Summations Only

It's back there somewhere I posted a lot of cross sections from various parts of the world that either show the faulting to penetrate through the uppermost layer or show ambiguity."Liking" merely means I think it's correct.The truncation idea becomes a necessity in the cases I described.As I said I don't have to prove the order of the angular unconformities if I show that other factors make it a necessity.The "erosion" is definitely accounted for by my theory. It is a ridiculously puny offering for your theory.Got to stop for now.

there IS NO "actual order," it's all an illusion, so if I answered that it doesn't matter I was saying the same thing as that it doesn't exist. There IS NO order. so you can rearrange it all you want, it makes no difference because any way you cut it there is no order anyway.I need a break, gotta get outta here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Perhaps this will clarify although it shouldn't be necessary:The fossils do occur predictably at particular levels of the strata, I hope you know I know that. But there is no rational explanation for that seeming ordering, and certainly not the conventional explanation which you all take as gospel.There had to be some kind of physical sorting going on, though for all anyone knows a rabbit could show up in the Triassic tomorrow. You'd explain it away in any case, but the point is that any sorting had to be physical. As I said it is certainly not on the basis of complexity, or on the basis of relatedness, and the changes that would be needed from one species to another to make the conventional ordering work for evolution are impossible.The fossil order as currently interpreted does not exist in reality but only in the minds of believers in the Old Earth and evolution, and its not existing means you can mentally rearrange it to your heart's content as long as you can find a way to rationalize it to please yourself, it doesn't matter because it has no objective status. Its predictability is interesting but your theory doesn't explain it but is imposed on it as an imaginary impossible construct, and so far there is no reasonable explanation except that it has to be a physical explanation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've never denied there is an irrational meaningless "order" meaning a predictable sequence of fossil appearances in the geologic column, I've many times acknowledged it, but it isn't what we mean by the concept of order which has to make rational sense. This doesn't make sense except in the minds of believers who aren't thinking it through carefully enough, it doesn't work in objective reality.
.
When you all keep harping on the "fossil order" you have in mind the interpretation that is imposed on the predictable but inexplicable physical sequence, the interpretation that it is based on time, that the lowest fossils are synonymous with the "earliest" on up to the highest which you treat as synonymous with "recent." The physical facts do not support the interpretation, which is the case with a great deal of OE and Evo theory. The time interpretation is artificial and is imposed on the irrational though predictable order of the appearance of the fossils in the geological column, and as I've said, it doesn't work.It is not an ordering of complexity, for one thing, and the idea of relatedness is a totally made-up idea that has no relation whatever to the actual facts. just to some imaginary made-up sequence in your minds, and certainly the idea that fossils in one layer evolved into fossils in a higher layer is impossible anyway because the necessary stages of evolution between the two are impossible. You might get one stage of transition from the reptilian ear to the mammalian ear (after running through a thousand trials that won't work, which aren't represented in the "fossil record" though they should be if evolution actually occurred), but that stage has to occur simultaneously with hundreds of other changes in the whole structure, and that is impossible.* The fossil order as you all mean it doesn't exist, can't happen, is a fantasy you impose on the physical fact of a predictable sequence of fossils. Your "fossil order" is an illusion in every possible way.*And by the way, except for the earliest/lowest fossils, the fossils in the column such as reptiles and mammals are remarkably similar to modern forms in many cases, such that there is a recognizable reptilian ear and a recognizable mammalian ear, but if evolution from one to another was really the case there is no reason at all why the reptilian fossil ear should be much at all like the currently living reptilian ear. Why isn't it a completely different stage on the way to the "modern" ear? I mean if evolution actually occurred there is no reason whatever that the rarely preserved fossils in the necessarily experimental stages between species should look at all like how the creatures ended up today. And the few supposed "transitionals" that are recognized by science go nowhere toward the huge number of transitionals that would have to exist to satisfy Darwin's own requirement.So to get back to the title of this thread, WHAT fossils does Dr. A think they have anyway? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Absolutely wrong. I've not denied the simple physical sequence, what I call an illusion is the interpretation of the fossil order in terms of the old earth and evolution. The interpretation is the illusion, the simple predictable sequence is not. You really should read further than the first sentence you trip over.If you bothered to read past the three or four words that hit you in the eye you would know I'm dodging nothing and as usual you are WAAAAAY out of line.

