Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
68 online now:
jar (1 member, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,105 Year: 4,853/23,288 Month: 1,758/1,286 Week: 72/353 Day: 19/53 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 32 of 427 (790993)
09-09-2016 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by petrophysics1
09-08-2016 6:20 PM


kbertsche doesn't know shit about sedimentation or stratigraphy.

Ask him ,if he thinks he knows about it more than I do.

I don't know that kbertsche said this. I doubt it as he doesn't strike me as a person who makes statements out of his area of expertise.


I am certainly no expert on geology. I've had only one college-level geology course. I have a high level of expertise in only one geology-related area, radiometric dating.

I am merely reporting what I've been told by former YECs who worked successfully in oil exploration while operating under a YEC paradigm. I quizzed Glenn Morton, Steve Robertson, and another of their former colleagues about this a few years ago. They all assured me that it is true. They identify (from seismic surveys) the layers and features that are likely to contain oil. They may refer to these layers by their geologic names, but they do not need to know the real ages of the layers.


"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 19 by petrophysics1, posted 09-08-2016 6:20 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2016 1:54 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 88 of 427 (791078)
09-09-2016 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by NoNukes
09-09-2016 1:54 PM


NoNukes writes:


while operating under a YEC paradigm" does not seem to mean applying YEC assumptions, but simply not worrying about how old stuff was while searching for oil, and while continuing to believe the earth was young. It does not seem to mean that assuming a young earth was the least bit helpful in finding oil.


Exactly. Being YEC won't help you find oil.

"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 70 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2016 1:54 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 122 of 427 (791138)
09-11-2016 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
09-11-2016 6:52 PM


Faith writes:

I don't know much about Glenn Morton. His name comes up a lot as a source of evidence against YEC, and someone who converted from YEC himself, and that's really all I've known about him. I started the thread to address the evidence he is known for, and now have read some more about him personally, but still not a lot.


It would be good for you to read a bit more about him. He is a good example of a YEC who was not content to just sweep problems under the rug, but to try to address them.

As his story shows, he started doing this while he was still a YEC. He saw problems and presented them to YEC audiences in a search for answers. But rather than getting answers, he was told to keep quiet; he was raising uncomfortable questions that the YEC leaders could not answer. They were content sweeping these problems under the rug, but not Glenn.


"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 121 by Faith, posted 09-11-2016 6:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 09-11-2016 8:12 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 158 of 427 (791182)
09-12-2016 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
09-12-2016 8:17 AM


Faith writes:

I can't tell how serious you are being. Can you reference his climate change denial?


Yes, Jon is serious. Glenn is a politically conservative libertarian-leaning Texan who works in the oil industry. He believes that much of climate science is politically driven rather than data driven, and that politically-motivated science is being forced on the public. He is somewhat tired of talking about the OEC-YEC issue, and is more interested nowadays in attacking the scientific establishment, science funding, peer review, etc.

Glenn sees similarities between the ways that climate skeptics are attacked and the ways that YECs are attacked. Even though he is fully convinced that YEC is wrong, his libertarian leanings predominate here, and he wants parents to be allowed to teach their children what they wish (including wrong science). This is largely why he pulled down his website. He saw his work being used to attack such freedoms and to attack Christianity in general.

[i don't have references, but Glenn is a personal friend of mine.]


"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 129 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 8:17 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(2)
Message 194 of 427 (791241)
09-13-2016 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Tangle
09-13-2016 10:06 AM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
For Faith and any other YECs who may be lurking here who are wondering about dating, I highly recommend Dan Wonderly's book
"God's Time Records in Ancient Sediments"
. Dan was a geology professor for a short time at Grace College (John Whitcomb was on faculty at the seminary). Dan did not have expertise in radiometric dating, so his book focuses exclusively on non-radiometric evidence for an old earth. The book is a bit dated now, but is still quite good.

"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 193 by Tangle, posted 09-13-2016 10:06 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 247 of 427 (791328)
09-14-2016 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
09-14-2016 11:05 AM


Re: Continuing with OEC arguments: Flood was not Global
Faith writes:

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.


Faith, there is a lot of interpretation and assumption underlying your comments.

I disagree that "There would have been no need whatever for Noah to build an ark to carry all animals if the Flood were not global".
1) If the flood covered a large enough region, it would still take significant time for animals to repopulate the area, so there would still be a need to have animals handy for food.
2) many of the animals in the account were "clean" animals for sacrifice. There would also have been a need to have animals handy for sacrifice if the flood were not global.

I agree that Noah would have had time to have "escaped to any area that would have been spared the Flood". But escape was not God's only goal. Noah's task was also to be a testimony to those around him and was to provide a "type" of Christ (1 Pet 3).

