RE: Glenn makes front page of AiG today

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 09:43:53 EST

  • Next message: "Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today"


    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: []On
    >Behalf Of Allen Roy
    >Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 8:56 PM
    >Subject: Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today
    >From: John W Burgeson <>
    >> As you use it, I must assume that "sound Biblical thinking" must
    >> necessarily conform to the particular interpretation that the earth is
    >> <50K years old and that the flood of Noah's time was global. Since both
    >> those assertions are contrary to factual knowledge,
    >Your "factual knowledge" is really "evolutionary interpretation of the data
    >within the assumption of the mythology of Naturalism." This lack
    >discernment between fact and interpretation is the very thing which Morton
    >(and you) seems to be incapable of comprehending.

    I have watched your jingoism with amusement. Allen, when I was a YEC I too
    made these silly claims, just like you are doing now. But I learned that
    they are mischaracterizations of old-earther's made far too often by people
    who have no training in science. It is easy to use jingo's to attack one's
    opponents, but to actually dig up evidence, well, that is hard work and we
    don't see much of that from jingoists.

     Within "sound Biblical
    >thinking" means that scientifically acquired data is interpreted within the
    >Biblical paradigm.

    This is like fitting the ugly sister's feet into Cinderella's slipper--it
    doesn't fit. But in the eager desire to have the prince, the ugly sister,
    like the YEC, ignores the plain fact that the foot doesn't fit in the
    container. Please interpret for me how you would go about interpreting the
    Haymond formation within a Biblical paradigm? Here is the data.
    Here are the observations:

    ""Two thirds of the Haymond is composed of a repititious alternation of
    fine- and very fine-grained olive brown sandstone and black shale in beds
    from a millimeter to 5 cm thick. The formation is estimated to have more
    than 15,000 sandstone beds greater than 5 mm thick."" p. 87.
            ""Tool-mark casts (chiefly groove casts), flute casts and flute-lineation
    casts are common current-formed sole marks. Trace fossils in the form of
    sand-filled burrows are present on every sandstone sole, but nearly absent
    within sandstone beds. ~ Earle F. McBride,""Stratigraphy and Sedimentology
    of the Haymond Formation,"" in Earle F. McBride, Stratigraphy, Sedimentary
    Structures and Origin of Flysch and Pre-Flysch Rocks, Marathon Basin, Texas
    (Dallas: Dallas Geological Society, 1969), p. 87-88

    SEveral items can be deduced from thes observations.

    1. It is obvious that the burrowers prefer to burrow into the shale rather
    the sand.

    2. The burrows in the shale were present when the sand was deposited. Why?
    because the sand filled the hole (burrow).

    3. There were few burrows in the sand as there are no fingers of shale
    poking down into the sand as there are sand fingers poking down into the

    Lets try to explain this in a one year flood. Give each shale layer 1 day
    for recolonization of burrowers the deposit would require 41 years to be
    deposited. But that is a real problem. The Haymond bed is 1300 m thick and
    only represents a small part of the entire geologic column. All the
    fossiliferous sediments in this area are 5000 m in thickness. To do the
    entire column in one year requires 1300/5000*365=95 days for the time over
    which the Haymond must be deposited. This means that 157 sand/shale couplets
    per day must be deposited. That means that the burrowers must repopulate
    the shale 157 times per day, dig holes, be buried, then survive the burial
    to dig again another 156 times that day. Shoot, Sissyphus only had to roll
    the boulder uphill once a day. What on earth did these burrowers do to
    deserve this young-earth fate?

    We know that the burrowers who were buried did not survive. If they had,
    they would have had to dig up through the sand to escape their entombment.
    There are no burrows going up through the sand. And if there had been these
    burrows, there should be little circular piles of sand with a central crater
    pocking the entire upper surface of the sand. We don't see these. If they
    escaped, it should look like:

    ------------- --------------------
    shale | s |
                 | a |
                 | n |
                 | d |

            - -
    -------- - - ----------------
     -------- ------------------
    shale | s |
            | a |
            | n |
            | d |


    As it is, we see this, which indicates no escape of the burrowers:

    ------------- --------------------
    shale | s |
                 | a |
                 | n |
                 | d |


     -------- ------------------
    shale | s |
            | a |
            | n |
            | d |


    This is an indication of lots of time between the deposition of the sand and
    the digging of the burrows. It simply isn't credible to have these burrowers
    dig burrows at a rate required by the Noah's flood viewpoint.

    As we go east from the Marathon Mountains, these beds go deeper and deeper
    and are buried by Tertiary sediments which eventually reach 75,000 feet
    thickness in the region of the mouth of the Mississippi. Because the
    Haymond is buried by the Tertiary, we know that the Tertiary sediments of
    the Gulf are younger than the Haymond. Thus if the Tertiary sediment and the
    Haymond are flood deposits, then the Haymond may only have had less than a
    month for all that burrowing.

    I eagerly await the Biblical interpretation of this data.

    Thus the bible is the basis for interpretation of the
    >data. It is read as it makes sense without the need to try to reinterpret
    >the Bible to fit the assumptions of mythological Naturalism.

    Fine, then explain the observations.

    >then the only
    >> rational position for one to take who really believes the Bible teaches
    >> them is that the Bible teaches falsehood and is, therefore, no more to be
    >> trusted than the writings of Homer.
    >The only rational position for one to take who really believes the Bible
    >teaches them is that interpretations of the data within the myth on
    >Naturalism must be false and no more to be trusted than sifting sand.

    Ah, I see, the procedure is this. If what I see with my eyes is in
    disagreement with my theology, my eyes are lying. Such a procedure could be
    very useful to some. If a wife, whose theology doesn't believe in adultry,
    finds her husband in bed with another woman, the husband can get out of it
    by asking "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 01:46:53 EST