Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 256 of 427 (791345)
09-14-2016 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Faith
09-14-2016 2:39 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC arguments: Flood was not Global
KB, that's all very interesting, but as with all OEC interpretations it's a lot of adjustment to worldly assumptions.
So, does that mean the supernatural assumptions are okay?
Or do you just reject all assumptions? Do you not make them in your own life?
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.
Don't you mean your interpretation of theological history?
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.
Don't you mean it's an accommodation that you don't understand because of your interpretation of the Bible?
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.
Well, yes, he could be wrong if your interpretation were correct (as you assume). But his interpretation might be better than your interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 2:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 3:01 PM edge has replied

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


Message 257 of 427 (791346)
09-14-2016 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Admin
09-14-2016 2:47 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Admin, posted 09-14-2016 2:47 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Admin, posted 09-14-2016 3:41 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 258 of 427 (791348)
09-14-2016 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by edge
09-14-2016 2:56 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC arguments: Flood was not Global
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by edge, posted 09-14-2016 2:56 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by edge, posted 09-14-2016 3:19 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 268 by kbertsche, posted 09-14-2016 6:02 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 259 of 427 (791349)
09-14-2016 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by PaulK
09-14-2016 11:54 AM


Re: Continuing with OEC Arguments: Fossil sorting
So you've got a "best' explanation which is only "best" because it is the only one you have left.
Which argument are you talking about, the tracks on the rocks or the ammonites in separate strata?
Whichever, I consider both of them to be Class A arguments, not second best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2016 11:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2016 3:21 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 260 of 427 (791350)
09-14-2016 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Faith
09-14-2016 3:01 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC arguments: Flood was not Global
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.
Ah ...
So now, traditional is "correct". What a wonderful world we live in!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 3:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 261 of 427 (791352)
09-14-2016 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Faith
09-14-2016 3:11 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC Arguments: Fossil sorting
quote:
Which argument are you talking about, the tracks on the rocks or the ammonites in separate strata?
Pay attention to the context. I was talking about your idea that location was the best explanation for the order in the fossil record there.
The next part - which you don't quote - was about your ignorant and irrational ammonite argument. With a link to the refutation.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 3:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 3:38 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 9:02 PM PaulK has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 262 of 427 (791353)
09-14-2016 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
09-14-2016 2:53 PM


Faith writes:
Your understanding is based on myth.
All those bona fide geological sources are myth? Including yourself? Nice of you to admit it.
Since without you there can be no debate, you *do* have it within your power to prevent fruitful discussion. I'm sure everyone would be gratified to be part of a productive exchange of ideas, I'm investing my time as moderator to help make that possible, so let's do it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 2:53 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 263 of 427 (791356)
09-14-2016 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by PaulK
09-14-2016 3:21 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC Arguments: Fossil sorting
The ammonite argument is an excellent argument. Any obviously closely related species found in separate strata --ammonites, triobites or whatever -- implies millions of years between them, which is absolutely screamingly ridiculous. How many generations do you think intervened? It's a fine argument, contested only by willful obfuscation.
Likewise the argument about the tracks and other impressions made in the rocks is a fine argument, based on the observation that all the rocks in the strata are huge flat featureless expanses of lithified sediment on which nothing could live. Whatever signs of life are found there had to be in transit, thrown there by the flood perhaps, or chased there. If they are burrowers rather than runners then they would burrow. The sediments had to be in a somewhat dry condition to preserve the impressions -- I think Morton made that point about the Bay of Fundy mud impressions of bird tracks and raindrops -- and no, whoever asked, that is not part of the geologic column, it's a recent occurrence, but it suggests the degree of dampness the surface must have had to hold the impressions in the geologic column. Which suggests to me deposition by a tide that drew off a lot of the wetness
as it receded, and gave time for animals to make their impressions.
But the main point about this is that it is a huge flat barren slab of sediment/rock, NOT an environment, not a landscape, not a habitat. The evidence is before your eyes because it describes ALL the strata of any stratigraphic column. The marine layers cover distances up to whole continents and beyond, as confirmed by the geologist here, and there are lots of those stacked one on top of another, but even some terrestrial layers in between that would have been totally buried by the next marine layer. No terrestrial habitat would have survived their deposition. By the time you get to the predominantly terrestrial layers there are now lots and lots of marine layers covering up any possible habitat. The terrestrial layers build on top of that stack of barren rocks. There is no place any livable environment could have insinuated itself anywhere in such a stack. The stratigraphic columns are nothing but a big cemetery encasing billions of dead things.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2016 3:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2016 3:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 264 of 427 (791357)
09-14-2016 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Faith
09-14-2016 2:56 PM


