Summations Only

quote:

---

Scuse me? It doesn't matter BECAUSE there is no actual order, it does not exist.

---

You answered an example of the actual order not by refuting it, but by saying it didn’t matter - because your paradigm allowed no reason for an. Order. Don’t try rewriting the discussion Faith. That all-too-typical Christian dishonesty always annoy me.Either deal with the evidence or try pretending that the order doesn’t matter. One or the other Faith. You can’t get away with chopping and changing between them.Fact. Cetaceans always come later in the order than ichthyosaurs - despite their similarities. And they come later than ammonites, mosasaurs and plesiosaurs, too.

quote:

---

There isn't. Not in physical reality. The order exists only in your mind and that of everybody else who believes in Old Earthism and Evolution.

---

That is just something you made up to avoid dealing with the fact, Faith. The order of the fossil record is a simple observable fact, confirmed by many, many observations. It was first noted by William Smith before Darwin was even born.

quote:

---

Um no I haven't. I pointed out that you could rearrange it and not feel obliged to deny that an order exists, since you could just adjust your thinking to make it work, which is evidence that it's all a creation of your mind and doesn't really exist in realit

---

That is just stupid. A different order is still an order, not the absence of an order, so no adjustment would be necessary.Let me remind you that the interpretation of the order is irrelevant to this discussion. It is the fact that there is an order - and one you have no explanation for - that matters.

quote:

---

Well, since I've admitted no such thing I assume the other time you say it happened it didn't happen either.

---

And there you go telling obvious falsehoods again.

quote:

---

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

---

That hardly helps. It’s way, way too vague. Some faults will penetrate to the top, either originally or through reactivation. But The fault I referred to is in a diagram we’ve frequently used and unambiguously stops way, way shor5 of the top.

quote:

---

The truncation idea becomes a necessity in the cases I described.

---

There is no case where your truncation example is necessary. Not one. And if it is impossible as seems almost certainly true then it can’t be the answer.

quote:

---

The "erosion" is definitely accounted for by my theory. It is a ridiculously puny offering for your theory.

---

As usual puny means better than anything you have. Your explanation of abrasion which coincidentally looks like surface erosion is hardly better than the straightforward idea that it looks like surface erosion because it is surface erosion.

quote:

---

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.

---

No you weren’t.

quote:

---

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.

---

So you keep saying. But you never answer the evidence, never offer any refutation. But then denying the truth is all you have.Fact: the existence of an order in the fossil has been known for more than 200 years.Fact: the order is determined by empirical observation.Fact: YECs have utterly dpfailed to provide any reasonable explanation of the order, or to refute it. If it were just an illusion they would have done it by now - in fact scientists would have very likely done it well before Darwin published.We don’t need to even think about evolution. Those facts are enough.

quote:

---

The fossils do occur regularly at particular levels of the strata, I hope you know I know that.

---

I didn't realise that you were lying, no.I have been VERY clear that I am talking about the simple existence of an order. And you have, in reply insisted that there is no order.There is no way to interpret that as anything other than the denial of any order.

quote:

---

But there is no rational explanation for that seeming ordering, and certainly not the conventional explanation which you all take as gospel.

---

Your opinion is as foolishly wrong as always.

quote:

---

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.

---

Physical sorting is simply not a plausible explanation. Why would ichthyosaurs end up with ammonites but not any of the cetaceans, for instance ? Why should all the dinosaurs from the biggest lumbering sauropods down to the smallest theropods (birds excluded) wind up in a relatively narrow range of strata. And why should all the big mammals only appear in later strata? Is a triceratops more like a small theropod than a rhinoceros? Is an ankylosaur more like a archaeopteryx than it is like a glyptodon ?You have no rational explanation, but we do. It is even false to say that variations of the order could easily be accommodated. If it was cetaceans living alongside the dinosaurs we would have trouble to start with. And if you pushed them back earlier still - without otherwise changing the order - the problems would get worse. It’s not hard to think of examples like that. The order very strongly agrees with the Linnaean hierarchy - which is what should be the case if evolution were true. If the order were hopelessly different then evolution would never have got off the ground.

quote:

---

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,

---

So we should all assume that you are talking at cross-purposes with everyone else and using deceptive phrasing to hide it.The physical order was the subject under discussion, not any interpretation. That was explicitly stated. If you choose to talk about something other than the order - but still phrase it as speaking about the order how can you expect anyone to know that you are ignoring the context of the discussion and saying things you don’t mean.

quote:

---

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.

---

If you aren’t treating the accepted interpretationas synonymous with the order then every time you mention the order you must mean the physical order. Which is it Faith ? When you call the order of the fossil record an illusion do you mean the physical order or not ?

Relevant quotes from recent posts in this thread:From Faith:

quote:

---

The supposed order is nothing but a 19th century way of thinking that is just a figment of the imagination and far from solid evidence.

---

quote:

---

There simply IS NO actual observed order, it's all an imaginative construct

---

I think that I can safely say that not only is the physical order an actual observed order, it is THE actual observed order.

quote:

---

There IS no evidence, it's all imaginary. You can't show anything objective about the fossil order

---

That it exists can certainly be shown objectively.

quote:

---

Scuse me? It doesn't matter BECAUSE there is no actual order, it does not exist.

---

Another clear denial

quote:

---

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.

---

And another.And from me

quote:

---

We are talking about the actual observed order, not ideas of relatedness

---

quote:

---

Then maybe you can show me a site where cetaceans and ichthyosaurs are found together. Or I’ll take ammonites or mosasaurs or plesiosaurs instead of the ichthyosaurs. Or I’ll even take evidence of cetaceans coming before any of the others.

---

quote:

---

This is why my discussion of the order in the fossil record is restricted to the order itself. That is an observable fact. Paradigms don’t matter to that. You may mix up the fact and the interpretation but that in no way invalidates the fact that there is an order

---

quote:

---

That is just something you made up to avoid dealing with the fact, Faith. The order of the fossil record is a simple observable fact, confirmed by many, many observations. It was first noted by William Smith before Darwin was even born.

---

From JonF

quote:

---

The ordering of the fossil record is a demonstrable and demonstrated observation

---

I think that makes the point adequately.

quote:

---

I've already clarified this in Message 1676.

---

Obfuscate would be more accurate.

quote:

---

The problem is confusion about WHICH "fossil order" we're talking about.

---

There is only one order, the actual order of the fossils. The one we were clearly talking about. Besides if there is more than one, your denial there was ANY actual observed order would cover all of them.

quote:

---

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).

---

Unlike you I know what I meant. And I clearly said that I was talking about an observed fact, not an interpretation.Also, since I know how creationists love probability arguments perhaps you would like to figure out the odds if the order being a massive coincidence like you say.

quote:

---

Since I clarified what I meant it's time to stop accusing me of lying, which I never did.

---

Since your clarification seems to be a lie in itself that really wouldn’t make a lot of sense.Why should anyone accept that when you said:There simply IS NO actual observed order, it's all an imaginative construct you meant There is an actual,observed order but I reject the standard interpretation of it?

quote:

---

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

---

Of course you have a reason for denying it, just like you deny the erosion that is observed at unconformities. Just like so many creationists deny the existence of transitional fossils. Why should we believe that you didn’t mean what you clearly said - when it is the sort of thing you would say ?

quote:

---

What I call an illusion is the idea of an order imposed on that physical sequence

---

The physical sequence is the order. Try not to contradict yourself.

quote:

---

I think this is one example of how that interpretation is an illusion

---

If so, it would be the first one you’ve come up with. Which would be very strange if you actually had good reasons for thinking it is an illusion.

quote:

---

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.

---

That fails to adequately address the issues or the evidence. Whales only appear quite late in the fossil record. Are we supposed to believe that they aren’t marine creatures and were on the Ark ?In fact it doesn’t address absence from the fossil record at all. Anything alive could have been killed and buried in the very first terrestrial deposits. Plants, being immobile certainly should have been and it rather beggars belief to think that there were no dead land animals around either.

quote:

---

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.

---

That’s your opinion but the experts disagree. Why should we take your opinion over theirs ? At least they have a good grasp of the evidence.

quote:

---

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.

---

Interesting attempt to cover over the fact that the whole idea that the order is an illusion is something you made up without any support at all. Especially as you kept saying it when the discussion was about the actual physical order. Even to the point of denying that there was any objective order - even in this thread.

quote:

---

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.

---

And that dodges the issue. In fact you have absolutely no plausible reason why whales should only appear so late in the record. Your claim that there must be a reason is purely a paradigm-driven assumption.

quote:

---

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.

---

Since - Biblically - all land animals should have died in the first 40 days I find it hard to imagine that there would have been any around in the later stages. And there is no evidence that habitat plays a big role at all

quote:

---

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

---

Or because the evidence points that way.But that doesn’t answer my question. Why should we believe you over them. Just because they disagree with your paradigm?

quote:

---

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

---

Oh look Faith is back to denying the physical order of the fossils again.Perhaps you would like to explain why the observations of the order don’t count as sufficient justification.

quote:

---

The observed predictable sequence of fossils is not properly speaking an "order." The idea of an order is imposed on it by the timescale paradigm.

---

No, a predictable sequence is an order. The nonsense you spout trying to deny your mistakes and contradictions.

quote:

---

You can use the term "order" but you'll only confuse things,

---

It’s what everyone else means so it won’t confuse anyone.

quote:

---

because the "fossil order" is an invention of the timescale paradigm while the mere physical sequence is just random

---

In other words you want to avoid the term order because it draws attention to the fact that there is a predictable sequence - and you have no adequate explanation for that fact.That isn’t confusing things at all.

quote:

---

A sequence of unrelated numbers can also be an "order" in that same sense, but not in the sense of a systematic order.

---

In fact, as I have pointed out there is strong agreement with the Linnean taxonomy so it isn’t as unsystematic as you think. A bit odd if it was by pure chance as you claim. But then, if it were by chance, ANY predictable order would be unexpected given the number of fossils.

quote:

---

I'm sure you're smart enough to know what I mean.

---

Well yes. It’s pretty obvious that you are engaging in one of your usual dishonest attempts to minimise or suppress evidence for our position, aggravated by your usual attempts to deny the fact that you don’t have a coherent position on the subject.

quote:

---

Yes, you all insist that the physical sequence of fossils, or "order," and the timescale interpretation of the "fossil order" are synonymous

---

Naturally the orders will be the same, by the law of superposition. But there is no need to assume any particular dating at all.

quote:

---

You can't even really tell them apart because the interpretation is so habitually ingrained by now.

---

Apparently you can’t even when it’s clear that I’m talking about the actual physical order. So if conflating the two is a monumental cheat then you are the guilty party.