Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

Been away.
BUT the past itself isn't witnessed. Thats my point. The evidence is then only about interpretation. And unless a further act of "Science" takes place then science has not taken place.Elsewhere I've said forensics and Sherlock Holmes do and did not engage in science. Evidence yes. A standard of evidence very important but not the standard of the endeavor called science.
Regards rob

Been away. We are, indeed, now talking about methodology of science and history.
You said science and history are two different endeavors that use the same methodology.
Thats the rub. I say they are two different endeavors with different methodologies.
How can this be resolved?
You bring up about forensics but I would say that it is not science either though it deals with evidence. But forensics should not be your sides great defence to say the past is as scientifically viable as the present.You gave yourself as an excellent example. You are indeed as you explained doing science in your cell research. Yet you make a few errors here.
First you have never tested something that happened ten minutes ago. You have rather tested a new reaction based on the same principal/laws that acted ten minutes ago TOO. A past event is gone and untestable. This is another intellectual rub between us.Second you make the comparison between your dealing with unwitnessable actions in human cells and the dealing with unwitnessable past events. This is just my point (another one).
The ONLY reason one can not witness the doings of cells is because of visual difficulty. Yet they are happening and thus testable right now once the visual difficulty is over. This is not the same as past events which are not testable because they are gone. They are not happening now. The laws yes but not the event in question. this is the error that evolution supporters make in thier line of reasoning.
A standard of evidence has been comprimised.Loudmouth it is not for me to show how a past event can be testable. I say it can't. Other eveidence can be brought up to convince about a past event but not tests.
Historical inquiry does not deal with tests and falsification. These are terms for the field of science only.
I feel my post you responded too was not quite answered by you on the tthree matters. And I put it best there.P.S. Your Natural history museum point makes my point. Fossils should be in history museums. They deal with the past. but they shouldn't be in a science museum.
regards Rob

Mark. You show the misunderstanding about science that is common in the public. Indeed it is something that must be learned.Protons and Neutrons are indeed not seen. There being there however is a study of the here and now. They are existing or happening now. And science can deal with that.
HOWever where science is asked to deal with past events it has ceased to be science with the tool of the scientific method and becomes just another intellectual endeavor drawing conclusions with evidence. BUT no longer the special field or specis of science. It is now a study of history.Yright when you say the subject of origins usesa sheer amount of evidence. AGAIN however science isn't about evidence, sheer or otherwise. It is a special method. Where that method is not used there is not the prestige of scientific conclusion. (regardles whether its true or not)
Rob

I think this is about fossil sorting so I'm legit (For sure I do get off topic for I forget the thread I'm onetc)Mike it is over here by Creationists accepted that the continents moved. It is well attested by evidence and does not reject the Bible.
So we have adapted it.
The slow drift today (if it is) is not the original action.
Not continental drift but continental redeye.
The crashing of the continents was a sudeen event and perhaps the source of so much fossilization due to such pressure being created.
Also Mike to it is often suggested that the creatures of the sea also as on the land were destroyed. Only God took care of the remnant. In order to kill the creatures in the sea,who swim, another method was needed. This was the redeye.
Rob

The fast breakup and separation of land would create tremendous water pressure,I repeat tremendous,that would instantly squish life and even the evirorment of that life.
The power of water is being accepted now in science as a source for great change. For example in Southern Ontario the old idea of how the topagraphy came about by slow glacial weight and movement is being replaced by the idea of subglacial flood outbursts lasting a short period as having done all the work. Also in the NW States.
Rob

The first part you said was off topic. So i presume you don't mean that.I guess you mean about order out of the chaos of crashing/splitting continents!?When I replied about water pressure it was on the premise that it is understood that it would freeze anything at any point it came in contact with. And that the "sorted" life was frozen where it was.Again as has been said before creationists do not accept that there is any sorting. This is an interpretation of fossils in the field.
tHE "SORTING" was just another side of a hill of similiar creatures.
All fossils are a photagraph of a momment in a day. The day they were fossilized. Not fossilization event after fossization event after fossilization event over millions of years.
It is not demonstrated to be so. And its unreasonable and unnessesary.NN the small group of people who put thier minds to these things have simply never imagined the great upheavel creationists suggest.
Therefore thier ideas are restricked by uniforitarium processes.
This problem themselves admit is what brought opposition to the ideas of drift and meltwater explosians in the NW states as origins for topagraphy. It is thier premises that stand in the way and not evidence.