Start at Message 1676. There are two different senses in which the term "fossil order" is being discussed. Unfortunately I often don't anticipate that while I'm using a term in one sense I'm being read in the other, and that does make for confusion.But it's a hard thing to anticipate because I assume everyone knows I'm not calling the simple physical sequence an illusion but only the accepted interpretation, though that is frequently treated as synonymous with the simple physical sequence though I'm not using it that way. Unfortunately I'm rarely given that much benefit of the doubt and I fail to anticipate it and then even if I catch it and correct it ridiculous misinterpretations continue anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, the fossil order as defined by the OE/ToE point of view, not the simple physical sequence of fossils. Why is it so hard to get this simple point?

(Thank you Moose!)======================================= Hi Pollux.
The fossil order shows what the OE/ToE paradigm tells it to show as it were. The physical sequence of the fossils doesn’t say anything about fossils over time, it’s the interpretive system that’s been imposed on it that leads you to think it shows the things you are asking about. What you understand as extinction events is in reality nothing but the nonappearance in the geological column of particular fossils the theory tells you should be in a particular layer/time period but aren’t. A supposed decrease in numbers of species is nothing but the presence of particular fossils in smaller numbers within a rock than were present in a lower layer. I have no idea what interpretation represents the filling of a niche but that too is really just based on fossils in a rock. If in reality the fossils don’t represent time periods in the past but merely say, random burial in one time in the past, then you’ve been grossly misled by the interpretive paradigm.OE and ToE interpretation dictates what you understand it to mean. We have all been taught a system of interpretation as if it were fact. We don’t really get to see the simple actual sequence of fossils because they are presented to us in their interpretive garb. It isn’t that a certain animal is found fossiled at a certain level in the strata, no, it’s that this animal lived in a certain time period and went extinct at a certain time and so on and so forth. What if the scientists are wrong, what if it’s really just a fanciful tale thrown over a few facts?This science doesn’t seem to know how to present the simple factual phenomena, it has to burden each simple fact with the extraneous matter of theory. OE and ToE thinking does this in many different contexts. In fact that was the subject of my first posts here at EvC because it had always driven me crazy that I couldn’t easily find out the simple facts the theory was based on, or trace out an evidence trail to a particular conclusion, and this frustrated me long before I was a Christian or a creationist.This isn’t science, this is bias, this is intellectual bullying, this is co-optation, this is mind rape, this is propaganda, this is reification, this is cheating. It prevents independent thinking. All you are allowed to do is learn the interpretations and that’s supposed to constitute the facts. Stop assuming the fossil record is telling you anything about the lives of the fossilized animals in some distant past, about extinctions or anything else in the distant past. Just see that some fossils occur in one place and not another. That’s the basic reality. Stop talking about it as if the interpretation were fact. It isn’t.As for the rest of your post I probably don’t know the answers, but in any case I’d rather stick to this topic for now rather than change the subject.Thanks.