FYI, Glenn Morton did lots of thinking about the Flood, and concluded that Noah's flood must correlate to the infilling of the Mediterranean, about 5 million years ago. This would make Noah and Adam Neanderthals. Very few people agree with Glenn on this.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"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 232 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 11:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 2:39 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 582 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 responded

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

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 297 of 427 (791407)
09-14-2016 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
09-14-2016 8:06 PM


Re: Maybe asking five whole questions was too much
Faith writes:

This thread is for arguments between OEC and YEC, not just any arguments you can dream up against YEC. I'm using Glenn Morton's list for reference.


I think this is a good approach, and I would like to encourage others to focus on filling in the details of Glenn's arguments rather than adding new arguments to the mix. Glenn was a committed YEC when he started seeing details in his seismic surveys that could not be explained from a YEC perspective. The things that Glenn observed convinced him YEC was wrong, and they might be persuasive to other YECs as well.

For example, Glenn saw evidence of underground canyons buried under thick layers of sedimentary rock. How can this be explained in a YEC paradigm? Is it believable that the Flood laid down a thick layer of sediment, hardened it, carved deep canyons into it, and then covered it with another thick layer of sediment, all in less than a year? I don't think this is very believable.


"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 271 by Faith, posted 09-14-2016 8:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by edge, posted 09-15-2016 12:19 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 302 of 427 (791415)
09-15-2016 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by edge
09-15-2016 12:19 AM


Re: Maybe asking five whole questions was too much
edge writes:

I believe Faith's story is that those canyon were carved by underground rivers.
Never mind that it's geomechanically impossible and that we have no known underground rivers that create dendritic drainage patterns.

That's just how it is.

Take it or leave it.


Glenn had lots of other evidence on his old website that he found persuasive as well, such as fossilized burrows. Some of these articles must still be around, or findable through the way back machine.

I recall that while still a YEC, Glenn did a simple calculation disproving the "canopy theory" and presented this to his fellow YECs. (The "canopy theory" is the old YEC idea that enough water to cover the whole globe was suspended in a "vapor canopy" above the earth, which also supposedly had the benefit of shielding cosmic radiation and allowing much longer lifespans before the Flood. Glenn explained that if thousands of feet of water are above the earth in a vapor canopy, this would transfer pressure to the atmosphere and to the earth, and we would feel the same pressure as if we were thousands of feet underwater. We would not survive this pressure.)


"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 299 by edge, posted 09-15-2016 12:19 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Faith, posted 09-15-2016 1:27 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 09-15-2016 2:22 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(3)
Message 309 of 427 (791426)
09-15-2016 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Faith
09-15-2016 2:22 AM


Re: Burrows in the rock
Faith writes:


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.


Glenn briefly mentions cicada burrows at this page from Old Earth Ministries, and briefly mentions burrows again here. I'll see if I can find more.

The fossilization isn't the notable thing; fossilization merely allows them to be preserved. The notable thing is that they are burrows; they reveal the life of creatures in the past. These creatures made burrows in soft soil, not rock. This took months, not seconds. But if the Flood were depositing the thousands of feet of sediment and quickly compressing it to rock at the rate that YECs claim, there is simply not enough time for this to occur.

With this and many other evidences for an old earth, the notable thing is not simply evidence for age, but also evidence for history. We see evidence of how things happened; evidence for a sequence of events in the past. And we know that this sequence required time to occur.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"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 308 by Faith, posted 09-15-2016 2:22 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Faith, posted 09-15-2016 11:57 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 320 by edge, posted 09-15-2016 12:39 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 324 of 427 (791462)
09-15-2016 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by edge
09-15-2016 12:39 PM


Re: Burrows in the rock
Here is a link to Glenn's old page on burrows through the "wayback machine". Some excerpts from his page are below:

quote:

Burrows and burrowing throughout the geologic column are a great challenge to the young-earth paradigm. If there was a global flood which laid down all the rocks in a one year period, then there should be little time for burrowing animals to burrow. and they should become fewer and fewer the higher up one goes in the rock record. This is because the animals should have been killed and buried down deep and they should not have lived to burrow in the later stages of the flood.
...
What does this burrow say about the 'global' flood? It says a lot. The animal which dug this spiral burrow was in no hurry to escape the flood. He dug down in a spiral and then up in a spiral. There were hundreds of these burrows in that shale. About the top of the central burrow, you can see a horizontal line. That is about the level of the former ocean bottom, where the burrowing animal came out of his burrow into the sea. You can see a very slight color difference (from greenish to orangish above) in the rocks above that level. They differ slightly in lithology.

These burrows are NOT escape burrows as is often claimed by YECs when faced with this data. Escape burrows are straight up. this thing is eating the organic matter in the mud. The maker of this burrow is not in a hurry.

