Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

But isn't the most obvious difference between OEC and YEC the O and the Y? Doesn't jar's data point support the O part of this difference? Seems wonderfully germane to the thread to me.

jar wasn't asking any question that needs Morton or Bertsche or any other OEC to answer. Just that the O part of OE is supported by this one fact. Have you a counter argument to this demonstrable fact?

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.

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.