Summations Only

quote:

---

The "actual order" has no real order to it at all. just the imposed daydreams of evolutionists.

---

And there you go with more unfounded nastiness.The order of the fossil record is observed fact. It was discovered before the theory of evolution got started, without reference to evolution. Those are the facts.

And it was misinterpreted as having a rational order when it doesn't.

quote:

---

And it was misinterpreted as having a rational order when it doesn't.

---

I am not debating interpretation. I am pointing out the fact if the order and you just keep on with the nastiness.Fact: there is an order to the fossil record.Fact: it cannot be explained by Flood geology.All the nastiness you can muster won’t change that.

The order in the fossil record can be proved Faith.You can see it yourself. You can study the rocks and fossils either directly or by reading the science. The evidence is so strong that one of the more iconic disproofs of evolution is finding fossils out of order. If the fissils are not ordered you should be able to produce literally thousands out of the claimed order.This is like radiometric dating isn't it Faith. Facts that can't be refuted that prove something that you can't let yourself think about.

Oh fer...I KNOW THERE IS A PREDICTABLE "ORDER" OF APPEARANCE for crying out loud, but the INTERPRETATION of that accidental order in terms of appearance in different "time periods" over millions of years and evolution from one to the next IS AN ILLUSION. Sheesh.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I KNOW THERE IS A PREDICTABLE "ORDER" OF APPEARANCE for crying out loud, but the INTERPRETATION of that accidental order in terms of appearance in different "time periods" over millions of years and evolution from one to the next IS AN ILLUSION. Sheesh.

---

You say you know it but you keep on denying it. And you never deal with it. So what am I supposed to think?

I DON'T KEEP DENYING IT, YOU JUST KEEP MISREADING ME, PROBABLY BECAUSE YOU WANT TO, BECAUSE I AM VERY VERY CLEAR IN MY OWN MIND ABOUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL ORDER/SEQUENCE AND THE INTERPRETATION PASTED OVER IT AND DO MY BEST TO STATE IT CLEARLY.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So where's the problem Faith? Order is very easy to both show or show lacking. All you and your creationist buddies have to do is take the order as presented by science and show it to be wrong. If what you say is true, it should be really, really easy.

THE PHYSICAL ORDER IS RANDOM, THE INTERPRETATION OF ORDER IN TERMS OF TIME AND RELATEDNESS IS ILLUSORY. WHY ON EARTH IS THERE SUCH A PROBLEM WITH THIS OBVIOUS POINT?If there is no rational order to it at all why do you keep expecting creationists to pretend there is? The best we can do is suppose that there is some unknown principle of physical sorting that accounts for it that may never be known.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I DON'T KEEP DENYING IT, YOU JUST KEEP MISREADING ME, PROBABLY BECAUSE YOU WANT TO, BECAUSE I AM VERY VERY CLEAR IN MY OWN MIND ABOUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL ORDER/SEQUENCE AND THE INTERPRETATION PASTED OVER IT AND DO MY BEST TO STATE IT CLEARLY.

---

You mean when you say Or It is really hard to imagine that you are talking about an interpretation.After all the actual physical order does cry out for an explanation. The fact that every time it comes up we see rejections of the order rather than any attempt to deal,with it is quite telling.Indeed if you are suddenly changing the subject to the interpretation - without any indication you are doing so it seems that you are the one who wants us to think that you are still talking about the actual physical order.

It's only hard to imagine I'm talking about an interpretation because yhou absolutely refuse to read in context of everything I've said about it already. You just love to pretend I keep contradicting myself, when any fair reading would put two and two together and know what I mean. I've ALWAYS been addressing the interpreted order of millions of years of the appearance of different cratures in time. It's just that you don't make the distinction between the accidental sequence of fossils and that interpretive system so you assume I'm not.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

THE PHYSICAL ORDER IS RANDOM, THE INTERPRETATION OF ORDER IN TERMS OF TIME AND RELATEDNESS IS ILLUSORY. WHY ON EARTH IS THERE SUCH A PROBLEM WITH THIS OBVIOUS POINT?

