Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

How I wish.

Something about this is on that page I think but I felt like giving a quick comment now.First, how does a burrow get fossilized?Second, this is just another case like the tracks and the raindrops, a preserved impression of some living thing in that huge flat expanse of sediment that ended up as the rock in the stratigraphic column. Since that is the "environment" for all these impressions, they are not evidence of creatures living in their habitat in their time period, they are evidence of creatures stranded by the Flood on a great sediment plain before the next sediment-laden wave washed over them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

deletedEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Carboniferous would be related to the Carboniferous by its physical characteristics and fossil contents. There is no "time period" you can point to in any case, that's purely hypothetical.AS I said, the fact is that there IS an order to them, and why is irrelevant. To identify a particular layer only requires knowiong its physical characteristics.And OE Geology does not own science or any scientific facts. They belong to all of us. Whatever is true is mine as well as yours.

I maybe read the wrong page but I'll comment on it anyway, the one about the termiites and cicadas. I read up on cicadas at Wikipedia and found out that it is only when they become nymphs that they burrow into the ground, the usual situation being that they fall out of the trees where they've been developing into nymphs and then burrow into the ground beneath the tree, where they live for many years on the roots that grow down into the burrows.In this description there is nothing about how long this phase takes, but it certainly doesn't seem like it would require much time, maybe just a few hours. But it also seems very odd that there would be only one burrow in that rock when normally the nymphs fall out of the trees in great numbers. Also there is no sign of any fossilized roots for it to live on. Seems to me if that is definitely a cicada burrow that the creature landed there by accident or trauma, burrowed into the sediment because that's what it does and then must have died soon after. Again, the situation here is a bare rock which is far more consistent with the Flood scenario than any scenario of normal life in a normal landscape.(to Admin, this topic does belong here with the Morton discussion although it also belongs on the other thread. When I get back to that thread I'll sum up some of what has come out here, but the emphasis there is the PROCESS of getting to the rock from the landscape, here it's just the fact of the existence of the rock.)As for the timing, I've been thinking in terms of tides depositing most or some of the sediments during the Flood and in that case there would be hours when the tide was out when all the impressions could have been made in the sediments that eventually became the strata.I know Morton is responding to the most common views of how the Flood occurred, but since nobody knows and it's all guesses, and there could have been many phases to it as well, some of my answers to him would be contradicting his understanding of the YEC position.I don't know if tides deposited much or any of the sediments, it just seems very possible and would allow the time needed for the impressions to be made as the Flood was in progress. It also seems there may have been a phase when sediment was precipitated out of more or less quiet water. But everything about how the Flood would have occurred is speculative. Also, the turbulence Morton often refers to as making common YEC ideas impossible, may only have been a phase of the Flood, probably right at the beginning when the heavy rain would have broken up the soil and brought about mudslides. And at the very end when strata breaking up would make gaps the water would rush into.I may go back to that page to ponder the termites, but my impression to this point is that I was expecting to see a whole termite mound somehow incorporated into the rock but there is only a very small place identified as termites, which suggests they too got there more or less by accident.

I don't know what characteristics of the rock would be involved in identifying it as Carboniferous, it's just that Geologists are always talking about this or that layer as being formed in a shallow sea or a lake and so on and so forth. The Carboniferous in the Grand Canyon is limestone, but I'm aware that may not be the case elsewhere.As for fossils, each "time period" has its own identifiable collection, right? No, I don't think of all the different ones in a formation or a "time period" being originally grouped together in the same location, just the "birds of a feather," meaning the same creatures should be found together, and the reason I'm postulating is that they flock together in life and so would end up buried together.You had said I 'had no right" to make use of standard geology or something like that so I said of course I do; OE theory doesn't own science; whatever is true is true for me as for you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Look, it's Geology, not I, that says the rocks point to particular environments. If the Carboniferous is marine in one location and terrestrial in another that's their problem, not mine. The fossils remain the same in all cases, and I never said the order itself was an illusion, what's an illusion is the OE interpretation thereof.It is true that Flood geology has no theory that can predict, but the fact that OE geology can predict isn't because it's right, which is what you are of course saying, it's just because they've assigned their OE meanings to the phenomena. In actual fact they can predict things just because they know from acquaintance with their physical occurrences where they are to be found. YECs can do that too, without a theory.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The evidence is neutral and I can use it. It doesn't belong to OE geology. I reject OE theory about it, their interpretation or explanation of it. There is no contradiction at all. The evidence is mine, you can have the theory.