I've already clarified this in Message 1676. The problem is confusion about WHICH "fossil order" we're talking about. You have apparently thought you were talking about the physical fossil sequence (I prefer that term to "order" because "order" implies something nonrandom but the mere physical sequence is random as far as I know). Since I clarified what I meant it's time to stop accusing me of lying, which I never did. I should have been more careful about my choice of words but I had no idea how I was being misread so it didn't occur to me.I certainly recognize the simple predictable physical sequence of the fossils up the geologic column, and have all along. Sorry for the confusion, although it seems to me it should have been clear enough all along just because it should be obvious enough that I have no reason to doubt the physical sequence. I was reading you as simply treating what you called the "actual" order, as the same as the interpretive system.What I call an illusion is the idea of an order imposed on that physical sequence, the whole timescale definition of the layers and the fossils. Which, again, ought to have been clear enough already..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think this is one example of how that interpretation is an illusion. How about the depth of the column itself? Those found in the lowest levels were probably the marine creatures that died off most completely, and the higher you go in the column the more you are getting into creatures that survived the Flood in greater numbers. Those at the highest levels of course survived because they were represented on the Ark.We wouldn't recognize any that completely died off because they wouldn't be represented in our world. It's not a matter of primitive versus modern, it's just a matter of what lived and what died. If it died out completely, we wouldn't see anything like it that is living.As long as you think in terms of the timescale paradigm you'll think in terms of modern versus primitive and in terms of supposed events occurring at different levels because you view them as time periods. But the Flood paradigm gives a completely different interpretation. Yes, and you believe that it is a record that shows changes over time whereas I believe it all happened at once and is over and done with. The Flood wiped them out, not some event in some past time period. Their nonappearance in a particular layer only means that they weren't in a location to be picked up by the Flood. ABE: Or as I thought by the end of this post, they had already all died in earlier phases of the Flood. /abe Only to those who think in terms of the timescale paradigm. From the Flood point of view it has nothing to do with time, it's all about space or geography, location, or unknown factors having to do with how water behaves. Not time. Coelacanth (which I see you discuss next). Everything has evolved since the Flood, so what you are thinking of as the "modern" type of coelacanth most likely just wasn't around at the time of the Flood. That would be why today's coelacanth is different from that in the great graveyard of antediluvian life. Just the usual continuing variation that all life undergoes over generations, otherwise known as microevolution. In other words today's coelacanth didn't exist at the time of the Flood, it's a descendant of those that did but that earlier generation have all since died out. It's not necessary that an earlier generation completely die out, but that's probably what happened. Which wouldn't particularly support either of the paradigms. I'm trying to maintain an awareness of the actual physical phenomenon in the physical world since otherwise it will get co-opted by the illusory timescale paradigm explanation of the fossil sequence. All that most likely means is that they'd already died in earlier stages of the Flood. It was killing everything in its path so by the time it got to the higher levels there wouldn't have been much left alive. I'd have to spend time thinking through this part of your argument but at first glance it strikes me as the usual strange illusion created by the timescale paradigm being imposed on simple physical facts, inventing all kinds of scenarios out of different kinds of sediments that are nothing but mental constructs having nothing to do with the actual reality.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've commented before that that's the level of variation we see in the trilobites up the geological column. They are all cousins, they do not represent more evolved'/modern types in the higher levels. In fact there really isn't any such thing as degrees of evolution, all that ever happens is variations built into the genome of the Kind so that you can get great diversity of the Kind, many different cousins, but it's all horizontal, not vertical evolution. But those aren't "eras," they are just the separate grave sites of different branches of a creature's family, the kind of differences I'm talking about above, that are brought about by built-in variability or "microevolution." Some of the same kind of fossils show up in different layers, you know, there isn't always a big difference from level to level, and all the separate grouping of more different types means anyway is that creatures got buried with their own kind, perhaps due to their flocking together when picked up by the Flood, or due to some unknown factors of how water behaves. But I'm not denying any of the physical facts, I'm denying only the timescale paradigm as the explanation of the facts you are describing. The timescale interpretation is the illusion; the facts themselves are better explained by the Flood paradigm.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What would be strange is if I always came up with the best explanation for what I'm trying to get across, or that even when I did, which I do from time to time, my opponents could transcend their adherence to the other paradigm in order to get my point. I was merely addressing the fact that it is marine creatures that are found in the lowest levels. That doesn't mean they don't appear in higher levels as well. There must be factors due to how water behaves involved in the location of whale fossils. I was suggesting that the first deposits would have been mostly of the creatures found originally at lower depths. The habitat of land animals is higher up than the marine creatures so it would make sense that they got caught ni the Flood in the later stages. I'm sure there are all kinds of exceptions because there would have been many factors involved, but original habitat should be one big factor. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They would have a different opinion because they are seeing everything through a different paradigm.

Exactly It is ONLY the radiometric dating that shows it wrong, just one kind of evidence, and that's partly why I don't address it. There are creationists who do address it though, I just haven't studied the subject enough to follow them. Also, although the method looks consistent in the present, there is no way to know if it holds up in the past. But having only ONE kind of evidence doesn't cut it in any case.

Which are misinterpreted by the timescale paradigm just as the animals are. YOu see a different variety of tree, or a different plant, period, not a "proto" tree. Just another unwarranted application of the timescale paradigm. Utterly ridiculous. Flowers and grasses co-existed and merely got buried in different layers. The whole idea of "newer" and "older" is a wildly subjective totally unwarranted judgment. You aren't seeing "changes" at all, you are seeing different kinds of plants that your adherence to the timescale paradigm deceives you into classifying in terms of evolution.
. It didn't. The "order" is an illusion conjured up out of feverish imagination and pasted onto the physical world without justification. It's like Phrenology, as I said a while back, nothing but mental conjurings reified or taken for reality. It's like seeing patterns or meaning in tea leaves or the lines of the palm of the hand. Like a Rorschach test or formatons in clouds. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.