Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

OK good points.
To explain it away One need only say FINE grasses are a recent adaption. I mean from an original kind but ony an adaptation.Such as in the case of corn. They still struggle over what all the present sub-kinds of corn originally descended from when the Indians first manipulated it.Oragain One can simply say grass was a obscure thing in hollows of some hollows in bushes in hollows. As the jungle today have many kinds of plants present but rare.
There is a famous tree in the fossil record that was very common and dominate in areas back then but today is only found in small areas in China. I forget the name but I think some kind of redwood but its quite famous.

Your right Pink whether evolution is science or not is important. I only meant intellectually.
Auto repair is a science?? Auto repairmen are scientists?? No way and if so science loses any claim to a study above anything in ceritude and any claim to authority over anyone who puts thier mind,thier attention to a subject. Creationists with great knowledge and degrees are told, and not in malice, that they do not engage in science. Because science is a particulat study defined by process. And they are right.
Also science is used to prove things. It proves that a shuttle can go here and there before it lifts off. For sure science is about proving and disproving. Thats what creation/evolution deals in.

Thanks for your reply. You say history/science are never about certitude.
But this is not the real way people live. Flying here,healing that and surely in origin claims that we engage in debating is all about what is true and what is not true. And science is used or claimed to that end.
Evolutionists speak absolutely about origins and rejectiong Bible origins.
Science is about the claim to having Proven ones point. For sure
Rob

In fact I'm Canadian and my mother is from Liverpool.
Again you say the flood story is explained by this and that.
Yet it is you who should be showing why it is not true.
First the Bible account is a witness. Challenge the winess fine. But it is a witness with claims.
Christian, especially Protestant indeed especialy puritan or evangelical, beliefs about origins has been the historic norm for hundreds of years in the countries of the most intelligent, and moral and successful people in history. The English speaking peoples.
The Bible account is asserted by the the best.
We creationists fight for the truth against tiny groups of people in positions of power who have attacked this truth and denied the people the chance for arguement. We shall overcome.
To deny the foundation of Christianity does not mean the denial of same as in your case. But it is sure shaky ground and unnessesary.
You believe in a remarable thing that God came to earth. Well he commented on the flood and confirmed it. Was he wrong or lying?
An intelligent man must know the truth and thus where debated, figure out how to come to the truth. Not accept just what someone says who claims to have authority. The Bible claims authority too and yet you don't believe that.And yes everyone is right my spelling,grammer is terrible. I try.
My only excuse could be while in english class I was thinking about analysis and logical deduction instead.But thats not true come to think of it.
I think my computer has evolutionist convictions and is sabatoging me. Yeah that must be it.
Rob

Wrong. This is just not have anything to do with how evolution is presented anywhere.
etc is presented to the public and in acedemia as having been proven. As having absolutely replaced previous wrong ideas.
And that is questioning by anyone is not acceptable but a rejection of SCIENCE. A rejection of what has been PROVEN, A rejection of the people who know BEST. SCIENTISTS.For you or anyone to attempt to say evolution is just a theory with legs until proven otherwise is sign and poof that evolution can not stand scruntity. So it must retreat to "well this is just right now what we think" when in fact it insists with a roar that it has proven the Boble wrong and any opposition is intellectual hearsy.

I read what you directed me too. It is what I've read hundreds of times.
Truly it is just an attempt of evolutionists to live in a reality in which thier view is accepted as the truth and a contrary view is not true. AND yet when challenged by anyone to prove what they assert they respond "well nothing can be proven"
NOW COME ON.I know you believe your position is correct yet I suggest your analysis has a flaw in it.
I've thought about this many times about how creationists can once and for all demonstrate that evolution is not proven to where it should be the belief or that it has proven the bible wrong and I think I've figured it out.It is in exactly what you say. A new method of decideing how to come to truth was introduced with the scietific method.
While we all live in the old method.
And while we all think the old method is still the standard in fact you guys changed the rules. And yet live with the rewards of the old method. GOT THAT!! (me neither)As in a CIVIL court case MANKIND has always weighed the evidence. (facts, authority behind facts etc)
Yet in America in serious cases a new method was brought in.Innocent until proven guility. A new way of deciding conclusion.Likewise in our debate.
We live in a world of weighing the evidence and trusting the authority (scientists) with having weighed it accurately and drawing right conclusions. Honest motive is presumed.Yet this is where it went wrong. As in the court case a NEW way of coming to conclusions was introduced. No longer weighing facts and authority but instead hypothesis and falsifying etc.Yet the world lives in the old method. And I would say so do the evolutionists. But when evolution is challenged they will say AHA we have a new method of truth now and in fact you are ineligible to engage in it.We live in facts and authority and proof. They enjoy that thier theory is a result of this but really they have replaced the method of deciding what the truth is.Thats where the equation went wrong. (whew)

