Fossil sorting for simple

Simple,I would very much like to hear how you explain the correlation of cladistical analyses & stratigraphy. Cladistics is an objective method of determining relationships, it's only assumption is evolution (& if your business is classification, then not necessarily that, either). Why is that assumption so amazingly borne out in the fossil record? How did the flood manage it?Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-05-2004][This message has been edited by mark24, 02-05-2004]

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Simple, I did.........See my last post.Mark

Simple, Er, nope, that's YOUR problem. Why? Because the assumption under test passes with flying colours. In the 300 cladograms tested the odds of the evolutionary pattern occurring by chance, over & above the statistical "chance factor" is 5.68*10^323:1That's as close as you get to proof in science.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Hi Joe,I've bookmarked the URL & hope to get onto it ASAP.It bothered me that no one had put a figure to the "odds against" evolution having not have happened in the GC given the cladistic & stratigraphic correlation. I think this is an excellent approach to take with creationists that says much, much more than mere words. It puts a number on it that they cannot escape.Cheers,Mark

Simple, In addition to that, pollen appears at the same time as flowering plants. How did a flood engineer that without exception?Mark

Simple, Yes, it's called "mathematics". No one knew the level of correlation until the tests were undertaken.Now please answer the original question.Mark

Whatever, Message 9, please.Mark

Simple, Message 81, please.Mark

Simple, Message 81, please.Mark

Simple, http://EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simple -->EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simpleI want to know why cladistics & stratigraphy match to the tune of 5.68*10^323:1 of such a thing occurring by chance when cladograms were tested against stratigraphy?This is as close as you get to proof (of evolution) in science, Simple.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-07-2004]

Whatever, But then you are back to your age old problem that you simply cannot be consistent. The sediments that Joe is talking about represents 5/6ths PLUS of the fossil record.If the pre-flood sediments weren't laid down by the flood, then why isn't genesis recorded in them? The fossil record contradicts genesis & the bible by your own admission.Furthermore, you have already claimed that the Cambrian explosion is actually a flood artifact (though I fail to see how given the utterly different organisms that live within it, but to humour you....), yet you now render it as a pre-flood artifact. Will the real & consistent whatever please stand up!Is the "Cambrian explosion" not a flood artifact for the reasons you describe, or is it? You must understand our confusion when your ad hoc arguments are THAT mobile! Try to remember the reasons why you conceded that the Cambrian explosion was a very, very bad example of a genesis event, & reconcile that with what you just told Joe.THINK! Am I asking too much?Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Simple,http://EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simple -->EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simplePLEASE!

Whatever,So why is Genesis not recorded in the "preflood scene", but evolution is? Remember the cladistic & stratigraphic correlation?Mark

Whatever,It's PRE-FLOOD OR ITS NOT!!!!!! If its pre-flood it by definition was NOT affected by it.You are now saying that over 5/6ths of the GC is pre-flood. Where is genesis recorded? WHERE? There are SIX phases. Go for it, leave nothing out! But over 5/6ths of the record was deposited before God pished on everything. Meaning it was utterly, absolutely, utterly unaffected by the flood. This pre-flood record is contradicted by the actual fossil record & stratigraphy. Genesis is contradicted by the fossil record as you have described it to Joe. Nice one!May I remind you that flowering/fruiting/terrestrial plants are allegedly appearing before fish,trilobites, et al, among many other contradictions.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

whatever, Any palaeontology book. It was, if you are being consistent with Joe (reply to post 137), that is. The strata are cross correlatable globally. This was the very first thing done by the science of geology, to establish the relative ages of the rocks. No dating techniques are required, only strata ordering. If your explanation to Joe of his algal stromatolites to reptiles was that "a lot of your sediments could of formed pre-flood", then you are in very deep water (pun intented). This DOES mean that 5/6ths + of the geologic column is pre flood rock.If you don't want Joe's question to be answered with preflood sediment, then how do you account for the ordering?Remember why you changed your mind & said the Ce was a flood deposit? Why is this cross correlatable to Joe's section that you claim is pre-flood? You need to read geology. This is a case where you know so little, you don't know how little.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-08-2004]

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall