Summations Only

I love my paradigm, and what I wrote to Moose in Message 1982 covers a lot of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nuff said.

You might have a point if your evo fossil order was anything but a mental exercise.

Yup.
The trilobites are separate from the crabs.
The dinosaurs are separate from the mammoths.
The pleisiosaurs are separate from the porpoises.
On and on....
Every time....
Without exception.I think I know the reason for that.

Whoa, easy there big fella. That would seem to be the only conceivable value of having Faith here.

As much good as it will do the world for Christianity to shrivel up and die out, I would very much rather that that happen from its own lack of merit instead of from internal sabotage by its adherents.

quote:

---

Obviously you don't appreciate the problems involved in a paradigm clash for the underdog paradigm. Definitional problems are a huge problem because facts don't have the same interpretation in the different paradigms.

---

Your errors aren’t due to definitional problems. Your misuse of Walther’s Law for instance. Nor does it cover the many falsehoods you make.The fact of the matter is that you often jump to wrong conclusions through your own irrationality, prejudice and carelessness.Making excuses to cover up your many serious errors is simply another example of your pride overriding any commitment to the truth you might have.

quote:

---

There is static order, like objects arranged in a row according to size, which is the kind the fossil order is. But you think the fossil order implies something dynamic as well, evolution from one form of life to another over time.

---

This seems to be the distinction between the observed order and the process creating the order. You claim that the order is due to some unknown sorting process - which would clearly be dynamic,

quote:

---

There is little argument with the first kind of order; it's clear that fossils are found in a predictable order from layer to layer, using the term "order" in the static sense, although there isn't any obvious characteristic like size that links them, or complexity or whatever you think is implied

---

How quickly you forget. Or are you just repeating old claims even knowing that they have been shown to be in error?

quote:

---

But when it comes to the interpretation of evolution from life form to life form over time that is not proven and nobody here is saying anything that proves it exists at all.

---

Is this an attempt to deny the fact that we do have strong evidence ? Or simply the typical Creationist view that your opinion beats anything but absolute proof ?

Faith is not the only one with focus problems. I suggest that you keep it narrow. Also keep it simple, Faith can't handle anything of any complexity at all. Even things that seem simple and obvious to you are not to her. In argument she acts like my Dad used to: unfocussed, unable to visual complex relationships and suffering from some dementia in the later days.For example, I think the existence or non-existence of any order in the fossil record is an important sub topic to focus on. Faith has jumped to evolutionary relationships between then at one point. That is irrelevant to the existence of an order. She has seemingly agreed that there is an order and also claimed that the order is an illusion. It might be an idea to see if she can both make clear what she thinks is there and not there and what she thinks the claims of others actually are.

OK, thanks.When you say, "the same layer everywhere," do you mean something like layers from the Upper Pennsylvanian Period or even narrower, the Gzelian Stage, 304-300 million years ago wherever they occur in the world? Or maybe the "Bright Angel Shale?"When you say, "the same fossils," do you mean the same species as biologists and paleontologists define them or your own much broader definition like "all fish are the same species, all Trilobites are the same species, all birds are the same species, etc.?" Or could you mean "the same groupings of fossils are found in the same layer everywhere?" Like, we always find Wombats, Starfish and yellow warblers in that layer?

Right so after all that you now say that there IS order. The fossils are not distributed randomly across the geological record. Can you please remember this. It does mean that, but for the moment that aspect can be set aside. Except for you arguing the exact opposite. There are things that link them. It HAS to be true that the layers on the bottom are older than the layers on the top even if you think that the bottom layer is 1 day older than the flood and the top 365 days. But you have accepted that specific fossils are found only in spevific layers. Regardless of evolution you have no method of sorting those fossils into the 'static' order you now accept. In your 'model, the fossils should either be randomly distributed throughout the geology or the big heavy fossils should be at the bottom of the stack and the small light ones at the top. That's how particles settle in water. Well now you're changing the subject. The fossils are not randomly distributed across the geological record and you have no way of explaining that order. Biology does. It says that the fossils are found in the layers of geology where they lived. Not a surprising or magical idea.Not only that, science has methods of dating those layers and it can show beyond doubt that the layers on the top are younger than the layers on the bottom. Again not a surprising or magical finding.Now if your beliefs were true and this flood of yours scoured the planet of sediment and rock and churned it all up then allowed it to settle again, we'd find rocks of different ages scattered randomly throughout the geological column wouldn't we? Even with vertical separation the same size rock particles in each layer would have different dates. But they don't. Not only are the fossils in a definitive order but so is the geology. Note that you don't have to believe that the dating methods are accurate, just that they have relative consistency.None of that involves showing increasing complexity across the geological record, just that specific groups of fossils are found in specific groups of rocks and that this order is not random or coincidental. Science understands the mechanisms that created this order, your religious beliefs can not.In fact your religious beliefs require a completely different set of findings than the ones we actually observe.

True, all you have is some unknown principle of sorting and the dogma of your Cult.On the other hand we have the known sorting that happens during deposition in water as well as the known sorting caused by floods and we know that neither process explains what is seen in reality.We also have known processes, procedures, models, methods and mechanisms that can be observed happening in reality and that explain what is seen in reality.If you wish to convince anyone that there was some world wide flood during the time humans existed or that the Earth is young you MUST be able to provide the processes, procedures, models, methods and mechanisms that can be observed happening in reality and that explain what is seen in reality.It really is that simple.One side has the evidence and the explanation and the observable processes.Your side has absolutely nothing but the dogma of your Cult.Edited by jar, : You side ---> your side

Which, of course, is not what we see.We know water and gravity. there is no magical sorting method in this universe.

Edge didn't reply to this, so I will. Judging by the links you've posted, you watch YEC video screeds. Which is why you never adopt the views of Bertault or of Is Genesis History (Netflix)? Your time would be better spent learning some geology, or even just paying attention to what people say here instead of letting it roll off you. That's your most serious problem, that information has no influence on your views. The sanity of anyone who understands that but posts to you anyway should be questioned, unless they view you purely as entertainment. Don't forget that you also have no explanation for radiometric dates or the fossil distribution. Casting spurious labels like "illusion" and "paradigm" are not explanations, they're diversions. I think everyone on the thread would agree with that. Really? And when will you start? You don't have "another paradigm" - people with paradigms provide explanations of evidence instead of ignoring it. You have a couple pages out of an ancient religious book that serve as the basis for your tall tales about Earth history.--Percy

This has several replies that I haven't read yet, but I just have to respond. This is a good example of why you're a most unchristian Christian. Here you lie and waste people's time with a one-liner response that in essence denies what even the most casual reader of the thread knows is true, that you *have* been presented a great deal of independent lines of evidence for which your response has been either nolo contendere or something so obviously wrong that it is immediately rebutted or (if sufficiently absurd) ridiculed. As you testify for your religious views (because that's what your discussion is, not science) you might at least try to set a Christian example of honesty and integrity.A few days ago I was 140 posts behind. Now I'm about 180 posts behind. I have some spare time today, I'll try to make a bigger dent.--Percy