Once again, young-earth creationism fails to explain this data. There are around 15,000 feet of sediment beneath this burrow and stratigraphically another 5,000 above it. To deposit 20,000 feet of sediment in a one year flood requires 54 feet of deposition per day. and that means 2.28 feet per hour. If sediment were raining down on that poor burrower while he was going down, he would have to then burrow further up to get to the ocean than the level at which he started. Clearly you can see that this isn't the case.



"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 320 by edge, posted 09-15-2016 12:39 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 7:24 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 376 of 427 (791651)
09-19-2016 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by NoNukes
09-19-2016 11:46 AM


NoNukes writes:

Faith writes:

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


Nobody said anything like this other than you. None of us who agreed that a YEC could find oil said diddly squat about relative ages. My personal comment was that a YEC might find oil because a real geologist had already figured out some formations that might generate oil, and a YEC could cookbook his way into finding oil at least some of the time. I highly doubt that the YEC would be highly effective by ignoring real world evidence.

I said what Faith reported above, and I believe my comments to this effect in another thread are what prompted her to start the current one.

My information on this comes from personal conversations with Glenn Morton (who was head of oil exploration for a major oil company) and two of his colleagues, including Steve Robertson. Perhaps some of my information is incorrect; I appreciate corrections from anyone who has firsthand (or even secondhand) knowledge of how commercial oil exploration is actually done. (I.e. not from "armchair geologists" or even academics who have no knowledge of what is actually done in commercial practice.)

Based on my conversations with Glenn and his colleagues, I see a number of misconceptions being repeated in this thread.
1) it has been assumed in this thread that oil is found by geologists. From what I understand, this is false. "Finding oil" means drilling a well that produces oil. This is done by the oil exploration teams of major oil companies, using a variety of techniques. The head of he exploration team is generally an experienced oil businessman, who is perhaps a geophysicist like Glenn. Geophysics is a branch of physics, not geology. (Glenn is NOT a geologist and is proud that he never took a geology class in his life.) Geophysicists are trained more in acoustics than in geology, and are skilled at analyzing seismic and other survey data. As I understand it, Glenn always had at least one geologist and a number of geophysicists on his team. But their information was often inconsistent and was always incomplete. It was left to Glenn to make a case to his management whether or not to drill in any specific location.
2) it has been claimed by some in this thread that it is necessary to know the geologic history of a site in order to find oil. This is not true. If one is near a known large oil field, all that is needed is good interpretation of seismic surveys to identify faults, salt domes, and other features that might have trapped a significant amount of oil. (and most oil exploration today is done near already-known oil fields.)


"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 364 by NoNukes, posted 09-19-2016 11:46 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by 14174dm, posted 09-19-2016 5:05 PM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 381 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 5:27 PM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 400 by NoNukes, posted 09-19-2016 8:29 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(2)
Message 422 of 427 (791840)
09-23-2016 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by Faith
09-22-2016 11:34 PM


Re: Facts vs Beliefs again
Faith writes:

If it is true that the strata were laid down rapidly which many of my arguments and standard creationist arguments have shown, again goodbye to the supposed fossil order and to the supposed ancient dates,


But this is exactly the point of this thread. The strata themselves show evidence that they were laid down SLOWLY, not rapidly. This is what Glenn Morton saw as he looked. He saw evidence of buried ancient river systems. He saw animal burrows. He saw many, many other things which are documented on his old pages.

And I posted a link to Dan Wonderly's book, which details similar NON-radiometric evidence for age. Dan raises examples such as coral reefs which are thousands of feet thick; the growth rate of coral sets a minimum age of something like 100,000 years for these reefs.


"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 419 by Faith, posted 09-22-2016 11:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Faith, posted 09-23-2016 12:12 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(2)
Message 427 of 427 (791863)
09-23-2016 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by Faith
09-23-2016 12:12 AM


Re: Facts vs Beliefs again
Faith writes:


And one idea that OE always gets wrong is uniformitarian assumptions such as that the growth rate of coral reefs now is the same as before the Flood. Sorry, I'm not impressed with your OE position and I'm not interested in Wonderley's book.


Faith, your response is very disappointing. I know that you don't want to make detailed comments on radioactive dating, because this is a specialized field outside of your expertise. Fine; that's perfectly understandable. So I recommended to you some good NON-radiometric evidences for an old earth (by a couple of evangelical Christians who are also scientists), and you essentially dismissed them! Yes, you looked at one article by Glenn Morton, but you don't seem to have looked at his burrows page that I suggested. And you have not looked at Wonderly's evidence at all (who was on faculty at the same institution as John Whitcomb, one of the founders of modern YEC)!

If you are to be well-informed on any topic, you really need to look at the arguments of the other side. If you are to push YEC as strongly as you do, you really need to be aware of Morton's and Wonderly's arguments (and to read their own presentation of them, not biased summary of them by YECs).


"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 423 by Faith, posted 09-23-2016 12:12 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020