Summations Only

So now you reject the facts that Ned provided earlier.Faith, you're going to have to make up your mind here. Why is it just 'apparent'?You have not made your case here. Please dispense with the arguments by assertion. It is, nevertheless, evidence.Please provide us with your explanation, which you allege to be superior. And all the other stuff that you deem unimportant, such as the sequential appearance of life forms. Then refute it.Then explain to us how interpretations are intrinsically erroneous. Then give us a better explanation. This pattern is universal in the fossil record in instance after instance since the earliest forms of life. Explain why it is always there. Well, if you want absolute proof, of course we don't have that. It happened in the past. We can only collect supporting evidence.But, if that's your case, then you may as well accept Last Thursdayism. Give me a reason why not. It is the best explanation and there are actually no alternatives. It is a scientific fact. A well-supported fact based on known biological mechanisms and testing. Actually, the fossil impose constraints on the theory of evolution.On the other hand we have YEC, which observes no constraints. Okay, give us an example.For instance, you could find for us a mammal fossil preserved in Cambrian rocks. No, the order is a conclusion based on the fossil record. As such it can be treated as a hard fact until it is disproven.That hasn't happened. And the problem is? And we can do experiments like predict that a certain fossil would be found in Devonian aged rocks and then go look for it. But, of course, that would never happen, would it? And if it did it would be just a coincidence, eh?

I've thought about this lately and perhaps it would be better discussed in another thread. However, just to comment, I think that what makes a creationist so disgraceful is not their belief in creation, but their repeated use of discredited creationist arguments such as the ones we see here every day.

(Sigh...)Just another strawman argument.Again.Please show us where anyone (particularly here) says that the fossil record is absolute proof of evolution.The point is that the fossil record is evidence supporting evolution and nothing else that's out there as an explanation. Let me make a suggestion: Because the theory of evolution is a robust theory. Please provide such a reason. Then why do you say this: It seems at odds with Ned's post that there's a lot more to it than just a bunch of fossils. I submit that there is nothing wrong with using a well-supported theory as a fact. T In fact, that's what we do. If we treat it as a fact, and it is wrong we find out when it gives us bad results.That hasn't happened yet...Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Faith, you are not discussing 'proof', you are asking for absolute proof. We deal in evidence and where it leads us. Our 'proof' is in the preponderance of evidence.Your denial of evidence is not supported by any of your assertions. Then stop avoiding those facts when you make a statement. Well, it should be understood that this all refers to reasonable people. Nonsense. It would be like leaving out a structural element of airliner that confronts the reality of actually flying.The theory of evolution has been flying for a couple of centuries now... Or it could be a robust theory.

Well, there you go.You have just invalidated the rest of your point by committing the fallacy of a strawman argument.No reason to read any further...

In that case, you are projecting. You deal in absolute, revealed truth and that trumps everything.Few actually scientists are like that, when doing science. Yes, until the evidence forces change. And since the evidence points toward evolution, we will use it as a scientific fact until the evidence points elsewhere. Not sure what you mean here, but I'll look at this statement: Not as far as I know. Do we have to explain that again?Look, I know you would like us to provide complete, perfect and consistent knowledge about everything, because that's what you think you already have. But that's not realistic in the this world. However, even without such complete knowledge, we can draw some pretty compelling conclusions.On the other hand, what have you got?

So then, why is it seductive, in your opinion?

And you have shown this somehow?Please tell us what you think a theory is supposed to do. According to you... Well, who ever said that a debate is the real world.Why should we take your word that the theory of evolution is useless?

Heh, heh ...Obviously, YECs are good at judging things.

So, all of these organisms lived at the same time.In that case why do we not see one hippo fossil mixed in with dinosaur fossils, or one tree preserved in Cambrian rocks. How about a blue whale in the Precambrian seas?I'm sorry but the aftermath of a flood does not look like nicely ordered sediments, clean, finely layered preserving the details of life.And what about subaerial volcanic rocks of all ages?You really need to think about your story before defending it among knowledgeable people.

Actually, this does not always happen. In fact, the Tapeats (which you refer to below) thins out against the 'monadnocks' of Shinumo Quartzite in the the Grand Canyon, and the Bright Angle Shale directly overlies the Shinumo. That would be buried topography. Which is what we see. When the pre-existing topograph is buried, you can then have continuous, tabular sheets. This is not rocket science. Not really. If you look at the contact between the Kayenta and Navajo for instance you see "Navajo Sandstone frequently overlies and interfingers with the Kayenta Formation of the Glen Canyon Group." (Navajo Sandstone - Wikipedia). This is a situation where the depositional environment wavered back and forth between desert and river/swamp lowland. This is called a transitional contact. Obviously this is not the case. Most of the time a contact has to be defined as something like "the first sandstone bed at the top of the shale formation", or something like that. The compositions are locked in by the depositional environments and the original bedforms are preserved during lithification.

Nonsense. The thickness of the Tapeats has to go to zero feet around the 'monadnocks'. Bright Angel Shale directly overlies the Shinumo. That's pretty significant, don't you think?

Then how do you get stratigraphic columns like this? Simple denial is not understandable.

Okay, Faith. My understanding is that you think all of the layers in the Grand Canyon are 'straight and flat', correct?I Interpret this to mean that they are perfectly tabular and continuous with planar contacts above and below. Would that be correct?If so then you are completely wrong. Let's look at the evidence for the Tapeats Sandstone, the Shinumo Quartzite and the 'Great Unconformity'.First, here is what the USGS says about the thickness of the Tapeats Sandstone: Do you understand what this means? It means that the Tapeats was not deposited on some locations and is of highly variable thickness.And here is what the Wikipedia says about the unconformity and the Shinumo Quartzite: Again do you understand what this means?It means that these hills preceded and were the actual source of sand for the Tapeats and that the Tapeats was deposited gradually up the slopes of these hills. They were, in effect, islands.How does this comport with your description of the setting?I also found this shot of the Great Unconformity where Tapeats overlies the Vishnu schist. Does it really look 'straight and flat' to you?

This is a good question. I honestly can't say that I have any idea what Faith means by some of these statements.Maybe a picture or two would be good.