice but to rely on the research OTHER PEOPLE have done in the field, how can I argue your point? Guess I can't Unless there are reputable field geologists who have studied every aspect of the region and concluded that the biblical Flood COULD have happened - despite what you and others call a lack of evidence - then there's not much I can say is there?Young earth creationists say there is evidence to support the biblical Flood, but at this moment I don't even know where else one could find supporting evidence for the Flood.Hopefully, there is some If not, then we Christians may end up being self-deluded after all. Who knows -

Just FYI... To Glenn and Jesse and the other folks who've contributed to this thread, I certainly appreciate the dialog I just have nothing to add to it at the moment, unfortunately. I want the Flood story to be true. I want every word in the Bible to be true. But as a non-geologist, I have no idea how to prove it is true, and geologists have apparently not found evidence to prove that it's true.As Jesse pointed out, non-Christians say the story was derived from another story. So this may be a case where Christians can either choose to believe the story is just "biblical myth" or we can hold out hope that it will one day prove to be true. The only other option I'm aware of is believing that the Flood is a complete fabrication, and is therefore evidence that the Bible is not the Word of God. So I'll have to go with option one or two -
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.