Faith writes:
Well I can't keep recent arguments in mind or keep in mind who said them,...
You're responsible for managing your own discussion - others can't be expected to do that for you. Either maintain an acceptable level of rational discussion or stop participating.
And I really don't think your explanation here covers what you've said in the past.
You who "can't keep recent arguments in mind" are claiming to remember what I've said in the past? Interesting. Here's what I said over at the The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock thread in Message 770:
Admin in the Geological Timescale thread writes:
Information presented while the recipient is of a skeptical mind is often simply lost. When enough of or the right kind of information has been communicated and accepted then previously presented but rejected information must be repeated. That is the nature of discussions on controversial topics.
You were a participant in that thread and presumably read this, no?
Faith writes:
I'm deluged with a lot of arguments, and a lot of them ridiculous ones too that I can't even read.
As per my earlier request, one can't just say an argument is ridiculous (there's been far too much of that), one must show it.
Please, no replies to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 2:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 265 of 427 (791358)
09-14-2016 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
09-14-2016 3:38 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC Arguments: Fossil sorting
quote:
The ammonite argument is an excellent argument. Any obviously closely related species found in separate strata --ammonites, triobites or whatever -- implies millions of years between them, which is absolutely screamingly ridiculous. How many generations do you think intervened? It's a fine argument, contested only by willful obfuscation.
I have already explained why it is a bad argument and so far you have offered no adequate rebuttal. Bluster and bluff may be your preferred tactics but they do not contribute to productive discussion.
Message 201. Message 151
As for the rest, I will only briefly reply to point out that tidal mudflats during the Flood year are an ad hoc addition to the story (and not a very plausible one) - and that they are the favoured feeding grounds of shorebirds, sometimes in very large numbers. Flat certainly, but far from barren.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 3:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 266 of 427 (791363)
09-14-2016 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
09-08-2016 3:28 PM


Some issues not yet addressed.
Faith, it would be useful if you would address several issues I have raised;
specifically the fact that there really are almost no uninhabitable landscape on Earth as pointed out in Message 181. Perhaps you can provide us with an example of an uninhabitable landscape?
the existence of the Okla Nuclear Reactors as pointed out in Message 218.
the existence of NGC 6264 as pointed out in Message 224.
the New England Sea Mount Chain as pointed out in Message 225.
and the existence of the Snake River/Yellowstone Chain as pointed out in Message 226.
Once you have presented a Young Earth model, method, mechanism, process, procedure or Thingamabob that actually explains five issues we can move on to look for explanations for the thousands of other specific examples that must be explained by a Young Earth scenario.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 09-08-2016 3:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 267 of 427 (791364)
09-14-2016 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Faith
09-14-2016 2:39 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC arguments: Flood was not Global
Faith writes:
KB, that's all very interesting, but as with all OEC interpretations it's a lot of adjustment to worldly assumptions.
What "wordly" assumptions?
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.
Just because it is precise does not mean it is correct.
What kind of "testimony" is it anyway to cause people to think the Flood was worldwide when it wasn't?
Then the Bible is wrong, and couldn't be the word of God. There was no recent worldwide flood.
Most Christians see no reason to use an interpretation of the Bible that makes it wrong. Why do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 2:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(2)
Message 268 of 427 (791365)
09-14-2016 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Faith
09-14-2016 3:01 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC arguments: Flood was not Global
Faith writes:
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.
You are overstating things here a bit. Yes, it is probably true that the mainstream, traditional interpretation of the Flood throughout history is that it was global. But this mainstream, traditional view is VERY different from the modern "flood geology" view which you hold.
The mainstream view credited the Flood as depositing silt and putting seashells on tops of mountains. But it did NOT see the Flood as radically changing earth's geography (cutting the Grand Canyon, for example). This view did not come about until the early 20th century when George McReady Price dreamed it up at the encouragement of Ellen G. White. It did not enter mainstream Christian circles until Morris and Whitcomb reworked Price's views and republished them as "The Genesis Flood" in about 1960.
This "flood geology" is definitely NOT a "traditional, historically accepted view." It is based on questionable biblical exegesis (e.g. fanciful and novel interpretations of "the fountains of the great deep" and the "land being divided", and overly literalistic interpretations of numerous passages) and on profound ignorance of geology.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 3:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 7:54 PM kbertsche has not replied

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


Message 269 of 427 (791370)
09-14-2016 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by kbertsche
09-14-2016 6:02 PM


Re: Continuing with OEC arguments: Flood was not Global
The only view of the Flood I called traditional is that it was global. Morton seems to be objecting to its global extent alone; otherwise why bother with the explanation that it was the result of the flooding of the Mediterranean? I'll continue to defend my view because it makes sense to me, no matter who originated it -- and I haven't read Price -- but I'm not defending any particular scenario as the traditional view. I understand why you scientists are so captivated by contemporary geology, but nevertheless I regard that as capitulating to the world and losing the essential things about the Biblical revelation that I mentioned in my former post (Message 249).
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by kbertsche, posted 09-14-2016 6:02 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by jar, posted 09-14-2016 7:59 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 270 of 427 (791372)
09-14-2016 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
09-14-2016 7:54 PM


Maybe asking five whole questions was too much
Maybe asking five whole questions was too much to try to squeeze into a little Young Earth Fantasy so let's try just one for now:
From Message 224
quote:
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 7:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 8:06 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024