Definitely a nitpick there, a pedantic semantic hot-air rant there.If you won't let me use the word "evidence" then I'll use the word "data." The data is mine. The problem, however, is that YHOUR interpretations are all an imaginary house of cards. They only "work" because you've matched them up with the data in such a way that you don't have to notice that they actually explain nothing at all. You CAN'T test them, HBD, you are deluding yourself. Your "predictions" are tautologies.AND if you really really thought carefully about it all you'd have to realize that the whole OE framework, and the ToE as well, are utterly scientifically useless, unusable, of no value to what science must do, at best window dressing. When that is finally recognized, unfortunately there will also be great errors that will need to be corrected, not so much in geology as in biology, where destruction by mutation is going to have to be faced as the official optimism about its usefulness collapses. Sure I do. That's what rocks with those contents are officially called. I know you want to deprive YECs of any right to say anything at all about scientific questions, but fortunately you aren't the fuhrer yet. Traditional explanations are science. I don't have to agree with it for it to be science. Science has given certain data that name. I can use the name for that data too. There are lots of words in the English language that have changed meaning over time because of new perspectives on the phenomena they originally described. I run into them from time to time but of course am drawing a blank now. See above. And So what? You'd scream even more if YECs made up their own nomenclature for every bit of geological data and came on here trying to debate with you. Or maybe not, eh? Just an excuse to be King.Hey I understand you are Offended to the max at us uppity YECs, and adamantly and unrelentingly think you're Right but that doesn't give you the right to prevent other points of view from even existing. When you eventually find out you aren't right, when it turns out that the whole Geo Timescale is an imaginary house of cards, what then?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't know if HBD read the early part of the thread, but he doesn't seem to have taken into account that a number of posters agreed that it is possible to find oil without using the dating methods or assumptions of OE Geology, simply knowing the relative dates of the rocks in relation to one another, and the morphology of the rocks at a given location. While agreeing with this much the six who said this also affirmed that the OE dates are necessary to understanding how the order of the rocks occurred. My argument has been that nobody has shown any relevance to understanding how the rocks formed or arrived at the recognizable order. HBD seems to be saying that it is important but he too hasn't said why or how.

Perhaps I have misunderstood what was said, then, but please correct. Nobody objected (among those who seemed to agree anyway) when I put it this way back in
Message 28Is there a difference I'm overlooking?What you said in Message 5 was this: I took the "set of rules" to include the relative dating and morphology of the rocks which were the two criteria cited from the beginning about how a YEC could find oil.I expected more of an objection to how I characterized the affirmation of OE assumptions despite this acknowledgement of being able to find oil without them, because I didn't remember exactly what was said.Perhaps someone can explain all this? [qs] Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The information about the order of the strata and the fossils doesn't require OE theory, nor does knowledge of the morphology of the rocks, meaning how the rocks are situated underground. I couldn't find oil because I'm not a geologist, but to be a geologist and study the rocks is all it takes to learn what's necessary to finding oil, and that doesn't involve OE theory.I'm still waiting for someone to prove that OE theory is necessary to finding oil. Nobody has. That's because in the end only the physical situation of the rocks themselves is needed.

Well, I see no reason whatever to suppose that the dating of the rocks does anything more than locate them physically, and although it is asserted that the dates are used in the location of oil, so far nothing has been said to show that there is any more to it than physical location. I don't doubt that the dating is used, what I doubt is that it accomplishes anything more than location of the rocks which don't need dating to locate them.

Please forgive if I have to say that makes absolutely not one iota of sense to me.

Translation required.