Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 340 of 427 (791533)
09-16-2016 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by jar
09-16-2016 8:20 AM


Re: on structures underground.
I am talking about detecting buried structures. If a river valley then gets filled in by another layer there is a likelihood that the material filling in the valley can be differentiated from the material that formed the original valley and that it will extend beyond the limits of the valley and over the surrounding original material. This could not happen underground and is an indication that what is seen was formed at the surface.
Okay, I get it.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by jar, posted 09-16-2016 8:20 AM jar has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(4)
Message 352 of 427 (791570)
09-16-2016 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Faith
09-16-2016 9:47 PM


Re: OE model vs YEC model
The evidence is neutral and I can use it. It doesn't belong to OE geology.
Okay, so how do you use radiometric dates?
How do you interpret what we call unconformities in the geological record?
How do you interpret what we call eolian sands in the geological record?
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.
How do you interpret light from distant stars?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Faith, posted 09-16-2016 9:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 379 of 427 (791654)
09-19-2016 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Faith
09-19-2016 2:03 PM


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.
Actually, not quite true.
If we include flood geology as 'YE', the stratigraphic order does not exist.
The early geologists understood this when William Smith started to correlate rock ourcroppings across Great Britain along with their fossil content. They realized, even as churchmen, that this meant the death of Flood 'geology'.
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.
Sure. I could go out and drill random wells all over the world to uncertain depths and eventually find oil.
However, at several millions of dollars per well, I wouldn't be able to do it for very long. That fact alone makes YE oil exploration impossible.
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.
See above.
And that's why nobody is doing it.
I once had an old woman prospector who said God told her where her uranium deposit was. It was quite a comedy that I should relate some day. She said that the Russians murdered her assayer to keep it quiet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 2:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 5:48 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 381 of 427 (791656)
09-19-2016 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by kbertsche
09-19-2016 4:46 PM


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.
Heh, heh, ...
Great! The classic conflict between geophysicists and geologists.
Well, I'd say that geology is more important than this anecdote states. When Glennn is doing geophysics, he is basically looking at geological structure (basically a trap). What the properties of the rock are within that structure is up in the air except from geological interpretation. A lot of that is based on experience within a region. A lot of perfect traps are void of oil for some geological reason. But few geologists will drill without geophysical data.
So, I'll give this one to Glennn, but with a grain of salt.
And I find it hard to believe that he never took a course in geology. Must have been before my time ... heh, heh ...
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.)
But I might ask how do we know where and how deep to drill a salt dome play? The point is that Glennn probably knew something about these oil fields before even running the seismic.
But back to my last post.
These days, no one drills an oil well without as much information as possible. The wells are simply too expensive. Especially when one blows up. The deepest oil well drilled was 39k feet and that was in 4k feet of water (it was the Deepwater Horizons rig, in fact). Nobody wants to drill into the unknown.
If I were drilling in the GOM, I'd have a palynologist on hand at all times and that requires evolution to work. If the rocks were in the order (or actually, disorder suggested by flood geology) then nothing would work. We would be drilling blind.
So, the take away is that, yeah, you could drill random wells all over the world and find oil, or you could drill where God tells you. But you won't be in business very long.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by kbertsche, posted 09-19-2016 4:46 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 5:56 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 382 of 427 (791658)
09-19-2016 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by 14174dm
09-19-2016 5:05 PM


Re: First to find new field?
How did the oil companies know to even try an area that is now a known field?
Most of the original discoveries had oil seeps. As Jar mentioned, in Saudi, they were actually drilling for water.
They wouldn't have drilled every 10 miles across Africa to find that there is oil in Nigeria but not in Namibia.
Not sure when the Nigerian fields were discovered, but we certainly know something about the geology of the area. That would be impossible if we used a flood model.
In that case things would be just where they happen to be. The old maps of fossil localities reflected this. They were just blobs drawn around ammonite localities, for instance. Now, we know that they are controlled by the lithologies an ages of the rocks. And once we know that, of course, it becomes a lot easier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by 14174dm, posted 09-19-2016 5:05 PM 14174dm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 6:02 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 387 of 427 (791665)
09-19-2016 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
09-19-2016 5:48 PM