Short cut? Scientific community?
Either evolution etc is presented in society by the establishment as true and proven and having disproved previous ideas or I've been asleep all my life.Evolution is presented as true as the holocaust. Why do you want to back down from this? Perhaps because when someone says something is proven others can say NO it isn't. And its beholden on you to present evidence. But evolutionists don't. They just say they have a new kind of evidence and gathering of evidence.Evolution is not testable or falsifiable. Thats our point. Show your top thre examples of when tests hav taken place please.
Regards

You misunderstood my analysis. It was a new idea.
I wasn't taliking about the scientific method and the faith/bible method.
I meant the scientific method about truth on origins was ,carefully, brought in to change mankinds usual method of finding truth.
Usually we weigh the evidence and with that consider the authority behind it.
But in evolution/origins SUDDENLY mankind is to except a new process of truth finding. That is the hypothesis method.
This is find for science but not society.
I'm,with difficulty, trying to say the rules were changed ,without the public knowing, on the study of origins.
The public believes experts. The experts present to the public they are sure of what they say by methods of fact finding and testing.
Yet in evolution this was changed.
Evolutionists said they proved wrong something and proved right something else based on thier expertism.
But actually they changed the rules (the scientific method) about how truth was to be found on these matters.The people are told and understand in the usual way that evolution has been proven. When in fact it is just a theory that has never been proven. Its not testable or falsifiable.

This is a good example. Not as you say the theory came then the fossil sequence but the opposite. The sorted fossils were seen and then the theory for it came. Just read Darwins book to confirm that.
The same with creationists. We have a legitamate witness, the Bible,(even if not true still until proven not true a legitamate witness)and then we have evidence, sorted fossils, and we theorize that it is evidence of a sudden event that turned them to stone and they are not sorted but rather different creatures living in different places on a hill. As it is today.
We both are dealing with stuff in the field. But we weight the evidence as in a civil court. Evolutionists as in a criminal court have different rules for evidence and drawing conclusions.
And not informing society about this switcharoo. But takingt advantage of the publics trust.

No I'm not saying it was brought in just to justify evolution.
I'm saying that we all live together in one society.
We have ways of coming to conclusions.
We had and have the practice of assesing the evidence and drawing conclusions.
Yet on the matter of origins suddenly it is insisted there will be a new way of finding conclusions. And this way is not just for the field of science but all society is to accept this new way on the issue of origins.Another way to put it.
We have a four criminal cases brought before the same jury.
Innocent until proven guilty we tell them is to control thier conclusion.
But on the fourth one we say this one is to be judge on weighing the evidence (as in a civil case) no presumed innocence.
BUT ALL four verdicts are read out to the world as having been the product of a criminal proceadure. More sure.This is what i'm saying has taken place in the origins problem.
We are dealing with a debate where truth/conclusion on origins has been changed by evolutionists from the usual way for manknid.
In short any other way to truth about origins has not been proven wrong but rather disqualified from the race at the start.
This is why intellectually evolution can not say it should be the presumed truth that it tries to claim now.Regards

Ok loudmouth unlike others you have thrown some strong assertions.YES YES YES We insist as is our right and history in America that revealed religion is a legitamate way to get truth.
Prove our revealations wrong. Fine.
BUT you can not disqualify us from the race before it starts. This is what your doing when you say we must show evidence for the claims in Genesis BEFORE we can contend with opponents. We don't.
All we have to do is show our opponents have not proven thier case by evidence. Before resonable men.
We don't need positive points to back up our positive assertions and all that.
And indeed the origins debate is not about the Bible.but rather creationists attacking evolution which is the dominate position in the establishment though not the hearts of the American people especially the founder peoples.You bring up a lot of points which I have answered elsewhere. If there are "evidences" you find difficult to square with the Bible well bring it on. I'm very confident. Indeed all things can be answered because we are dealing with speculation. Evolutionary biology,geology,cosmology, are studies of history. Not Scientific studies.