---

If you want to know why we disagree. It is simple. First, the idea that it is a massive coincidence is clearly implausible. If you want to call it Random you need to deal with that - and you don’t. Second, as I have already pointed out at least twice in this thread the order is quite strongly consistent with evolutionary theory which would be rather surprising in itself, if it were by chance.

quote:

---

If there is no rational order to it at all why do you keep expecting creationists to pretend there is.

---

Since we keep asking creationists to explain the actual physical order - and nothing more - this objection is either a straw man or yet another denial that there is any order at all.

quote:

---

The best we can do is suppose that there is some unknown principle of physical sorting that accounts for it that may never be known.

---

Which is obviously not at all a good explanation. It would be pretty weak even if you had a good case on other grounds. And you don’t.

The "coincidence" is an illusion. It's a made-up order that you are mistaking for something rational. It's not. It LOOKS like there is some kind of order to the sequence but there isn't really.

quote:

---

It's only hard to imagine I'm talking about an interpretation because yhou absolutely refuse to read in context of everything I've said about it already.

---

The idea that you were dishonestly changing the subject AND didn’t mean what you clearly said is not a natural one to me. Why are you complaining that I take your statements at face value instead ?

quote:

---

You just love to pretend I keep contradicting myself, when any fair reading would put two and two together and know what I mean.

---

If you were actually clear about what you meant - instead of clearly saying something you say you didn’t mean we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Don’t attack me when the fault is yours.

quote:

---

I've ALWAYS been addressing the interpreted order of millions of years of the appearance of different cratures in time

---

Even when the subject under discussion is the actual order that you have never denied. Or so you say.

quote:

---

It's just that you don't make the distinction between the accidental sequence of fossils and that interpretive system so you assume I'm not.

---

It seems the reverse is the case. I keep talking about the actual order, not the interpretation and yet in your replies - according to you - you keep attacking the interpretation without any indication that you are talking about something different. How can that be unless you are the one confusing the two ?

Pollux didn't answer this one, so I will. Any scientific evidence of the Fall or of its effects on the "entire cosmos"? As Pollux said, the moon, rocky planets (and moons) and asteroids are covered in craters, not just the moon. If the debris orbiting our sun in the form of comets, asteroids and meteoroids were from a single explosion of a large body a mere 6000 years ago then that would be obvious in the patterns of many of their orbits, and would be notable in that they wouldn't be confined to the plane of the solar system.The debris from the exploded body would diminish in density by the cube of the distance from the body, and so craters on bodies distant from the explosion would be much more sparse than those close to it. We see no such relationship. Here are images of bodies with no atmosphere or tectonism (which would erase or obscure craters) and for which detailed images exist showing that the concentration of craters is roughly the same on the moon, Mercury, Mimas (top row), Tethys, Dione, Rhea (middle row), Iapetus, Pluto and Ceres (bottom row): It isn't possible that planets and moons all over the solar system were bombarded to roughly the same extent by debris from a single exploding body. The actual origin of the solar system's impact craters is the comets, asteroids and meteoroids that have been orbiting around our sun for billions of years. The Earth has not been special among planets and moons in the intensity of bombardment from space. As on all active planets, craters are gradually erased over time. Of the planets with significant atmospheres, only Earth has a mostly transparent atmosphere through which it's surface is visible. The atmospheres of the rest (Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus) are opaque, though one of the Venus probes descended through the atmosphere and snapped this picture of impact craters (this is a false color photo): It takes a long time to erase a crater. This is Meteor Crater in Arizona, created about 50,000 years ago by a meteor about 160 feet across (roughly the width of a football field in diameter): There is no evidence of the Fall, no evidence of a single exploded body causing all craters in the solar system, no evidence of a global flood 4500 years ago, and certainly no evidence of a connection between a global flood and an exploding celestial body. The Bible is not a source of scientific information, or of any information at all when you don't know what it means. Your scientific questions will be answered when you look to the evidence instead of to ancient religious texts.--Percy