Gullible souls, weren't they?
Naive, perhaps. They underestimated the human mind to believe weird stuff like YEC.
The order of the fossils can be learned by anyone. It is apparently consistent wherever you look. This is clear to anybody, whether OE or YE. You do not need the OE/evolutionist INTERPRETATION of the fossil order to recognize the fossil order.
But the point is that there should be no order if we used the flood model.
However, I think this topic has moved on since kbertsche's Message 376 which suggests that the OE versus YE argument isn't really relevant, since Geology isn't essential to finding oil at all.
Well, it depends on your definition of 'essential'.
Most economic enterprises today would say that it's essential.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 5:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 388 of 427 (791666)
09-19-2016 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Faith
09-19-2016 6:02 PM


Re: First to find new field?
Well, here's another assertion that the absolute dates matter, that it's "a lot easier" if you know the ages. But again, it remains a complete mystery why that should be so. The location of the ammonites should tell you what you want to know.
But in flood geology, the could be anywhere in the geological column.
The main thing seems to be to know how the rocks are arranged and at what depth so that you have a shot at a good guess whether they may form traps for oil that you can tap. What on earth does the age of the rocks have to do with that, beyond knowing their relative ages in relation to each other?
But that IS old earth geology. YE geology, especially in your scenario, is based solely on the fludde. But as we know that does not explain the fossil order. You have admitted this yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 6:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 6:57 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 390 of 427 (791669)
09-19-2016 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Faith
09-19-2016 6:57 PM


Re: First to find new field?
Why are you saying such things? We know where they are the same as you do, we know they aren't "anywhere in the geological column" same as you do. Why are you pretending otherwise?
Because, as you have stated, there is no YEC explanation for the order of the fossil record.
You are suffering from a serious logic malfunction at the very least, or you are just playing word games.
Well, I HAVE been trying to interpret the Faith posts for a long time now.
EXPLAINING the fossil order is what is not necessary; KNOWING the fossil order is something else and YECs whoi've studied geology know it as well as you do.
My point is that there should be no fossil record according to YEC.
And no. I don't think they know it as well as I do. At least not in the context of all geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 6:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 393 of 427 (791674)
09-19-2016 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Faith
09-19-2016 7:19 PM


Re: First to find new field?
Having an explanation is of no value whatever if it's the wrong explanation.
Which you have not shown to be the case.
Besides, this explanation works.
If you come up with something better we will go to the business who use the geological explanation and make a fortune.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:28 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 397 of 427 (791683)
09-19-2016 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by Faith
09-19-2016 7:28 PM


Re: First to find new field?
So you and others keep saying, but so far not a shred of evidence that it works to find oil.
You should talk to the oil companies then. I'm sure they'd agree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:51 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 407 of 427 (791700)
09-19-2016 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Faith
09-19-2016 7:51 PM


Re: First to find new field?
kbertsche said otherwise.
Actually, I'm not sure that I said anything that conflicts.
You didn't answer him either. Just passing the question off to the oil companies is avoiding the question. Why can't you answer it?
I didn't know there was a question.
As I have said several times, anyone could find some oil drilling a grid pattern all over the world with no thinking whatsoever. Impossible to raise money.
And there is a reason for that.
I have also said that drilling around oil seeps or accidentally discovering oil while drilling for water is not a big shock.
What I have said is that it is impossible to convince anyone to drill for oil without as much geological information as possible and, in many cases, direct use of evolutionary thinking is necessary.
In other words, it's all a matter of opinion.
However, if you use economics, drilling with YEC or flood geology is a loser. Big time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 413 of 427 (791723)
09-20-2016 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by ringo
09-20-2016 11:56 AM


In a way, the OE theory is incidental to finding oil - but to find oil it is necessary to understand how the rocks formed, how they changed after they were formed, etc. Finding oil comes from that understanding and so does the realization that the rocks must be old.
Good point. One could say that it's not so much the use OE geology, but a repudiation of YE geology that is necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by ringo, posted 09-20-2016 11:56 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 416 of 427 (791824)
09-22-2016 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Faith
09-19-2016 9:57 PM


Re: Facts vs Beliefs again
I argue for the Flood because scripture tells me there was a Flood and when it was and all that, but HOW I argue for the Flood is based completely on the physical facts I find presented by geology and presented at EvC. I make my case entirely from those facts, I do not use scripture as part of my argument AT ALL.
Nevertheless, your adherence to scripture, forces a certain interpretation of the facts.
So, it is not the facts themselves which dictate your position.
And, frankly, you have not done well at all in supporting your position. For instance, we only have to go back to your admission that you have no idea how the fossil record came to be the way it is other than it 'must have been'. That is a pretty weak argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 9:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by Faith, posted 09-22-2016 10:19 PM edge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024