Off subject but I read what you asked. Again Mike Cosmology is science if it obeys the scientific method in its approach.
However when Cosmology deals with the past it is forced out of the science field and into the history field. Two different species.They just to us laymen look similair until we look closer.Yes she is probably more intelligent then the average North American (certainly me) but man for man we win.
Also thetre is no such thing as intelligence.
The old yankee faith teaches anyone can master anything. Intelligent people are just people who get involved.
Regards Rob

Off base Dude. I stray but we all do. (As you did in your chastisment)We are discussing fossil sorting but it comes down to interpretation and then we debate about interpretation. We are mostly on topic.There are fossils in the field and then human ideas about thier story.
You guys present one story and say thats that. We say HOLD ON THAR.Itis about evidence and then the nature of evidence.
Nobody,even creationists, argue against evidence. We argue about interpretation. (And I think very well).Bill. Beyond, really, beyond repeating again fossil sorting is as you say. Prove it with a powerful point. Something a creationists can get his teeth into or be sent reeling.It seems clear these fossils in the field are just sitting there. And just a product of a fossilization EVENT.
Not the result of millions of years of accumulation.But suddenly.
And also as an event it is a photograph of the envirorment at the time. This kind of clam on this hill this kind of clam on that hill. Indeed on the same hill this high and then higher up. (Of coarse a hill in the water).
Simple and to us obvious.
You say no. These are divisions of times and a record of kinds in thier body at different times.
Well what can anyone say . No one witnessed it.
Yet you insist your view only can be legitamate.
Well prove it . Or rather show why you have such conviction.
I hope I'm not off topic.
Regards

Progress at last. This is truly a step forward in our discussion that probably very seldom happens in these circles.YOU said HISTORY is SCIENCE. You said HISTORY only deals with HUMAN EVENTS. You said WHY CAN NOT SCIENCE DEAL WITH PAST EVENTS.
(also you said "observation of mechanisms in action" isn't needed. Then in post 339 Point three you said just that. but even this is minor)This is what we all contend over in an atomic sense.I though all held that the reason the history department and the science department are separated in a university was for a profound difference in methodolgy! Two very different fields of intellectual endeavor indeed! THIS MUST BE CLEARED UP FIRST.Likewise about History only deals with human events. I'M ASTONISHED.
To me history is just a record of past events PERIOD.People,trees or a storm. And its methodolgy in discovering the truth (what happened) is confined for obvoius reason.Finally you ask why can't science deal with past events. The reason is that past events were not witnessed and not repeatable or falsifiable. By definition a past fact can not be dealt with by the scientific method. It is gone forever. It will never be repeatable.
Any similiar present events is coinedence (sp)and not scientific evidence that likewise it happened in the past.We are in or close to the algebra of logic here and touching on why millions of people insticntively or creationists intellectually not persuaded that evolution is true.As in Court in civil and criminal cases there are two different standards of evidence used to come to a CONCLUSION.
So likewise in Science and history in fact and in the public mind there are two different standards of evidence.
Creationists,humbly, suggest our opponents, without giving up thier conviction in evolution, must give up a coresponding belief that Biology,geology,cosmology that deals in and relys on past events,past indeed,has a claim to the pestige to science.Again we have come to a higher level I suggest Loudmouth.Lets both play it close now.
Regards Rob

Been away.
OK this is a excellent example.
The sedimentation shows the waters/pressure of the fllod fossilising the debris.
Then the continents in movement in the same year did the tilting.
The last thing could be explained by pressure at the end of the continental movement. Of coarse after weathering would take place.
Regards