Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

I agree let's keep your latest story in the other thread.

Ok, Robert, may I put your idea into other words and see if I have it right?All forms of life were created once at Genesis.
Some forms of life were very restricted in their geographic spread.
All the sedimentary layers (well almost all) are form the flood.
All forms of life survived the flood (cause they were on the ark) but many have died out since then.The reason that no fossils are found for a particular form of life is that they were so restricted that we havent found the few if any fossils that might have formed.You say it was a reptile world? Why are there lower layers with one set of species of reptile found and then higher layers without any of those at all but rather a completly new set? This sort of pattern is repeated and repeated throught the record.Does that suggest that there was a time when everything but fish were restricted to some small area and we haven't found the fossils. Then somewhat later amphibians spread around the globe with the fish (but different species of fish). Then a bit later some "primative" reptiles spread around from whereever they were (the garden of Eden? ). Is this what you are suggesting?

You've missed some things Robert.

Don't confuse engineering and the practice of medicine with basic science. When being careless, we speak of truth but what we are really doing is trying to do the best we can with what we know now. That means we are talking about the current best explanation for something. That may be taken as being very, very likely of being "true" or only pretty darn sure of being "true" or even rather suspect but still the best we have. What is "truth" is more philosophical than scientific. When being careful in how this is expressed what we can say is:
Evolution is about describing the best idea of how things got this way that we have now and having shown that the literal biblical stores can not be true.That is science does NOT "prove" true. It keeps checking to see if something seems to work well. It can, however, prove false. Sometimes there are several ideas about how things work. When all but one is proven false then the one remaining is the tentative, temporary scientific explanation.Biblical literalism, a young earth and single creation have been shown to be false. Whatever comes out of new discoveries it is hard to imagine anything that would revive those ideas.

There is another possibility; that you're interpretation is wrong. That the material is meant for moral lessons and not as a science textbook. You've gotten very far off on the wrong track when you forget that.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-17-2004 03:46 PM

I disagree, Steen. We have only a few liars who drop in here. Rob is more typical. He has been lied to a lot. He is almost totally ignorant and hasn't a chance of knowing when he is being lied to.Since he likes the answers he's given he repeats the lies but isn't himself lying.

Sorry I contributed to that too. Let's get back to sorting.

That pretty well summarizes it.Note it is only a summary. The facts given are a tiny part of the whole.Now then, who was it who thought the flood happened? Anyone left?

No, that is not the case. At least some parts of the drift have been directly measured for considerable times into the past. These rates match up with current rates and, for part of the time, current directions. This is simple wrong.see
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/plate2.htmpay particular attention to:
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/volc_age.gifNow then, that is off topic. (sorry)
Let's get back to sorting shall we?In what way could hyper rapid galloping plates help you with the sorting problem? It seems the more chaos the less chance for things to be so orderly.Meanwhile, Robert, another suggestion that you stop making assertions when you keep on being so very, very wrong. You are embarrassing the educational system of our shared country.

And where in your post did you answer the point of my post that you replied to?It would appear that you didn't read what you were shown. Could you correct me if I'm wrong about that?

So, Robert you don't intend to support your absurd claims?You, aren't "engaged in science"?Just why should anyone talk to you about anything then? You are, of course, entitled to your religious beliefs. Most of us don't care what you choose to believe. However, you were the one that wanted some of this stuff to be taught in a classroom. You have now opted out of that. The above is an admission that you don't belong in any kind of classroom at all.Yet, you carry on in other threads as if you wish to carry on honest debate on the facts, logic and evidence. BS! Fine, then there is no reason for anyone to listen to anything you say. Unfounded assertions are worth exactly nothing.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-03-2004 06:11 PM