Summations Only

Yes, of course you did, and that, of course, rightly means my demonstrable observations, as you should know.

Not entirely clear what you have in mind, but I mean observations such as the lack of any disturbance -- such as normal erosion or tectonic deformation or even magma sills between layers -- in a three-mile stack of strata before all of the layers were laid down, which is demonstrable in many cross sections and photographs.

Then please demonstrate this claim of yours: And I mean actually demonstrate it. You need to show that all the tectonic events occurred after the strata were laid down, not make up desperate excuses to explain away contrary evidence. You need to show that all the erosion found between layers occurred underground like you say not simply assert it.You haven’t done it, you can’t do it, we all know it.

Actually it isn't. The whole idea of any relatedness between the fossilized creatures is purely the product of overheated imagination, there is nothing objective about it. There is certainly no ordering on the basis of complexity since some of the "primitive" creatures are staggeringly complex, and there is certainly no actual evidence of any genetic relatedness up the timescale, just purely subjective impressions, which if examined objectively show that change from one to another would require such complex and simultaneous incremental changes, not even counting all the trial and error that would endlessly lead in useless directions, that the whole idea is clearly a pipe dream. No, I don't ignore it, I reject it outright, because it's just a fantasy in itself, and if anybody is ignoring actual evidence it's your side since the Flood has been well demonstrated many times. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Actually it isn't. The whole idea of any relatedness between the fossilized creatures is purely the product of overheated imagination, there is nothing objective about it

---

We are talking about the actual observed order, not ideas of relatedness. Your objection completely misses the point.

I showed all that at great tedious length on many threads in the past and am probably not up to reproducing all that here. I produced dozens of cross sections and photos that show flat strata with tight contacts. There is only one exception, which you know quite well, the angular unconformities, and I proposed a theory that explains those too, not proof, true, but a theory, and those unconformities are the ONLY exception. And there is very little erosion between layers while the vast majority are flat and straight without any erosion whatever, and the erosion that is seen here and there is not on a scale that we would see on the surface of the earth, so that it must be understood as occurring after the strata were in place. This has all been shown and argued umpteen times. The standard interpretation just does not fit the facts. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your ignorance and prejudices do not affect reality. I would challenge you but you never respond to such challenges with anything more than unsupported assertions such as the one above.

There is no possible objective defense of the fossil order because it is all an imaginative exercise without an iota of reality to it, and I said a lot more to make that case than the part you quote above.

There simply IS NO actual observed order, it's all an imaginative construct. There is nothing there you could possibly demonstrate objectively.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I showed all that at great tedious length on many threads in the past and am probably not up to reproducing all that here.

---

Another ridiculous falsehood. Stop insulting my intelligence. You won’t reproduce the demonstration because it never existed.

quote:

---

I produced dozens of cross sections and photos that show flat strata with tight contacts.

---

Which don’t support the claim. Tectonic events that happened before those strata were laid down aren’t going to affect them.

quote:

---

There is only one exception, which you know quite well, the angular unconformities, and I proposed a theory that explains those too, not proof, true, but a theory, and those unconformities are the ONLY exception.

---

There are intrusions and faults, too, maybe more. And your explanation of angular unconformities is simply an attempt to explain away contrary evidence. It can’t support your claim unless you can show it to be what actually happened. And in reality you haven’t even shown that it is even possible.

quote:

---

And there is very little erosion between layers while the vast majority are flat and straight without any erosion whatever, and the erosion that is seen here and there is not on a scale that we would see on the surface of the earth, so that it must be understood as occurring after the strata were in place

---

There is a lot more than you will admit to. You haven’t done any reasonable investigation on the amount. How about the deeply valleys and karst erosion in the upper surface of the Redwall Limestone ?

quote:

---

The standard interpretation just does not fit the facts.

---

If that were true you wouldn’t have to invent your own facts.

quote:

---

There simply IS NO actual observed order, it's all an imaginative construct. There is nothing there you could possibly demonstrate objectively.

---

So you say, but you have never dealt with the evidence. Are you going to answer it now ? Are you going to justify your assertion ? Or is it just another of your inventions, another example of your disregard for honesty and truthfulness.

There IS no evidence, it's all imaginary. You can't show anything objective about the fossil order. That's why there is nothing to answer.

quote:

---

There IS no evidence, it's all imaginary.

---

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.And that’s just one example. Evidence has been offered, denying that it exists is simply foolish. It has even been offered in this thread. I didn’t have to look far to find an example Message 5

There are a few ambiguous cases of faults but very few and they ARE ambiguous, while the majority clearly demonstrate my point as they go through the strata from the top down. As for intrusions if you mean magma that's the same situation, the magma goes all the way to the top from the bottom. If you mean something else I don't know what. No, but they would be clearly apparent in the geologic column and on cross sections, and they aren't, so they didn't happen.I can't show my theory of angular unconformities actually happened just as you can't show anything about your theories either, not about the fossil record, and not the theory of how the Supergroup got eroded down over millions of years, and not the theory of how angular unconformities form either.I can, however, make something like my theory a necessity based on other facts that demonstrate a young earth or the lack of disturbance to the geologic column until all the strata were in place, etc.Karst erosion woujd clearly have occurred after the Redwall limestone was in place among the other strata. Don't know what you are referring to about valleys, but valleys certainly formed after the Flood too.Where are you getting this ridiculous idea that I'm just "inventing facts" for some irrelevant reason? I'm simply including my own observations where they amount to objective evidence in their own right.

Why would that make any kind of difference when there is no objective reason in the first place for either one of them to appear in the column above or below the other? I'm sure you could easily explain away their appearing together. It would require a minor adjustment in your mental arrangements, that's all. Again, since there is no objective reason for the ordering of these things in the first place, changing the order would be just as meaningless as the order they are now found in. You don't seem to recognize that it is your own mind that is creating the concept of order among these creatures, and that the order does not have any objective meaning in reality. If a different order had presented itself you would have mentally bestowed a false objectivity on that in the same way, you'd just mentally rearrange the characteristics of the creatures to justify it. Or if the characteristics were too different in the sequence you've already established in your mind, you'd just explain it as something like perhaps the reappearance of some other creature, since there's no particular reason why any given animal among a range of possibilities gets preserved anyway, but you wouldn't interpret it as disproving your idea of the fossil order. Imagination is very flexible that way. Indeed it is. Mental constructs are very accommodating. They should indeed be easy enough to come by since they have no actual objective reality. Imagination is very adjustable. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.