Summations Only

As has been explained many times, the dates of the various ages are derived from RMD of igneous layers sandwiching the fossils. Their relative ages have been known for nearly 200years. You reject the validity of dating but do not show where its errors are.

True I can only assume the errors because everything else I know contradicts the methods.

That is another example of you misrepresenting reality Faith. What you mean is that reality contradicts everything your Cult tries to market.The issue is not with reality but rather the fact that everything your Cult tries to market is false.

De toit looked at the distribution of fossils in S. America and Africa, and the direction of movement of ice sheets - shown by scratches on rocks, and could not make sense of what he was seeing. Hearing of Wegener's ideas, he moved the continents and Antarctica together and saw they fitted very well.This showed the ice age preceded the separation and does not support the usual YEC ideas.Have you ever read Wonderley's "Neglect of Geologic Data by Creationists"? It is freely available on the Net and will give you a lot to think aboutGoogling De toit Permian ice age will give you references.

I'm probably not going to be able to read any of your recommendations. But I keep thinking that while it's very clear there are geographic and stratigraphic similarities that fit the continents together, the extent of ice sheets could have occurred to the continents separately after they were some distance apart. Probably not far apart, though, because the ice age would have followed the split pretty soon afterward. You'd have to show me the evidence that they fit together just as tellingly as the other elements. I can always rethink the timing to some extent, but I do like the way I've sorted it out at the moment.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Since Faith refuses to even clarify what she meant, let alone support her assertions I will dismantle her post without it.The first point of course is the title. The order of the fossil record is a well-established fact and Faith never says anything to impugn it, so the title as written is both false and unsupported.The second is this: Presumably Faith means the interpretation of the order of the fossil record as a sequence of different forms of life appearing and disappearing over time.This view was notably put forward by Georges Cuvier, a Catastophist and an opponent of the forms of evolution proposed during his life (he died before Darwin published). Cuvier made significant contributions to geology and taxonomy so his views should carry some weight.Cuvier did much of his own research, notably a study of the fossils found in the Paris basin. As a catastrophist he attributed the extinctions to massive floods - plural.In fact, even making no assumptions about how the strata were deposited the idea is quite a natural one. There is no viable sorting mechanism or even criterion that would explain what is actually seen.When it is recognised that the strata were deposited over a long period of time, then it becomes quite clearly true.So there is no need for any 19th Century ideas about progress.Now I will grant that evolution makes more sense of the order - giving partial reasons why we find particular forms at particular levels. But it is not necessary for the basic idea, and even then modern ideas of evolution work far better than simplistic ideas of progress (the discovery of tiktaalik being a case in point).So, Faith’s claims are both uninformed and lacking in merit. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

The very idea of strata representing time periods is so ludicrous, that factor all by itself demolishes the fossil order. But I'll have to come back to this later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The very idea of strata representing time periods is so ludicrous, that factor all by itself demolishes the fossil order.

---

You can’t demolish an observed fact with irrelevant opinions. That really is ludicrous.And the strata do not represent time periods in any sense that is the slightest bit ludicrous. That’s just another of the claims you often make and never support or even really explain.

You just love making your position increasingly silly don't you?Now you also need to post the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that your Flud would cause the continents to separate or an ice age.The idea the Biblical Floods are anything more than plot devices in stories is what is truly ludicrous. Edited by jar, : + "r"

No, jar. If she’d have thought about it she’d realise that she needed all the earlier Ice Ages to happen *during* the Flood. Her ideas aren’t silly enough this time!

200 years or so ago all you needed for the Flood was to miraculously drop some water on the Earth then take it away. As geology and physics have developed, now you need the following miracles :- sorting of the fossils
- rapid plate tectonics
- massive volcanism
- rapid magnetic pole inversions
- vast change in RA decay rates, which also affects the Sun, Moon, and even other galaxies
- get rid of the heat from RA decay
- one big ice age
- throw a few meteorites at the EarthI've probably missed some.Incidentally, why are the moon, rocky planets, and asteroids covered in craters? Debris from lack of tidying up after Creation hitting them?

It would have been after the Fall, and in fact I've run across creationists speculating about how the Fall affected the entire cosmos. Something exploded, or in any case the moon was hit by debris from some kind of explosive event. The earth was also hit. All connected somehow with the Flood's beginning with the forty days and nights of rain, the first rain that had ever occurred on the planet. The opening of the windows of heaven means something more than the release of the rain, however, but I don't know what. I'm glad I can look forward to getting all these fascinating questions answered eventually. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually it's about as ludicrous as if we grew a layer of skin with every birthday. Totally extraneous, nothing to do with time, completely ridiculous idea that the planet would acquire layers of sediment every few million years to correspond with a new collection of life forms.

Why do you waste people's time with such meaningless noise?

quote:

---

Actually it's about as ludicrous as if we grew a layer of skin with every birthday.

---

No, it’s not. It doesn’t have any assumptions of completeness or regularity. You really ought to understand what you are disagreeing with.

quote:

---

Totally extraneous, nothing to do with time, completely ridiculous idea that the planet would acquire layers of sediment every few million years to correspond with a new collection of life forms

---

Basically you are rejecting the whole idea of erosion and sedimentation - processes which are observed in the present day.The sediments that are being deposited now represent this period of time in exactly the same way (if you think otherwise you are just wrong). Any remains they contain that end up becoming fossils will be from this period of time. Please explain why you think that that is silly.