The grass business is back.
The fact that there is no grass with dinosaurs is explained easily by saying that grass was a minor plant in nooks and cranies of the world the and took off only after the flood. It is very common for different plants to change in dominance and even happens today.
For example there is a famous tree,I think redwood, that used to dominate the nothern hemispere but today is resticked to small areas in China.As to aquatic mammals/reptiles not together in the fossil record. Simple mammals did not take to the sea until after the flood. Before the ancesters of whales/seals were on the land. But as on the land there was a dominance shift and so the sea was free for invasion.Finally it must be said again that creationists don't accept that there has been sorting of fossils. They are simplly the fossilized momment in time. The seeming sorting is a error of interpretation of data.

Your right and I was wrong that some creationists do offer explanations for fossil sorting that accepts the sorting as a premise.
I don't and perhaps others likewise. This will change in time.You wrote a great deal about whats wrong with the idea of how the seeming sorting took place. Yet you are still accepting the geologic layers as a premise in your criticisms. Also you are using the word specis when we use the word kind. And reduce animals to a few basic kinds. There are in fact very few mammal kinds in the world.Rob

This is like my home the grass has to be dealt with far too regular.
The grass family could lose or gain dominance as easily as a specsis.
Or because it didn't rain before the flood grass was unable to cope. Or grass is just a sub-kind of another kind that is very present in the fossil record.

The changes of aquatic creatures would still be micro and not macro. And yes it would be quick. Not thosands or hundred years but only generations. Probably most speciation now on the planet was finshed within a hundred years of the flood. the fossil evidence insists on this.To your three points.
No people would be watching as they werte slow to leave ark set down.I presume you mean there are relative remains about intermediate stages. (odd on this forume to hear that). Speciation is a sudden reaction and not a process from point a to point b. There would be no intermediate fossils even in the unlikely case of fossilization.
There are some examples where needed of aquatic creatures in between (as we see it not them)Possible explanations as to why Rapid change does not take place today as it is not needed.
Also from a biblical standpoint creatures were to quickly occupy the earth after the flood and so the means was there. Probably speciation is a result of wealthy envirirments for immigrant kinds.
Rob

OK here goes.
Geography was different back then and willow trees etc would be fossilized where thet grew.
These proto-mammals didn't sort by jaw. That is just an interpretation of fossil assemblage.
Dinosaur families and marine fossils fits fine with what I said.
Regards Rob

Many of your line of questions has been brought up and dealt with before.
It is creationists belief that almost all geologic layers were laid down at once. We don't accept the separation that is now made in geology and so the premise behind yours points negates its strength.
To you British folk a little behind North America on the great debate creationists today are making the strong point that what one sees in the field is where it is for exactlly the reason it is. IT was place there by events all at once.Indeed the old idea introduced by a British dude in geology that the present is the evidence of the past , I forgot his name,called uniformatism is falling to pieces by the accepted ideas of plate teutonics, glacial action, and the new meltwater outbursts sweeping geology today.
I would also add that Darwin's biological idea was based on the premise of a uniformatarian geology idea. Here comes the crash.
Rob

Yes dumped is the word. And like so much in these subjects it was dumped easily for it was never a scientific theory. It was a historical theory and was not testable. Accordingly new historical theories , under pressure of new evidence (not scientific evidence however to distinguish),took thier place. This is an excellent example of what we talk about on the forumns.I haven't been reading your Hawaii thing because I thought it was too technical for me and the my thing. I just noticed however you put out it to YEC's so I will soon read it.
Rob

Why are the fossils not mixed you asked. Dealt with this before and happy too again for you however.The fossils that are interpretated as to be sorted are just communities frozen in place. creationists see the fossilization event itself as a great pressure event that was extensive and so would freeze in place creatures and also even thier communities. we don't see the choas of a flood as being the norm but the pressure created.The interpretation of older strata having older fossils is explained as follows. The "older" rock is just rock that was impacted by the events differently because of its original location. The kinds of fossils found were just the kind in the area. They aren't more primitive just suibale to thier area that perhaps was more impoverished.The separation I referred too was what you call "layers".Catastropism is rejected today you say!?
This is not so. In fact it is taking over. For example in Canada the old idea of the land having been shaped by slow glacial action is being replaced, though not conquored yet, by the land having been shaped by sudden meltwater outburst so great as to defy imagination. (Post flood event by the way)
Rob

With respect. THIS is just not so. Darwins insisted and said in his book clearly that that the ideas of geology were the great premise behind his ideas of change over time. The fossil sequence was based on a geology sequence. And so as I said the great idea of biological change is conditional on geological change and without it finished. A odd point.
Rob