Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

Sorry, that's interpretation, not fact.

Sorry, no comprendo.

Here's another one from Glenn Morton:He claims the Flood wasn't Global. There is one very brief answer to this that ought to satisfy someone who claims he's still a Christian: There would have been no need whatever for Noah to build an ark to carry all animals if the Flood were not global. It took him a hundred years to build it, enough time to have escaped to any area that would have been spared the Flood. I don't think there's anything else to say on this subject.

I've already brought up the ammonites, which are one of the examples on the same page linked in the previous postGo to "3" on the page.Morton covers a number of examples of different varieties of the same fossil species being found in different layers of the strata, which he uses as evidence against the Flood. The idea is that it's impossible to imagine that such a Flood could have sorted creatures so precisely according to principles that have nothing to do with the YEC attempts to explain it according to hydrodynamic principles: size or shape or any feature that could be attributed to water as the cause. (abe: This is really an Argument from Incredulity, isn't it? Something YECs are often criticized for. /abe )This observation does at least disprove the hydrodynamic explanation for most of the sorting of the fossils, but all that means is that another explanation is needed. "Birds of a feather flock together" or in other words different original locations of the different fossil groups, seems to me to be the best explanation.But I'm not arguing for that explanation particularly. My argument is the same for all these examples, the same one I used for the ammonites and the trilobites (I don't find the trilobites mentioned on this page of Morton's but I try not to stay too long on a white page because of my eyes so I may have missed it): finding closely related creatures in different layers of the strata means according to conventional dating methods that there are millions of years between their appearance on the earth, which contradicts the normal rate of change in a species. This has been questioned on this thread but on no defensible basis. To develop a breed of cattle takes only a few hundred years, a dog breed even less, the Pod Mrcaru lizards less than thirty years. All that is required is the isolation of some individuals out of any species for a short period of time which must happen all the time in Nature. Even if you give it thousands of years you are nowhere near the millions required by the conventional dating of the strata.abe: I believe the genetic material for microevolution is built into the Species, that change is inevitable unless we're talking about a creature so genetically depleted they are almost clones of each other. /abeBut if your idea of how the changes arise happens to be mutation, then you would have to explain how so few mutations occurred in millions of years. If you acknowledge that mutations are often deleterious or lethal, you should also consider how the "evolved" creature in the higher level even survived that long.This is a killer for the Geological Timescale it seems to me, but I don't expect anyone to be honest about that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You said only "rocks" before, not "rocks in the strata." Sorry if I can't remember all your strange comments in their proper context.So yes on the surface of the rocks in the strata the tracks would have had to occur during the Flood.So?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Dang it, NN, I'm not saying he isn't a Christian, I'm saying that DUE TO HIS CHRISTIAN belief he should recognize that the Flood HAD TO BE GLOBAL for the reasons I gave. Yes my syatement could have been clearer, sorry about that. But you seem to go out of your way to find the most reprehensible reading of anything I say.I don't think you could flood part of the world to a depth of fifteen cubits without flooding the rest of the world. What are you thinking?

How about addressing the actual argument?

You've apparently missed Admin's many admonishments not to expect people to remember some argument you gave: YOU are required to repeat it. And most of yours are wacko enough that I sometimes don't even try to understand them. I've got enough other people to read here.

What alternative explanation?

It should I'm sure. But since there are strata on Pangaea clearly the Flood wiped them all out. Also, I've made the point before that the upturned strata of England, so nicely arranged as a unit, are proof that the continents didn't split in the middle of the building of the Geo Column as conventional dating says, which would have disturbed the column in the middle, which obviously didn't happen, but afterward, and that the tectonic disturbance that would have occurred at the time of the split is the reason for the uptilted strata. Just another small point against the Geo Timescale. Of course not. You march to a uniformitarian drummer which throws off all your interpretations of the past. Of course not. That might raise questions all by itself as to the reliability of geological judgments. At EvC and Wikipedia and various online geology sources as well as a few books on the subject over the last fifteen or so years. Had the very best of teachers, including yourself. In that case we have at least partial corroboration of what I'm saying, yes?

KB, that's all very interesting, but as with all OEC interpretations it's a lot of adjustment to worldly assumptions. Even if I can sympathize with the Christian OECs to some extent in their reasons for making such an adjustment, I'm not going to consider rewriting Christian theological history because of it, involving all that reinterpretation of what the Hebrew terms mean.The Bible may be hard to interpret in some places but it is NOT imprecise and its interpreters going back to earliest times are NOT id*iots. The whole world has always been understood to have been entirely covered by the Flood. Reducing it to a "region" is just a sort of mealymouthed accommodation to things we are unable to understand.What kind of "testimony" is it anyway to cause people to think the Flood was worldwide when it wasn't? Noah is a testimony to US, too, not just to the ancient world. A half-baked Flood is no testimony to modern man of Noah as a type of Christ if the entire earth was not drowned, especially considering that it's intended as a harbinger/type of the coming final Judgment. Is Jesus coming to judge and reign over only a "region" of Creation?In the "region" that survived the Flood were there still human beings alive? What kind of testimony could that possibly be? Were there animals still alive after scripture tells us that everything that has breath perished?I'm sure Morton is completely sincere and has excellent reasons for what he thinks, but he must certainly be wrong. I'd much rather take Kurt Wise's position that all the evidence is against YEC but I'm still going to be a YEC. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course I just roll my eyes at the date, but I have no reason to dispute the glacier interpretation in itself. But what on earth do you think it proves anyway? Pangaea supposedly broke up in the middle of the formation of the geological column, but there is no sign of what must have been a big disturbance to the strata at the midpoint of the column, when North America separated from Europe and Africa; it's all quite nicely arranged like slices of toast to be offered to guests; from which I conclude that the tectonic upheaval occurred after all the strata were laid down, meaning after the Flood. SOON after.

All those bona fide geological sources are myth? Including yourself? Nice of you to admit it.

Well I can't keep recent arguments in mind or keep in mind who said them, so if I have to remember them there won't be any discussion of any of it. And I really don't think your explanation here covers what you've said in the past. There is always a necessity to repeat arguments that a person doesn't remember. I am not going to track them down, it's too much to ask. I'm deluged with a lot of arguments, and a lot of them ridiculous ones too that I can't even read.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My "interpretation" of the Bible is the mainstream traidtional interpretation held by the majority of Christians forever who have all said the Flood covered the entire Earth. It is Morton and Bertsche's and other OEC's view that are the revisionist views. And you who don't believe a word of it have no right to reduce my view of the Bible to an idiosyncratic interpretation. NO, my view is the traditional historically accepted view.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.